Netflix exec fired for "using" N-word

Great Debates
141

If there is then I’m not clear on what it is from your usage. How do you define them?

I don’t even know how one defines “white” and “black” objectively.

well there we go then, we agree. White people are able to use the word and context is all that matters

And I disagree completely. The world doesn’t work like that. For every “discrete context” you give me I can add further nuance to it that will change it and it must be judged on its own merits. My biggest complaint with your position is that you think there is a simple discrete context of “being white”. There isn’t.

That is certainly the impression you are giving, but if you are saying that it is only one part of a larger consideration which needs unpicking, then hurray! we agree again. And do you know what that “something more complex” is? It is that messy context that we’ve already referred to.

The only “protocols” I’m aware of are “The protocols of the elders of zion” That’s the biggest google hit as well but they are a made-up, anti-semitic hit-job. Do you mean those? Because they clearly aren’t of relevance here. If you mean something more obscure then feel free to educate me. If this is a text of gospel proportions that all must have read before advancing an opinion on equality then absolutely I should read it. Have you checked that everyone else has read it too?

I’m still not sure I understand you on that.

And do you not see that by starting out with such low expectations you are already prejudging what you think an ethnic group is capable of? do you not see why that might be counterproductive?

and you still avoid defining it in any useful way

Anyone who identifies as black yes?

incredible isn’t it? It is almost like there is no single hive-mind “black society”. Curiously they appear to be made up of sapient individuals.

And the same *has *to be said for white people. It can be used as an insult and it can be used affectionately. The context is what matters.

I disagree completely. Firstly, no-one “earns” the right to a word. that is a bullshit concept. The word is neutral from the get-go, as are all words. it is only context that gives meaning

142

You can’t address the problems of white supremacism by pretending it doesn’t exist. Or by equating it with notions of sin. Non-white people in this country have no choice but to live in the white world, which is a world in which white people have privileges and non-white people don’t.

This seems like an argument that comes from the same place as the “you don’t know what’s in my heart” complaint. A non-white person operating in the white world can’t look into anyone’s heart and doesn’t have the luxury to offer the benefit of doubt all the time. The least a white person can do to demonstrate good will is to refrain from using the word at all, sparing everyone the impossible exercise of reading everyone’s “heart.”

I said neither of those things. What I said was that in the professional world, a rule that draws a line that says “white people can’t say this in the office.” Is a perfectly reasonable line to draw in the workplace.

And it’s neither a hardship nor an imposition on white people to draw that line. Just don’t say it, and we don’t have to go through the exercise of parsing out your intent. Adhering to that rule is at least a tangible sign of good will.

143

I’m talking about the difference inherent in the terms themselves. My point is that if you can’t see the problem with the term “Non-white”, well, you’re showing why you don’t really have enough empathy to even understand why White people saying “nigger” might be a problem.

Who said they had to be defined objectively?

I’ve not said different.

What I have said is that the context of being a “top communications executive” at Netflix in a business meeting is on the hard Nope side of the line.

“Can”. Not “need to for clarity”, but “can”. That’s my point - that’s why you bring up the fuzzyness of categories, as if that prevents the making of general rules.

I disagree that we’re referring to the same region of context-space.

When are the Protocols ever not relevant to discussions of racist speech? Are you saying there’s something qualitatively different between antisemitism and anti-black speech?

It’s abundantly clear that you don’t. Which part gives you difficulty? That PoC might have an interest in inclusivity, or that an executive who displays insensitivity to Blacks might not be trusted to do so for others, either?

Once more, with feeling: it’s not prejudice if you’re judging based on actual actions.

Meanwhile, wypipo clamouring for their right to say “nigger” is super productive to the racism discussion :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: I’ve defined it plenty.

…and is accepted as such by other Blacks. And yes, there might be the odd little impostor, but we’ve already established I don’t think minor blips preclude a general rule.

Nice strawman you got there, but it’s a bit early for Guy Fawkes.

Completely and utterly eclipsed by the generations of racial oppression and dehumanization Whites inflicted on Blacks. That’s the context that* must*** be considered first.

I obviously think it isn’t. The scars on my body agree with me.

Now who’s spouting utter bullshit? No word is neutral from the get-go. Words aren’t platonic ideals, they always and only exist* within a human context*. There was never a time when “nigger” was absent a context vis-a-vis its referent. Once, that may have been more innocuous (not “neutral”, though) but that was well before any Black slave ever set foot on American soil. So is irrelevant to a discussion about modern usage of the word.

144

What is the difference between “non-white” and “person of color” that is inherent in the terms themselves? Words have no inherent meaning - they are arbitrary symbols assigned meaning by consensus.

Regards,
Shodan

145

I don’t think it’s a reasonable line. If there must be a hard line rule, it should be no one should say it in the office.

Thinking on this more, I am only one use away from agreeing with the firing since it did involve a warning and a rule. If it happened to me in one meeting, I would feel uncomfortable no matter which race the speaker is (although it must be said that, inasmuch as race exists, I am white.) but would shrug the use off as simply emphatically making a point. If it happened a second time and I were the supervisor, that’s when I would counsel him to avoid using the actual word so often. Third time might be termination, then again it might not.

This is independent of the perceived race of the speaker. If anything, if the speaker were black, I would feel more uncomfortable the more black people were in the room, since when I hear the word in that context it is telling me that they think that white people think they are n-words, and thus are accusing me of using the word. Much of the time they might actually be using the word exactly like “brother” or “homie”, but that is not how I feel, and you can’t order me to change my feelings.

Thus, in the workplace, it is inappropriate for anyone to use the word.

146

I asked you what youmeant by “non-white” and PoC. If there is a general problem with the term “non-white” then say what it is. I have no preference nor any connection to either term, don’t accuse me of dismissing a problem (and by doing so…accusing me of a lack of empathy) without even explaining what that problem is.

Which is, on the face of it, ridiculous. If I typed it now it would sit on the page and be perfectly neutral.

The rest of your post was going over our old ground and any reply I might make is just “you say - I say” or a rehash of my previous points so I’ll leave it there.

147

You don’t get it - the fact that you can’t, without being told, see the clear difference between PoC and non-white is the problem. No amount of me explaining it is going to make up for that lack But here, this might help. It covers my thought on the matter quite nicely without me having to type an essay.

…in the clear context of a conversation about the word.

You wouldn’t just type it, print it out and hand out those leaflets in, say, Compton, would you? Why not? It’s a neutral word :dubious:

Suits me.

148

Let’s change this from this word and this group and see if that changes perspectives. Jews and “kike.”

No more offensive word to call a Jewish person than that. Could you imagine a scenario in which a group of Jewish and non-Jewish entertainment executives were discussing product and discussing under what contexts that word and other words could be used in which the Jewish individiuals would say “kike” and the non-Jewish ones would say “that k word”? As a Jew if I was in the room I would think it was stupid.

Oh hell, let’s go with “cunt” … also held as highly offensive to a group. A conversation about how offensive it is, and what the restrictions should be for it in broadcast, in which women participants freely say it and men in the discussion replace it with “the c-word”?

Pick any other group’s most offensive word and imagine the room in which a discussion about the word’s use in comedy or other product is acceptable and when by whom in which a member of the group would freely say the word but others would refer to it by some euphemism and say “euphemism” is offensive and its use considered very carefully.
Bottom line is that this is a great example of those Left of center eating their own. This executive by all reports had a been a significant force in the success of Netflix’s building of diverse content.

149

Let’s not.
“Kike” is not “nigger” . Even the South African equivalent of “nigger”, “kaffir”, is not “nigger”. The closest equivalent, to my mind, is “fag” and “queer”, which has the same “taking it back” associations. There was some attempt to do this with “cunt”, but I don’t think it took.

150

A white person can’t say or use “ngger". Does it work the same way with "fg” and 'q*eer" - that no one who does not identify as gay and is not accepted by society as gay can use those terms, even descriptively?

Regards,
Shodan

151

You are wrong in so many ways here. But of no consequence.

Use “fag” -

Imagine the room, several straight and a couple of gay media executives, discussing the content of the shows, and whether or not the use of the word “fag” in a show is something that is appropriate in the context or not. Both a gay and a straight executive have the same thought about the use of the word. No, there would be no standard for that the gay executive could say the thought as “I think this character can say ‘fag’ because the point of the show and this character is …” while the straight executive would have to say “I think this character can say the f-word because …”

152

*Why *not? I mean, at the heart of it - is it because of some notion of “fairness”?

153

No, some notion of stupidity.
Despite your dismissiveness of the power of the word “kike” I will use it for the illustration because it is the word with that meaning to me. In college a very large man with a beer in his hand called me that surrounded by his friends with the clear intent of using in its derogatory fashion. In that context I, surprisingly fairly calmly, determined that reacting to that as the “fighting words” that that word is to me would very likely get me if not killed at least very severely beaten, and I still slugged him. Because of understood intent of meaning.

But I would not react negatively at all to a non-Jewish person asking me something like “why does the word ‘kike’ mean that much to you?” Because of understood intent of meaning.

Replacing a word with a euphemism for it is required if there is otherwise a reasonable expectation that the intent might otherwise be confused. In a context in which it is clear that intent is a discussion about the word as the subject of discussion, not an intent to use a word in its hateful form, use of a euphemism is stupidity.

And to be even more clear, a Jewish individual using “kike” with clear hateful intent is just as off limits as a non-Jewish person doing so, as I think would be the case for “fag” and for “nigger” … hate of one’s own group does happen and being of the class does not give you an automatic pass, it merely gives your intent some initial benefit of doubt maybe.

154

Clearly, some Black people at Netflix feel differently about “nigger”. But sure, dismiss them as just “stupid”. That’s, as they say, your privilege.

But I’m afraid many Black people (and other PoC, myself included) have learned that it’s never unequivocally “clear” that words like “nigger” in the mouth of a random, unknown White person *can *be trusted to be free of hate, even when used in a *seemingly *innocuous context.

155

I don’t disagree - self-hate certainly exists - the example I gave earlier of Black Republicans, for instance. Log Cabin Republicans, too.

156

This Dallas politician finds a white person’s analogous reference to a “black hole” to be offensive. When it’s explained to him what it means, he doubles down, adding “Black Friday”. “Blackberry” is okay, apparently because it’s a “word” rather than an “adjective”, and Barack Obama has one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYz4-HqOtac

So are we allowed to call that “stupid”? Or would that too be “whitesplaining”? Must we conform to what this man finds offensive? If not, why not?

157

You certainly can. Just because Black sensitivity to the word “nigger” is not stupid, doesn’t preclude there being instances of stupidity elsewhere.

:rolleyes:

Nope

Because he’s just one man, and because the terms he’s taking offense at aren’t actually linked to the history of racism in the US the way “nigger” is.

Now, if “black hole” was regularly used as a dog whistle by KKK members, he’d have a point. But I, for one, am not of the mind that *all *negative usages of the word “black” are racist. I know there *are *some people who argue something like that. I think they’re wrong.

158

I’m not trying to be a dick about this, but sometimes reductio ad absurdum is the only way to get a point across.

So do you agree that, in principle, we can have a civilized discussion about sensible use of language without being called “whitesplainers” or being told that the opinion of a few black people who say they are offended is necessarily all that matters. Given the obvious widespread sensitivity, even in referential context I would not be a dick and orally use the word uncensored just to make a point. But I do think DSeid’s perspective on context is the correct one, and I will continue to think that the censorship-regardless-of-context approach is mistaken, even if I choose not to transgress the convention.

159

Of course we can have a civilized discussion.

To my mind, a civilized discussion would include not mischaracterizing the people offended by this as “a few black people who say…”. Because they’re neither all black, nor just a few, and the “*say *they’re offended” phrasing is … problematic, at best.

So in principle we can, but it’s going to take more than you avoiding using the word. In fact, that’s *secondary *to the concerns I raise above.

160

And yet your first argument against DSeid’s carefully considered discussion about context was:

My point is that I have concerns about why the Netflix executive was fired. We don’t have enough facts to really judge what happened. But I think the standard should be whether he acted like an asshole, willfully violating widely accepted and reasonable social norms in his use of language. It’s not sufficient that some people at Netflix were offended.