4 ms·

Jokes that evoke racist hatred are not good, though. You don't actually know that NOBODY - literally you said that not a single person - was offended. Also, s

Jokes that evoke racist hatred are not good, though. You don't actually know that NOBODY - literally you said that not a single person - was offended. Also, so what if someone was offended? Isn't that mostly irrelevant to this debate? The goal isn't to stop people from offending others, the goal of changing our speech is to reduce the unknown harm that words can do re: normalization of hatred of minorities. The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny and do in fact have a potential to cause real harm in the world. I would posit that unchecked hatred towards minorities online for decades is one of the reasons we are in this 'mess' of language today.

pyr0hu 5y ago
I'd like everyone to stop speaking and stop writing anytthing because it MIGHT offend someone. /s
nate_meurer 5y ago
> The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny That's an opinion, and it's not a supportable opinion, because we don't really know much about the jokes. Parent's comment wasn't intended to convey the material faithfully-- just a bare description. We don't know the exact wording, the delivery, the timing, or any other context. Maybe they were lame (another opionion), but it's also possible that I (or even you) would have gotten a chuckle out it. Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. But if you assume the worst of people, you're certainly more likely to get it in return.
- cryptoz 5y ago
  > Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. Yes, there is. This is a very well-researched topic. https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-consequences-of-jokes-that-denigrate-63855 https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-co... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107/does-racist-humor-promote-racism https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107... etc.
  - textgel 5y ago
    Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue. Yes I think that one can be dismissed.
    - magnostherobot 5y ago
      I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers? > A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too. > a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue. I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to. If it's in relation to psychology experimental methods, then I believe you're incorrect. Methods that involve actively deceiving subjects would be rejected by ethics boards (at least, it would in the UK). On top of that, there are many papers that do not use observations of human behaviour, and so would not find use in lying to them - for example, many neuropsychology papers discuss the physical makeup of body parts. Psychology has been around for a long time, and some psychology results have deeply influenced society. Some of these papers cover the placebo effect, and various mental health conditions. If you are dismissing all psychology papers, do you also reject these influential papers? I'm sorry if this reply is a bit full-on, but dismissing a claim's provided evidence by dismissing an entire academic field seems a bit extreme to me.
      - textgel 5y ago
        > I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers? Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed. > I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment. > Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.
  - 5y ago

pyr0hu 5y ago

I'd like everyone to stop speaking and stop writing anytthing because it MIGHT offend someone. /s

nate_meurer 5y ago

> The 'jokes' you describe aren't funny That's an opinion, and it's not a supportable opinion, because we don't really know much about the jokes. Parent's comment wasn't intended to convey the material faithfully-- just a bare description. We don't know the exact wording, the delivery, the timing, or any other context. Maybe they were lame (another opionion), but it's also possible that I (or even you) would have gotten a chuckle out it. Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. But if you assume the worst of people, you're certainly more likely to get it in return.

cryptoz 5y ago
> Regardless, there's no reason to assume that humor of this nature serves to normalize racial hatred. Yes, there is. This is a very well-researched topic. https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-consequences-of-jokes-that-denigrate-63855 https://theconversation.com/psychology-behind-the-unfunny-co... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107/does-racist-humor-promote-racism https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/humor-sapiens/201107... etc.
- textgel 5y ago
  Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers. A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis, and a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue. Yes I think that one can be dismissed.
  - magnostherobot 5y ago
    I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers? > A field currently drowning in a reproducibility crisis My peers have told me that chemistry and biology also suffer from results that are difficult to reproduce, and I've certainly read a number of articles here that decry the lack of reproducibility in computer science too. > a group who believe that lying and slander is not only okay but should be actively utilised in every goal they pursue. I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to. If it's in relation to psychology experimental methods, then I believe you're incorrect. Methods that involve actively deceiving subjects would be rejected by ethics boards (at least, it would in the UK). On top of that, there are many papers that do not use observations of human behaviour, and so would not find use in lying to them - for example, many neuropsychology papers discuss the physical makeup of body parts. Psychology has been around for a long time, and some psychology results have deeply influenced society. Some of these papers cover the placebo effect, and various mental health conditions. If you are dismissing all psychology papers, do you also reject these influential papers? I'm sorry if this reply is a bit full-on, but dismissing a claim's provided evidence by dismissing an entire academic field seems a bit extreme to me.
    - textgel 5y ago
      > I'm sorry, are you dismissing all psychology papers? Following the reproducibility crisis they can't be trusted on face value. When used to promote SJW and progressivist causes they can be almost certainly dismissed. > I'll be honest, I'm not really sure what this is in reference to That was in reference to progressivism, hence why I stated that in the comment. > Ah yes a progressive claim backed up by psychology papers.
- 5y ago