Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany: "Paw Patrol, a cartoon show about cops, was canceled. The show 'Cops' was canceled. 'Live PD' was canceled. Lego halted the sales of their Lego city police station."
It is inexcusable that McEnany does not know what Paw Patrol is about.
When the White House is complaining about cancel culture, you know it is a completely worthless term.
In some ways the left has become even more conformist than the right. The liberal New Republic has less viewpoint diversity than the conservative National Review — a reversal of historical patterns. Christopher Hitchens was one of the great essayists in America. He would be unemployable today because there was no set of priors he wasn’t willing to offend.
Literally South Park style "offends both sides" garbage.
And as one journalist pointed out, there are thousands of journalists who are actually unemployed right now
Now the boundaries of exclusion are shifting again. What we erroneously call “cancel culture” is an attempt to shift the boundaries of the sayable so it excludes not only conservatives but liberals and the heterodox as well. Hence the attacks on, say, Steven Pinker and Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew "race science" Sullivan
hitchens grew MORE popular as he became more of a racist dickhead crank
+6
Options
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
I dunno where the Twitter thread went so I guess I'll post this here. Twitter finally did something right today.
“We don’t allow advertisers to run ads that contain graphic violence, including depictions of blood, baton beatings, and other instances of physical trauma,” said Charlotte Smith, a spokeswoman for the company. “These policies apply to all advertisers, regardless of political affiliation.”
She added, “We recognize that this imagery is from current events, but we have a firm policy against ads with shocking and disturbing content.”
But Rashad Robinson, executive director of Color of Change and a spokesman for the PAC of the same name, said the company had erred in deciding to "censor” images of violence visited on people of color.
"Do you see those sheriffs beating John Lewis, that is far too violent we can't show that to anyone"
Ironically the only platform to allow the ad - Facebook.
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
The youngest and most liberal of the Murdoch brood has parted ways with the family media business after unsuccessfully trying for over a year to bring producers around on ideas like climate change and police brutality
I'm sorry but I'm still reeling from reading "Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany" because that sounds like a name that someone would make up on a shitty animated sitcom that was trying to mock our current shit-tastic administration.
"Ok so the new press secretary is named Karen McEnany and"
"Hold on, Karen McEnany? Come on, that's too on the nose."
"Ok fine, how about Kayleigh McEnany?"
"Yeah, that works."
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
You've probably heard of the right-wing opinion rag that pretends to be Serious Conservative Intellectual Commentary (TM), The Federalist. It's long been wondered who actually funded the damn thing, because they absolutely don't make their money by subscription sales. Like most right-wing groups, they must have some rich asshole backer propping them up.
You know those fucking Uline catalogs that weigh several pounds each and for some damn reason if you get one (despite having never ordered from them before) they'll almost certainly send another at the same time? The owner of Uline, that guy, he's probably it. He supports all the most insane candidates, and the Federalist always seems to write weird creepy "defense pieces" that happen to coincide with whichever crazy is being funded at the moment.
Eat the rich doesn't just cover the billionaires; the multi-millionaires are often even more regressive.
You've probably heard of the right-wing opinion rag that pretends to be Serious Conservative Intellectual Commentary (TM), The Federalist. It's long been wondered who actually funded the damn thing, because they absolutely don't make their money by subscription sales. Like most right-wing groups, they must have some rich asshole backer propping them up.
You know those fucking Uline catalogs that weigh several pounds each and for some damn reason if you get one (despite having never ordered from them before) they'll almost certainly send another at the same time? The owner of Uline, that guy, he's probably it. He supports all the most insane candidates, and the Federalist always seems to write weird creepy "defense pieces" that happen to coincide with whichever crazy is being funded at the moment.
Eat the rich doesn't just cover the billionaires; the multi-millionaires are often even more regressive.
Can we call it Serious Conservative Wonderfully Intelligent Commentary so the rest of us can just pronounce it as "SCWIC" or squick?
Gary Collins says Arthur Love is a victim of #CancelCulture & ppl aren’t willing to listen to a different opinion. Love posted #Rittenhouse was acting in self defense in #Kenosha. But MD officials like @DelDBarnes asks, why should we listen if what you’re saying is #racist?
The author is a Baltimore area reporter.
This gets to two of the biggest bad faith arguments I see around lately - "disagreement" and "difference of opinion". Now, let's start by noting that this is something very different from actual disagreement or difference of opinion - it's not a bad faith argument to hold a differing position as long as you are willing to discuss that position openly. The bad faith comes in when the fact that the position is different is used to defend the position itself, regardless of the content. We see this often when bigoted positions are outright rejected for the bigotry they contain - a routine defense then is "you're attacking it because you don't agree."
The reason this is insidious is because at a surface level, it's not wrong - the argument is getting dismissed because there is a fundamental disagreement. But what makes the argument dishonest is that is where things are left - that there is somehow an obligation that bigoted and hateful positions are respected as a "difference of opinion". The actual difference is meaningless to the argument - just that such a difference exists. And it's that ignoring of the content of the difference that makes the argument to be held in bad faith.
So, my alma mater has become a flashpoint in the fight over free speech. Short version - a professor discussing the use of filler words in communication talked about how the word varies from culture to culture, giving an example of such a word in Chinese - "na-ge".
Yes, when that word is enunciated correctly, it sounds like the word that is verboten on these forums. And unsurprisingly, black students in the class had a problem with this, making a complaint about this. The university has, also unsurprisingly, opened an investigation into the incident to figure out what's happening and the professor has voluntarily stepped back while said investigation is occurring.
Also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are decrying this as a horrible violation of free speech and academic freedom - an argument that falls flat for me given the long, ignoble use by bigots of homophones to said word in a linguistic version of "I'm not touching you." It illustrates something that I see routinely in these arguments - an expectation that minorities put aside slights to them out of a sense of "for the greater good", along with shock that minority groups (understandibly) question principles that are used as weapons against them.
So, my alma mater has become a flashpoint in the fight over free speech. Short version - a professor discussing the use of filler words in communication talked about how the word varies from culture to culture, giving an example of such a word in Chinese - "na-ge".
Yes, when that word is enunciated correctly, it sounds like the word that is verboten on these forums. And unsurprisingly, black students in the class had a problem with this, making a complaint about this. The university has, also unsurprisingly, opened an investigation into the incident to figure out what's happening and the professor has voluntarily stepped back while said investigation is occurring.
Also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are decrying this as a horrible violation of free speech and academic freedom - an argument that falls flat for me given the long, ignoble use by bigots of homophones to said word in a linguistic version of "I'm not touching you." It illustrates something that I see routinely in these arguments - an expectation that minorities put aside slights to them out of a sense of "for the greater good", along with shock that minority groups (understandibly) question principles that are used as weapons against them.
It seems to me that if you want your concerns to be taken seriously you should try to avoid looking like the literal definition of a bad political correctness stereotype? Unless there is some massive additional circumstantial evidence that you just completely failed to mention this is a reaction which is absurd on it's face. And it's the exact sort of thing that makes genuine issues of concern get mocked when they do happen.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Is there a reason that the professor decided that this specific example was useful to the class?
Especially since you could just say "there are many words in other languages that are homophones for offensive words in ours, so be careful to check before assuming someone is being rude" and just leave it at that, or use less offensive examples.
Like, if it was a Chinese language class, sure, it's a bridge you have to cross, but it sounds like it was just a communications class.
Yeah. I'm sure it was shocking and awful and traumatic but... at the same time, I'm betting there are a lot of words in a lot of languages that sound absolutely obscene to an English speaker.
Sure sure, context matters, American professor in American University with American students and all the history that comes with it, but at the same time... well, is the professor wrong? Is that particular word, enunciated correctly, a common Chinese filler word? Are we to give up 'truth as an absolute defense' because some fuckwits use homophones?
Is the issue that it was said at all, or that the professor failed to recognize that this particular class should have a content/trigger warning and have led into that a bit more carefully than just dropping a 'not-quite-but-maybe-an-n-bomb' in class?
Reading the article, they give examples of fights breaking out over this same juxtaposition. Seems like an awfully big knot to untie; certainly the systemic racism alive and well in America needs addressing, but should all Chinese speakers in America have to change their use of language to account for that similarity? Should all Chinese content that includes it be censored despite it not actually being a swear (which, mind you, could be hilarious, while also racist itself?)
CC Chen, a student at the USC, defended Prof Patton, arguing that it was "clearly an academic lecture on communication" and the professor was "describing a universal mistake commonly made in communication".
"For him to be censored simply because a Chinese word sounds like an English pejorative term is a mistake and is not appropriate, especially given the educational setting," she said. "It also dismisses the fact that Chinese is a real language and has its own pronunciations that have no relation to English."
That seems like a fair point.
If I found out that muttering "um" in a conversation was going to offend a stranger overhearing it, I'd probably try to be more cautious of using it within that society, but at the same time to me it's an innocuous word, and has no bearing on "uhm" being a horrific slur with centuries of horror associated with it.
This legit feels like a situation that requires a bit more nuance. Yes, this professor should be much more savvy to what they're conveying and how it is taught, no argument there. Whether or not suspension is appropriate I'm not entirely sold on.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
It just seems like a misunderstanding. Like talking about seals in french or something. Unless there's some sort of history here with the prof or context for all this, it just seems massively overblown and the kind of situation that should just get a "ok, maybe let's not use that example in class again"* or something.
*though maybe not since depending on what the class is about highlighting this exact kind of misunderstanding may be very relevant and this might be a really good example
+10
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
edited September 2020
You can read the letters posted by the anonymous students--who write that they speak on behalf of all black students in class, but I haven't been able to find any confirmation of the originators of the letter--and then the response of the dean and professor in question posted here.
There are some apparent factual incongruities to resolve in the accounts--the students and professor seem to disagree on the pronunciation of the word, on when he was first approached with complaints, and the students claim that he turned off zoom recording specifically to give that example which would be notable and odd. I'd be curious if it's true and if so what's going on there. In any case, there is existing video.
--some "campus reform" affiliated guy i don't know on twitter who appears to have posted the recording
For my own part, if the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so, well, that strains credibility--particularly given his subsequent letter, and particularly if the specific factual claims he makes about working with students before and after on the example are true. That being said, one doesn't have to twirl one's mustache in order to fail to follow best practices; he himself in his letter seems to embrace the idea that he made a mistake, rather than sticking to his guns. But suspension is also not an ordinary punishment for making a teaching mistake, provided one does. In any case, my baseline expectation of university leadership and discipline in highly publicized and politically sensitive cases is that they will be insane, opaque, and exclusively reputationally motivated, because universities like USC are billion dollar brand identities and welcome to capitalism.
MrMister on
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Is there a reason that the professor decided that this specific example was useful to the class?
Especially since you could just say "there are many words in other languages that are homophones for offensive words in ours, so be careful to check before assuming someone is being rude" and just leave it at that, or use less offensive examples.
Like, if it was a Chinese language class, sure, it's a bridge you have to cross, but it sounds like it was just a communications class.
In a subsequent letter to the USC Marshall graduate student executive body, which was shared with CNN, Patton apologized for causing "discomfort and pain." In the letter, Patton said former international students had given him the example of nei ge as a filler word, and he chose to use it in an attempt to be more inclusive, he said -- to "find and include many international, global, diverse, female, broad and inclusive leadership examples and illustrations to enhance communication and interpersonal skill in our global workplace."
"I had not realized this negativity previously or I would have replaced the example as we now have," he added.
It just seems like a misunderstanding. Like talking about seals in french or something. Unless there's some sort of history here with the prof or context for all this, it just seems massively overblown and the kind of situation that should just get a "ok, maybe let's not use that example in class again"* or something.
*though maybe not since depending on what the class is about highlighting this exact kind of misunderstanding may be very relevant and this might be a really good example
The thing is that academia has a long running history of telling black students to just deal with institutional racism as part of being in higher education, and it's not surprising that - especially now - black students are pushing back. The problem isn't that "it's a misunderstanding", but the expectation that seems present that black students are expected to put up with "misunderstanding" after "misunderstanding", knowing full well that some of those were anything but.
Once we have some more of these the reflex responses people get will gradually turn into more appropriate context-sensitive responses with experience. Hopefully before the Korean language explodes in the US
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
No, it just seems like it's the usual obliviousness to context that makes up the majority of institutional racism in higher education. Which is the problem. At what point do black students get to say "this isn't okay"?
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
No, it just seems like it's the usual obliviousness to context that makes up the majority of institutional racism in higher education. Which is the problem. At what point do black students get to say "this isn't okay"?
When you aren't telling Chinese Students that their language has to be subservient to English.
Like, this is the same level of "Your name is Wang? Teehee" just with added baggage of racism.
So I started writing this thinking I'd say credibility matters and thus going all in even when it's maybe not appropriate isn't helpful, but...I'm not actually sure that it does matter much, to most people?
My political cynicism whispers that accuracy and credibility don't matter in shaping society because the vast majority of decisions aren't made by reason or morality. That kill-em-all-and-let-god-sort-em-out approach to bigotry may be more successful than reasoning it out every time, even if I find it kinda gross.
Eventually people will get used to constant complaints
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
No, it just seems like it's the usual obliviousness to context that makes up the majority of institutional racism in higher education. Which is the problem. At what point do black students get to say "this isn't okay"?
When you aren't telling Chinese Students that their language has to be subservient to English.
Like, this is the same level of "Your name is Wang? Teehee" just with added baggage of racism.
No, I see it more as being why one wouldn't reach for the English idiom "a chink in one's armor" when talking with an individual of Chinese heritage, even if it might be an acceptable statement for the situation. Nobody is saying that Chinese is subservient to English - people are making the point that this one word sounds like an ethnic slur, so you should be aware of that.
It also might not matter to individual people, especially across a language barrier
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
No, it just seems like it's the usual obliviousness to context that makes up the majority of institutional racism in higher education. Which is the problem. At what point do black students get to say "this isn't okay"?
When you aren't telling Chinese Students that their language has to be subservient to English.
Like, this is the same level of "Your name is Wang? Teehee" just with added baggage of racism.
No, I see it more as being why one wouldn't reach for the English idiom "a chink in one's armor" when talking with an individual of Chinese heritage, even if it might be an acceptable statement for the situation. Nobody is saying that Chinese is subservient to English - people are making the point that this one word sounds like an ethnic slur, so you should be aware of that.
But this just makes me think I should be skeptical when I hear that someone said something racist, because that might mean they said "a chink in someone's armor" in an appropriate context and the story is stupid nonsense.
I could investigate on my own but I don't have time to drill down into every story about someone saying something racist, so I'll probably go based on who I heard it from.
And if last time that particular person or news organization or whatever brought something to my attention and I looked into it it was about "a chink in someone's armor" I'll assume the new thing is nonsense too.
If you don't have time to investigate the context, then what business do you have judging?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
If you don't have time to investigate the context, then what business do you have judging?
Well, an investigation is what roundly set off the people criticizing the students so maybe there's some pot/kettle things going on here.
Yeah, overall, what's the point in being premature?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to have an expectation that the offended parties should make some basic effort to distinguish between a misunderstanding and a dogwhistle. The boy who cried wolf applies here. And as MrMister said "the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so". That is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
No, it just seems like it's the usual obliviousness to context that makes up the majority of institutional racism in higher education. Which is the problem. At what point do black students get to say "this isn't okay"?
They can already say it's not ok. Right now, the level of not-ok-ness is commensurate with "don't do that again". If he keeps doing it, escalate. If he doesn't... that strongly suggests it was an actual misunderstanding. You can't just handle all these with a grim trigger.
It just seems like a misunderstanding. Like talking about seals in french or something. Unless there's some sort of history here with the prof or context for all this, it just seems massively overblown and the kind of situation that should just get a "ok, maybe let's not use that example in class again"* or something.
*though maybe not since depending on what the class is about highlighting this exact kind of misunderstanding may be very relevant and this might be a really good example
The thing is that academia has a long running history of telling black students to just deal with institutional racism as part of being in higher education, and it's not surprising that - especially now - black students are pushing back. The problem isn't that "it's a misunderstanding", but the expectation that seems present that black students are expected to put up with "misunderstanding" after "misunderstanding", knowing full well that some of those were anything but.
Is this part of a larger pattern for this professor? Cause I've seen nothing that suggests that. So it seems like it's just, at worst, a misunderstanding.
Funnily enough, the very BBC article you link actually suggests why him using this example is highly relevant to the topic he seems to have been talking about:
In July 2016, a fight broke out on the subway in the city of Southern Guangzhou, after a black man heard a Chinese man saying na-ge and mistook it for the N-word.
Footage went viral online showing the black man slapping the Chinese commuter and shouting "you dare try that again" and "never say that again"
This seems like the kind of thing where maybe what we should be doing is educating people about things like "other languages use sounds that seem like words you know but aren't because it's a completely different language".
Posts
hitchens grew MORE popular as he became more of a racist dickhead crank
Interestingly enough, The president himself shared the same video and hasn't gotten any repercussions yet.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/police-state-ad/2020/07/28/59026618-a5db-45f7-8745-5c7ef9f7e9d0_video.html
"Do you see those sheriffs beating John Lewis, that is far too violent we can't show that to anyone"
Ironically the only platform to allow the ad - Facebook.
Sensenbrenner DEFINITELY calls all videogames "Nintendos".
This hearing sounds f-ing lit tbh.
The youngest and most liberal of the Murdoch brood has parted ways with the family media business after unsuccessfully trying for over a year to bring producers around on ideas like climate change and police brutality
"Ok so the new press secretary is named Karen McEnany and"
"Hold on, Karen McEnany? Come on, that's too on the nose."
"Ok fine, how about Kayleigh McEnany?"
"Yeah, that works."
You know those fucking Uline catalogs that weigh several pounds each and for some damn reason if you get one (despite having never ordered from them before) they'll almost certainly send another at the same time? The owner of Uline, that guy, he's probably it. He supports all the most insane candidates, and the Federalist always seems to write weird creepy "defense pieces" that happen to coincide with whichever crazy is being funded at the moment.
Eat the rich doesn't just cover the billionaires; the multi-millionaires are often even more regressive.
Can we call it Serious Conservative Wonderfully Intelligent Commentary so the rest of us can just pronounce it as "SCWIC" or squick?
The author is a Baltimore area reporter.
This gets to two of the biggest bad faith arguments I see around lately - "disagreement" and "difference of opinion". Now, let's start by noting that this is something very different from actual disagreement or difference of opinion - it's not a bad faith argument to hold a differing position as long as you are willing to discuss that position openly. The bad faith comes in when the fact that the position is different is used to defend the position itself, regardless of the content. We see this often when bigoted positions are outright rejected for the bigotry they contain - a routine defense then is "you're attacking it because you don't agree."
The reason this is insidious is because at a surface level, it's not wrong - the argument is getting dismissed because there is a fundamental disagreement. But what makes the argument dishonest is that is where things are left - that there is somehow an obligation that bigoted and hateful positions are respected as a "difference of opinion". The actual difference is meaningless to the argument - just that such a difference exists. And it's that ignoring of the content of the difference that makes the argument to be held in bad faith.
I can has cheezburger, yes?
Yes, when that word is enunciated correctly, it sounds like the word that is verboten on these forums. And unsurprisingly, black students in the class had a problem with this, making a complaint about this. The university has, also unsurprisingly, opened an investigation into the incident to figure out what's happening and the professor has voluntarily stepped back while said investigation is occurring.
Also unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are decrying this as a horrible violation of free speech and academic freedom - an argument that falls flat for me given the long, ignoble use by bigots of homophones to said word in a linguistic version of "I'm not touching you." It illustrates something that I see routinely in these arguments - an expectation that minorities put aside slights to them out of a sense of "for the greater good", along with shock that minority groups (understandibly) question principles that are used as weapons against them.
It seems to me that if you want your concerns to be taken seriously you should try to avoid looking like the literal definition of a bad political correctness stereotype? Unless there is some massive additional circumstantial evidence that you just completely failed to mention this is a reaction which is absurd on it's face. And it's the exact sort of thing that makes genuine issues of concern get mocked when they do happen.
Especially since you could just say "there are many words in other languages that are homophones for offensive words in ours, so be careful to check before assuming someone is being rude" and just leave it at that, or use less offensive examples.
Like, if it was a Chinese language class, sure, it's a bridge you have to cross, but it sounds like it was just a communications class.
Sure sure, context matters, American professor in American University with American students and all the history that comes with it, but at the same time... well, is the professor wrong? Is that particular word, enunciated correctly, a common Chinese filler word? Are we to give up 'truth as an absolute defense' because some fuckwits use homophones?
Is the issue that it was said at all, or that the professor failed to recognize that this particular class should have a content/trigger warning and have led into that a bit more carefully than just dropping a 'not-quite-but-maybe-an-n-bomb' in class?
Reading the article, they give examples of fights breaking out over this same juxtaposition. Seems like an awfully big knot to untie; certainly the systemic racism alive and well in America needs addressing, but should all Chinese speakers in America have to change their use of language to account for that similarity? Should all Chinese content that includes it be censored despite it not actually being a swear (which, mind you, could be hilarious, while also racist itself?)
That seems like a fair point.
If I found out that muttering "um" in a conversation was going to offend a stranger overhearing it, I'd probably try to be more cautious of using it within that society, but at the same time to me it's an innocuous word, and has no bearing on "uhm" being a horrific slur with centuries of horror associated with it.
This legit feels like a situation that requires a bit more nuance. Yes, this professor should be much more savvy to what they're conveying and how it is taught, no argument there. Whether or not suspension is appropriate I'm not entirely sold on.
*though maybe not since depending on what the class is about highlighting this exact kind of misunderstanding may be very relevant and this might be a really good example
There are some apparent factual incongruities to resolve in the accounts--the students and professor seem to disagree on the pronunciation of the word, on when he was first approached with complaints, and the students claim that he turned off zoom recording specifically to give that example which would be notable and odd. I'd be curious if it's true and if so what's going on there. In any case, there is existing video.
--some "campus reform" affiliated guy i don't know on twitter who appears to have posted the recording
For my own part, if the suggestion is supposed to be that the professor was so thirsty to say "the n word" to a group of people that he arranged an elaborate ruse to allow himself to do so, well, that strains credibility--particularly given his subsequent letter, and particularly if the specific factual claims he makes about working with students before and after on the example are true. That being said, one doesn't have to twirl one's mustache in order to fail to follow best practices; he himself in his letter seems to embrace the idea that he made a mistake, rather than sticking to his guns. But suspension is also not an ordinary punishment for making a teaching mistake, provided one does. In any case, my baseline expectation of university leadership and discipline in highly publicized and politically sensitive cases is that they will be insane, opaque, and exclusively reputationally motivated, because universities like USC are billion dollar brand identities and welcome to capitalism.
Never travel abroad and take care never to encounter a Mandarin-speaker where you live. Totally doable :rotate:
He was apparently trying to be inclusive.
So in the end the free speech crowd made a mountain out of a molehill. Again.
The thing is that academia has a long running history of telling black students to just deal with institutional racism as part of being in higher education, and it's not surprising that - especially now - black students are pushing back. The problem isn't that "it's a misunderstanding", but the expectation that seems present that black students are expected to put up with "misunderstanding" after "misunderstanding", knowing full well that some of those were anything but.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And when it's "always" a "misunderstanding"? What then? Because that's kinda one of the go-to excuses for horrible people.
Then you need to examine the specifics of the case and judge accordingly. It does not sound like this guy should be treated as if it was deliberate and malicious, just in case.
No, it just seems like it's the usual obliviousness to context that makes up the majority of institutional racism in higher education. Which is the problem. At what point do black students get to say "this isn't okay"?
When you aren't telling Chinese Students that their language has to be subservient to English.
Like, this is the same level of "Your name is Wang? Teehee" just with added baggage of racism.
My political cynicism whispers that accuracy and credibility don't matter in shaping society because the vast majority of decisions aren't made by reason or morality. That kill-em-all-and-let-god-sort-em-out approach to bigotry may be more successful than reasoning it out every time, even if I find it kinda gross.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
No, I see it more as being why one wouldn't reach for the English idiom "a chink in one's armor" when talking with an individual of Chinese heritage, even if it might be an acceptable statement for the situation. Nobody is saying that Chinese is subservient to English - people are making the point that this one word sounds like an ethnic slur, so you should be aware of that.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
But this just makes me think I should be skeptical when I hear that someone said something racist, because that might mean they said "a chink in someone's armor" in an appropriate context and the story is stupid nonsense.
I could investigate on my own but I don't have time to drill down into every story about someone saying something racist, so I'll probably go based on who I heard it from.
And if last time that particular person or news organization or whatever brought something to my attention and I looked into it it was about "a chink in someone's armor" I'll assume the new thing is nonsense too.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well, an investigation is what roundly set off the people criticizing the students so maybe there's some pot/kettle things going on here.
Yeah, overall, what's the point in being premature?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
They can already say it's not ok. Right now, the level of not-ok-ness is commensurate with "don't do that again". If he keeps doing it, escalate. If he doesn't... that strongly suggests it was an actual misunderstanding. You can't just handle all these with a grim trigger.
Is this part of a larger pattern for this professor? Cause I've seen nothing that suggests that. So it seems like it's just, at worst, a misunderstanding.
Funnily enough, the very BBC article you link actually suggests why him using this example is highly relevant to the topic he seems to have been talking about: This seems like the kind of thing where maybe what we should be doing is educating people about things like "other languages use sounds that seem like words you know but aren't because it's a completely different language".