4 ms·

Nobody is actually offended by this sort of stuff, it's just one more weapon in the culture war.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Perhaps so, but it sure seems to be a weapon that's used indiscriminately. It's used against (almost[1]) everyone it possibly can be used against. That is, this guy wasn't someone that the woke were perpetually looking for a chance to attack, and he finally slipped up and they got him. This guy was just someone that the weapon could be used against, and so it was used against him. [1] I presume that there are people who would not be destroyed for using certain racial epithets. Rappers are certainly an exception (or else they just don't care). Politicians that the woke like seem to also be exempt, but the right tries to use the same weapon against them. But the weapon doesn't seem to work when the right wields it...
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I think that to a great extent this is a matter of trust in the speaker. When an audience trusts the speaker's opinions, they can easily accept the use of problematic language as benign. But when the speaker is not trusted, it's easy to take what to the speaker seems like benign use of a word the wrong way. For example, the speaker here believed they were just clarifying the use of a word, to distinguish between someone saying the literal phrase 'the N word' vs someone literally saying n**r. The speaker knows themselves to be above reproach and very conscious of their use of language, having often engaged in debate about appropriate VS inappropriate use of this word, with careful consideration etc. They are used to speaking to audiences who sees them in this way. However, one day he finds himself doing this with an audience who doesn't know much about their antiracist credentials, and who is weary of him as someone who seems to be pretty politically incorrect. They are probably primed to see him as an establishment old white man, who is by virtue of this alone usually, in their (real or just imagined) experience, on the wrong side of history on this issue. One of them is probing him on a sensitive issue, and is careful to say 'the N word' since that is what is proper in their view. And here this man comes and feels the need to use exactly the word that should be avoided, perhaps condescendingly or because he just isn't aware of how hurtful it seems to them. None of the parties is truly right or wrong here. The journalist didn't mean to cause any harm, and didn't think he could possibly be construed as meaning so. The kids don't trust his intentions are not easily convinced by nuanced debate. He should have known better than to use his usual discourse. They should accept that he knows better than them these topics and should know who to trust and who not to. Note that this is exactly the reason why rap is one of the very few places where use of the N word has persisted. Rappers were trusted by their audience, and their use of it continues to be trusted in general. But if Sean Hannity used it, who would believe that he was not being malicious?
- brandmeyer 6y ago
  > That is, this guy wasn't someone that the woke were perpetually looking for a chance to attack You sure about that? The opening of part one goes like this. > I don't think I'm an asshole, but [describes some asshole behaviors]. To be clear, he sounds like an ass much like Theo de Raadt, Linus Torvalds, and Ulric Drepper are asses. Those people are my kind of jerk and I don't mind it so much since their signal-to-noise ratio is so high. But plenty of people do mind. He very well could have been painting a target on his back all that time.
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> But the weapon doesn't seem to work when the right wields it... These are weapons of the left. Your supporters have to have the same mindset for them to work.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Policing speech is a weapon for everyone. How often did you hear swear words on TV 20 years ago? Do you think it was the left keeping 'fuck' out of year shot of any impressionable teens? Did the Dixie Chicks get canceled by the left for saying that they didn't support the war in Iraq?
    - phkahler 6y ago
      Fair points. But now we have professors getting fired. We have presidents getting canceled. Maybe it's just gotten more extreme.
    - kian 6y ago
      While speech suppression is a weapon that both sides are more than happy to wield, are you familiar with the history of parental advisory labeling on speech in music? That was the left, specifically Al Gore's wife Tipper, that was responsible for keeping 'fuck' out of earshot of teens in music. TV and The Dixie Chicks are a different situation (although notice that now they are no longer called the Dixie Chicks, and not because of a conservative backlash.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mindslight 6y ago
At the basic level, does this even have anything to do with a "culture war"? More like it's simply a social weapon, apparently capable of moving the New York Times, being handed to teenagers. Of course some of them are going to pull that lever to test what they can do!
etchalon 6y ago
Of course people are actually offended by it.

Perhaps so, but it sure seems to be a weapon that's used indiscriminately. It's used against (almost[1]) everyone it possibly can be used against. That is, this guy wasn't someone that the woke were perpetually looking for a chance to attack, and he finally slipped up and they got him. This guy was just someone that the weapon could be used against, and so it was used against him. [1] I presume that there are people who would not be destroyed for using certain racial epithets. Rappers are certainly an exception (or else they just don't care). Politicians that the woke like seem to also be exempt, but the right tries to use the same weapon against them. But the weapon doesn't seem to work when the right wields it...

tsimionescu 6y ago
I think that to a great extent this is a matter of trust in the speaker. When an audience trusts the speaker's opinions, they can easily accept the use of problematic language as benign. But when the speaker is not trusted, it's easy to take what to the speaker seems like benign use of a word the wrong way. For example, the speaker here believed they were just clarifying the use of a word, to distinguish between someone saying the literal phrase 'the N word' vs someone literally saying n**r. The speaker knows themselves to be above reproach and very conscious of their use of language, having often engaged in debate about appropriate VS inappropriate use of this word, with careful consideration etc. They are used to speaking to audiences who sees them in this way. However, one day he finds himself doing this with an audience who doesn't know much about their antiracist credentials, and who is weary of him as someone who seems to be pretty politically incorrect. They are probably primed to see him as an establishment old white man, who is by virtue of this alone usually, in their (real or just imagined) experience, on the wrong side of history on this issue. One of them is probing him on a sensitive issue, and is careful to say 'the N word' since that is what is proper in their view. And here this man comes and feels the need to use exactly the word that should be avoided, perhaps condescendingly or because he just isn't aware of how hurtful it seems to them. None of the parties is truly right or wrong here. The journalist didn't mean to cause any harm, and didn't think he could possibly be construed as meaning so. The kids don't trust his intentions are not easily convinced by nuanced debate. He should have known better than to use his usual discourse. They should accept that he knows better than them these topics and should know who to trust and who not to. Note that this is exactly the reason why rap is one of the very few places where use of the N word has persisted. Rappers were trusted by their audience, and their use of it continues to be trusted in general. But if Sean Hannity used it, who would believe that he was not being malicious?
brandmeyer 6y ago
> That is, this guy wasn't someone that the woke were perpetually looking for a chance to attack You sure about that? The opening of part one goes like this. > I don't think I'm an asshole, but [describes some asshole behaviors]. To be clear, he sounds like an ass much like Theo de Raadt, Linus Torvalds, and Ulric Drepper are asses. Those people are my kind of jerk and I don't mind it so much since their signal-to-noise ratio is so high. But plenty of people do mind. He very well could have been painting a target on his back all that time.
phkahler 6y ago
>> But the weapon doesn't seem to work when the right wields it... These are weapons of the left. Your supporters have to have the same mindset for them to work.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  Policing speech is a weapon for everyone. How often did you hear swear words on TV 20 years ago? Do you think it was the left keeping 'fuck' out of year shot of any impressionable teens? Did the Dixie Chicks get canceled by the left for saying that they didn't support the war in Iraq?
  - phkahler 6y ago
    Fair points. But now we have professors getting fired. We have presidents getting canceled. Maybe it's just gotten more extreme.
  - kian 6y ago
    While speech suppression is a weapon that both sides are more than happy to wield, are you familiar with the history of parental advisory labeling on speech in music? That was the left, specifically Al Gore's wife Tipper, that was responsible for keeping 'fuck' out of earshot of teens in music. TV and The Dixie Chicks are a different situation (although notice that now they are no longer called the Dixie Chicks, and not because of a conservative backlash.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mindslight 6y ago

At the basic level, does this even have anything to do with a "culture war"? More like it's simply a social weapon, apparently capable of moving the New York Times, being handed to teenagers. Of course some of them are going to pull that lever to test what they can do!

etchalon 6y ago

Of course people are actually offended by it.