4 ms·

> I'd like to draw attention to the "white only" sign on a bathroom door in SUNY. Because it was a black female who did it, it was called art. Had it been a whi

by nmrm2 11y ago

> I'd like to draw attention to the "white only" sign on a bathroom door in SUNY. Because it was a black female who did it, it was called art. Had it been a white male, it would have been called hate crime. We can clearly do better than this. It was called art because that was its intention. Context matters. Pretending that all words should always mean the same thing regardless of context is a woefully inadequate approach toward understanding human speech. And yes, the person speaking and their intention is part of context. Surely you don't take people literally when they speak to you in an ironic or satirical tone?!

whatok 11y ago
Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area. I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male.
- 7Z7 11y ago
  I don't think that's true. If the male artist had the vocabulary to express the intended sentiment, in the same way that the female artist in question was able to, I don't think there would have been the issue you raise. There may indeed have been a different issue, of appropriateness of voice, but I don't think it would have been the hate crime you claim.
  - whatok 11y ago
    I did not claim anything about hate crimes. Only that a black female will get treated much differently than a white male in a situation like this given the art defense. Art should be consumed independently of its creator imo.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... > I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male. That would almost certainly depend on the underlying intent and message. I think you're completely wrong about how improtant identity is in this case, especially if we're trying to determine whether most people would view something as hate speech. The only thing special about a black female is that her underlying intent and message is obivous in context... which, yeah, context matters. Fact Of Human Communication. If the message were the same as the black female's, it would maybe be identified as "problematic" by some people, but I doubt anyone would call it hate speech. NOTE: This was EXACTLY the response when the black female posted the signs! There was plenty of criticism about tactics even though she was a black female. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-roiled-art-project-whites-only-posters-around-campus https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-... If the message were something like "free speech is important", I doubt most people would be sympathetic. Especially mature and thoughtful free-speech activists (even as they defended his right to express those opinions in non-graffiti settings). There are just much better ways of communicating that message. But in any case this almost certainly would not -- de jure -- be considered hate speech. If it were a professed white nationalist -- as it is in this case -- then it might be considered hate speech and maybe even a hate crime b/c it was graffiti (or, in the case of the article, possibly unauthorized access) (edit: holy shit a -2 mod on a comment pointing out that context is important to interpreting a message... LOL)
  - whatok 11y ago
    > And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... People are extremely quick to judge and I am more than certain that if revealed, a white male would be doxxed to infinity and would not be taken at face value with the art defense. We live in an internet outrage society; something like that is red meat. > stuff on messaging Messaging only matters if people want to hear the message. Free speech is being shouted down on campuses across the nation. People do not want to hear opposing views, they want to silence them.
    - nmrm2 11y ago
      > Free speech is being shouted down on campuses across the nation. The threats to free speech on college campuses come from a lot of directions, but angry undergrads aren't one of them. In fact, politicizing higher education by insisting that campuses are too liberal is far more likely to lead to socially meaningful self-censorship. Even supposing you're not being paranoid -- which I think you are -- white men not painting racially charged messages on bathroom doors isn't exactly a big loss to society. However, public intellectuals shying away from studying politically charged topics (gun control policy, abortions and contraceptives, stem cells, fundamentalist religions, climate change, etc.) because of political meddling in university hiring and firing decisions is definitely a big loss. People who complain about free speech on college campuses should carefully consider the actual agendas of the politicians that are manufacturing and harnessing their outrage...

by nmrm2 11y ago

whatok 11y ago

Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area. I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male.

7Z7 11y ago
I don't think that's true. If the male artist had the vocabulary to express the intended sentiment, in the same way that the female artist in question was able to, I don't think there would have been the issue you raise. There may indeed have been a different issue, of appropriateness of voice, but I don't think it would have been the hate crime you claim.
- whatok 11y ago
  I did not claim anything about hate crimes. Only that a black female will get treated much differently than a white male in a situation like this given the art defense. Art should be consumed independently of its creator imo.
nmrm2 11y ago
> Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... > I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male. That would almost certainly depend on the underlying intent and message. I think you're completely wrong about how improtant identity is in this case, especially if we're trying to determine whether most people would view something as hate speech. The only thing special about a black female is that her underlying intent and message is obivous in context... which, yeah, context matters. Fact Of Human Communication. If the message were the same as the black female's, it would maybe be identified as "problematic" by some people, but I doubt anyone would call it hate speech. NOTE: This was EXACTLY the response when the black female posted the signs! There was plenty of criticism about tactics even though she was a black female. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-roiled-art-project-whites-only-posters-around-campus https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-... If the message were something like "free speech is important", I doubt most people would be sympathetic. Especially mature and thoughtful free-speech activists (even as they defended his right to express those opinions in non-graffiti settings). There are just much better ways of communicating that message. But in any case this almost certainly would not -- de jure -- be considered hate speech. If it were a professed white nationalist -- as it is in this case -- then it might be considered hate speech and maybe even a hate crime b/c it was graffiti (or, in the case of the article, possibly unauthorized access) (edit: holy shit a -2 mod on a comment pointing out that context is important to interpreting a message... LOL)
- whatok 11y ago
  > And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... People are extremely quick to judge and I am more than certain that if revealed, a white male would be doxxed to infinity and would not be taken at face value with the art defense. We live in an internet outrage society; something like that is red meat. > stuff on messaging Messaging only matters if people want to hear the message. Free speech is being shouted down on campuses across the nation. People do not want to hear opposing views, they want to silence them.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > Free speech is being shouted down on campuses across the nation. The threats to free speech on college campuses come from a lot of directions, but angry undergrads aren't one of them. In fact, politicizing higher education by insisting that campuses are too liberal is far more likely to lead to socially meaningful self-censorship. Even supposing you're not being paranoid -- which I think you are -- white men not painting racially charged messages on bathroom doors isn't exactly a big loss to society. However, public intellectuals shying away from studying politically charged topics (gun control policy, abortions and contraceptives, stem cells, fundamentalist religions, climate change, etc.) because of political meddling in university hiring and firing decisions is definitely a big loss. People who complain about free speech on college campuses should carefully consider the actual agendas of the politicians that are manufacturing and harnessing their outrage...