Author Topic: The n-word and its use  (Read 6756 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20628
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #70 on: May 22, 2018, 08:18:35 AM »
Maybe if it's going to be problem pick a different song for people to sing. This isn't rocket science.

Quote
"Man down
Where you from, nigga?"
"Fuck who you know, where you from, my nigga?"
"Where your grandma stay, huh, my nigga?"
"This m.A.A.d city I run, my nigga"
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #71 on: May 22, 2018, 10:27:39 AM »
Isn't that "art"?  Isn't "art" in part anyway about exploring different points of view?   If that woman couldn't sing that song verbatim, then perhaps no gay/straight actor should play a straight/gay part.   Perhaps Bruce Springsteen should shut the fuck up about singing about the "female" experience, or the blue collar factory experience.   Now that Gene Simmons is married, does Kendrick suggest he retire all those songs about banging chicks with abandon?   Can Ozzy only sing "Suicide Solution" when he's off the wagon?

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5521
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #72 on: May 22, 2018, 12:08:39 PM »
Morals aren't exactly cut and dry a lot of times, so all of this is just my opinion (which I shouldn't have to say, but I am anyway).

Isn't that "art"?  Isn't "art" in part anyway about exploring different points of view?

It is art, but it being art doesn't automatically free you from any criticism. This is something I've switched sides on a few years ago, but I'd argue that it's better off if we dont use those most extreme slurs if we don't belong to those marginalized groups, even in art. Even in cases like the old one where Macklemore talks about he was called a bundle of sticks as a kid. His song is supposed to be positive, but it kind of gets muddled in the fact that he talks about how he cried and was bullied and called gay while he's straight. He puts in the context of his own experience instead of those actually marginalized, which isn't really great, but I digress. A woman merely reciting the lyrics isn't quite as bad, but still is a bit negligent. The "art" of the song isn't confined to just the lyrics; I'd argue that the performer themselves is a part of it. There's a huge difference in the contexts depending on who is rapping. I'm not going to condemn her as a bad person, but that's not something I'd ever feel comfortable doing and something I don't think is the right move.

If that woman couldn't sing that song verbatim, then perhaps no gay/straight actor should play a straight/gay part.

With your straight/gay actor example, a couple things. First, this is not a two-way street. Straight people aren't ostrisized and marginalized in the way gay people are, so the same rules can't apply to both sides. Second, yes, it'd absolutely be preferable if a gay character were played by a gay person. Again, I'm not going to condemn a straight person that plays a gay character as a terrible human being, but I think it's important that we at the very least give the oppressed groups the chance to represent themselves.

Perhaps Bruce Springsteen should shut the fuck up about singing about the "female" experience, or the blue collar factory experience.

These kinds of things really depend on the context that his message is conveyed, e.g. the Macklemore exmaple I mentioned above. I'm not familiar with these songs, so I can't really comment.

Now that Gene Simmons is married, does Kendrick suggest he retire all those songs about banging chicks with abandon?

I don't know what Kendrick would say, but now the strawmen are getting a bit more obvious. Perhaps banging chicks with abandon isn't the greatest subject to write a song about. Of course this isn't nearly as big of a deal to most people since songs like this were and are still wildly popular.

Can Ozzy only sing "Suicide Solution" when he's off the wagon?

Ozzy partly wrote this song about his own experiences as well, so him being on or off the wagon has nothing to do with it. Same logic applies to the above as well.

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6171
  • Gender: Male
  • My wife is a cabriolet
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #73 on: May 22, 2018, 12:30:18 PM »
Relevant?

Prejudice - Tim Minchin

Oh, and NSFW

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #74 on: May 23, 2018, 02:38:34 PM »
With your straight/gay actor example, a couple things. First, this is not a two-way street. Straight people aren't ostrisized and marginalized in the way gay people are, so the same rules can't apply to both sides.

And I couldn't disagree with you any more than if you said "Stadler, your name begins with an L."   I am literally 180 degrees diametrically opposed to that.  The whole premise of ANY equality movement is that we are all the same; we are HUMAN.   If we ascribe to that, then there is no difference; intolerance is intolerance, and bigotry is bigotry, regardless the reason.   Your position is the fundamental problem with the identity politics movement; it's gone beyond just wanting equality; it wants, basically, superiority.   

All you're talking about is shifting the power so that the bigotry and intolerance is coming from a different direction.  I'm not down with that at all. 

Quote
Second, yes, it'd absolutely be preferable if a gay character were played by a gay person. Again, I'm not going to condemn a straight person that plays a gay character as a terrible human being, but I think it's important that we at the very least give the oppressed groups the chance to represent themselves.

And in the very next sentence, an example of what I'm talking about.  Why not have "the best actor" play the part?  You're not putting the gay person in there for his/her ability, you're putting them in there BECAUSE they're gay, and now they have a platform.  They want a platform? EARN IT like everyone else.  And lest you think that's bigotry itself, it's not, because I would say that to a white, straight male, a black gay female, and all points in between.  If we're equal, it's based on one criteria and one criteria ONLY:  Best human for the job.  PERIOD.   "Platform" and "groups" and "chances to express ourselves" don't at all come into play. 

Quote
Perhaps Bruce Springsteen should shut the fuck up about singing about the "female" experience, or the blue collar factory experience.

These kinds of things really depend on the context that his message is conveyed, e.g. the Macklemore exmaple I mentioned above. I'm not familiar with these songs, so I can't really comment.

I disagree.   The art is their message, their statement.   We get to interpret that, when the artist is unclear ("Metal Machine Music"; profound statement on the subjectivity of music, or big 'ole fuck you to the record company?  You decide!  "One In A Million: by Guns and Roses; profound statement on the bigotry of small towns, and how it takes interpolation to teach inclusiveness, or just flat out hate and lazy lyric writing? You decide!).  And we haven't even gotten to the topic of... even if it is bigotry and hate; why not?  Why do you get to decide what's "hate" and what's not?  Why do you get to decide what others can say or not? 

Quote
I don't know what Kendrick would say, but now the strawmen are getting a bit more obvious. Perhaps banging chicks with abandon isn't the greatest subject to write a song about. Of course this isn't nearly as big of a deal to most people since songs like this were and are still wildly popular.

Who are you to say what's a good subject to write about or not?   

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5521
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #75 on: May 24, 2018, 07:39:27 AM »
And I couldn't disagree with you any more than if you said "Stadler, your name begins with an L."   I am literally 180 degrees diametrically opposed to that.  The whole premise of ANY equality movement is that we are all the same; we are HUMAN.   If we ascribe to that, then there is no difference; intolerance is intolerance, and bigotry is bigotry, regardless the reason.   Your position is the fundamental problem with the identity politics movement; it's gone beyond just wanting equality; it wants, basically, superiority.   

All you're talking about is shifting the power so that the bigotry and intolerance is coming from a different direction.  I'm not down with that at all. 

You're putting words in my mouth. I am absolutely not advocating for some power differential to reverse or anything. Also, I'm sorry you think my position is the problem with identity politics, but it absolutely is not, unless you really are misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I think you're over estimating what "special treatment" I'm advocating or what level of differences I'm suggesting people be aware of. The example I was directly responding to was simply using hurtful words. You can't say there's no difference between a black person and a white person saying the n-word. You can't say there's no different between saying n-word or cracker. You can't say there's no difference between saying even jokingly you to end all Jews and wanting to end all clowns (for a ridiculous and silly example).

All I'm trying to get across is that maybe someday, we'll live in a perfect world where people can act the same towards one another, and it'll be wonderful. We do not live in that world today. I'm sorry, but we don't. And the whole strategy of "fake it 'til you make it" does not apply here. The contexts surrounding all of this are very important, and just applying the same rules of etiquette to every single group isn't the best way to tackle inequality imo.

And in the very next sentence, an example of what I'm talking about.  Why not have "the best actor" play the part?  You're not putting the gay person in there for his/her ability, you're putting them in there BECAUSE they're gay, and now they have a platform.  They want a platform? EARN IT like everyone else.  And lest you think that's bigotry itself, it's not, because I would say that to a white, straight male, a black gay female, and all points in between.  If we're equal, it's based on one criteria and one criteria ONLY:  Best human for the job.  PERIOD.   "Platform" and "groups" and "chances to express ourselves" don't at all come into play.

My last paragraph applies here.

I disagree.   The art is their message, their statement.   We get to interpret that, when the artist is unclear ("Metal Machine Music"; profound statement on the subjectivity of music, or big 'ole fuck you to the record company?  You decide!  "One In A Million: by Guns and Roses; profound statement on the bigotry of small towns, and how it takes interpolation to teach inclusiveness, or just flat out hate and lazy lyric writing? You decide!).  And we haven't even gotten to the topic of... even if it is bigotry and hate; why not?  Why do you get to decide what's "hate" and what's not?  Why do you get to decide what others can say or not? 

People can say what they want. We all have opinions. We all get to make decisions as to what we think is right or not, and even then, nothing is completely black and white. I'm not going to say artists can't ever say things, but I will think about and discuss whether I think their message is constructive or not. I'm not going to choose "questionable subject matter in old pop music" as my hill to die on. It's simply not worth it and really a bad thing in the grand scheme of all things. However, sometimes it is worth considering or at least thinking about.

Who are you to say what's a good subject to write about or not?   

A person? My previous paragraph applies here. Am I not allowed to have an opinion about art? Discuss and interpreting my experience with art is the whole point of art.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #76 on: May 24, 2018, 09:42:29 AM »
And I couldn't disagree with you any more than if you said "Stadler, your name begins with an L."   I am literally 180 degrees diametrically opposed to that.  The whole premise of ANY equality movement is that we are all the same; we are HUMAN.   If we ascribe to that, then there is no difference; intolerance is intolerance, and bigotry is bigotry, regardless the reason.   Your position is the fundamental problem with the identity politics movement; it's gone beyond just wanting equality; it wants, basically, superiority.   

All you're talking about is shifting the power so that the bigotry and intolerance is coming from a different direction.  I'm not down with that at all. 

You're putting words in my mouth. I am absolutely not advocating for some power differential to reverse or anything. Also, I'm sorry you think my position is the problem with identity politics, but it absolutely is not, unless you really are misunderstanding what I'm saying here. I think you're over estimating what "special treatment" I'm advocating or what level of differences I'm suggesting people be aware of. The example I was directly responding to was simply using hurtful words. You can't say there's no difference between a black person and a white person saying the n-word. You can't say there's no different between saying n-word or cracker. You can't say there's no difference between saying even jokingly you to end all Jews and wanting to end all clowns (for a ridiculous and silly example).

I think your three examples are not at all the same things; and I say that to illustrate the point, not to be a douche.   The problem with all of this is "intent".    The problem comes in when you try to assume "intent".  Saying that "there's a difference between whites and blacks using that word" by definition has to assume an intent.   So when you assume that ALL blacks have good intent with that word, and all white must have bad intent with that word, well, that's where the problem comes in.   

Quote
All I'm trying to get across is that maybe someday, we'll live in a perfect world where people can act the same towards one another, and it'll be wonderful. We do not live in that world today. I'm sorry, but we don't. And the whole strategy of "fake it 'til you make it" does not apply here. The contexts surrounding all of this are very important, and just applying the same rules of etiquette to every single group isn't the best way to tackle inequality imo.

But see, be careful what you wish for; I too would  love a world where everyone can act the same towards one another, but that doesn't necessarily mean "good".   I'd love a world where if a black man gets into a beef with a white man, it's only because the white man was a dick, not because he was white (or vice versa).   Or if a white man gets into a beef with a black man, it's only because the black man was a dick, not because he was a "n*****.    There will ALWAYS be conflict (so I believe); so the solution isn't to hope for no conflict ever again, or to define things such that the conflict can only happen across races, it's to change the assumption so that all conflict - even those across races - is not deemed guilty of being race based right out the gate. 

Quote
And in the very next sentence, an example of what I'm talking about.  Why not have "the best actor" play the part?  You're not putting the gay person in there for his/her ability, you're putting them in there BECAUSE they're gay, and now they have a platform.  They want a platform? EARN IT like everyone else.  And lest you think that's bigotry itself, it's not, because I would say that to a white, straight male, a black gay female, and all points in between.  If we're equal, it's based on one criteria and one criteria ONLY:  Best human for the job.  PERIOD.   "Platform" and "groups" and "chances to express ourselves" don't at all come into play.

My last paragraph applies here.

Not sure how (that's on me, not you).  You say "fake it till you make it doesn't work", but I see your solution (as I understand it) is exactly that.   Fake it - put gays in because they're gay - and when the novelty wears off we can get back to selecting the best actor.   But you discount that the reverse discrimination does nothing to dissipate the resentment that SOMEONE is being treated preferentially.  I don't bring it up here often, but I'm firmly and indelibly in the camp that believes that Trump did NOT get elected because half the population is racist, I believe he got elected because more than half of the population believes that the general good of ALL humanity comes before the specific good required by a special interest.  In 2016, the vote for Trump was, to many, a vote for economic solvency for the entire population over identity politics machinations for a distinct minority of the population.   

Quote
I disagree.   The art is their message, their statement.   We get to interpret that, when the artist is unclear ("Metal Machine Music"; profound statement on the subjectivity of music, or big 'ole fuck you to the record company?  You decide!  "One In A Million: by Guns and Roses; profound statement on the bigotry of small towns, and how it takes interpolation to teach inclusiveness, or just flat out hate and lazy lyric writing? You decide!).  And we haven't even gotten to the topic of... even if it is bigotry and hate; why not?  Why do you get to decide what's "hate" and what's not?  Why do you get to decide what others can say or not? 

People can say what they want. We all have opinions. We all get to make decisions as to what we think is right or not, and even then, nothing is completely black and white. I'm not going to say artists can't ever say things, but I will think about and discuss whether I think their message is constructive or not. I'm not going to choose "questionable subject matter in old pop music" as my hill to die on. It's simply not worth it and really a bad thing in the grand scheme of all things. However, sometimes it is worth considering or at least thinking about.

Of course it is, but it only applies to you.  We have no beef there; the problem arises when you (not you specifically, but some random listener in the crowd) hears "immigrants and faggots" in that song and decides it's not a constructive message, THEN, as is inevitable in a country like ours where some people are petrified that the rest of us won't arrive at the same conclusion they do, they decide that NONE of us should  be able to consider that for ourselves.   I was mildly disappointed in the grand scheme of things when Guns and Roses put out a definitive version of "Appetite For Destruction" and purposefully left off that particular song.  Not because I agree with the most negative interpretation of those lyrics, but because they might have felt bullied.   If a rock band of the caliber and danger of G'n'R isn't willing to ruffle a few feathers, what's the point of art and/or rock and roll?   

Quote
Who are you to say what's a good subject to write about or not?   

A person? My previous paragraph applies here. Am I not allowed to have an opinion about art? Discuss and interpreting my experience with art is the whole point of art.

Of course, but we're not simply talking about any one person's response to art; we're also talking about whether others should  be allowed to arrive at their own conclusions, and more specifically, at OPPOSING conclusions, without undue consequence. 

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5521
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #77 on: May 24, 2018, 10:43:56 AM »
I think your three examples are not at all the same things; and I say that to illustrate the point, not to be a douche.   The problem with all of this is "intent".    The problem comes in when you try to assume "intent".  Saying that "there's a difference between whites and blacks using that word" by definition has to assume an intent.   So when you assume that ALL blacks have good intent with that word, and all white must have bad intent with that word, well, that's where the problem comes in.

I don't think you're being a douche; no worries. You have a point about adding intent as another variable to consider. While I do think intent does play a role in exactly how to respond to an act and to what degree the "offender" is guilty, I don't think it absolves the person of all responsibility or criticism. Sure, the white rapper means no harm, but perhaps to some people, there is harm being done. Now we could shift the topic back to this case specifically, but this whole train has gone more general than that, so I won't address that here. But generally, I guess you're right that this does go back to what we consider to be "harmful" and to what degree intent plays a role.

But see, be careful what you wish for; I too would  love a world where everyone can act the same towards one another, but that doesn't necessarily mean "good".   I'd love a world where if a black man gets into a beef with a white man, it's only because the white man was a dick, not because he was white (or vice versa).   Or if a white man gets into a beef with a black man, it's only because the black man was a dick, not because he was a "n*****.    There will ALWAYS be conflict (so I believe); so the solution isn't to hope for no conflict ever again, or to define things such that the conflict can only happen across races, it's to change the assumption so that all conflict - even those across races - is not deemed guilty of being race based right out the gate.

Not much I disagree with here. That's a worthy goal to work towards.

Not sure how (that's on me, not you).  You say "fake it till you make it doesn't work", but I see your solution (as I understand it) is exactly that.   Fake it - put gays in because they're gay - and when the novelty wears off we can get back to selecting the best actor.   But you discount that the reverse discrimination does nothing to dissipate the resentment that SOMEONE is being treated preferentially.  I don't bring it up here often, but I'm firmly and indelibly in the camp that believes that Trump did NOT get elected because half the population is racist, I believe he got elected because more than half of the population believes that the general good of ALL humanity comes before the specific good required by a special interest.  In 2016, the vote for Trump was, to many, a vote for economic solvency for the entire population over identity politics machinations for a distinct minority of the population.

I acknowledge that the line to where it ends it difficult to see, but I do know that we're not at a point where most of the time, people are simply choosing "the best actor", which of course is due to all kinds of biases and whatnot. I'd rather not get into the latter point because it'll go far too off topic.

Of course it is, but it only applies to you.  We have no beef there; the problem arises when you (not you specifically, but some random listener in the crowd) hears "immigrants and faggots" in that song and decides it's not a constructive message, THEN, as is inevitable in a country like ours where some people are petrified that the rest of us won't arrive at the same conclusion they do, they decide that NONE of us should  be able to consider that for ourselves.   I was mildly disappointed in the grand scheme of things when Guns and Roses put out a definitive version of "Appetite For Destruction" and purposefully left off that particular song.  Not because I agree with the most negative interpretation of those lyrics, but because they might have felt bullied.   If a rock band of the caliber and danger of G'n'R isn't willing to ruffle a few feathers, what's the point of art and/or rock and roll?

Of course, but we're not simply talking about any one person's response to art; we're also talking about whether others should  be allowed to arrive at their own conclusions, and more specifically, at OPPOSING conclusions, without undue consequence.

I'll lump my responses to these together. I think we do agree more on this topic than is initially apparent. All in all, I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech especially within the confines of artistic expression. There are plenty of people that are fighting tooth and nail to scrub any trace of unholiness from the world, particularly in the youngest generation, but I am not one of them and even find myself getting into fights with them now and then. That being said, I know we might differ a bit in the latter part of this: I'd argue there is such a thing as "bad" art, mainly in that it's ineffective based mainly on criteria we've already discussed far above (context, intent, etc.). That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or should be banned. But any criticism it may receive, even in mass,  is justifiable depending on the circumstances. If a culture deems something undesirable, that's simply the free market at work, which I suppose could be considered bullying to a degree.

But of course in my opinion it's really hard to make sweeping statements about bullying vs cultural shift vs free market stuff without considering the intricacies of each scenario. I don't really know much about the scenario involving Appetite For Destruction, so it's hard for me to comment on that.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #78 on: May 24, 2018, 02:21:52 PM »
I don't think you're being a douche; no worries. You have a point about adding intent as another variable to consider. While I do think intent does play a role in exactly how to respond to an act and to what degree the "offender" is guilty, I don't think it absolves the person of all responsibility or criticism. Sure, the white rapper means no harm, but perhaps to some people, there is harm being done. Now we could shift the topic back to this case specifically, but this whole train has gone more general than that, so I won't address that here. But generally, I guess you're right that this does go back to what we consider to be "harmful" and to what degree intent plays a role.

And that's really the central point, isn't it?  Is the N-word SO egregious that ANY use of it constitutes intent to harm?  I don't think so. I may be being stubborn here, but I believe we have to have dialogue about these things, even the prickly things.   I also do not trust absolutes in any way, shape or form that are put in place by nebulous "societies" or, in other words, don't have a check and a balance.   So for me, when someone says "there is NEVER an acceptable use for that word", my spider-sense is immediately calling bullshit.   

Quote
Not much I disagree with here. That's a worthy goal to work towards.

No, but I'll ruin it (haha) by saying, I don't believe we can FORCE people to get there.  They have to come of their own volition; you can lead the horse to the water...

Quote
I acknowledge that the line to where it ends it difficult to see, but I do know that we're not at a point where most of the time, people are simply choosing "the best actor", which of course is due to all kinds of biases and whatnot. I'd rather not get into the latter point because it'll go far too off topic.

It's a small group; let's go!  Off topic it is!   Haha.   Seriously, though, if they DON'T choose "best actor", so what?  At some point it will catch up to them.  Whether its a good catch up, like "Sharknado" that is trading on it's campiness and bad acting, or the Star Wars prequels which is still, to this day, getting raked over the coals for some of the casting choices.  I was commenting only on the identity politics side of things; how a casting director hires - including "because they're gay to help spread the message" - is on them as long as they are accepting of the results.  I just didn't think that doing so would achieve the desired aim. 

Quote
I'll lump my responses to these together. I think we do agree more on this topic than is initially apparent. All in all, I'm a huge proponent of freedom of speech especially within the confines of artistic expression. There are plenty of people that are fighting tooth and nail to scrub any trace of unholiness from the world, particularly in the youngest generation, but I am not one of them and even find myself getting into fights with them now and then. That being said, I know we might differ a bit in the latter part of this: I'd argue there is such a thing as "bad" art, mainly in that it's ineffective based mainly on criteria we've already discussed far above (context, intent, etc.). That doesn't mean it shouldn't exist or should be banned. But any criticism it may receive, even in mass,  is justifiable depending on the circumstances. If a culture deems something undesirable, that's simply the free market at work, which I suppose could be considered bullying to a degree.

But of course in my opinion it's really hard to make sweeping statements about bullying vs cultural shift vs free market stuff without considering the intricacies of each scenario. I don't really know much about the scenario involving Appetite For Destruction, so it's hard for me to comment on that.

Well, the AfD scenario is kind of singular; I'm basing more on the fact that the artist had the balls to make the statement to begin with, and decided to not stand behind it for whatever reason.  One thing if they felt the message was wrong, wrongly interpreted, or out-dated, that happens, but I didn't get the sense that was the case.  I'm reluctant to come right out and say it without some proof, but the implications were pretty strong that they didn't want to hurt sales of a $999 and $149 box set (the two "biggest" editions) over a song that was not a central or important part of the canon. 

We've talked about this before; I don't think there's bad art, per se.  I think there's bad PRODUCT, meaning, a commercial miscalculation ("Music From... The Elder") but absent an artist saying "Wow, we shot for this but really missed the mark" (also, see, "Music From... The Elder") I don't think you or I can say about someone else's work that it is "bad art".   I think where you get into the comparison between Rebecca Black and Beethoven is, "is it art?"  Whether Beethoven intended it that way or not, his work has transcended into art and it should be treated as such.   Rebecca Black isn't there yet (ever?).   More appropriate to this conversation, I certainly do not think that "art" should be deemed "good" or "bad" by the content of it's message.   

Good conversation, Implode; thank you for having it with me.  This is a subject that is very interesting to me.   

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #79 on: May 24, 2018, 06:41:48 PM »
Good read guys, thanks.  It made me think a little more deeply.  I have also considered that what some see as "mob rule" is a perhaps just a more vocal form of the free market at work.

It also brought to mind an interesting exchange I had with one of my kids the other day.  We were admiring Janet Jackson and commenting how good she looked.  At one point I said, 'Black don't crack' in a complimentary way.  A few moments later my kid says, "Mom, you shouldn't say that.  Black people don't like that."  I said, "I've heard it said by many black women and the first time I heard it was from Oprah Winfrey a long time ago.  Why would it be seen as a derogatory thing?"  I was genuinely perplexed.

But I've thought about it since then and I'm wondering if I'm being insensitive without realizing it.  I'm not black.  Maybe only black people can say that?  I don't know.  I do know that I'm not always sure what the rules are.   :-\

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6314
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #80 on: May 24, 2018, 09:50:43 PM »
....what some see as "mob rule" is a perhaps just a more vocal form of the free market at work.

It is a weird line. Stadler has spoken about it at length in other threads (Stadler spoke about something at length? No way! :p)

I do know that I'm not always sure what the rules are.   :-\

That there are "rules" is part of the problem. Along with the fact that only certain people are allowed to set the "rules" and that they can change at any time.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #81 on: May 25, 2018, 08:55:18 AM »
....what some see as "mob rule" is a perhaps just a more vocal form of the free market at work.

It is a weird line. Stadler has spoken about it at length in other threads (Stadler spoke about something at length? No way! :p)

Uh, thanks?  Haha. 

I think for me the line is when you no longer have the checks and balances of free will and rational thought (ignoring for a second the concept that much of economics is influenced by irrational actors).    If a product comes on the market and I like it, I buy it.   If a product comes on the market and I don't like it - practically or morally - I don't buy it.  That's the free market.    If a product comes on the market and I consider it, and I use information I've gathered through research - anecdotal service records, product reviews - and I don't buy it, that's the free market.    If a product comes on the market and I consider it, but perhaps I don't buy it because I'm not willing to accept the societal consequences of that purchase, I believe that's the mob rule.    I should be able to buy a Phil Anselmo record or watch a Mel Gibson movie or vote for a President without being deemed a "racist" or "anti-Semite" or "both" by the peanut gallery. 

Quote
I do know that I'm not always sure what the rules are.   :-\

That there are "rules" is part of the problem. Along with the fact that only certain people are allowed to set the "rules" and that they can change at any time.

And that's the mob rule (and the problem with it), right there.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #82 on: May 25, 2018, 01:52:08 PM »
....what some see as "mob rule" is a perhaps just a more vocal form of the free market at work.

It is a weird line. Stadler has spoken about it at length in other threads (Stadler spoke about something at length? No way! :p)

Uh, thanks?  Haha. 

I think for me the line is when you no longer have the checks and balances of free will and rational thought (ignoring for a second the concept that much of economics is influenced by irrational actors).    If a product comes on the market and I like it, I buy it.   If a product comes on the market and I don't like it - practically or morally - I don't buy it.  That's the free market.    If a product comes on the market and I consider it, and I use information I've gathered through research - anecdotal service records, product reviews - and I don't buy it, that's the free market.    If a product comes on the market and I consider it, but perhaps I don't buy it because I'm not willing to accept the societal consequences of that purchase, I believe that's the mob rule.    I should be able to buy a Phil Anselmo record or watch a Mel Gibson movie or vote for a President without being deemed a "racist" or "anti-Semite" or "both" by the peanut gallery. 

Quote
I do know that I'm not always sure what the rules are.   :-\

That there are "rules" is part of the problem. Along with the fact that only certain people are allowed to set the "rules" and that they can change at any time.

And that's the mob rule (and the problem with it), right there.

I disagree that this is "mob rule right there."  I don't feel bullied at all.  I see the discussion as an opportunity.  An opportunity to have a discussion with my kid about where the line is or even IF there is a line at all.  It can also be an opportunity for me to do some self-reflecting about my inherent biases and how these may come across even unintentionally.  I can then decide to change my thoughts/behaviors or not.  Isn't that ultimately a good thing? 

Like in the NFL kneeling player issue.  I can see standing for the flag as showing patriotism.  I can see it as a good thing because maybe I was brought up with that as a value that is worth holding.  But the person kneeling next to me, they have a different frame of reference for values that are worth holding.  We can be empathetic toward each other's POV and yet maintain our own values.  One need not detract from the other.  They can actually peacefully co-exist.

You can buy your Phil Anselmo record and I can still consider Mel Gibson's performance in The Bounty to be worthy of watching.  That someone holds another opinion about it is their prerogative and if that opinion is that it makes us racist or anti-semetic then that is their opinion.  Nothing more.  If I choose to take that opinion to heart and do some self-reflecting then I can do that.  But that isn't mandatory and I don't have to take that opinion on as valid at all.  I don't have to take it to heart if I know I am neither of those things.  Nor do I have to defend myself.

We all have choices to make in life.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #83 on: May 25, 2018, 02:36:40 PM »
I disagree that this is "mob rule right there."  I don't feel bullied at all.  I see the discussion as an opportunity.  An opportunity to have a discussion with my kid about where the line is or even IF there is a line at all.  It can also be an opportunity for me to do some self-reflecting about my inherent biases and how these may come across even unintentionally.  I can then decide to change my thoughts/behaviors or not.  Isn't that ultimately a good thing? 

Everything after your second sentence is true for me, and yes it is a good thing.   But I DO feel bullied at times.  Don't blow that out of proportion.  I'm not saying I'm in the same place as, say, the gay kid who gets his ass kicked behind the bleachers for asking another boy to the dance.   But still.  I often feel censored with some of the thoughts and ideas I have, and believe me, I'm nowhere NEAR the line of real racism or bigotry.   I'm in the MIDDLE and I feel like in some people's eyes, I don't do enough.   I believe it's a racist's right to BE racist; abhorrent has that idea may be to me, it's not my call to tell someone else what to think.   But we're not even at that point; we're at the point where you're mocked for voting for a President that might or might not maybe have said something that someone somewhere MIGHT have deemed racist.   It's ridiculous.   I've never felt like I had to indicate who I DIDN'T vote for in my entire life and yet now I feel like I have to lead with "Well, I didn't vote for Trump, but..."

Quote
Like in the NFL kneeling player issue.  I can see standing for the flag as showing patriotism.  I can see it as a good thing because maybe I was brought up with that as a value that is worth holding.  But the person kneeling next to me, they have a different frame of reference for values that are worth holding.  We can be empathetic toward each other's POV and yet maintain our own values.  One need not detract from the other.  They can actually peacefully co-exist.

I don't disagree with you one bit.  I think the NFL thing is a bad example, buecause you have the employer/employee relationship to consider as well.  I know at work, I leave all politics, all personal beliefs at home.  If my company - within moral and legal boundaries - says "jump", I say "how high." 

Quote
You can buy your Phil Anselmo record and I can still consider Mel Gibson's performance in The Bounty to be worthy of watching.  That someone holds another opinion about it is their prerogative and if that opinion is that it makes us racist or anti-semetic then that is their opinion.  Nothing more.  If I choose to take that opinion to heart and do some self-reflecting then I can do that.  But that isn't mandatory and I don't have to take that opinion on as valid at all.  I don't have to take it to heart if I know I am neither of those things.  Nor do I have to defend myself.

We all have choices to make in life.

You are far more cavalier than I am about that.  I get that everything is a choice, but it's ridiculous that I can inadvertently listen to Superjoint not knowing it's Phil's project, and I'm now on the defensive with the label of "racist".  That's patent bullshit.   I feel like I'm increasingly in the position of being disadvantaged in these exchanges.  I can walk into a store and ask for a cake, and the proprietor can say "Eh, no.  Don't feel like it."   But if I was gay, I could FORCE him to make that cake.   If I walk into a woman's room by mistake, I can, in the #MeToo moment, be arrested.   If I claim that I identify as a "woman", well, thank you sir and sorry for your troubles.    These labels have power now, power that is unchecked.   It's easy to say "let it go", but what if that's a potential employer?   What if that's a potential mate?  THIS is what real tolerance is, not sloganeering and brightly colored rainbow stickers.   

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #84 on: May 25, 2018, 03:34:19 PM »
I get that everything is a choice, but it's ridiculous that I can inadvertently listen to Superjoint not knowing it's Phil's project, and I'm now on the defensive with the label of "racist".  That's patent bullshit.   I feel like I'm increasingly in the position of being disadvantaged in these exchanges.

I'm not your shrink so don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you are the one taking it on.  If you know in your heart, mind, and soul that you aren't a racist then I don't get why you have these conflicting feelings.

I assume you are straight and maybe I shouldn't but for argument's sake, let's say you are.  If someone calls you a faggot are you going to suddenly start second guessing yourself?  Are you going to feel the need to defend yourself, "Hey I'm married!"?  Or are you going to laugh it off and attribute it to the person making the comment?  Because I think it reflects way more on them than it does you.

Sorry if it sounds cavalier.  I don't mean it to at all.  I just think taking on everyone else's opinion as some sort of battle line that needs to be fought to the proverbial death over is part of the problem here.  And I am not immune.  But you know the old saying about opinions, right?

It just sounds like you are giving your power away too easily.  And now that sound cliche as hell, but think about it for a minute.  If you are truly content in yourself and your choices, what the hell difference does it make ultimately what artist or actor you choose to enjoy?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 03:46:06 PM by Harmony »

Online kingshmegland

  • defender of the brew!
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 39645
  • Gender: Male
  • Take that Beethoven, you deaf bastard!!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #85 on: May 26, 2018, 06:40:10 AM »
When one man calls another a fag he's demeaning him saying he's weaker.  No man ever thinks "Am I gay"?
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. - Bob Newhart

So wait, we're spelling it wrong and king is spelling it right? What is going on here? :lol -- BlobVanDam

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 27803
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #86 on: May 26, 2018, 06:57:16 AM »
Harmony, I think you misread Stadler's post.  It didn't sound to me like he was having conflicting thoughts, but merely pointing out how people nowadays judge you right away for the tinniest of things.  Sure, it is easy to say, "who cares what people think?", but, for example, if someone at work takes something innocuous you say and blows it up into something by telling everyone, co-workers and even bosses could then assume you are a racist, bigot, etc. simply because people nowadays have such a low bar for using those words.  "OMG, you don't think Trump is as awful as I do? You must be a racist!!"  It's the reality we live in now.

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #87 on: May 26, 2018, 10:33:06 AM »
When one man calls another a fag he's demeaning him saying he's weaker.  No man ever thinks "Am I gay"?

That was probably not the best analogy to use, granted.  I was trying to find something that Stadler was rock solid about himself in to make a point.

Another example could be - I have no idea if it pertains to Stadler - people who are solid and unwavering in their religious beliefs.  I have friends like this.  They don't feel the need to engage with people trying to denigrate their religious beliefs because they are strong in their faith.  They will engage in conversation about it with others but they don't spend time trying to defend anything because in their minds there is nothing they have to defend.  So if the conversation gets to that point, they simply disengage while remaining strong in their beliefs.

Harmony, I think you misread Stadler's post.  It didn't sound to me like he was having conflicting thoughts, but merely pointing out how people nowadays judge you right away for the tinniest of things.  Sure, it is easy to say, "who cares what people think?", but, for example, if someone at work takes something innocuous you say and blows it up into something by telling everyone, co-workers and even bosses could then assume you are a racist, bigot, etc. simply because people nowadays have such a low bar for using those words.  "OMG, you don't think Trump is as awful as I do? You must be a racist!!"  It's the reality we live in now.

I may have misread it, but I didn't miss this part:
I know at work, I leave all politics, all personal beliefs at home.

And while I agree that people judge you and that some will do it for the tiniest of things, again that is more of a reflection on them wouldn't you say?

I think maybe what you are getting at is called the knee-jerk response that people have when confronted with things that go against their own ways of thinking about the world.  This is nothing the Trump administration brought about.  It occurs across all religious and political ideologies, even social mores, and has since time began.  What I'm trying to get at is the reaction TO the knee-jerk response by US.  It can be easy to pour gasoline on that spark.  I'm simply asking why do some of us feel the need to do that IF we are so comfortable in our own beliefs?  Again, I'm using the example Stadler brought forward of enjoying the 'art' of a particular artist who many have been deemed untouchable in some way.  I'm suggesting that his assertion that "these labels have power now" can only be used against him IF he believes there is some kernel of truth behind them.  Because if he truly knows they do not, where is that power over him coming from?

I don't know, maybe I'm not explaining this very well.  It just seems like it is always easier to point the finger of blame at others when maybe the root of feeling the need to become defensive all the time is really inside of ourselves.  Just something I've been thinking more about in my own reactions and responses.  As always, YMMV.


Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 837
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #88 on: May 26, 2018, 12:15:50 PM »
Harmony, you're not necessarily wrong, it just doesn't work that way in practice, or at least that's what some us are getting at. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if someone is confident in themselves when they've been labeled, potentially by the masses, as something that is not to be socially accepted, and that anyone that agrees should suffer the consequences of the mob.

Let's say you do or say something that someone else thinks is racist. YOU know that there was no intent to harm, perhaps even a misunderstanding, and that the other person is not correct in their assessment. BUT then that person takes to Twitter, explains why you're a racist, calls on others to see you as a racist, calls on that newly formed mob to demand that your life is irreparably altered, potentially effecting your family/career/LIFE. YOU can be comfortable all you like in your thoughts and actions, but when the mob isn't, it won't matter what you think of yourself.

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 837
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #89 on: May 26, 2018, 12:29:36 PM »
And on the topic of Free Market Capitalism vs. Social Bullying:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/25/publix-suspends-contributions-to-adam-putnam-amid-david-hoggs-anti-nra-protests/

Quote
A lot of people dont support who Publix is supporting, Haylee Shepherd, a 15-year-old sophomore at Stoneman Douglas, told the Associated Press. Its going to reflect on them as a brand and people shopping there.

(emphasis mine)

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26645
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #90 on: May 26, 2018, 12:34:05 PM »
Stadler, I may be misremembering your overall stances, but aren't you under the impression that open racists should be able to say/do anything they want that isn't breaking the law? That black should tolerate being called the N word, or gay people tolerate being called fags, or Jews tolerate being called kykes or something because that's how free speech works? Does this not apply to you feeling insulted?
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #91 on: May 26, 2018, 12:39:45 PM »
Thanks Sylvan.  And you've touched on one of the things I hate most about FB and Twitter.  I wasn't really going there because a) this isn't the social media thread and b) no one is forcing any of us to participate on those platforms.  The anonymity of a computer screen does allow for people to spew all sorts of things they likely wouldn't put forward in a face to face conversation.  No doubt about that.  But I'm not necessarily talking about that here.

Let's say you do or say something that someone else thinks is racist. YOU know that there was no intent to harm, perhaps even a misunderstanding, and that the other person is not correct in their assessment.

That is exactly what I said already happened when my kid admonished me for my "black don't crack" comment.  And I admit my initial response was to become defensive - I didn't mean it that way.  Why is it wrong for me to say it when I heard that very thing said by black women? - etc etc.  After I stopped feeling defensive about it, I was presented with a choice.  A choice to look at whether or not I am inadvertantly being offensive in the way I'm coming across or to feel fine with what I said and let it go.

I understand that Stadler is trying to take the conversation to the next level by bringing in social movements like issues around cake baking and what bathroom to use and I am purposefully not going there because it muddies the water of what I'm trying to say and maybe even takes the focus off of my point by design.  I'm not sure about that yet.

I do understand that we can allow ourselves to feel victimized by others pretty easily these days.  I see this in liberals and conservatives alike.  I'm trying to figure out if that need to make ourselves into the victim of something is actually a way to deflect from having to look deeper.  Maybe it is just a habit now.  Maybe people really and truly do feel they are victims in their lives.  But none of those options feel like good healthy ones to me.

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 837
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #92 on: May 26, 2018, 01:21:18 PM »
So on the point of your sons comment, this is only anecdotal, but my brother worked after-school with the kids at an elementary school, and it was common for kids to hear "black" when referring to race and associate that as racism. At the very least, it just seems like they're confused with the idea of seeing differences in race as being RACIST. So I think it was less "YOU can't say this", and more possibly "you said black and that's wrong" (which I strongly disagree with).

And on your further point regarding how you handled that comment from your son, or assessment if you will, it's different when it's fave to face between individuals. When your son says that, or if a friend of mine calls me racist, we can rebut or discuss in some way, and more than likely it will be over with when the conversation is done. But in real world practice, the real world where people take to Twitter and Facebook, it goes the way I've already described. It's not about looking within and questioning ourselves... It's about being branded, having that inaccurate image spread far and wide with the sole intention of gathering more voices to inflict some sort of social justice, and being able to do nothing about it. It's no longer something that can just be ignored like the dumbass that says hurtful shit for no reason.

Offline sylvan

  • Alter Bridge Disciple
  • Posts: 837
  • Gender: Male
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #93 on: May 26, 2018, 01:30:34 PM »
And for the sake of trying to stay on topic in some way lol, I'll say this:

Kendrick Lamar is a real asshole for doing this. It was entirely of his own doing, he set a trap for this girl and threw her in it. It's his fucking song, and he knows the words in it. So he thought it was a good idea to pull up a white girl to sing THAT song? Clearly he didn't think it through, but even when he heard her say it for the first time, he could have handled it way better. Instead, he somehow puts it on her, cuz SHE's wrong. So he's either a total asshole, or a total dumbass for not having the forethought to see this coming. As far as his handling of the situation, well that's just pure asshole. And all this from a Pulitzer prize winning "artist"...

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 26645
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #94 on: May 26, 2018, 01:41:00 PM »
And for the sake of trying to stay on topic in some way lol, I'll say this:

Kendrick Lamar is a real asshole for doing this. It was entirely of his own doing, he set a trap for this girl and threw her in it. It's his fucking song, and he knows the words in it. So he thought it was a good idea to pull up a white girl to sing THAT song? Clearly he didn't think it through, but even when he heard her say it for the first time, he could have handled it way better. Instead, he somehow puts it on her, cuz SHE's wrong. So he's either a total asshole, or a total dumbass for not having the forethought to see this coming. As far as his handling of the situation, well that's just pure asshole. And all this from a Pulitzer prize winning "artist"...


Totally. Dude really screwed up there.

However, I read the article and it seemed like he tried to give her another shot but she was essentially booed off by the audience.

All in all, everyone BUT her seemed to be in the wrong here.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2018, 01:15:10 PM »
I get that everything is a choice, but it's ridiculous that I can inadvertently listen to Superjoint not knowing it's Phil's project, and I'm now on the defensive with the label of "racist".  That's patent bullshit.   I feel like I'm increasingly in the position of being disadvantaged in these exchanges.

I'm not your shrink so don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you are the one taking it on.  If you know in your heart, mind, and soul that you aren't a racist then I don't get why you have these conflicting feelings.

I assume you are straight and maybe I shouldn't but for argument's sake, let's say you are.  If someone calls you a faggot are you going to suddenly start second guessing yourself?  Are you going to feel the need to defend yourself, "Hey I'm married!"?  Or are you going to laugh it off and attribute it to the person making the comment?  Because I think it reflects way more on them than it does you.

Sorry if it sounds cavalier.  I don't mean it to at all.  I just think taking on everyone else's opinion as some sort of battle line that needs to be fought to the proverbial death over is part of the problem here.  And I am not immune.  But you know the old saying about opinions, right?

It just sounds like you are giving your power away too easily.  And now that sound cliche as hell, but think about it for a minute.  If you are truly content in yourself and your choices, what the hell difference does it make ultimately what artist or actor you choose to enjoy?

Well, King answered this already, but it's not really about power for me;   it's about the concern I have that the consequences are FAR in excess of the "crime".    I "worry" because I am self aware.  I am not on Facebook or any of the "****-chats" and "******-grams" because I won't take the chance of an employer taking something - whether I said it or in a conversation I am inadvertently in - and reading into it and applying their own, out of whack consequences.  It's just not worth it to me, and I find that to be concerning.   When ANY point of view has the power to chill someone else's speech or thought, it's problematic to me.   I like living an authentic life.   I don't like having to play those kinds of games. 

I happen to be straight, but I'm not at all intimidated or emasculated by any personal interactions like that.  I remember being in Stockholm on a work trip and a bunch of us went out on the last night.  There was dancing and a guy took interest.   I bought him a drink and told him look, you seem a nice guy, but I'm married.  That's it.   Our two groups hung for the rest of the night and I gave him a bro-hug as we left the bar.   That's not the concern here.  The concern is when those personal encounters start to have a life of their own. 

Roseanne just got fired because of a clearly racist statement.    EVEN FOX NEWS played tape of Trump celebrating her ratings a couple weeks ago and making the connection that he's now racist because of her comments.   WTF?   He might be, that's not the point, but he's certainly NOT because he celebrated HER ratings weeks before she makes a racist comment.   Does the girl I dated in high school become a racist because I say something today that might be racist?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2018, 01:36:23 PM »
Stadler, I may be misremembering your overall stances, but aren't you under the impression that open racists should be able to say/do anything they want that isn't breaking the law? That black should tolerate being called the N word, or gay people tolerate being called fags, or Jews tolerate being called kykes or something because that's how free speech works? Does this not apply to you feeling insulted?

Well, first, your examples are at the very limit of what I'm saying because some of that could be construed as fighting words and thus not protected; I don't at all condone someone walking up to a black man and taunting them with "n*****" until they snap.  That's intending to incite, and not the fair exchange of ideas.

I'm talking about something else.   And to Harmony's point, it's not about my certainty.    For the record, I'm not certain about ANYTHING, for two reasons:  one, I'm human, and humans are fallable. We are ALL - all of us, every single one - wrong about something.   SOMETHING.   Most humans will not admit that, for whatever reason.   Two, because I don't know everything, and if I get more/new information that forces me to change my position, well, my god, I have to change my position, else I'm ignorant.   

It's about the way that perception and consequence are way out of whack.   I don't care about what I look like or what people think about me.  But in today's environment, I have no idea how far out of proportion the consequences will be for the things I say, and since I'm not willing to jeopardize my family or my kids or my job, I have to control what I can control, and that's what I say.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #97 on: May 29, 2018, 01:49:15 PM »

I do understand that we can allow ourselves to feel victimized by others pretty easily these days.  I see this in liberals and conservatives alike.  I'm trying to figure out if that need to make ourselves into the victim of something is actually a way to deflect from having to look deeper.  Maybe it is just a habit now.  Maybe people really and truly do feel they are victims in their lives.  But none of those options feel like good healthy ones to me.

I'm singling this out because you've said it three times now, so clearly it matters to you and it's a key part of your point.  Let me be clear:  this is not at ALL about "avoiding looking deeper", and in fact, I think you and I are very much in line on this point.  I WANT people to look deeper far more than they do.  I don't at all think we should EVER have anything - except maybe the love for our partner and/or kids - that we would EVER say "and nothing you will say will ever change my mind".   F*** that.   If you have information I don't have, then hell yeah I should be changing my mind.  How can I presume to be so right and so superior that I know everything and that I'm STILL right even when there is information that proves me wrong? 

What I'm talking about is not about the exchange of ideas, the process by which we get smarter/better/more informed.  I'm talking about when the process circumvents that, and won't even listen to what I'm saying but rather reacts on principle and chills any further dialogue. 

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #98 on: May 29, 2018, 03:05:57 PM »

I do understand that we can allow ourselves to feel victimized by others pretty easily these days.  I see this in liberals and conservatives alike.  I'm trying to figure out if that need to make ourselves into the victim of something is actually a way to deflect from having to look deeper.  Maybe it is just a habit now.  Maybe people really and truly do feel they are victims in their lives.  But none of those options feel like good healthy ones to me.

I'm singling this out because you've said it three times now, so clearly it matters to you and it's a key part of your point.  Let me be clear:  this is not at ALL about "avoiding looking deeper", and in fact, I think you and I are very much in line on this point.  I WANT people to look deeper far more than they do.  I don't at all think we should EVER have anything - except maybe the love for our partner and/or kids - that we would EVER say "and nothing you will say will ever change my mind".   F*** that.   If you have information I don't have, then hell yeah I should be changing my mind.  How can I presume to be so right and so superior that I know everything and that I'm STILL right even when there is information that proves me wrong? 

What I'm talking about is not about the exchange of ideas, the process by which we get smarter/better/more informed.  I'm talking about when the process circumvents that, and won't even listen to what I'm saying but rather reacts on principle and chills any further dialogue.

Yet I've said it 3 times and my point still isn't coming across.

I give up. I know it's on me for not explaining it correctly. 

Nevermind

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13130
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #99 on: May 29, 2018, 03:21:57 PM »

I do understand that we can allow ourselves to feel victimized by others pretty easily these days.  I see this in liberals and conservatives alike.  I'm trying to figure out if that need to make ourselves into the victim of something is actually a way to deflect from having to look deeper.  Maybe it is just a habit now.  Maybe people really and truly do feel they are victims in their lives.  But none of those options feel like good healthy ones to me.

I'm singling this out because you've said it three times now, so clearly it matters to you and it's a key part of your point.  Let me be clear:  this is not at ALL about "avoiding looking deeper", and in fact, I think you and I are very much in line on this point.  I WANT people to look deeper far more than they do.  I don't at all think we should EVER have anything - except maybe the love for our partner and/or kids - that we would EVER say "and nothing you will say will ever change my mind".   F*** that.   If you have information I don't have, then hell yeah I should be changing my mind.  How can I presume to be so right and so superior that I know everything and that I'm STILL right even when there is information that proves me wrong? 

What I'm talking about is not about the exchange of ideas, the process by which we get smarter/better/more informed.  I'm talking about when the process circumvents that, and won't even listen to what I'm saying but rather reacts on principle and chills any further dialogue.

Yet I've said it 3 times and my point still isn't coming across.

I give up. I know it's on me for not explaining it correctly. 

Nevermind


Well, not to beat a dead horse, but I'd invite you to try again, because it's important.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4434
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #100 on: May 29, 2018, 05:14:44 PM »
And as an example of what Stadler is talking about, let's look at cancelation of Roseanne due to her "racist tweet."  Maybe you like her show; maybe you don't (I don't).  She made a tasteless tweet.  But it wasn't racist.  But she's now canceled because of it, and every article you see out there describes it as a "racist" tweet, despite that it isn't.  It's hard to say, "well, if people don't like what she said, she should just not worry about it" when she is now unemployed because her speech was labeled as something that it is not.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20628
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #101 on: May 29, 2018, 05:34:13 PM »
And as an example of what Stadler is talking about, let's look at cancelation of Roseanne due to her "racist tweet."  Maybe you like her show; maybe you don't (I don't).  She made a tasteless tweet.  But it wasn't racist.  But she's now canceled because of it, and every article you see out there describes it as a "racist" tweet, despite that it isn't.  It's hard to say, "well, if people don't like what she said, she should just not worry about it" when she is now unemployed because her speech was labeled as something that it is not.
In principle I agree with you. At the same time ABC saw this coming a mile away. I'd bet good money they started this show knowing very well they'd wind up having to fire her and bail on the show. It was inevitable. They had her on a very, very short leash and dumped her at the first sign of trouble.

What's telling to me is that she didn't even understand where the outrage was coming from. This seems like a really stupid woman.

And don't worry too much about Rosanne. She's weathered just as bad, and this time she'll have the Trumpers come to her defense and rally round.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4434
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #102 on: May 29, 2018, 05:41:26 PM »
Oh, I'm not worried about her.  As I said, I don't care for her.  But I do care about the message that such a thing sends.  As we've discussed on this forum for a long time, that sort of thing has a chilling effect, and that isn't cool (pun sorta intended).
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Harmony

  • Posts: 409
  • Gender: Female
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #103 on: May 29, 2018, 05:43:06 PM »
I'd argue that what Roseanne said wasn't racist.  But that isn't what I'm talking about AT ALL.  ABC knew very well what they were in for with the reboot.  So I don't feel sorry for anyone in this scenario except for the crew and other behind the scenes folks on that show who are now unemployed through no fault of their own.

The problem in this discussion is that people keep trying to bring social media into it.

My whole point was going off of Stadler's post about not being able to enjoy an artist because people might construe he's racist or pro-child molestation or whatever.  Social media was never part of that discussion.

I'll use Mel Gibson because I can admit that I have admired some of his work in the past and will occasionally still indulge in a movie of his from time to time.  NEVER, not once, has it occurred to me that someone would think me anti-Semitic for doing so.  And if someone actually accused me of that, I'd never even spend a millisecond worrying about it because I know it to be patently false.  Just like someone has faith in their religion, I have faith in myself to KNOW I am not harboring any ill will toward Jews.  If someone wants to think that then a) they don't know me at all and b) their opinion doesn't bother me because see "a".

When I get all defensive about it then it comes across like maybe I'm over compensating for something.  It makes it look like I'm not very sure about it at all.

Last thing - if I let my fear of someone's opinion on Mel Gibson keep me from enjoying a movie he's in even BEFORE I get to watch it, then I'm behaving like a victim.  I'm letting my fear of being labeled run my life.  FUCK THAT.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4434
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The n-word and its use
« Reply #104 on: May 29, 2018, 05:54:14 PM »
I'd argue that what Roseanne said wasn't racist.  But that isn't what I'm talking about AT ALL. 
Awesome.  But that is what I am talking about.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."