This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Wingnut, Trumpkin, Domestic Terrorist, y'allQaeda, bigot, racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, white supremacist, fascist, klansman, abuser, rapist, anti-semite, fuckboy, pissbaby, incel, bible-thumper, inbred, hick, redneck, gun nut, ghoul, vampire, bloodsucker... The list is considerable.
Naively, one might imagine that "slur" means something along the lines of "name that humiliates, demeans, or shames those it's applied to". After a few minutes of thought, though, I don't think that's actually how it works.
Various terms for races that I'm sure we're all regretably familiar with frame ethnicity in a negative light. People are in fact those races, but these terms are slurs because they assume "...and that's a bad thing". One might argue that claiming people are bad for being a race is obviously objectionable, but of course Gammon, Mayo, Whitey, cracker etc are generally acceptable in what passes for polite company online, and terms like oreo or banana show up as well. "White male" often comes with a "fucking" attached. This is just sorta the way things are, no one here is under the impression that it can be changed.
What about terms relating to actions or choices? Maybe it's a slur if it's aimed at immutable identity, versus one's actual choices? Well, no, I don't think so. "bitch", "slut", "whore" are all slurs, and generally unacceptable to use in polite company, at least toward a woman, despite describing someone who engages in specific behaviors. On the other hand, "racist", "sexist", "bigot", "homophobe", are all entirely acceptable, while also describing someone who engages in specific behaviors, even when those terms are quite a stretch. If one refers to a woman who publicly sells their body as a "whore", that is unacceptable. But it is entirely permissible to refer to someone as a "racist" for any and every reason, or even no perceptable reason at all. And of course, one of these words comes freighted with serious consequences for those so labeled, and it isn't the one that refers to farming equipment in the vernacular.
It seems to me that most of the words we generally think of as slurs are things Reds frame as bad while blues think are neutral or good, whereas most of the names Blues call Reds are terms Blues think of as bad, with Reds' opinions not really being relevant to the judgement. I can't think of any exceptions that would disprove this model.
It's not even that certain words are okay and other words are not, based on Blues' collective judgement. It's that certain words are okay based on who they're applied to, based on Blues' collective judgement.
It's not hard to find cases of even the hard-R being dropped by blues toward percieved Reds, even African-American ones, without the slur alarm getting triggered.[Upon reflection, @Amadan is correct and this claim is unsupportable.]Given the above, of course Blue spaces don't have a slur problem. When Blues use words to demean, shame, or humiliate, it's not a slur as judged by definitions our society actually appears to use in practice. The same goes for "threat", "harassment", and the rest of the no-no word terms.
[EDIT] - To be clear, this is a factual claim. Counter-examples are welcome, and I'd be happy to hear even anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
I see your points, but I don't think you convinced me on this:
I do think that's more or less how it works. Most of your examples are not so much slurs as "generic insults that blues can get away with calling reds but reds can't get away with calling blues." I do not disagree that this illustrates that most platforms are unfair to reds, but other than a few, like "y'allQaeda"and maybe I'll give you "Bible-thumper," none of them look like "words implying that being Red is inherently bad."
"Bigot, racist, sexist, transphobe," etc. - sure, in some people's minds that's synonymous with "conservative," but there is no shortage of leftist circular firing squads where they accuse each other of these things too. (See: J.K. Rowling.) We discuss those a lot here.
You said:
And again, I don't disagree there are examples of this and you can make convincing "who whom" arguments, but this doesn't mean leftists don't really consider the hard-R a slur. Most leftists would castigate other leftists calling Herman Cain or Clarence Thomas the hard-R. Some isolated cases of liberals dropping racial slurs on black conservatives and not being cancelled are not compelling evidence to me that slurs are inherently not slurs if directed at the "right" people. You're pointing out examples of hypocrisy and "who whom," which are plentiful, but not examples of "leftist slurs" per se.
I appreciated your response, fwiw.
Yeah, there's definately complexity here, and not just in the specifics but in the general. @MugaSofer below is gesturing at a sort of taxonomic breakdown, which I thought about attempting but didn't have the energy for; leaving aside the political angle, that's where I think the meat of the general question could be found.
I think these are the central example of actual blue slurs. And yeah, they get used on Blues as well, the same as "bundle-of-sticks" might get used on reds by other reds. It's all various forms of "bad person", "disgusting person", right? The thing is, social judgement and social enforcement are pretty clearly necessary if people are going to live together, so I'm pessimistic that the core form is ever going to go away. "bitch" got embargoed pretty thoroughly in its original context; "Karen" seems to cover like 90% of the same territory.
In the cold light of morning, I think you're entirely correct here. This argument relied on "can a thing possibly happen", and presented it as evidence of a norm. Further, the cases I could think of involved it being spoken, and I can't think of a single case where it was used in print or online. The hard-R has so much taboo mojo that it's going to be used by someone somewhere sooner or later, and some percentage of those uses are not going to be immediately struck by lightning, but that's pretty much the opposite of a norm. I was wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
My list wasn't exhaustive; we can quibble over the "redness" of each individual insult. But mostly they seem no more politically aligned than calling someone a "retard."
I'm also puzzled by "ghoul, vampire, and bloodsucker." Is that really a thing conservatives notice liberals calling them? I'm not questioning whether anyone has ever done this, but just the idea that these are known to be blue insults for reds.
There was a small thing about that's been around since at least the Affordable Care Act. Ghoul's the one that's persisted most, I think. Of course, that turns back into the "inherently bad" -- you could at least write a steelman that they were about criticizing conservative policies, rather than conservatives qua people.
I think there's a pretty sizable number of things along that realm, once you're attuned to noticing them. Their very nature as not politically-aligned makes it harder to notice when they're pointed a specific direction, but that doesn't make it less common.
That said, I think a lot of this distinction is more attuned to Blue Tribe preferences than to generalized ones. Not just in the sense that socons and even non-socons see many of the covered examples (controversially, being gay; less controversially, being queer) as something you do rather than something you are, or that both actual racists and not were often making that Chris Rock Skit as a serious argument, or that the Blue Tribe has put significant effort (for, tbf, reasons not entirely under their control) to define or frame their desired focuses as innate and immutable.
But there's a far more serious matter of it not being especially clear why anyone should find one to be acceptable, and the other an abomination. Why is abuse of parenthesis worse than prolonged mockery of 'magic underpants'? What part of the many bannable terms for correctly calling someone gay in offensive intents are worse than incorrectly calling someone a cousin-humper? Why, given how bad racism and sexism are, are false claims a person is or is motivated by them harmless, no matter how ill-founded or plain false? Why are one of these things a "name that humiliates, demeans, or shames those it's applied to", and the other not?
((I mean, the practical answer is probably that there's been enough organizations with enough power to make these things not mere social faux pas, but potentially a source of legal liability should an employee do it even off-hours and off-premises, or a business not react to it promptly when done by a customer, while the other direction there's... uh, people claiming TERF is a slur, and no one believing it.))
More options
Context Copy link
I noticed ghoul thrown around a lot on /r/stupidpol towards, well, pretty much any 'neoliberal' boogeyman they don't like, but especially targeted towards the old right wing flavors like Kissinger and Cheney. This is pure anecdote, but I have yet to notice vampire and bloodsucker.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Upon further reflection, I can recall some isolated cases of leftists getting away with the hard-R, but those cases are in fact isolated and quite rare, even for extremely prominant targets. I think it was probably a bad example on my part.
Can you provide evidence of leftists employing such terms without consequences, especially online/in print?
More options
Context Copy link
This strikes me as low-effort, obnoxious, and insincere, but I'll give it more of a response than it deserves. Absent a poll in which leftists are asked to respond to the question "Is it okay to use racial slurs against black conservatives?", I will rely on my experience with leftists and my prediction as to what would happen if you go on a leftist forum and start calling black conservatives niggers. If you would like to test this, I will pre-register my bet that it will result in you being banned.
Calling them niggers, specifically, probably a problem. Calling them Uncle Toms, which is conveying the exact same sort of viciousness...
Leftists are okay with slurs, they're not okay with nigger. Nigger is a magic spell in the US. It should be in D&D as a Power Word.
We are getting into the weeds with the taxonomy of slurs, but it seems to be relevant.
"Nigger" is an insult because the meaning is basically "Black person, which is inherently a bad thing." "Uncle Tom" means a black person who is a traitor to his own people by collaborating with his oppressors.
Leftists do not think being black is inherently a bad thing. They do think that betraying your own people and siding with your oppressors is a bad thing. So one is a slur, and most leftists would agree it's a slur no matter who uses it (because you're saying it's shameful/insulting to be black). The other is a charge of being a morally bad person.
I am not debating whether either term is ever used "viciously" and/or inappropriately. Certainly many insults are unfair and inaccurate, and calling any black conservative an Uncle Tom certainly falls into that category. But they aren't the same kind of insult.
Well, technically... "nigger" used to have a meaning, before it got wiped out of collective consciousness. It was the black equivalent of "white trash". So, basically "black trash". (Same number of syllables, too.) A rural, backward, ignorant, barbarous, uncivilized ... hick, essentially. Someone who was of no value to any civilized society, and who could be of no value because they'd resist any attempt to make them have value, and be proud of doing so. A totally illegible person, to misuse a term from "Seeing Like A State".
And the part that made it so bad was that when it was used on someone like, say, Booker T. Washington, it implied that no matter how educated and successful he was, none of that mattered. IIRC, there was actually a (racist, obviously) saying, "scratch a black man and you'll find a nigger", which implied that all accomplishments were skin deep, and that at the slightest provocation, a modern educated black person would revert to "jungle savagery" (or however it would have been phrased back then). Which in turn was partly why the black intelligentsia of the time were so careful about their dignity and behavior.
The linguistic fate of the word has a sort of inverted parallel in the fate of "arse", the 4-letter word that was so filthy that we in America only remember the animal sound-alike "ass", and even now primarily associate the sound-alike with the forbidden term. (Whereas "cunt" used to have an animal sound-alike "coney", but for some reason we completely lost the sound-alike there.)
More options
Context Copy link
Like I said -- leftists are okay with slurs, they're just not okay with nigger, for the reasons you elaborated on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My comment was indeed sincere, however it was rooted in a misunderstanding about what "hard-R" referred to, which your reply clears up. Thanks for that, and I expect you're correct.
I won't deign to answer your charges of "low-effort" and "obnoxious."
Perhaps you were confusing it for the "R-word" or "R-slur," aka "retard/retarded?" I've noticed that there's a wide range in how taboo this slur is even in leftist circles. Where I grew up, the "R-word" would be only 1 level below the "hard-R" in terms of offensiveness, but I've noticed that in other environments with similar levels of leftism, it's used pretty freely without anyone noticing. E.g. I was shocked when I first noticed how much people used it on Twitch of all places, given how strict Twitch tends to be with authoritarian-left language policing.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, if you misunderstood what I meant, perhaps you were justified in asking for evidence. (What did you think "hard-R" referred to?)
I read you initially as demanding I provide evidence that leftists actually think "nigger" is a bad word. Which did indeed seem like some sort of very dumb and low-effort attempt at a gotcha.
I’ll chime in and add that I also did not have any clue what “hard-R” referred to and thought maybe it was “racist” or “retarded” until your clarification here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The left-wing slurs you cite strike me as falling into three categories:
Generic slurs that happen to be applied to right-wing targets (e.g. MAGAtard), probably do have a decent chance of being banned.
Extremely weak, unlikely to seriously offend most people (e.g. cracker, vampire). Might get you banned under very strict mods.
Things that basically everyone agrees exist and are bad in some sense, the debate is over the boundaries. (E.g. racist, fascist, Nazi, abuser). Hard to ban, although you could perhaps ban applying them to other users via a Wikipedia-style "assume good faith" policy (I assume that's the case here, in fact.)
Grooming being wrong is a widespread position, yet the word "groomer" got banned on reddit. So it appears to me that even such words aren't actually hard to ban.
I hadn't heard about this ... apparently it didn't, no.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link