0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mostly unrelated anecdote that i want to tell anyway:scene: me, in mexico, being introduced to a friend of a friend of a friend.friend - this is whatever he name was.him - hello, everyone calls me "el negro".me - hello, i'm sys.him, proud of his knowledge of colloquial american english - you would call me "the n-word".me, internally - uh, no. no i would not.me, externally - mejor hablamos en espanol.
https://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862280151358418944Basically the argument is a mixture of social decorum as well as the morally repugnant origins of the word and why the intention doesn't matter.
no one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.
Quote from: michigancat on May 25, 2018, 03:35:54 PMhttps://twitter.com/Luckwman/status/862280151358418944Basically the argument is a mixture of social decorum as well as the morally repugnant origins of the word and why the intention doesn't matter.her entire thread was about describing and placing in context the social norms around the uses of the words n-word/nigga. at no point did she provide an ethical or moral argument regarding usage.
Quote from: sys on May 25, 2018, 03:50:45 PMno one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.
etymology is not a moral argument.
Quote from: michigancat on May 25, 2018, 04:08:00 PMQuote from: sys on May 25, 2018, 03:50:45 PMno one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.
Quote from: Rage Against the McKee on May 25, 2018, 04:29:34 PMQuote from: michigancat on May 25, 2018, 04:08:00 PMQuote from: sys on May 25, 2018, 03:50:45 PMno one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.I didn't say she was endorsing the lyrics. But censoring herself seems like a pretty easy decision.
Quote from: michigancat on May 25, 2018, 04:41:39 PMQuote from: Rage Against the McKee on May 25, 2018, 04:29:34 PMQuote from: michigancat on May 25, 2018, 04:08:00 PMQuote from: sys on May 25, 2018, 03:50:45 PMno one thought that concert chick was motivated by, or promulgating, hatred, michigancat.well, I'm sure someone did. But regardless, if she wasn't necessarily motivated by hate, she was definitely dismissive or flippant about how her words might affect a minority group. Her lack of concern for how it might be perceived makes it mildly racist IMO.I don't believe that singing along with the lyrics in any song constitutes an endorsement of those lyrics. The girl probably should have turned down the offer to come up on stage, because being up there put her in a situation where she had to make the decision to either censor the original author of the lyrics during his live performance, or sing the lyrics and piss off a bunch of people. I mostly just feel sorry for her.I didn't say she was endorsing the lyrics. But censoring herself seems like a pretty easy decision. She wouldn't have really been censoring herself. She would be censoring Kendrick Lamar, since the lyrics are his. I can see how that might not be an obvious decision, since she was singing with him at his show. It's not unreasonable to view an invitation to the stage as permission to sing the lyrics as written. It was pretty clearly a poor decision on her part to sing the lyrics, but I don't see it as wrong on any moral level.
Quote from: sys on May 25, 2018, 04:14:05 PMetymology is not a moral argument.It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?
You have a source for that? It's far more likely the station censors it. (well the labels do because radio won't play it otherwise).
Quote from: michigancat on May 25, 2018, 04:36:06 PMQuote from: sys on May 25, 2018, 04:14:05 PMetymology is not a moral argument.It's relevant if the moral question is "does the use of a word negatively impact the feelings of others"?it's possible to make an ethical argument against using racial and ethnic slurs, she just didn't make one. i also didn't think it was a great thread. she contradicted herself at times and i'm fairly confident some of her etymology was inaccurate.
I just wish the author of that article spent less time talking about race related issues and more time actually helping black people.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/05/24/atonement-as-activism/This guy must know KK and m-cat.
What gets lost is that all of this awareness was supposed to be about helping black people, especially poor ones. We are too often distracted from this by a race awareness that has come to be largely about white people seeking grace. For example, one reads often of studies showing that black boys are punished and suspended in school more often than other kids. But then one reads equally often that poverty makes boys, in particular, more likely to be aggressive and have a harder time concentrating. We are taught to assume that the punishments and suspensions are due to racism, and to somehow ignore the data showing that the conditions too many black boys grow up in unfortunately makes them indeed more likely to act up in school. Might the poverty be the key problem to address? But, try this purely logical reasoning in polite company only at the risk of being treated as a moral reprobate. Our conversation is to be solely about racism, not solutions—other than looking to a vaguely defined future time when racism somehow disappears, America having “come to terms” with it: i.e. Judgment Day. As to what exactly this coming to terms would consist of, I suppose only our Pastor of White Privilege knows.