7 ms·

> On Friday, Bill Maher said the N-word on live television. And that's all the context we get. Not the full sentence, not whether it was part of a joke, I don'

> On Friday, Bill Maher said the N-word on live television. And that's all the context we get. Not the full sentence, not whether it was part of a joke, I don't even know if the guy who said it was black (though I suppose not, given what follows). How am I supposed to evaluate an apology if I don't know what is being apologized for? And without that evaluation, this example adds nothing to the article. It fails as an example because it doesn't show whether this was a good and appropriate apology or not.

nieksand 6y ago
Dangerous questions! This is the world Americans now live in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McNeil_Jr.#Dismissal_from_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McNeil_Jr.#Dismissal_fr...
- yosamino 6y ago
  Incidentally and apropos to the subject at hand, McNeil's apology is a pretty good one: “I was asked at a dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself,” McNeil said in his note to the staff. “I should not have done that. Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinarily bad judgment. For that I apologize.” https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-jr-ousted-after-using-n-word-with-students/ https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-jr-o...
  - enriquto 6y ago
    It's not a good apology. It's a sad surrendering of one's dignity to appease an angry mob.
    - seoulbran 6y ago
      Exactly. Keep up the good fight. The well-intentioned like yosamino are blindly walking off the cliff.
      - yosamino 6y ago
        You did notice that I specifically commented on the structure of the apology wrt to the contents of the article - not about it's neccessity ? > good fight. Good fight for what specifically ?
yosamino 6y ago
What do you need the full sentence for, though? A passing familiarity with ethnic slurs and why they're tabooed, will already give you the answer that once you start splitting hairs about why or why not something that was said is offensive, then that is probably an indicator that - even if if it was a joke or the person saying it was part of the minority being slurred - it was inappropriate to say it. A passing familiarity with Bill Maher will give you the answer that he's not probably a person who would care all that much about my argument. All that being said, I am not sure I follow your conclusion that it's impossible to evaluate an apology without knowledge what it's for. The argument the article brings forth is about the structure and content of apologies in general. There's no need to cover each offense in detail.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  once you have evaluated the structures of apologies to find what constitutes a good apology, and disseminated your findings far enough, it will cease to be a good apology because it would become a target and cease to be meaningful, everyone who didn't actually believe in apologizing would nonetheless use the well-structured apology to get what they wanted out of it - forgiveness of their fault.
RicoElectrico 6y ago
The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. Some on the left just want to get their "social justice fix" by pressuring to get people fired or shame them for absurd reasons like "cultural appropriation". And then they are surprised why far-right grows in reaction to this. Or maybe not, maybe that was the point of both sides to have an enemy you can fight with for eternity. Horseshoe theory in practice.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- yosamino 6y ago
  > The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. I don't think this is a good argument in general to be made when trying to justify the rise of the far-right, but in this particular instance, where Maher made an offensive attempt at humor, it's unjustified. The context of the incident doesn't really matter to the article in question, and if one would want to know about context it's really easy to find out - this is an artice on the internet and not in a print after all. And there is really not much nuance to his comment that would justify an in depth explaination.
- danaliv 6y ago
  I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. Also, it’s just kind of... weird... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one?
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > Of all the hills to die on, why that one? It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. I say that from a far-left perspective, and as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs. There is a time and place for speech; and certainly in an academic or otherwise serious adult context, any racial slur can be used. If you cannot do so safely, this means that there's not really free speech, and it is a totally fine hill to die on.
lldbg 6y ago
What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.
- kenjackson 6y ago
  Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.
  - lldbg 6y ago
    Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar. I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.
    - foldr 6y ago
      >English does not have a context free grammar. Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.
      - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
        We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.
        foldr 6y ago
        As a linguist, I can assure you that there is no 'linguistic' concept of a context-free grammar as distinct from the mathematical concept. A language being non-context-free just means that the string language doesn't fall within a certain class. It in fact took quite a while to show conclusively that English was not context-free; it's far from obvious. None of this has anything to do with 'context' in the sense we're talking about here.
dbt00 6y ago
Well, the article is from 4 years ago, and presumably people then were already aware of it, but since you asked: > MAHER: Adults dress up for Halloween, they don’t do that in Nebraska? > SASSE: It’s frowned upon. We don’t do that quite as much. > MAHER: I gotta get to Nebraska more. > SASSE: You’re welcome. We’d love to have you work in the fields with us. > MAHER: Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house ni*er.

nieksand 6y ago

Dangerous questions! This is the world Americans now live in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McNeil_Jr.#Dismissal_from_The_New_York_Times https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McNeil_Jr.#Dismissal_fr...

yosamino 6y ago
Incidentally and apropos to the subject at hand, McNeil's apology is a pretty good one: “I was asked at a dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself,” McNeil said in his note to the staff. “I should not have done that. Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinarily bad judgment. For that I apologize.” https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-jr-ousted-after-using-n-word-with-students/ https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-jr-o...
- enriquto 6y ago
  It's not a good apology. It's a sad surrendering of one's dignity to appease an angry mob.
  - seoulbran 6y ago
    Exactly. Keep up the good fight. The well-intentioned like yosamino are blindly walking off the cliff.
    - yosamino 6y ago
      You did notice that I specifically commented on the structure of the apology wrt to the contents of the article - not about it's neccessity ? > good fight. Good fight for what specifically ?

yosamino 6y ago

What do you need the full sentence for, though? A passing familiarity with ethnic slurs and why they're tabooed, will already give you the answer that once you start splitting hairs about why or why not something that was said is offensive, then that is probably an indicator that - even if if it was a joke or the person saying it was part of the minority being slurred - it was inappropriate to say it. A passing familiarity with Bill Maher will give you the answer that he's not probably a person who would care all that much about my argument. All that being said, I am not sure I follow your conclusion that it's impossible to evaluate an apology without knowledge what it's for. The argument the article brings forth is about the structure and content of apologies in general. There's no need to cover each offense in detail.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
once you have evaluated the structures of apologies to find what constitutes a good apology, and disseminated your findings far enough, it will cease to be a good apology because it would become a target and cease to be meaningful, everyone who didn't actually believe in apologizing would nonetheless use the well-structured apology to get what they wanted out of it - forgiveness of their fault.

RicoElectrico 6y ago

The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. Some on the left just want to get their "social justice fix" by pressuring to get people fired or shame them for absurd reasons like "cultural appropriation". And then they are surprised why far-right grows in reaction to this. Or maybe not, maybe that was the point of both sides to have an enemy you can fight with for eternity. Horseshoe theory in practice.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
yosamino 6y ago
> The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. I don't think this is a good argument in general to be made when trying to justify the rise of the far-right, but in this particular instance, where Maher made an offensive attempt at humor, it's unjustified. The context of the incident doesn't really matter to the article in question, and if one would want to know about context it's really easy to find out - this is an artice on the internet and not in a print after all. And there is really not much nuance to his comment that would justify an in depth explaination.
danaliv 6y ago
I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. Also, it’s just kind of... weird... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one?
- enriquto 6y ago
  > Of all the hills to die on, why that one? It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. I say that from a far-left perspective, and as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs. There is a time and place for speech; and certainly in an academic or otherwise serious adult context, any racial slur can be used. If you cannot do so safely, this means that there's not really free speech, and it is a totally fine hill to die on.

lldbg 6y ago

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

kenjackson 6y ago
Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.
- lldbg 6y ago
  Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar. I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.
  - foldr 6y ago
    >English does not have a context free grammar. Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
      We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.
      - foldr 6y ago
        As a linguist, I can assure you that there is no 'linguistic' concept of a context-free grammar as distinct from the mathematical concept. A language being non-context-free just means that the string language doesn't fall within a certain class. It in fact took quite a while to show conclusively that English was not context-free; it's far from obvious. None of this has anything to do with 'context' in the sense we're talking about here.

dbt00 6y ago

Well, the article is from 4 years ago, and presumably people then were already aware of it, but since you asked: > MAHER: Adults dress up for Halloween, they don’t do that in Nebraska? > SASSE: It’s frowned upon. We don’t do that quite as much. > MAHER: I gotta get to Nebraska more. > SASSE: You’re welcome. We’d love to have you work in the fields with us. > MAHER: Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house ni*er.