Forums - Politics Discussion - Sam Harris Drops Patreon - Other Creators Follow

SpokenTruth said:
Who he called a N-word is irrelevant. It's the underlying connotation of the word itself. The word is a term of disparagement of the black race. Period. When used by the race that brought it into the English lexicon knowing and being fully aware of its function, history, relevancy, context...you then are ignoring the pejorative nature of the word and it is that willful ignorance that does not absolve you from being called racist.

To sum up....you know it's wrong and you do it anyway = racist.

And it's made worse because he is basically saying white people are superior to black people. He said a white person of poor action/thought is a white N-word. He was calling them white-black people. As though being black is a bad thing to be.

I can't believe we have to explain this stuff. This is why this shit has persisted for so long.

And this isn't about free speech. It's about a violation of the Terms of Service which I've already linked to. Further that, you don't have free speech like you think you do. Freedom of Speech in the US is merely the freedom from the government from censoring or denying you the right to speak. It doesn't mean jack all for private enterprise (which is ironic given how the right wants private enterprise to set rules as they please).

No, intentionally using the N-word does not automatically make you a Racist. There are exceptions for black people, in art, etc.

Look at it in this way, in Germany it is forbidden to use the swastika but even for such a hard law exceptions exist.



Around the Network
MrWayne said:
SpokenTruth said:
Who he called a N-word is irrelevant. It's the underlying connotation of the word itself. The word is a term of disparagement of the black race. Period. When used by the race that brought it into the English lexicon knowing and being fully aware of its function, history, relevancy, context...you then are ignoring the pejorative nature of the word and it is that willful ignorance that does not absolve you from being called racist.

To sum up....you know it's wrong and you do it anyway = racist.

And it's made worse because he is basically saying white people are superior to black people. He said a white person of poor action/thought is a white N-word. He was calling them white-black people. As though being black is a bad thing to be.

I can't believe we have to explain this stuff. This is why this shit has persisted for so long.

And this isn't about free speech. It's about a violation of the Terms of Service which I've already linked to. Further that, you don't have free speech like you think you do. Freedom of Speech in the US is merely the freedom from the government from censoring or denying you the right to speak. It doesn't mean jack all for private enterprise (which is ironic given how the right wants private enterprise to set rules as they please).

No, intentionally using the N-word does not automatically make you a Racist. There are exceptions for black people, in art, etc.

Look at it in this way, in Germany it is forbidden to use the swastika but even for such a hard law exceptions exist.

You missed a very important part that covers what you are talking about.  I highlighted it.  Context is crucial and it's something I've talked about several times in this thread.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
MrWayne said:

No, intentionally using the N-word does not automatically make you a Racist. There are exceptions for black people, in art, etc.

Look at it in this way, in Germany it is forbidden to use the swastika but even for such a hard law exceptions exist.

You missed a very important part that covers what you are talking about.  I highlighted it.  Context is crucial and it's something I've talked about several times in this thread.

But if you only make a word racist for one race because of history and not by direct action then that is racist in itself i do think.



SpokenTruth said:
MrWayne said:

No, intentionally using the N-word does not automatically make you a Racist. There are exceptions for black people, in art, etc.

Look at it in this way, in Germany it is forbidden to use the swastika but even for such a hard law exceptions exist.

You missed a very important part that covers what you are talking about.  I highlighted it.  Context is crucial and it's something I've talked about several times in this thread.

So we actually agree that the context is key here. Where we seemingly disagree is if a white person can use the N-word at all, I would say yes in certain instances



MrWayne said:
SpokenTruth said:

You missed a very important part that covers what you are talking about.  I highlighted it.  Context is crucial and it's something I've talked about several times in this thread.

So we actually agree that the context is key here. Where we seemingly disagree is if a white person can use the N-word at all, I would say yes in certain instances

I agree with you, even when it i see the use of it as insensitive or disrespectfull.



Around the Network

I think the latter part of this thread highlights an important issue. There is so much focus on a single word without looking too deeply into the context or maybe intention is a better way of putting it. Personally, it's a word I don't use. When I see it used by others, context/intention is key. It's usually pretty easy to see if someone is saying it out of malice with evil intent or for some other reason. I personally think it is a dangerous word to use but it does seem to pop up in music, comedy, etc.

That said, here is the real issue. Get rid of the word completely. Problem solved? No. Racist behavior will continue to exist. Just saying the word doesn't automatically make you racist. Many people who never openly say the word are actually racist.

The biggest problem these days is the lack of discussion. Bad ideas should be ridiculed not forbidden because latter option tends to radicalize. If I could tell Sargon anything, it would be that his use of the words while not racist/bigoted, are distracting and not helpful. Now we are talking about and focusing on the wrong things. I'm far more concerned about people's action than their words. It also gives opposition and easy way to ignore many of the valid arguments he has made before and after by simply shouting "racist".



"There are things which, if done by the few, we should refuse to imitate; yet when the majority have begun to do them, we follow along - just as if anything were more honourable because it is more frequent!"

-Seneca

thismeintiel said:
Errorist76 said:

 

No man...it's not "the left"...One just needs to be a decent human being to oppose racism, no matter what your political stance is.

You can oppose racism without becoming a fascist.

So enforcing your own terms of service is becoming a fascist? Man you really need to keep your definitions in check. That’s not only seriously wrong to state, but also disrespectful against everybody who had to endure true fascism.

Last edited by Errorist76 - on 21 December 2018

Immersiveunreality said:
SpokenTruth said:

You missed a very important part that covers what you are talking about.  I highlighted it.  Context is crucial and it's something I've talked about several times in this thread.

But if you only make a word racist for one race because of history and not by direct action then that is racist in itself i do think.

Uh, no.  Because black people using the word has a different meaning, purpose and function.  Again, context is crucial. 

Words take on different meaning depending on who says them.  In England, chips means the same thing as fries to an American yet chips to them mean crisps to the English.  This is imply meant to be an example of context of speaker. Here, it's a geographical divide that denotes context.  For the N-word, it's a racial divide that denotes context.

MrWayne said:
SpokenTruth said:

You missed a very important part that covers what you are talking about.  I highlighted it.  Context is crucial and it's something I've talked about several times in this thread.

So we actually agree that the context is key here. Where we seemingly disagree is if a white person can use the N-word at all, I would say yes in certain instances

You're almost there.  The race of the user is part of the context.  It takes on a completely different connotation depending on who uses it and how.  See what I wrote above.

That said, of course it can used by white people under a set of given circumstances.  For social research, historical re-enactments, art,....again, context is crucial.  I keep saying that. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Immersiveunreality said:

But if you only make a word racist for one race because of history and not by direct action then that is racist in itself i do think.

Uh, no.  Because black people using the word has a different meaning, purpose and function.  Again, context is crucial. 

Words take on different meaning depending on who says them.  In England, chips means the same thing as fries to an American yet chips to them mean crisps to the English.  This is imply meant to be an example of context of speaker. Here, it's a geographical divide that denotes context.  For the N-word, it's a racial divide that denotes context.

MrWayne said:

So we actually agree that the context is key here. Where we seemingly disagree is if a white person can use the N-word at all, I would say yes in certain instances

You're almost there.  The race of the user is part of the context.  It takes on a completely different connotation depending on who uses it and how.  See what I wrote above.

That said, of course it can used by white people under a set of given circumstances.  For social research, historical re-enactments, art,....again, context is crucial.  I keep saying that. 

Well see that is our disagreement there,for me this word has a different meaning on how it is said and for you it's about what race uses it in this case and it seems sargon used the N word that much to offend Nazi's, its dumb he used it and he can be called out for that ofcourse but in this context it does not make him racist.

I do not think a skincolour should keep on bearing the sins of the forefathers or the grudges of the forefather's and we do not need to see everyone that likes freedom of speech on these words as bad people because its not because they aprove the freedom that they condone the unrespectfull words used but there are other negatives we can use before directly going  to one of the biggest(racist) that make's the target to be viewed as a monster instead of a flawed person and doing this also makes the public blind to truth.

You will most likely dissagree with alot of my comment here but people that have a different view than you on this mostly are also very much against racism so do not let this thread dishearten you too much.



Immersiveunreality said:
SpokenTruth said:

Uh, no.  Because black people using the word has a different meaning, purpose and function.  Again, context is crucial. 

Words take on different meaning depending on who says them.  In England, chips means the same thing as fries to an American yet chips to them mean crisps to the English.  This is imply meant to be an example of context of speaker. Here, it's a geographical divide that denotes context.  For the N-word, it's a racial divide that denotes context.

You're almost there.  The race of the user is part of the context.  It takes on a completely different connotation depending on who uses it and how.  See what I wrote above.

That said, of course it can used by white people under a set of given circumstances.  For social research, historical re-enactments, art,....again, context is crucial.  I keep saying that. 

Well see that is our disagreement there,for me this word has a different meaning on how it is said and for you it's about what race uses it in this case and it seems sargon used the N word that much to offend Nazi's, its dumb he used it and he can be called out for that ofcourse but in this context it does not make him racist.

I do not think a skincolour should keep on bearing the sins of the forefathers or the grudges of the forefather's and we do not need to see everyone that likes freedom of speech on these words as bad people because its not because they aprove the freedom that they condone the unrespectfull words used but there are other negatives we can use before directly going  to one of the biggest(racist) that make's the target to be viewed as a monster instead of a flawed person and doing this also makes the public blind to truth.

You will most likely dissagree with alot of my comment here but people that have a different view than you on this mostly are also very much against racism so do not let this thread dishearten you too much.

I think this is actually a really good point. First, don't be discouraged because people have different viewpoints or interpretations. I think most people are against racism and other forms of descrimimtation.

The really interesting thing about what Sargon was doing, albeit maybe not in the most constructive way, was to try and show the fallacy of the white nationalist's behavior. Essentially he was saying that they have branded and entire race of people with a word and an associated set of negative characteristics. The behavior that they don't like and have attributed to this group as a whole, they themselves are acting exactly the way they say that groups act. Therefore the word, based on their definition of characteristics, is applicable to them.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with identity politics. Any time you attribute individual characteristics to entire groups of people, it's folly. Judge individuals on individual actions. 



"There are things which, if done by the few, we should refuse to imitate; yet when the majority have begun to do them, we follow along - just as if anything were more honourable because it is more frequent!"

-Seneca