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 -
In "holy shit" culture war moments, Kanye has lashed out at (((us))) on Twitter. He came out of the gate swinging by stating that:
Please note that Kanye is using double-spaces instead of periods for some reason.
This comes shortly after he was pictured wearing a White Lives Matter shirt, and shortly before he asked rhetorically
As always, the reaction is worse than the action, and causes the story to explode. In response to accusations that Jews control the media and invented cancel culture, Jewish organizations have loudly declared that such accusations are anti-semitic and inherently untrue, and then demanded Kanye be cancelled. The irony appears lost on them. To the surprise of I'm sure absolutely no one, Kanye was quickly locked out of his twitter account.
Social media reactions have been mixed, to say the least. /pol/ has apparently decided that Kanye is one step removed from goose stepping his way down the isle at the Grammys, and is almost /theirguy/. Of course there's also a substantial faction who just spam n****r so I'm going to stop short of saying that Kanye has struck a blow for unity within the racist community.
/r/Kanye, which is dedicated to exactly what you think, is in full melt-down mode understandably.
I really don't have anything else to add to this monumental pile of flaming garbage. There is no redeeming anything buried here. Only more decay and hatred seeping into public spaces. I leave you with only this thought that has been said by far smarter men than I. Twitter delenda est.
Just say nigger, man. We aren't in reddit any more.
There's really not much to go off on here. Kanye is one step removed from believing in lizard men at this point. People melting down at what he says for the uninterested observer is entertainment.
Honestly, as stupid as it seems, it’s probably best for people in certain careers or social situations to never have those particular semantic synapses fire. The consequences for misspeaking are too bad. If I had a public sector job I would probably refrain from even mentally pronouncing the syllables.
More options
Context Copy link
So here's the deal: you're allowed to use the word (in appropriate use/mention contexts), and other people are allowed to not type it out if they're not comfortable doing that. Clear?
Yes and?
Im not allowed to question his discomfort as silliness?
Don't be a jerk about it. If someone types "n*****" and you feel like it's your personal cause to tell people to write "nigger," that's being a jerk. We aren't banning words, but that doesn't mean we want people casually slinging slurs around just to flex. This isn't that kind of board and never has been, on or off reddit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As long as I get to assume that when you say "the N-word" you're referring to N*tflix.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's improper ask this, and I don't mind the word myself at all. The point was clear, it avoided the silly 'x-word' construct, too much casual use would probably not be beneficial to the forum.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd rather not. Besides my own personal distaste for the word, in the interest of not becoming a community of 10,000 witches I'd rather we kept and enforced some societal norms that serve to keep witches out. Among those is a reluctance to use words that serve no purpose other than to shock the conscience. Nothing is gained by saying nigger, whereas demonstrating a community value towards not saying that or other slurs helps to maintain our desire to optimize for light over heat.
"You are a nigger" and """he said "nigger" """ are a layer of reference apart.
I don't see any issue at not USING the word, but not MENTIONING is playing by the rules of the people who don't respect the use/mention distinction.
Imo the message is clear "We are level headed enough around here to not piss our pants at the mention of a word".
More options
Context Copy link
I think it is perverse to suggest that obfuscating language is optimising for light.
What changes if you say "n-word" over nigger? We know what you mean, and anyone who doesn't can be have it explained.
MonkeyWithAMachinegun isn't telling you it's optimizing for light, their point is that it serves to keep out the people who aren't interested in productive debate.
But that's not what it does, it doesn't keep out the people who aren't interested in productive debate, it simply declares this topic as out of bounds for debate. "it's cool you're thinking about it, but we have already decided it's not on." "ps the fact that you disagree with me on this tells me that you don't belong here - we're optimising for light, so you can fuck off!"
Truth is light. There is never ever ever a reason to alter a quote, or published work, and the last decade has proven this is no slippery slope, once we started censoring nigger out of quotes and published works, it wasn't long before we were burning books and rewriting history.
If we want to optimise for light - which was definitely part of monkey's point, if not the crux, we should tell people the truth - words have exactly as much power as you give them.
There's no truth being hidden, the mapping from "n-word" or n****r or whatever variant you want is fairly clear - the person means nigger, but just isn't comfortably saying it.
It would be one thing if Monkey said something like "Of course there's also a substantial faction who just spam racist stuff". This is vague and doesn't tell us what is actually being said. But I'm not sure what truth you think is being hidden by refusing to write the word out. The word continues to exist, people continue to encounter it, and they come to bear the same mapping eventually.
I do agree that Monkey views the refusal to use it as both optimizing for light and keeping out the undesirables. I re-read the comment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think degradation of the use/mention distinction is unhelpful with regard to “speak clearly”, hence at odds with the purpose of this forum.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is gained by saying it?
[EDIT] - No seriously, what's the argument here? Doing things simply because someone told you not to is childish. The idea that liberty can be secured by rejecting all norms was tested to destruction, and it did not actually work at scale. The taboo exists whether you like it or not, and flouting it provides no benefit that I can see. The word is actually garbage.
I don't actually want you or anyone else banned for mentioning it. I'm not going to, though, because I don't see the point, and I'll make the argument against mentioning because I think it's a sound one on the merits.
I'm sure you're familiar with the recent popular quote:
Maybe paraphrasing a little there. The big unaddressed challenge is defanging the idol before you desecrate it...
I'm all for smashing idols, if it can be done effectively. You are not going to smash the hard-R idol, because it is a pure-tungsten idol the size of the moon.
On the other hand, this forum is not designed for idol-smashing. The purpose of this space is to discuss the culture war, not wage it. I appreciate that any claim that an action is waging the culture war can generate a mirrored claim that the demand for that action to be restricted is waging the culture war. I submit that in many cases, it's not actually hard to tell which is which if one examines the issue in good faith. The taboo in question is near-universal, and while one tribe has most of the dissenters, they are still rare even within that tribe.
This space is for trading arguments across the tribal divide. Effective, multi-polar internet discussion forums are extremely rare, and this one works because we insist on moderating the form of our speech, while maximizing bandwidth for content. We absolutely taboo words here, and not just scary racist words but any word at all if doing so results in a better discussion. This is not a space for performative "you don't like this word so I'm gonna say it more".
More options
Context Copy link
Whose quote is that?
It looks like Jordan Peterson went on a Nietzsche kick while coaching a kritik.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's not that something is gained by saying it, so much as something is lost by giving the word so much power that we don't even respect the use/mention distinction. I think it's deeply unhealthy to treat the word as some sort of magical incantation that causes harm no matter the context. As such, I agree that we should seek to preserve the use/mention distinction as regards "nigger", or any other obscenities for that matter - not because it's a gain, but because being neurotic about the word is a loss.
I agree that the collapse of the use/mention distinction does in fact cost us all something. I agree that it is silly to treat a word like it blights the lives of anyone who hears it. But the taboo didn't start here, and it won't end here. Mentioning it here in the ghetto doesn't make things any better out there, and it does actually have costs. You may believe that people put off by the word need to grow up, and that if that's the straw on the camel's back that results in them leaving then it's on them. And maybe you're even right. But I actually come here to talk to those people, and if they leave this place is useless to me. The conversations we have here burn a lot of charity, and so increasing the efficiency of that burn is useful. If they're going to be driven out of here, I'd rather they get driven out by a well-supported, evidence-based argument about the actual realities of, say, racial conflict, not by people proving to themselves that they can still type five specific letters without being smote by a vengeful deity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
https://web.archive.org/web/20221010112542/https://www.androidpolice.com/google-assistant-racial-slur-bleep/
This article popped up on the last android tech news site I still use(d). Someone complained that they could get google-assistant to say the n-word. When we've reached this point, yes, there's something to be gained from reminding people that it's just letters, it has no etymological connection with "niggardly," and entire songs use it as their sole lyric (and performers use it to fuck with fans), and it does not in fact cause people's ears to bleed or small animals to die when spoken.
I don't have to think peoples' ears bleed or small animals die to not use the word in question. I just have to think that it's an ugly word, and that people on the other side are going to take it's use as evidence that they should stop engaging here. And if I'm going to convince people that they should stop engaging here, by God, it's going to be by expressing my actual opinions and values in a calm, thoughtful, well-supported manner backed by a boatload of data, not because of five letters that people keep getting all weird over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is gained by censoring it? It's just letters arranged in a particular order, they can't hurt you. Treating words as though there mere utterance (even when just mentioning them) somehow causes harm is quasi-religious and stupid.
Words convey meaning, and that meaning cannot be arbitrarily restricted by the person speaking them. When you give a particular selection of letters you're committing yourself not only to the valence you hold, but to the valence everyone who sees them holds for them. Yes, this can and has been weaponized. Yes, that's reasonable grounds for concern. At the same time, we take our opposites as they are, not as we might wish them to be.
More options
Context Copy link
A counter point would be that we are supposed to write as if everyone is reading and we WANT them to read and take part. Given the term in question it is likely some people reading are likely to be upset or offended by it. If it is necessary to be used specifically for the post in question that should probably take precedence, but if everyone knows what you mean using the censored version, then that is a consideration worth thinking about also.
People who do not believe in the use/mention distinction are still people that we want to read here because they are a subset of everyone.
What's the limiting principle for this? Lots of people can be upset or offended by all sorts of things.
What if I find it offensive and upsetting when people censor words instead of spelling them out?
There isn't one. That reality will probably kill this forum long-term, as values-drift makes it completely impossible to communicate effectively across the tribal divide. Some people here regret that reality, and are trying to forestall it as long as possible. Of the actions taken to postpone that eventual tragedy, the one we're discussing here is quite minor.
This is not an arbitrary taboo someone thought up yesterday. It's one of the three or four most deeply cemented taboos our society has.
More options
Context Copy link
That is why I said it is a balance not a mandate. Having said that I suspect there are many more people offended by that particular slur than by writing the asterisks in n****r. From the POV of the point of this space, things that are inflammatory and the like are generally defined by the mods to be the big culture war clashes and that would seem to be a pretty obvious one.
At the end of the day we should be considering the best way to make our argument in the most palatable way we can. For me that is the most important point of this space.
More options
Context Copy link
Then f**k you.
You're trying to be too clever by half. Yes, I get what you're doing here, and it's still not the kind of post we are going to tolerate.
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
Nothing is gained or lost by saying it.
The frame of the arguments as a whole are lost by not saying it in a mention context. You are arguing inside of the frame of those who see no distinction between use and mention. And in my eyes not respecting that distinction is witch behavior. Just a witch from a different school of the Dark Arts than the one you are scared of.
Others differ, and judge accordingly. I want to talk to those others about matters of import, and that is going to be difficult enough with the opinions I actually hold. Why make it harder by violating taboos for no actual benefit? I'm here to have conversations with people I disagree with. Those conversations actually benefit me. Misspelling "naggers" does not.
To a first approximation, everyone has taboos. I can accept that some rare, uncanny individuals are sufficiently... outlier... that they honestly don't, but this seems more like a disability than a superpower from where I'm sitting. It doesn't enable conversation in any way that I see. It doesn't gain knowledge or grow understanding. Those are the things I'm here for, so I'm going to argue that it's a net-negative, and self-censoring, while a bit silly, is still the superior play. Some might see this as abdication to Blue dominance. I think that is silly, and is more an appeal to magical words than any self-censorship argument ever could be.
It's not brave. It doesn't make a point. no one's impressed. We've all heard the arguments for and against for decades. I'm quite comfortable predicting that the mods here aren't going to ban mentions, so there's no inherent slippery slope argument greater than the implicit one from attempting communication across a steadily-widening tribal divide. All there is is what you want to do, and why.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I may have missed a valid explanation somewhere along the line, but how are we defining "witches", exactly?
Witches in this community's context are racists, sexists, bigots, etc. The kind of people who really do want the freedom to publicly declare their hatred for others.
You have to remember that this entire space is descended from SSC, which was very much a light-blue space in a deep-blue sea. There, people shared a clear view that bigotry was evil and its servants were likewise. Hence, they are witches.
Witches in this community's context are just people with whom members of the blue tribe are embarrassed to be associated, which is a much larger set than you describe. The ur-example is people who want the freedom to publicly declare their love for others rather than their hatred...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Gessler can be defied. In extremity, Gessler can be shot. That is the difference, in my view.
Rationalists seem to have this idea that things should make sense, that reason should prevail. I see this as a failing. Human reason is flawed and limited, and the structures built upon it are riddled with flaws. "This doesn't make sense to me" isn't actually proof that the thing in question is broken. Life is full of small indignities, frustrations and compromises, some of which can be fought, most of which have to be merely accepted. If there were an actual benefit to mentioning the word, I'd retract my argument. I don't see one, because I think mentioning it has downsides, and I don't see any actual upsides.
Fighting linguistic taboos led us to where we are now, and I think it's pretty questionable whether it was ever going to lead anywhere else. Words have power, and that power is well-described, like it or not, by the term "magical". Sure, it's all social consensus. But it's actually a consensus, and it's vastly beyond the ability of individuals or small groups or even large ones to change.
If I tell you I'm emptying the ocean with a teaspoon, it's not actually more rational to offer me a backhoe, or even bagger-288. Like, it's not actually a question of scoop size; none of this is at all how the ocean works: water seeks low points, evaporation and rainfall, this isn't going to work. So too with the question at hand.
Concur on the witch density. Time to get on our arguing pants.
I generally agree with your position here, but I'd argue for one particular exception: when making a precise argument that fuzzed mentioning will muddy, and in particular, when quoting someone else for accuracy. If you're going to attribute a string in quotes to someone else, be clear and exact in what was said.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think they can; I mean, there's no individual person, it's a massively-distributed network representing the top 60-70% of power, wealth and influence across both tribes. I think the social consensus is too strong, and the benefit sufficiently hypothetical, that it's simply a bad choice. I agree that bullies should be defied. I do not think beating their knuckles with my nose is the way to do it.
There is no chance that using the word in question will damage the taboo against it. Nor will larger-scale attempts to damage the taboo be seen as a positive action. Nor will making a fight of it actually undermine the power of the bullies in any way. They can do this; pretending they can't isn't resistance, it's stupidity. They are not imposing a rule arbitrarily, but rather exploiting a rule that came about for good reasons: Slavery, Jim Crow, the actual legacy of actual racism. That reality is where they're getting most of the power in this instance. It's a kill-zone, so why walk into it?
If they said it's bad to spray-paint swastikas on synagogues or wear white sheets and pointy hoods in public, is it "giving in" to not do those things either? I mean, it's just shapes and clothes, right?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is exactly my reason for mentioning the word.
I won't call anyone a nigger but refusing to type out that word is just playing by their arbitrary rules that assigns magic power to a string of letters. Why should I follow an irrational and nonsensical custom?
As mentioned above, you may want to consider it when posting here specifically because we are supposed to write as if people who think that way are reading and we WANT them to read. So while your argument has merit, it should be balanced against the other norms, customs and preferences that are encouraged here.
If your argument hinges on using the word itself then that is probably fine. If the same argument can be made while censoring it, then we probably should.
If I am making an argument about blasphemy, then I can blaspheme, but I should be aware that Catholics might be reading and that I want them to read, so that I should be careful exactly how I do so and give it due consideration, no matter if I think their position is magical or irrational.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I miss the 2005-2012 inter-regime period where you could say almost whatever you wanted without the inquisitors showing up
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think that's quite true. Taboos are not objective facts, they are a social consensus. Your argument that an individual alone cannot move social consensus is true enough, but many individuals acting in concert certainly can. Likewise, while it is true that in any given election, your individual vote probably doesn't determine the outcome, it does not follow that all voting is pointless. Taboos can be destroyed, it this is normally done by a small group violating it and not being punished, then more and more, until there is no clear social consensus and the taboo is gone. What objection could you have to that, other than that the taboo is taboo, which is circular?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe he censors the word because he finds it personally distasteful or objectionable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link