The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
Penny Arcade - Comic - A New Record
Posts
And while the N word is on a whole other level of fucked up I dunno what the real solution to the whole thing in general is.
I’m glad I’m not charismatic enough to ever be a streamer I guess.
- I genuinely didn't hear the n-word in that video.
/shrug
For the record, no one in this forum is allowed to use that word. There may have been slipups on this, but in 9 years of visiting these forums I've rarely seen them. The slipups of that kind are usually someone posting a video without realizing it contains the word, not someone typing the word out and then saying "whoops, could have happened to anyone!" Because that would have been an idiotic excuse.
Again, none of this applies to Ninja who as far as I can tell didn't really say the word, just said a bunch of random mouth sounds that some interpreted that way. To his credit, he doesn't seem to be trying to tell those people they're jerks for hearing those sounds a certain way, he just apologies, which is the right thing to do in this case.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Definition of Racism
In case you can't be arsed to click:
Definition of Racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
I mean, you could pedantically argue that I didn't get the wording exactly right, but it would be pretty pedantic.
I just feel that if you have this word that is so culturally bound it approaches something like a Nam Shub if uttered out-of-tradition, it cannot be anything other than awkwardly misappropriated, then why in God's name do certain rappers insist on using it so prolifically?
Let it die. If you don't want it to be used outside your own tradition, let it die. Otherwise come to grips with the fact that other cultures than your own will use it from time to time.
The definition you originally gave is about specific actions taken with intent. That is incredibly, vastly different than "racial prejudice or discrimination" or "a system founded on racism."
So... there isnt any monolithic culture or tradition that all blacks abide by to which one could let such a thing die.
It’s also ignorant to even assume that because “certain rappers” do it that all use the word or find it acceptable. It’s fairly safe to assert that there has never been a point when that was the case.
I don't really. If something is restricted by race, ANYTHING at all, that is in fact racist. There is no excuse that says "oh, your x race, you can say things that'd be considered racist against your race". I was ok with what he was saying until he tried to divide it by race. If people have the kinds of relationships he describes? Fine, great, but it has to be based on those relationships, not restrict them based on race as that's by definition, racist as all hell. He's right, a word's meaning is derived from its context. Problem is when that context includes race then well.. that's the line. Him trying to make excuses for why people think that way is also racist as all hell. No, I think this way because I think all races should be treated equally. The principle of "oh this is ok for one race but not another" is the exact principle Jim Crow laws existed on. In fact that "little peek" statement at the end sells it for me. That he KNOWS its racist as all hell. If your goal is to make a race feel bad in whatever small way you can, then quite frankly black, white, asian, hispanic, etc that's not the kind of person I'd want to be around. I want to be around people that want the best for me and that I feel I can wish them the best in return.
I don't think you really understand the principles that the Jim Crow laws were based on, or perhaps depending on where you were raised that was what you were taught to believe? /shrug
Either way, don't think it'd be a loss to you or others should you decide to refrain from being around them on the basis of their not wanting you to be able to share in using a slur because you do not grasp/care for the nuances of why you cannot use the slur too under some distorted notion of equality.
More like I don't want to give them an excuse to use the slur either. Also distorted? Expecting people to be judged on who they are and not be allowed or denied things based on race isn't a distortion. Its the definition. You can't have racial equality while treating someone differently on basis of their race. Hell, the distortion is you assuming I want to share in the use of the slur rather than reject the notion that someone else can fling slurs around because of their skin colors.
Also no, I have an understanding of it. The excuse was that hey! As long as the facilities are equal we can separate them! Segregation exists on levels big and small. The subject matter doesn't change the ridiculousness of it. Its either acceptable or its not. I opt for it not being acceptable. Here's the big flaw in you thinking I want to share in it: The fact I don't want to. Its a slur in a majority of contexts but that context should matter based on the people, not their skin color. There is absolutely nothing in language or treatment that should be any different. If that's a distortion of equality to you then your definition is by definition racist as it holds one race on a pedestal over another simply based on their race and nothing else.
No one should be told they don't have business doing something simply based on race. You tell ANYONE that, they're going to react, black or white. That should be obvious. It is unacceptable to tell someone they can or can't do something simply because of their race REGARDLESS of what race it is and any attempt to do so is racist, bigoted and childish.
I disagree fundamentally with this point. If somebody tells me "I'm not allowed to do this because I'm not X and its offensive to X", I generally accept it. I don't get pissy because I'm not allowed to use words reserved for certain groups.
But sure. I'm the real racist because I don't think white people should get to use naughty word without consequences.
And if everyone followed that state of mind. Women wouldn't be allowed to vote nor would black people and the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened. I don't know about you but I consider those very good things to have happened and good examples of people NOT putting up with that kind of bigoted bull crap.
"You're not allowed to vote because you're black" is very clearly racist.
"You're not allowed to vote because you're a woman" is very clearly sexist.
I'd argue that "I'm allowed to throw around x racial slur because I'm x race" is racist.
As I've pretty much said, I don't care if people shouldn't say it. It's a racial slur I have no interest in spreading. But that basis should be because of it being a racial slur, not for some racist bull crap reason about one not being the right race. Yes, I'm aware its a small thing compared to civil rights but I believe ignoring small problems helps fuel the bigger problems.
So no, I don't believe you actually disagree fundamentally with it unless you found those two statements I listed above as acceptable... which I sincerely hope you don't.
The problem isn't that there shouldn't be consequences. Its that anyone should be immune to the consequences and that such consequences should be based on context and not race. Big difference. You'll never find me arguing against Pewdiepie for example suffering consequences. In fact I think he got off too lightly.
I edited my post before you replied to include "and its offensive to X", because I've literally never been told I can't do something for any other reason and I needed to make that clarification. Woo for privilege, I guess. I don't care if somebody tells me I can't do something they can because its offensive. There's your context; if its offensive, I don't care that people are told not to do it for whatever reason. As the Coates video above pointed out, there are plenty of examples of groups using offensive language self-referentially that are very, very different if used by others.
Racism is racism. Allow one form of racism, it'll only grow. Something being low priority doesn't mean it can't be addressed along side other priorities. In fact I'd argue its already grown in other forms such as police brutality being far too downplayed when a minority isn't involved making it only harder to properly unify on that issue. Yes its different issue but I find it has similar roots. That because of oppression, present and past, somehow its not as important when certain incidents happen. The devil is in the details as it were. Brush off low priority stuff you can ultimately make the bigger issues more challenging to handle.
What universe are you from where police brutality inflicted on white people is downplayed?
Saying that a person cannot do something is not the same as implying that a person wants to do a thing. Whether or not you want to use the word is irrelevant to it being considered taboo in conversation.
I mean... really, the only thing that your post has done is further reinforce my initial statements that you:
1) Don't understand the principles that the Jim Crow laws were based upon, or that you were taught to believe that it was something that it was not. Or perhaps you had a grossly revisionist history of the post-reconstruction era period of repression that the Jim Crow era laws were born of. IDK.
2) That a person and yourself would be better off not being in association because you feel that using slurs should be fair game because then all things are truly equal between them or something.
That said, please see point number two of this response.
Ok I'm going to see if I can break down an incredibly complex issue into a forum post without being a windbag.
1) Police brutality: I've actually found that if the victim is white I get a better response from my ultra-conservative, police-can-do-no-wrong relatives. A black person getting victimized has a much higher tendency to elicit the response "they did something to deserve that." This is actually a quantifiable fact; there are studies that show that a black person gets lower doses of pain medication at the hospital because of passive beliefs about black people being better able to tolerate pain. Black young people also get presumed to be older than they are. We have two recent examples of how white people get off the hook for their actions way more easily than a black person would: The #WalkUpNotOut campaign, which starts on the premise that if we were just nicer to shooters they might not shoot us - but there's no similar campaign for, say, kids who sell weed in school, that if we were nicer to them then maybe they wouldn't sell weed. School shootings are almost exclusively the act of white young men. The other example that comes to mind it the Austin bomber who at first the Police insisted was not a terrorist. That again is a gift that would only be afforded to a white person. It should be obvious that if someone is setting bombs that they are a domestic terrorist; but not if they are white.
2) The racism of denying language to someone vs denying someone's rights: There's not really an argument to be had here, sorry. While you're technically correct that telling a white person that they can't say a word is racism, it's not a racism that has any negative effects for the person experiencing it. You won't lose a job because you can't use that word. You won't be brutalized by the police because you can't use that word. You would suffer systemic poverty for generations because you can't use that word. The type of racism that most needs fighting is the systemic type of racism, and one of the ways to fight systemic racism is to NOT use dehumanizing words for an entire race of people. I mean, it's not the only thing we can do, but it's a start. If that race of people has taken that word back to be empowering, they are free to do that; the rest of us still can't use that word because of its dehumanizing origins because, again, we want to fight systemic racism any way we can, and while in the grand scheme of things refusing to use certain words is a very tiny contribution, it's still better than using the word and taking a step towards supporting that systemic racism. So we're not "blowing off low priority stuff", we're asking for low priority sacrifices on white people's part to support the overall goal.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
Except I feel the reverse, that neither should get free reign. Something I've specifically said. You just wait to paint it the other way because its easier moral high ground for you.
One where protests on such incidents tend to only explode when minorities are involved. A lot of such incidents get overlooked by media because they wouldn't make as good of news and organizations that want to fight against such things like Black Lives Matter tend to brush them off and push them away as insignificant rather than use them to fuel the fire. (I admit it doesn't help that some jackasses try to use such incidents to downplay their cause but it sure as help that they don't take the opportunity to turn it around back into their faces either.)
Protests happened because police brutality inflicted on minority suspects has been historically ignored, downplayed, or blamed on the victim and civil disobedience means it can no longer be completely ignored by the media how are you so bad at this?
I'm not, I'm just seeing things as going too far in another divisive direction PRESENTLY. I'm aware that what you said is what created the shift in a time where there's need for significant change. I just don't feel a shift that trades who gets ignored is a particularly positive change. Especially when it played a part in the Orange Jackass getting elected....
EDIT: Yes, I'm aware they weren't his supporters. I'm simply saying the way things were handled polarized the hell out of things.
I really don’t need a moral high ground in an “argument” over people that are not black being able to use a slur while some blacks freely make use of it.
As you don’t seem to be familiar with the American history behind the word and its use, or even American racism... I think it’s best to simply agree to disagree.
Again, I've said I consider it offensive either way its used. Its no longer agreeing to disagree, its you literally making shit up now. I'm not arguing FOR its use, I'm arguing that its context is what matters, not the race of the person using it.
Okay! Have a blessed one. Or don't, if belief is another thing you like to have incredibly obtuse arguments over.
I definitely won't disagree overall with 1 in terms of perception of the incidents when brought forward. I however find more often those with minority victims have a larger tendency to hit the media as of late. Positive in itself that the incidents are reaching the media, but social media tends to really gobble it up outside of the ultra-conservative circles... which I admit I've been avoiding more lately so it might play some part in how I'm perceiving recent events. I'll also admit for as badly treated as I was at school much of the time I know a black kid with asperger's syndrome would get off worse. Something that DESPERATELY needs fixing but at the same time if one were to say that those with a similar condition didn't matter as much because of their race, I'd take extreme offense as I know without much of the assistance I got as a kid I wouldn't be in such a good state. It in fact is what shapes my whole ideal of treating everyone with respect best I can manage. The knowledge of how things could have turned out and many of my personal challenges. Its also why the statement about making others feel a fraction of what they feel stood out to me in that video. I find statements like that incredibly disrespectful. To wish one's challenges on another seems to paint a picture of vengeance rather than empathy. Its not the intent I imagine, but it stands out.
2... the technicality matters in my eyes. Especially when you consider not everyone sees things the same way. Some may feel its use is empowering to them. What about the ones who find it self-depreciating and offensive either way though? Is something truly empowering if others that you're trying to empower ultimately find it has the opposite effect on them? You'll find no argument from me that dehumanization is one of the worst possible things. I've felt such a feeling myself. After Columbine *I* was the kid that everyone thought was the type that'd cause the next one. Even had a bully that called in a bomb threat and tried to frame me with it. Thankfully I had witnesses of where I was that were willing to speak up but that those were experiences that made me feel small, tiny... insignificant. That was a period where death seemed like a clean way out. I can only imagine how others who have gone through worse would feel. That's why this kind of thing sticks out to me though. What ABOUT those who feel the opposite? The ones who hear it constantly, know its meaning and history and instead of feeling empowered, they feel more driven into a corner being surrounded by it? This is in addition to the other points I've made. It all around makes me feel such things do more bad than good to be accepting of its use in any form much like a good amount of other offensive speech would be problematic in any situation regardless of who said it.
But fuck you — no, fuck y'all, that's as blunt as it gets"
- Kendrick Lamar, "The Blacker the Berry"
I simply don't see how using the word provides any positive aspect to society to outweigh it's negative effect (an effect that results regardless of who uses it, as evidenced by Ninja's slipup which many have pointed out is almost certainly connected to the word's common usage in music).
It was more to the bit you said about dehumanization and trying to explain my perspective on that aspect of it. Also I'd argue trying to make exceptions based on race is as big a blocker. You can't simultaneously ask for equality while desiring to do something without consequence on a racial basis while others have to suffer the consequence. Those are mutually exclusive scenarios. It ultimately directs away from the goal of treating all with respect based on who someone is rather than what. A lot of it is the principle of the matter as well. If you demand someone stops doing something while wanting to continue to do it yourself, it is a bit hypocritical. Its pretty hard to take it seriously from any kind of logical perspective which is again, part of why I say it contributes to the polarizing nature.
Besides.... "why don't I get to do that!?" is kind of a key element in racial equality. Without that mindset as I said above, voting rights wouldn't have been desired. In fact I'd argue its downright fundamental to humanity's evolution. We learn and grow because we want to do things, especially when we see others. "Oh hey, that tech is pretty cool, I want to try it to!" "Oh hey that thing they did is amazing, how do I learn how to do that!?" etc. A little off track from the subject but I feel it stems from the same line of thinking and quite frankly? Its the kind of thinking that gives us any kind of inkling to the idea of fairness. I'd argue to make a change one HAS to take human nature into account and to ignore human nature is self-sabotaging in such goals.
Maybe if your logical perspective refuses to consider all the various ways in which individuals differ from each other, and that not all "somethings" are equatable to each other. If your logical perspective refuses to consider context.
Y'know, the whole point of the video.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Yes, words have meaning. But they also have history and context, and they don't fall into "Well, this is logical, so it must fall into this box" categories. And yeah, when you break it down into simplistic elements, it can totally technically fit into a box. But it's more complicated than that in reality. Reality is messy and imperfect.
It also feels a bit icky to me to circle it around and say "Well, it's the black rappers' fault for using the word, not the individual who said it." (Note: The streamer HAS apologized and taken responsibility for using the word.) The black rappers come from a history in which white people have used the word to tear down their heritage and identity, and they "wear" it as a badge of defiance. Is it right? Well, maybe not, but change takes time, and we are nowhere near a position of equality now. As I said before, reality is messy and imperfect.
Except, you know... the video fails to do that and only paints it in a racial light. It in part argues context but then rips that away by ripping away context and tries to substitute race for context and argues this is acceptable for vengeful reasons. If what you describe was in fact the point, it missed it with a bait and switch by presenting race and context as interchangeable.
So... you're saying that race isn't a context worth consideration?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Not unless you're being racist, no. Here, have a song:
You know... now I'm even more confused.
I legit don't hear the word. I've watched the clip about a dozen times, and I can't find it.
It's not a long clip.
Are people freaking out over when he stumbles over Indica? As in the smokable? Is there some 3rd form of this word I've never heard before, aside from the hard r and the soft r?
This is looking increasingly like this, instead of this.