I haven’t read all of this in depth but it seems like this is largely an argument over definitions. race vs. culture.
First, there are several mentions online of urban being used as a euphemism for black: https://www.google.com/search?q=urban+euphemism+for+black
Secondly, many people have argued that race is a cultural construct and moreover that when we discuss race we are often discussing the culture of a particular racial group.
4 Likes
I doubt this reaches the point of being defamatory; the word was used figuratively, and, more importantly, was used privately until she outed it (I’m absolutely not criticizing her for doing so; I’m just saying, as a point of fact).
I could be pedantic and say that since the First Amendment only restricts Congress, it doesn’t even make sense to speak of responsibilities incurred, but yeah, I see your point. Still, those feel more to me like restrictions, rather than responsibilities per se. I mean, people do those things all the time, but the First Amendment still stands, since it doesn’t cover them. (shrug)
Time to sic the Ellison on Sci Am! He would destroy them in this regard… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5IV23g-fE
Nope, I’m just making a statement with no evidence whatsoever to support it. I don’t particularly feel the need to prove this statement has been used in racist ways because I think any argument questioning that is absurd. If someone doesn’t believe me, then fine, they can argue it. But they will continue to argue minutiae instead of the larger and more important points here.
Of course I know that, as does everyone else here (I even think Glitch knows it, but he’s just on a Spock kick).
My point is simply that it’s perfectly plausible that what he did was just search-replace “scientist” with “whore” and give it no further thought. In a broader sense, I sometimes detect a yearning to associate sexism and racism, to sort of unify them in negative examples, almost as if to prove that you can’t have one without the other. I find this somewhat disturbing, and thus want to comment on it when I detect it happening.
Added: Okay, I think I finally understand this. I am saying that he was not (necessarily) being intentionally racist. You’re saying that it doesn’t matter, because he should be really careful about being accidentally racist anyway. If that’s accurate, then I just can’t agree with your standard; it’s way too stringent. To clarify, I personally do hold myself to that standard, but I am not comfortable imposing it on others. I can’t accept the chance of a false positive, which you apparently either don’t believe possible, or don’t care about.
btw, several posts ago, I asserted that those responsible for a homophobic assault on a NYC subway train in Queens would be quickly found due to public pressure. You criticized me for being naive. I’ve followed up on the case (or, rather, lack thereof), and it appears you were right. It’s a bit awkward, of course, to bring up in this context, but I owed you a mea culpa.
5 Likes
Now, that’s the way to deal with it. If only Sci-Am can sort themselves out.
Not feeding trolls? That’s so last month.
1 Like
Why do you care more about what he may or may not have been thinking when he wrote and sent what he did, than the effects on her of what he wrote?
3 Likes
I have no idea the context of this apology, but it strikes me as being pretty classy. I will now “like” it, for that reason.
1 Like
Because I’d like to think that we should only condemn people for what they’re actually proveably guilty of, and that we shouldn’t be content to throw on extra offenses without evidence just because we want to?
Because there’s these things called “Truth” and “Justice” and “Fairness”? And because The Golden Rule dictates that I should do unto others as I would have them do unto me? That if I were in a position even only remotely similar to that of the accused, I would want to be judged only for what I had actually done and not I inconclusively MIGHT have done in their eyes?
Because I find proof and intent to be important in determining wrong-doing, and I do not believe in the strange modern idea that speech can be battery.
So, here’s an instance for you (not hypothetical): Two black men are at a bar, and after ordering several inexpensive beers, one of them orders a martini. The bartender says, “You know that’s $12, right?”, and the orderer then gets upset at the implication that he’s too poor to afford it. Okay, is the bartender being considerate, or a racist, or just a jerk? If they were white guys, would he be considerate or a jerk?
And there’s the obvious example, of what do you do when a schizophrenic person is deeply offended that you don’t recognize his claim of Antarctic emperorship.
3 Likes
If I accidentally offend someone, then I expect to be criticized for it. I may not like it — I very probably won’t — but I can’t deny others’ right to call me out. If I do it in the context of giving another insult, then I shouldn’t expect not to be called on it, any more than I should expect to be let off for one crime committed in the commission of another, even if it were an accident.
6 Likes
We’re not talking about offending people. For the umpteenth time, please address the original logical argument regarding lack of sufficient evidence to support the accusation of racist intent.
Was a racist intent possible? Yes. Was it present? We don’t have enough evidence to prove that it was. Should we claim it as fact despite this lack of evidence? No. End of story.
No. It’s an argument over what can be proven to a point of certainty and what cannot.
And there’s the obviously trivializing and demeaning problem of comparing people of color who point out racism to delusional schizophrenics.
As for your bartender example, I dunno, the bartender might be acting racist and classist. I don’t find the comparison all that apt.
I think a better example to counter your focus on racial/racist intent is that of a man who looks at the boobs of his female colleague while she’s trying to explain her ideas for the latest corporate maneuver. If he doesn’t even realize (as is often the case) that he’s being sexist, by paying more attention to her body as a sex object than to her professional ideas, do we let him off from the charge of sexism? Just because he doesn’t realize what he’s doing, and his intent was not to ignore her ideas, even though he did?
6 Likes
Yes, we are. That’s the emotional heart of the discussion which you continue to refuse to face, even as you get emotional about how no-one is listening or responding to your arguments except with insults and censorship.
The discussion is about offence given, offence taken and the gap between them, if there is such a gap. You cannot talk about such things without referring to the participants’ interior states — that which even steely-eyed human machines of rationality call ‘emotions’.
4 Likes
It’s incredibly dishonest to bring up the abstract question of whether one should consider the effect of speech on the listener, and then attack me for trying to analyze it, by retroactively associating it with the case at hand, interpreting this in the worst possible light and wrongly imputing malice (racism? callousness? i don’t even know the right word.) in me. It’s nothing more than a cheap rhetorical trap.
What’s more notable is your hesitance to arbitrate the bartender example, which I find to be a positive sign.
In regard to your example, boob-staring is objectifying in and of itself, whereas search-replacing “scientist” with “whore” is not racist in and of itself.
3 Likes
I tell you what. Google ‘what is an “urban whore”’ and look at the pages of reference to this, and what they’re talking about.
This is all semantics. You’re postulating theoretical constructs that explore philosophical pathways, but not approaching the issue. The people bitching with you are too. You all have a lot of time on your hands. I’m between jobs, and I don’t have that much time.
The guy is stuffed like a christmas goose. He messed up with the wrong person, and I bet he regrets it now. No court of law is going to rescue him, there is no guardian of righteousness. He’s getting a bullet of popular and cultural judgment between the eyes, because he fucked up and expressed himself in the wrong way to someone with the power to make what’s happened happen.
And, as an aside, nothing at all can be proven to a point of certainty. Nothing. You can’t prove I wrote this post. That’s why legal judgments have nothing to do with certainty, and all to do with the appropriate level of probability.
9 Likes
Yeah this.
If you’re going to be offensive,
- Choose the proper time, person and place.
- Engage the object of your ridicule politely and at length, and THEN slam him or her with a voracious insult.
- Use repartée rather than single sniping, for a far more thorough scouring of their soul.
- Understand the exact meanings of your insultations and exhortations, including every entry in urban dictionary and other sources of common parlance.
- Prepare for equal or greater responses, and pilings-on by bystanders, and have ammunition to deal with it, or the personal fortitude of silence and knowing when to quit and move to your next target.
This dumbass violated ALL of the rules. Don’t just call someone an urban whore and walk away. That’s an insult to insults.
2 Likes
