3 ms·

Ironically it's this comment that raises Red Flags. There's really nothing whatsoever in his articulation that is flag worthy. He's clearly a little bit curmu

by jariel 6y ago

Ironically it's this comment that raises Red Flags. There's really nothing whatsoever in his articulation that is flag worthy. He's clearly a little bit curmudgeon, and probably disagreeable and there's nothing wrong with that.

klmadfejno 6y ago
Repeatedly saying things that makes people uncomfortable has consequences. There's liberal and conservative versions of it. Not comprehending the social consequences of your words is a problem. You personally finding one specific individual not problematic is completely irrelevant to understand how he got himself in that situation.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  The issue at hand, though, is that the consequences being levied are nowhere near commensurate with the word being used. The Times's own coverage stated explicitly that the word was used in reference. The notional that being fired is the social consequence for uttering the n-word in any context, even in reference, falls well out of line of what most people think. I'm 27 and this is appalling even to me. Conflating saying a word in reference, and using it as a pejorative is willful ignorance, I and my classmates were taught this explicitly in high school. I doubt this is a generational thing, unless it's a very recent phenomenon. I suspect it's more about gaining prestige and recognition in "outing" purported racists.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Imagine you go to a foreign country and point at something you like. To your surprise, this is a deeply offensive gesture to the locals and they get upset. Rather than apologizing for doing something unintentionally, you take the position that you didn't know, so you can't be held accountable for it. How do you imagine they're going to respond? And secondly, I just don't really believe you. I don't believe you would feel comfortable saying the n-word around several black people you don't know and using it generically without feel acutely aware that you've likely put yourself in a very socially uncomfortable situation.
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      > Imagine you go to a foreign country and point at something you like. To your surprise, this is a deeply offensive gesture to the locals and they get upset. Rather than apologizing for doing something unintentionally, you take the position that you didn't know, so you can't be held accountable for it. How do you imagine they're going to respond? Except this wasn't foreigners taking offense. It was other white Americans that took offense at its use. And it's a very inconsistent taboo, as well. The New York Times has used the word in its own pieces [1]. > And secondly, I just don't really believe you. I don't believe you would feel comfortable saying the n-word around several black people you don't know and using it generically without feel acutely aware that you've likely put yourself in a very socially uncomfortable situation. What am I supposed to tell you other than that you're wrong? In my experience black people are fully aware of the distinction between mentioning and use of of the word, and aren't offended by the former. I'm no less comfortable than talking about the word "kike" in front of Jewish people, or "fag" in front of gay people, etc. Notice how this kind of hysteria surrounding mentioning this slur even in reference is mostly raised by other white people, not black people. This kind of intense taboo is more than a little condescending. It seems to be implying that black people are incapable of distinguishing between use and mention of slurs, while most (all?) other groups can. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/omarosa-donald-trump-racial-slur.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/omarosa-donal...
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        That's not what I said. Of course there are black people who can have a nuanced conversation. Very few people cannot. But you don't just jump into a nuanced conversation. You have to establish a social context for it. The question here is not, "can we establish a context to use this word", it's "did the people in this incident feel that context was established?" The answer was no. A normal person might make this mistake. My point in the foreigner example is that when you make a mistake and upset people, you acknowledge the harm you've caused, and explain your good intentions. You don't justify your intentions and expect people to deal. As much as one's logical virtue may desire, that's just not how people work on any political spectrum. There's plenty of ways to piss off conservative folks with mere words. If you do it unintentionally, which this guy did, you have ample room to recover, because, contrary to popular belief, even woke young white kids are reasonable people.
- bloaf 6y ago
  The witches in a witch hunt are "guilty" of making their communities uncomfortable, but we are perfectly comfortable pointing our fingers at the intolerance of the communities rather than the idiosyncrasies of the witches.

by jariel 6y ago

klmadfejno 6y ago

Repeatedly saying things that makes people uncomfortable has consequences. There's liberal and conservative versions of it. Not comprehending the social consequences of your words is a problem. You personally finding one specific individual not problematic is completely irrelevant to understand how he got himself in that situation.

sir_bearington 6y ago
The issue at hand, though, is that the consequences being levied are nowhere near commensurate with the word being used. The Times's own coverage stated explicitly that the word was used in reference. The notional that being fired is the social consequence for uttering the n-word in any context, even in reference, falls well out of line of what most people think. I'm 27 and this is appalling even to me. Conflating saying a word in reference, and using it as a pejorative is willful ignorance, I and my classmates were taught this explicitly in high school. I doubt this is a generational thing, unless it's a very recent phenomenon. I suspect it's more about gaining prestige and recognition in "outing" purported racists.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  Imagine you go to a foreign country and point at something you like. To your surprise, this is a deeply offensive gesture to the locals and they get upset. Rather than apologizing for doing something unintentionally, you take the position that you didn't know, so you can't be held accountable for it. How do you imagine they're going to respond? And secondly, I just don't really believe you. I don't believe you would feel comfortable saying the n-word around several black people you don't know and using it generically without feel acutely aware that you've likely put yourself in a very socially uncomfortable situation.
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    > Imagine you go to a foreign country and point at something you like. To your surprise, this is a deeply offensive gesture to the locals and they get upset. Rather than apologizing for doing something unintentionally, you take the position that you didn't know, so you can't be held accountable for it. How do you imagine they're going to respond? Except this wasn't foreigners taking offense. It was other white Americans that took offense at its use. And it's a very inconsistent taboo, as well. The New York Times has used the word in its own pieces [1]. > And secondly, I just don't really believe you. I don't believe you would feel comfortable saying the n-word around several black people you don't know and using it generically without feel acutely aware that you've likely put yourself in a very socially uncomfortable situation. What am I supposed to tell you other than that you're wrong? In my experience black people are fully aware of the distinction between mentioning and use of of the word, and aren't offended by the former. I'm no less comfortable than talking about the word "kike" in front of Jewish people, or "fag" in front of gay people, etc. Notice how this kind of hysteria surrounding mentioning this slur even in reference is mostly raised by other white people, not black people. This kind of intense taboo is more than a little condescending. It seems to be implying that black people are incapable of distinguishing between use and mention of slurs, while most (all?) other groups can. 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/omarosa-donald-trump-racial-slur.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/us/politics/omarosa-donal...
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      That's not what I said. Of course there are black people who can have a nuanced conversation. Very few people cannot. But you don't just jump into a nuanced conversation. You have to establish a social context for it. The question here is not, "can we establish a context to use this word", it's "did the people in this incident feel that context was established?" The answer was no. A normal person might make this mistake. My point in the foreigner example is that when you make a mistake and upset people, you acknowledge the harm you've caused, and explain your good intentions. You don't justify your intentions and expect people to deal. As much as one's logical virtue may desire, that's just not how people work on any political spectrum. There's plenty of ways to piss off conservative folks with mere words. If you do it unintentionally, which this guy did, you have ample room to recover, because, contrary to popular belief, even woke young white kids are reasonable people.
bloaf 6y ago
The witches in a witch hunt are "guilty" of making their communities uncomfortable, but we are perfectly comfortable pointing our fingers at the intolerance of the communities rather than the idiosyncrasies of the witches.