2 ms·

The point is very clear and that someone is using Orwell to defend academics calling each other slurs in genteel settings. Obviously, that has nothing to do wi

The point is very clear and that someone is using Orwell to defend academics calling each other slurs in genteel settings. Obviously, that has nothing to do with Orwell, or even 'Free Speech'. As for 'literally tantamount' - the phrasing is poor, and would work better with only one of the two words, probably better just 'tantamount' or frankly neither. But it's completely moot. It doesn't change the fairly obvious implication of the statement. Free Speech is important, Orwell is important - but neither have anything to do with arbitrary ad-hominem slander among intellectuals in public. The author of the article is effectively making a personal plea, not really an intellectual one. Really what he's saying is 'I'm not that offended, don't dump this woman because she said something really raw'. Even if you remove the slur, the a statement such as "People think you're an idiot" is just terrible, playground rhetoric. Why would a University want to work with someone who makes arguments such as that that wouldn't even work well on Reddit? Use Orwell for where it was meant to be used.

shkkmo 5y ago
> It doesn't change the fairly obvious implication of the statement. You keep sayong it is obvious but not explaining. If it is obvious, then it should be easy to explain what you meant by it. As far as I can tell you are conflating "i support their ability to say these things without laoing their job" with "i support them saying these things". > Really what he's saying is 'I'm not that offended, don't dump this woman because she said something really raw'. I think that is an extremely poor paraphrasing that puts words in the author's mouth. It's clear that the Author support this woman's freedom of speech despite any offense at the comment (the level of which is not specified, but some is implied). I don't see how saying the argument isn't "intellectual" isn't just an ad hominem attack itself. > Even if you remove the slur, the a statement such as "People think you're an idiot" is just terrible, playground rhetoric. I don't think "idiot" is at all synonymous with "house negro", especially in that context. I can't speek for whoever wrote that tweet, but I interpret it as implying that people think the author is failing his race because due to his priveleged position he lacks a personal understanding of the challenges that most face. It also can carry the conotation that the author is not "really" black. It's a pretty offensice thing to say, even if you say it without using slurs. > Use Orwell for where it was meant to be used. Which is?
- jollybean 5y ago
  You were specifically complaining about my use of the words 'literally' and 'tantamount', which is why I focused on that language. Why would you ask about those two specific words, if the thrust of your questions was essentially the thrust of my argument? There is nothing in Orwell, or anything he wrote, that would suggest he has anything to say about people distancing themselves from those who use racist childish ad-hominem attacks in polite company and getting culled for it. (The author's own word for it was 'bigotry'). Just it's the opposite: an Orwell quote in this context makes no sense. The onus is on the OP to justify their use of the quote. You can say 'House Negro' is not very offensive, but obviously a lot of people are going to be offended by that, it's unequivocally offensive to call a Black person that in most circles, ergo, if an organization is going to err on the side of civility, they'll just move on from that person. That's reasonable. Let's do a thought experiment: go and call your local campus Black Republican a 'House Negro' and consider the reaction. Do you think your arguments here are sufficient? Do you think you really think it's appropriate for you to do that under the banner of some Principled issue of Free Speech? This has nothing to do with Orwell's concerns about newspeak, thought police, language, controlling minds by controlling words. If the University had forbidden a professor from ever using that term, i.e. reading aloud in class, banning all books with that term etc. - that would be Orwell. The person who used the term could have used any other kind of language (even if 'idiot' is a poor substitute) - to make her point, she was resorting to crude racism for no reason. There's nothing principled to stand for here.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > Just it's the opposite: an Orwell quote in this context makes no sense. It makes complete sense. Something that is "offensive" literally falls in the category of "don't want to hear". Thus the quote seems to be explicitly on topic and should need no explanation, regardless of if you agree. > If the University had forbidden a professor from ever using that term, i.e. reading aloud in class, banning all books with that term etc. - that would be Orwell. > This has nothing to do with Orwell's concerns about newspeak, thought police, language, controlling minds by controlling words. Firing someone for using a word isnt "controlling minds by controlling words"? Even so, Orwell did far more than just criticize goverments and autocracy. He was a complicated person (e.g. both an athiest and a dedicated curch goer), so I don't see why you think you can so easily decide on a "definitive" Orwell.

shkkmo 5y ago

> It doesn't change the fairly obvious implication of the statement. You keep sayong it is obvious but not explaining. If it is obvious, then it should be easy to explain what you meant by it. As far as I can tell you are conflating "i support their ability to say these things without laoing their job" with "i support them saying these things". > Really what he's saying is 'I'm not that offended, don't dump this woman because she said something really raw'. I think that is an extremely poor paraphrasing that puts words in the author's mouth. It's clear that the Author support this woman's freedom of speech despite any offense at the comment (the level of which is not specified, but some is implied). I don't see how saying the argument isn't "intellectual" isn't just an ad hominem attack itself. > Even if you remove the slur, the a statement such as "People think you're an idiot" is just terrible, playground rhetoric. I don't think "idiot" is at all synonymous with "house negro", especially in that context. I can't speek for whoever wrote that tweet, but I interpret it as implying that people think the author is failing his race because due to his priveleged position he lacks a personal understanding of the challenges that most face. It also can carry the conotation that the author is not "really" black. It's a pretty offensice thing to say, even if you say it without using slurs. > Use Orwell for where it was meant to be used. Which is?

jollybean 5y ago
You were specifically complaining about my use of the words 'literally' and 'tantamount', which is why I focused on that language. Why would you ask about those two specific words, if the thrust of your questions was essentially the thrust of my argument? There is nothing in Orwell, or anything he wrote, that would suggest he has anything to say about people distancing themselves from those who use racist childish ad-hominem attacks in polite company and getting culled for it. (The author's own word for it was 'bigotry'). Just it's the opposite: an Orwell quote in this context makes no sense. The onus is on the OP to justify their use of the quote. You can say 'House Negro' is not very offensive, but obviously a lot of people are going to be offended by that, it's unequivocally offensive to call a Black person that in most circles, ergo, if an organization is going to err on the side of civility, they'll just move on from that person. That's reasonable. Let's do a thought experiment: go and call your local campus Black Republican a 'House Negro' and consider the reaction. Do you think your arguments here are sufficient? Do you think you really think it's appropriate for you to do that under the banner of some Principled issue of Free Speech? This has nothing to do with Orwell's concerns about newspeak, thought police, language, controlling minds by controlling words. If the University had forbidden a professor from ever using that term, i.e. reading aloud in class, banning all books with that term etc. - that would be Orwell. The person who used the term could have used any other kind of language (even if 'idiot' is a poor substitute) - to make her point, she was resorting to crude racism for no reason. There's nothing principled to stand for here.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > Just it's the opposite: an Orwell quote in this context makes no sense. It makes complete sense. Something that is "offensive" literally falls in the category of "don't want to hear". Thus the quote seems to be explicitly on topic and should need no explanation, regardless of if you agree. > If the University had forbidden a professor from ever using that term, i.e. reading aloud in class, banning all books with that term etc. - that would be Orwell. > This has nothing to do with Orwell's concerns about newspeak, thought police, language, controlling minds by controlling words. Firing someone for using a word isnt "controlling minds by controlling words"? Even so, Orwell did far more than just criticize goverments and autocracy. He was a complicated person (e.g. both an athiest and a dedicated curch goer), so I don't see why you think you can so easily decide on a "definitive" Orwell.