4 ms·

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

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.
  - danaliv 6y ago
    > It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. This particular conversation started with a very old one; regardless, I’m not sure I follow. This claim is in no way self-evident. > as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs I’m very sorry to hear that.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      > I’m very sorry to hear that. No need to be sorry, you didn't do anything wrong. If anything, I'm much more hurt by the prospect of a world where taboo words cannot even be discussed about, than a world where random weirdos insult me on the street. If you want to be sorry about something useful, please make efforts so that taboo words can be used safely, at least when talking about them! Millions of people are learning English every day all over the world. How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them?
      - foldr 6y ago
        >How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them? Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word? We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".
        enriquto 6y ago
        > We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? > The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting". It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".
- jhanschoo 6y ago
  It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spectrum can have different moral implications. - On the one extreme, there are trigger words peculiar to particular individuals that are not widely known, which also have neutral everyday meanings. It's difficult to fault a person for uttering them. - Then there are words that are hurtful against particular communities, but their slur status are not widely known and they also have a common neutral meaning. - There are also words with a widely known slur status but with neutral meanings that are entrenched (e.g. retarded). - And of course there are words like the n-word that everybody uses for the slur meaning, even when they don't mean to directly offend. People make everyday words into slurs all the time when they decide to communicate an insult with them. And even among widespread slurs not all slurs trigger hurt to an equal degree; at one extreme when a word is intended as a slur is uttered by a weak person and there is no history of tolerated bigotry associated with the slur, it is typically less effective at hurting. > 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. Do you suppose if among (black) people who frequently use the n-word to establish closeness, reporting on someone using it as the n-word as a slur would be just as unacceptable as using it directly intending to insult (as improbable as the latter would happen)?
- mbg721 6y ago
  Perpetually magnifying the power of a specific word just gives the people who would be hateful anyway a much more efficient method of causing pain, and creates collateral damage among people who are specifically trying not to be hateful.
- DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
  > I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. I fail to see how this is relevant. In a discussion about principles it does not matter whether one is affected by a thing or not. The point here is that use-mention is categorically a meaningful distinction. > 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. This kinda brings us back to the question at the core of many modern left-vs-right issues: does anybody have the right not to be offended? My position is a clear no: if hearing a word triggers some trauma for you, that's your issue to deal with. You can't expect the whole world to avoid even mentioning a word you're uncomfortable with. And going from there, use/mention is indeed a meaningful distinction, because it is only the message that we can judge, not the wording. Calling someone "unpleasant" in one tone can convey much more aggression in one tone of voice than calling them an "asshole" in a different tone. Cultural context plays almost as big a role as well: just as the same word might have completely different meanings in different languages (like "after" in english and German), words can have very different nuances or even entirely different meanings depending on the cultural context of the speaker. > 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? Is it weird to insist on freedom of expression? I don't think it is, quite the contrary, actually.
roenxi 6y ago
Hypothetically, if Bill Maher had refused to apologies he would have been on the fast track to being identified as a member of the alt-right. It is difficult to assess what "far-right grow[th]" means in a context where far right is defined as a position relative to the beliefs of the far left. It isn't clear who is changing their opinions. In a sense, given that this would have been unremarkable in the 50s, presumably the only thing the modern far-right has been doing is shrinking.
thinkharderdev 6y ago
I always hear this sentiment that the far right is a reaction to "SJWs" but I don't think it makes any sort of sense. Is the idea that there wasn't a "far right" before SJWs were a thing. More to the point, there were waves of racial terror periodically throughout US history in response to efforts to guarantee basic civil rights. But I hope we can look back and see those phenomena for what they were. Why are we so sure that this time is different?
perl4ever 6y ago
>The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering There is a certain amount of ambiguity between use/mention. The possibility of ambiguity leads to people being paranoid. Everything that is "mentioned" is being "used" for the purpose of mentioning it. It's a choice that is made, and intentions can be inferred. It's easy to see it as passive-aggressive behavior, and impossible to know what is in someone's heart. Just because you know or claim to know the truth about something doesn't mean it's automatically logical for someone else to agree. Thinking about things carefully often leads to less certainty.

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.
- danaliv 6y ago
  > It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. This particular conversation started with a very old one; regardless, I’m not sure I follow. This claim is in no way self-evident. > as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs I’m very sorry to hear that.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    > I’m very sorry to hear that. No need to be sorry, you didn't do anything wrong. If anything, I'm much more hurt by the prospect of a world where taboo words cannot even be discussed about, than a world where random weirdos insult me on the street. If you want to be sorry about something useful, please make efforts so that taboo words can be used safely, at least when talking about them! Millions of people are learning English every day all over the world. How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them?
    - foldr 6y ago
      >How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them? Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word? We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".
      - enriquto 6y ago
        > We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us. I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please? > The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting". It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".
jhanschoo 6y ago
It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spectrum can have different moral implications. - On the one extreme, there are trigger words peculiar to particular individuals that are not widely known, which also have neutral everyday meanings. It's difficult to fault a person for uttering them. - Then there are words that are hurtful against particular communities, but their slur status are not widely known and they also have a common neutral meaning. - There are also words with a widely known slur status but with neutral meanings that are entrenched (e.g. retarded). - And of course there are words like the n-word that everybody uses for the slur meaning, even when they don't mean to directly offend. People make everyday words into slurs all the time when they decide to communicate an insult with them. And even among widespread slurs not all slurs trigger hurt to an equal degree; at one extreme when a word is intended as a slur is uttered by a weak person and there is no history of tolerated bigotry associated with the slur, it is typically less effective at hurting. > 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. Do you suppose if among (black) people who frequently use the n-word to establish closeness, reporting on someone using it as the n-word as a slur would be just as unacceptable as using it directly intending to insult (as improbable as the latter would happen)?
mbg721 6y ago
Perpetually magnifying the power of a specific word just gives the people who would be hateful anyway a much more efficient method of causing pain, and creates collateral damage among people who are specifically trying not to be hateful.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
> I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. I fail to see how this is relevant. In a discussion about principles it does not matter whether one is affected by a thing or not. The point here is that use-mention is categorically a meaningful distinction. > 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. This kinda brings us back to the question at the core of many modern left-vs-right issues: does anybody have the right not to be offended? My position is a clear no: if hearing a word triggers some trauma for you, that's your issue to deal with. You can't expect the whole world to avoid even mentioning a word you're uncomfortable with. And going from there, use/mention is indeed a meaningful distinction, because it is only the message that we can judge, not the wording. Calling someone "unpleasant" in one tone can convey much more aggression in one tone of voice than calling them an "asshole" in a different tone. Cultural context plays almost as big a role as well: just as the same word might have completely different meanings in different languages (like "after" in english and German), words can have very different nuances or even entirely different meanings depending on the cultural context of the speaker. > 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? Is it weird to insist on freedom of expression? I don't think it is, quite the contrary, actually.

roenxi 6y ago

Hypothetically, if Bill Maher had refused to apologies he would have been on the fast track to being identified as a member of the alt-right. It is difficult to assess what "far-right grow[th]" means in a context where far right is defined as a position relative to the beliefs of the far left. It isn't clear who is changing their opinions. In a sense, given that this would have been unremarkable in the 50s, presumably the only thing the modern far-right has been doing is shrinking.

thinkharderdev 6y ago

I always hear this sentiment that the far right is a reaction to "SJWs" but I don't think it makes any sort of sense. Is the idea that there wasn't a "far right" before SJWs were a thing. More to the point, there were waves of racial terror periodically throughout US history in response to efforts to guarantee basic civil rights. But I hope we can look back and see those phenomena for what they were. Why are we so sure that this time is different?

perl4ever 6y ago

>The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering There is a certain amount of ambiguity between use/mention. The possibility of ambiguity leads to people being paranoid. Everything that is "mentioned" is being "used" for the purpose of mentioning it. It's a choice that is made, and intentions can be inferred. It's easy to see it as passive-aggressive behavior, and impossible to know what is in someone's heart. Just because you know or claim to know the truth about something doesn't mean it's automatically logical for someone else to agree. Thinking about things carefully often leads to less certainty.