4 ms·

Wait - not conversing with someone who thinks it's fine to post the N word is now classist and some kind of neuro-whateverthefuck bigotry? No it's not, it's en

Wait - not conversing with someone who thinks it's fine to post the N word is now classist and some kind of neuro-whateverthefuck bigotry? No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse. If they have some kind of actual underlying issue that causes this and it's legit beyond their control - then sure, go the extra mile and try to meet them where they are. If on the other hand, it's some annoying person who likes ruffling feathers on purpose - I really think they ought to be ostracized for such behaviour.

kstrauser 6mo ago
Right?! I feel like we must be being trolled. Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this. If you have the ability to choose not to use the n-word, and you're not in a group that can use it self-referentially among your peers, and you use it anyway, then you're an asshole and I don't really care to hear what else you have to say. I feel pretty OK with that blanket assessment.
- bluefirebrand 6mo ago
  > Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this. "There are some scenarios where you might want to give people a pass for reasons outside their control" is literally the only point I was trying to make So I guess we are in violent agreement? Edit: also, you will never actually discover which people you should give the benefit of the doubt if you categorically dismiss anyone who uses language you dislike
guelo 6mo ago
[dead]
bluefirebrand 6mo ago
> No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse You don't see how that is exclusionary to people who struggle with norms? I guess if you're born neurodivergent and can't handle social norms, you don't deserve any kind of grace. You can't ever contribute anything worthwhile or meaningful if you don't live up to all of society's polite norms. Good to know Never change Hacker News
- kstrauser 6mo ago
  Oh behalf of the neurodivergent people surrounding me, 100% of whom successfully resist any temptation to say the n-word in my presence that they may ever feel, it's reprehensible that you're conflating racism and neurodiversity. I've never, not once, ever, heard someone blame their racism on ADHD.
  - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
    You've never encountered someone who is pretty autistic and doesn't care about (or perhaps understand) the social consequences of using slurs? Or someone bipolar who gets kind of erratic and can say really out of character stuff when they are going through a manic episode? Or someone with tourettes that might say something that pops in their head unexpectedly? Sure thing about ADHD. You're right that people with the executive function disorder don't tend to blurt wild social faux pas. But there are also people with social function disorders who might. It doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible people
    - kstrauser 6mo ago
      This is an insultingly narrow definition of "neurodivergent" limited to people with profound impediments to social functions. I'd already explicitly excluded people with Tourette's and other major challenges, but you knew that, so now I presume you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Have a nice day.
      - bluefirebrand 6mo ago
NonHyloMorph 6mo ago
There is still a difference here at play you haven't addressed yet: "posting" here sounds like its some form of direct speech i.e. the author is using the nword as part of their terminology. The context is what is the deciding factor. Does the display of a specific cultural artifact stand to represent itself and and thus point towards its own specific context, or is it a stand in for the authors speech, with a thin veneer of displacement of authorship that ambiguates thuer racist bias. The argument against classist bigotry is also "just something to think about" and not identified specifically with saying the n-word" Also there might be some contexts in which this identity might be a valid argument - e.g. some works of black artist/thinkers/writers philosophers etc. (E.g. sylvia wynters ceremony must be found, the music of aanderson paak etc.) Well thinking about it: As a rule of thumb it seems pretty reasonable to not converse with people who >>post<< the nword as long as it is not a dogma that takes the responsibilty of contextual awareness away. (Not certain about the context here, haven't properly read the article)

kstrauser 6mo ago

Right?! I feel like we must be being trolled. Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this. If you have the ability to choose not to use the n-word, and you're not in a group that can use it self-referentially among your peers, and you use it anyway, then you're an asshole and I don't really care to hear what else you have to say. I feel pretty OK with that blanket assessment.

bluefirebrand 6mo ago
> Short of something like the recent event with the chap with Tourette's saying awful things at the BAFTA awards, or Terry Davis with schizophrenia saying outlandish stuff, there aren't many scenarios where I'd be willing to give someone a pass on this. "There are some scenarios where you might want to give people a pass for reasons outside their control" is literally the only point I was trying to make So I guess we are in violent agreement? Edit: also, you will never actually discover which people you should give the benefit of the doubt if you categorically dismiss anyone who uses language you dislike

guelo 6mo ago

[dead]

bluefirebrand 6mo ago

> No it's not, it's enforcing the norms of civil discourse You don't see how that is exclusionary to people who struggle with norms? I guess if you're born neurodivergent and can't handle social norms, you don't deserve any kind of grace. You can't ever contribute anything worthwhile or meaningful if you don't live up to all of society's polite norms. Good to know Never change Hacker News

kstrauser 6mo ago
Oh behalf of the neurodivergent people surrounding me, 100% of whom successfully resist any temptation to say the n-word in my presence that they may ever feel, it's reprehensible that you're conflating racism and neurodiversity. I've never, not once, ever, heard someone blame their racism on ADHD.
- bluefirebrand 6mo ago
  You've never encountered someone who is pretty autistic and doesn't care about (or perhaps understand) the social consequences of using slurs? Or someone bipolar who gets kind of erratic and can say really out of character stuff when they are going through a manic episode? Or someone with tourettes that might say something that pops in their head unexpectedly? Sure thing about ADHD. You're right that people with the executive function disorder don't tend to blurt wild social faux pas. But there are also people with social function disorders who might. It doesn't necessarily mean they are terrible people
  - kstrauser 6mo ago
    This is an insultingly narrow definition of "neurodivergent" limited to people with profound impediments to social functions. I'd already explicitly excluded people with Tourette's and other major challenges, but you knew that, so now I presume you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Have a nice day.
    - bluefirebrand 6mo ago

NonHyloMorph 6mo ago

There is still a difference here at play you haven't addressed yet: "posting" here sounds like its some form of direct speech i.e. the author is using the nword as part of their terminology. The context is what is the deciding factor. Does the display of a specific cultural artifact stand to represent itself and and thus point towards its own specific context, or is it a stand in for the authors speech, with a thin veneer of displacement of authorship that ambiguates thuer racist bias. The argument against classist bigotry is also "just something to think about" and not identified specifically with saying the n-word" Also there might be some contexts in which this identity might be a valid argument - e.g. some works of black artist/thinkers/writers philosophers etc. (E.g. sylvia wynters ceremony must be found, the music of aanderson paak etc.) Well thinking about it: As a rule of thumb it seems pretty reasonable to not converse with people who >>post<< the nword as long as it is not a dogma that takes the responsibilty of contextual awareness away. (Not certain about the context here, haven't properly read the article)