I did agree that calling someone a whore in a business email correspondance is wildly inappropriate. Multiple times, now.
And yes, it does matter what other accusations are leveled against someone. You don’t convict a murderer of jaywalking if there’s no real evidence of them having jaywalked. I don’t care how trivial the accusation or how heinous the perpetrator, if you cannot show sufficient evidence of the second crime, your accusation is meritless.
Also, I’m amazed that no less than three different people have been so affronted by my logical analysis of Mr. Beschizza’s accusal of racism that they have felt the need to attempt to censor me. These three have been tasked with engaging me rationally and addressing my logical arguments, and their only response so far has been to demand my silence. This is disheartening to me, to say the least.
So if I accuse you of something I have insufficient evidence to support, that’s okay and I’m instantly judged correct so long as I’m emotional about it?
This was not an emotional argument. The very first post asked what relevance there was in Mr. Beschizza’s mentioning the race of Dr. Lee. Mr. Beschizza responded with a citation. I called that citation into question. Nothing about that is emotional. It is entirely analytic and logical. It is a textbook case of rational discourse.
I’m not familiar with a specific, broadly agreed upon name for the subculture grouping that the anonymous emailer of Nolan’s Gawker article as cited by Mr. Beschizza is referencing. Nor is such a label of interest to me, as it is irrelevant to my argument.
My point was that I have as yet seen no evidence of “urban” as an epithet being used to refer to race, but rather to culture. To contrast your own example of Muslim discrimination, it would be entirely correct to state that such discrimination would not be racial in nature, but rather cultural. You can’t be racist against Muslims, because Muslims are not a race. You can still be bigoted against them, but your bias is cultural - it is based in differences of values and behaviors, not in differences of skin pigmentation or physiology.
As for your argument regarding whom “gets to decide what is insulting”, I am not interested in what is insulting to whom, I am interested in what there is evidence for having happened. My argumentation was solely concerned with the fact that I have seen insufficient evidence to suggest that the editor of Biology Online can be said with any real certainty to have been utilizing a racial slur. Anything else is unrelated to my argument, and therefor irrelevant in this context.
I’m actually managing to keep myself fairly impassive. I keep imagining a certain scene from The Wrath of Khan.
McCoy: Dear Lord. You think we’re intelligent enough to… suppose…
what if this thing were used where life already exists?
Spock: It would destroy such life in favor of its new matrix.
McCoy: Its “new matrix”? Do you have any idea what you’re saying?
Spock: I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications,
Doctor. As a matter of cosmic history, it has always been easier to
destroy than to create.
McCoy: Not anymore; now we can do both at the same time! According to
myth, the Earth was created in six days. Now, watch out! Here comes
Genesis! We’ll do it for you in six minutes!
Spock: Really, Dr. McCoy. You must learn to govern your passions; they
will be your undoing. Logic suggests…
McCoy: Logic? My God, the man’s talking about logic; we’re talking
about universal Armageddon! You green-blooded, inhuman…
And since the funny cat pictures have already been broken out (albeit for nefarious purposes), I shall share my own for the sake of levity. It helps me keep perspective.
Isn’t that the key point here? I don’t see this usage as evidence that Ofek was aware of its ‘common’ meaning, or deliberately invoked it.
The play seems, to me, to be solely on Dr. Lee’s chosen title - if she’d chosen ‘Tall Scientist’, I consider it entirely possible that Ofek would have used ‘tall’ instead. Sexist: absolutely. Racist: maybe, but we don’t have enough evidence to say.
For what it’s worth, I genuinely wasn’t aware of a specifically racial interpretation of ‘urban’ either - as a (early!)fortysomething Brit living in semi-rural NW England, it’s simply outside my cultural experience. I’m not defending or condemning that; just pointing out that such people do exist
On the topic "a specifically racial interpretation of ‘urban’ ", can we get a citation please from those touting it as such? Something other than mere heresay?
perspective is good. i know it’s difficult to restrain the urge to join the baying mob out on a witchhunt based on third-party unsubstantiated claims, referenced and cited by other third party anonymous blog contributors who claim authority on urban slangs, all whilst trying to maintain composure and stray from emotional entanglements with said mob who see themselves of the arbiters of offense.
It is difficult, but you’re doing sterling.
You have an internet and you know how to use it (I assume); surely you can google? We are not your unpaid researchers.
Since you reject the Gawker article above for your own idiosyncratic reasons, you surely have a better idea of what evidence will satisfy you. Beyond the fact that several people have told you here already that ‘urban’ is a widely-known euphemism for ‘black’.
For what it’s worth, I’m from the depths of the West Country myself, currently living in Gloucestershire, and am a white, middle-aged male, and I’ve been aware of the link between ‘urban’ and ‘black’ for a while.
The thing is, if you insult someone unintentionally, the appropriate thing to do is to apologise for the offence caused. And when you insult someone intentionally — I think we’re agreed that ‘whore’ is an insult, whatever accompanies it — the appropriate thing to do is to apologise for the offence caused, not whatever offence you meant to bring to the party.
Not at all. It’s just inappropriate to treat what is at root an emotional argument, an insult, solely as a logical word problem. It’s like bringing a packed lunch to a gunfight.
If your significant other accuses you of no longer loving them, it’s unwise to quibble over the meaning of love in either the philosophical or dictionary sense. What you must do is demonstrate that you love them; address the emotional argument first, and then deploy your logic in a supporting role.
Nobody is trying to censor you, they’re trying to help you not embarrass yourself anymore. Personally, I suspect that the sexism was deliberate and the racism was not, but sexism is every bit as bad as racism, so that’s not even remotely a defense.
I think where the block comes, that the people you’re arguing with take as so obvious that it doesn’t even bear explaining, and that you somehow don’t get, is that, while logic is amazing, and, when combined with empiricism, can let us figure out all kinds of wonderful things, all moral arguments are inherently emotional arguments, and there is no possible purely logical basis for morality.
Perhaps you’ve heard of something called The Burden of Proof? The person making an argument is expected to furnish the evidence for said argument. This is true in science, philosophy, and law, and those who cannot furnish evidence for their own arguments have no arguments.
If you declare to the planet that you are divinely chosen to rule with absolute authority, it is not the burden of the planet to disprove your claim - it is your burden to furnish evidence to support your claim. Until such time, your claims may be dismissed outright as nonsense. If you can’t be bothered to make your own argument, I’m certainly not going to do it for you.
I do not accept a handful of anecdotes and third-hand accounts as compelling evidence. This may in fact be “idiosyncratic” - that is, “peculiar to an individual” - from your viewpoint, but I would posit that it is hardly a behavior or viewpoint unique to me alone, nor even uncommon at large.
I explained my reasoning for finding the Gawker article lacking. If you wish to contest my reasoning, please, feel free. But you do not discredit my argument simply by calling it rubbish - you must respond to it logically, and with actual evidence which suggests that I am wrong and that you are right.
You keep insisting that this is, or ever was, an emotional argument, despite the facts I offered as evidence to the opposite effect. I shall repeat them here, in case you missed them.
This was not an emotional argument. The very first post asked what
relevance there was in Mr. Beschizza’s mentioning the race of Dr. Lee.
Mr. Beschizza responded with a citation. I called that citation into
question. Nothing about that is emotional. It is entirely analytic and
logical. It is a textbook case of rational discourse.
Regarding your example of “proving love”, I call into question essentially all of your logical “givens”. I disagree that it is unwise to discuss the meaning of love. I disagree that one “must” engage in emotional appeasement before engaging in rational behavior. I accuse you of several logical fallacies, including “appeal to emotion”, “false cause”, “bandwagon”, “no true scotsman”, “black or white”, et cetera.
More importantly, this is still entirely irrelevant to my argument, which you have still failed to address.
It isn’t about you. If you had been called a whore (and were black) you might understand. Olek had the intent to offend and did so inexcusably. I agree that when stories like this come up there’s a small contingent that goes all legalistic on degrees and definitions and shades of offensiveness. This comes across as a partial defense of the offensive person, whether that’s intended or not. And it deflects from the obvious wrongness of the actual offense. Which is why some people including me wish you would stop trying to defend your postings. Because it’s not about you. You were not the offended person.
