Off I go to the real world to try to make sense of myself and then I come back to this. Hahahahaha bougie and fresa? Really? Come on now. He eats, drinks and talks fancy, therefore, fresa. Has nothing to do with race, mama. Zip. The N word on the other hand...

(April 20, 2019 at 1:22 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Jorm, I know you to be an incredibly thoughtful person. I believe you were just trying to be funny in Slack but you ended up conjuring up a shit storm. As Dave Chappelle demonstrates, the N-word can be funny as hell. But it's risky as fuck to make a joke with it because of how offensive it is.

Sorry about the shit storm. My advice is chill and let it die down.

To me, Slack was boring because people talked about football nonstop. I know you like football, so it might not seem so boring to you, but to me, it's boring as fuck, so I never waded through enough football talk to see if it was a social club or not. And I don't really care. I just don't want you to get all pissed about this and leave, because we need you in the philosophy subforum. Too many passers-by that post stupid shit there, and you offer much clarity.

It's risky because it gives racists an excuse to use the word .

When have you ever heard of a racist needing an excuse to use a slur? They just use it, consequences be damned.

It is always curious to see how touchy feely Murricans are at a few particular words...
Some time ago, someone said douche and all hell broke loose.
Nigger is another that tends to have a shitstorm on its tail... so much so, that you will even replace it with "the N word", as if that totally changes the meaning of what's being said...
(Can't say Voldemort, but rather he-who-shall-not-be-named!, huh?)

I know the history attached to the word, though I never felt any of it for obvious reasons...the main one being that I'm in Europe. .. Portugal, actually... The language responsible for bringing you the negro word. But, you know?, in Portugal, negro is the politically correct way of referring to those dark African people (and descendents). We also have a history of f racism due to the colonies in Africa (mainly Angola and Mozambique) so we've had our weird stuff too. Here, the offensive word became "preto", for some reason that my knowledge of history is remiss. But it is used to refer to the color black, in paint or on a screen, and there we can use preto or negro interchangeably. So the distinction comes when you apply it to someone... And, even there, given enough familiarity, people are usually ok with it.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that jorm was using it under the silent understanding of familiarity... And seemingly got a kick in the gut because some people can't do nuance.
Some people are just like that: If you do X,Y, or Z, shit happens. Binary thinking, possibly justified due to life's many kicks, possibly a learned behavior from peers, for it seems to be a murrican/bureaucrat way of thinking.

Anyway, those are my 2c. Feel free to rage at the wonderful gift that my language and ancestors have given you.
Portugal boasts having been one of the first countries in the world to abolish slavery... Way back in the 1700s! But slave trading didn't end, as America knows all too well. On behalf of those greedy Portuguese bastards from 200 years ago, I apologize.

(April 20, 2019 at 2:59 am)pocaracas Wrote: touchy feely

If a very large number of Americans feel they are being disparaged by the word, and want white people to stop using it, are they overly touchy feely? Are they at fault somehow? Too sensitive, maybe? 

Should we go ahead and use it, because, you know, fuck everybody else's feelings, and all that?

(April 20, 2019 at 3:30 am)Belaqua Wrote:

(April 20, 2019 at 2:59 am)pocaracas Wrote: touchy feely

If a very large number of Americans feel they are being disparaged by the word, and want white people to stop using it, are they overly touchy feely? Are they at fault somehow? Too sensitive, maybe? 

Should we go ahead and use it, because, you know, fuck everybody else's feelings, and all that?

No large number of Americans owns the English language. What they want and what they get need not be the same.

And the keyword on my text was nuance... Something you seem to have missed.
I don't expect a white person from the south of the US to be using the word with the same intent as an Asian person from the north of the US (as jorm is).

There are many many words used to insult and you don't see those being virtually banned due to "everybody else's feelings".
I started my previous post with an example of a different word that has the added bonus of carrying different connotations in the US and UK. Should douche also be banned from the language because a large number of Americans feel that they are being insulted and denigrated? Or is intent a thing that can be applied for this, but not for the other word?

(April 20, 2019 at 4:56 am)pocaracas Wrote: There are many many words used to insult and you don't see those being virtually banned due to "everybody else's feelings".

This is true.

I've just been surprised at how little importance most people here seem to give to anyone else's feelings. This is just a cultural difference I guess.

Hmm...I and a several other N***ER members over on a few of the N***ER atheist forums were placing bets as to how long it would take you guys to start in on this topic again.
You guys are right on schedule...Lmfao.

At least three threads actively debating whether the term N***ER and/or blackface is "okay" or not.
Not too shabby for a smallish forum such as this.

 Nice job! 

HThis is going to be my last post now before I take a break for a while, as this place isn’t for me right now. There’s many nice, reasonable people here and it’s a shame that my mental state is too fragile to cope with the people who aren’t so nice.

Here’s my personal opinion of how events unfolded here. People are welcome to disagree with my opinion.

1) Jorm made a topic in good faith, wishing to discuss a decision she didn’t understand on another platform.

2) She was not met with good faith back, received abuse from several people, and did not receive much in the way of meaningful discussion.

3) Fighting on, she managed to eventually discuss some of the points she wanted to talk about and got some answers. Those answers were pretty lame, in my opinion, but whatever. Run a private chat group however you like.

4) Jorm is being lectured about "breaking the prime directive", while doing no such thing in this thread as far as I can see, via posts that very much break that directive themselves. Huge hypocrisy. It was also way worse (in my opinion) than the breaking of some blasphemy-style law on the other group. She still carried on a lot longer than I’d have bothered to, to try and reach some meaningful agreement.

This is exactly the kind of non-discussion that is putting me off. It’s only a minority of people behaving this way, but this enough to make it toxic for me. This is a discussion forum, and discussion seems to be an afterthought.

People no doubt called me out for being a hypocrite when I complained about people being offensive to me in the other thread, after complaining about snowflake culture. I feel I should explain this point before I leave. Yes, in one respect I’m a snowflake myself because I am thin skinned at the moment. I’m mentally fragile. The difference is that I recognise that it’s me that doesn’t fit with the forum, not the other way around. I’m not requesting censorship, banning, or any other changes. I’m just voicing my opinions of why it’s not for me. The snowflake culture is to expect the environment to change around you, so that you no longer have to deal with people and opinions you don’t like. It’s also about deciding on other peoples' behalf what is offensive to them. (What is and isn’t offensive is highly subjective, I think. And being offensive isn’t a reason to be censored unless you’re actively harassing individuals.)

Now, much of what people "responded" to in that thread, I hadn’t actually said. They just imagined a load of other stuff that I probably thought, according to them, and replied to that. I wasn’t accusing anyone here of being a snowflake, nor talking about this forum, nor even specifically talking about the subject of blackface. I was making a general comment about my personal opinion about the direction society is headed. Since it was considered wrongthink by several people, the way to proceed is to have a non-discussion involving slinging mud until I either be quiet or change my opinion. Like I said, most of what was said didn’t even address what I said at all anyway. This kind of tactics is sadly the direction I see "debate" going in general. Whoever shouts the loudest wins. Again, this is a minority of people here, but enough to pierce my thin skin. And as such, I remove myself from the environment. For those that have been kind to me, I give my thanks and wish you well. Maybe I’ll return sometime in the future. I’ll continue to check my PMs.

---

PS: if anyone wants examples of what I was talking about regarding SJW and feminist ideology, then I invite you to take a listen. This stuff is everywhere. Again, I’m not talking about this forum, but society in general.

I have many points which I wish to address, but in the interests of my health, I may limit my participation in this thread yet again today.  It's morning and I have a very busy day ahead, so we'll see what my best wisdom says when the time arrives later this evening.  But at the same time, I don't want to leave people hanging, because many people draw inferences from that.  So I'll simply pose a few questions for consideration in the absence of a more affirmative defense.

A number of people, Shell, Losty, and Jack, have been making what appears to be the standard argument that, "In the absence of other evidence, this person's gut instinct should be trusted."  This is a perfectly rational argument, and we rely upon it extensively.  "In the absence of contrary evidence, I trust my doctor's gut instinct on this."  There are two problems here, first of all, the question is whether there is indeed an "absence of other evidence" here.  I would argue that we shouldn't simply depend upon Steelcurtain's gut instinct, both because we can rationally examine the case and determine whether his view is justified, and because as a black person, likely possessed of strong political views, emotions, and beliefs on the subject, it's very possible that he is wrong, not "in spite of being black," but rather "because he is black," and is not necessarily thinking clearly and objectively about things.  The other problem with this argument is that we have someone else who is skeptical of the conclusion of that person's gut, because they too have a gut as well as arguments in favor of her position.  It's true that I don't have the experience of the stigma of being black, but I too have a gut instinct on such matters as a person of color as well as a person with a mental illness who has spent over 30 years monitoring how her emotions influence her thinking and judgement, as well as a number of years experience as a provider of services to people with a mental illness.  And I keep hearing Jack and others talking about how Steelcurtain is very sensible, level-headed, and reasonable in general.  However there are two points here, the first of which is that while I don't necessarily possess Steelcurtain's virtue of level headedness, I too bring specific virtues and competencies to the equation which I don't think are in dispute (feel free to disabuse me of that notion if I'm simply deluded).  I may not have the gut of a level-headed black person, who may after all, for the reasons stated, not be displaying the virtues he otherwise would be displaying in this specific instance, but I have a reputation for being an excellent thinker who is a gifted and sensitive user of the English language, virtues which I think, perhaps mistakenly, are well established, and in this case, even greater evidenced than Steelcurtain's (through no fault of his own, as he's simply not been as active in arenas in which he can demonstrate his reasoning ability; if he wants to get alone with me in a dark alley and compare IQs, I'm down for that!).  And this is especially relevant because the question I've raised is whether we do or do not have other evidence in this case, and on that score, my reasoning ability is clearly a relevant virtue.

I'm trying not to make this a rambling mess, but it's morning, and I'm not succeeding, but hope people will excuse my laziness in not reformulating this to make it less of a mess.  I hope no one will conclude that because this post is a mess that this is evidence against my claim or reasoning ability and gifts with the English language, because I think that would be an error.  Anyway, continuing....

The other point that I'd make is that people are relying upon Steelcurtain's gut in the matter because in general, his gut is a reliable indicator of what's what.  But that's not the question here, but rather is Steelcurtain's gut instinct on the matter reliable in this specific instance, something which has been somewhat addressed, primarily by declaring that the gut instinct of somebody, black or not, who says that any and all uses of "Whassup, nigger?" by a white person are inappropriate and offensive are correct, and, that it is necessarily the case that all such uses of the phrase by a white person should be considered offensive and inappropriate.  At minimum, that appears to be an argument based upon political opinion and individual values, rather than a statement of fact.  (What do we do if two people disagree about the politics of a certain expression?  I myself am a cunt.  If I get myself and a number of my radical feminist allies together and assert that any use of the word cunt by someone who is not a cunt is being inappropriate and offensive because we've earned the right to call ourselves cunts, when the use of the word by non-cunts has historically been used to dehumanize and control us cunts?  I think ultimately, if this is based purely on politics, it devolves to statements of, "I want such and such to happen, therefore such and such should happen.")  Again, we need, especially in a case where there is a dispute in the matter, not to depend upon anybody's "gut" and actually examine the specifics and the actual substance and context of the expression to determine whether or not those who believe that my use of "Whassup, nigger?" was in fact inappropriate, not just in general, or in most cases, but in this specific case are correct.  And just as a parenthetical, I think Losty has suggested that I simply trust Steelcurtain's gut in the matter because he's black.  That depends critically upon my thinking you, Losty, are wise and your advice sound.  I think neither of these things, and I find your advice, patronizing and condescending as it was, especially delivered to a person of color, is likely good evidence that you are actually not wise but rather foolish.

Anyway, on to those questions.

1) Should we trust the "gut instinct" of a black person on such questions, in the absence of other evidence?

2) Should we trust the gut instinct of a black person when there is other evidence and argument to consider?

3) Should the gut instinct of a black person be given greater weight than any other person simply because they are black, up to and including ignoring what the gut instinct of a woman, who is also a person of color, and has a very good gut to rely upon as well, thinks based upon her extensive experience, and, including her specific competence as a person who, I'm assuming in this case, has the benefit of the doubt regarding the depth, clarity, and insight that her thinking on the matter brings to the table?

And I want to acknowledge that Steelcurtain is relying upon others to advocate on his behalf (allegedly), because he has recused himself in the matter, and it would be unethical of him to make arguments aimed at persuading people, members or staff, toward a specific conclusion in the matter (something he obviously has not done!  that would be prima facie evidence that he is not thinking clearly in the matter, and I would be somewhat reluctant to suggest that).  My point being that any silence from Steelcurtain with respect to my points is not a reflection of any necessary weakness of his arguments or those of others who are arguing the point.

(Mornings are the absolute best! if you want to create a rambling mess!  Apologies, but I am trying to balance multiple priorities, including time, the interests of my mental health, and life in general.  I hope to return to my former, clear thinking and writing self after a lengthy stay in rehab.)

(ETA:  Oh, and we also shouldn't necessarily depend upon the gut of my nurse as well.  My point in bringing that up was to point out that Losty was catastrophisizing and exaggerating unreasonably when she stated that it was not funny, and that my nurse's reaction is evidence that, indeed, it is funny to some people, even if it's not funny to you, Losty, specifically.  And I will also point out that your contention that I appeared as if I was making an argument that I was justified in using the expression "Whassup, nigger?" because my nurse found it funny is suggesting that I was making an argument that is a strawman and more evidence against any credibility your arguments might otherwise possess.  I was simply pointing out that your opinion that it was not funny was another questionable assertion that you have made.  That you thought it might have been something else simply suggests that you do not bring especially strong intellectual virtues to this particular table.)

ETA2: And just to throw this out there, prior to my arguing the point, I would ask Steelcurtain specifically, and anyone else who wants to weigh in on the matter, what exactly my arguing the boujee/fresa question "tells" them, and specifically why. I'm not drawing a direct parallel here, but it's very reminiscient of another case in which a person of color, Huggy, accused me of being a white supremacist because of the conclusions he formed as a result of inferences he made about my behavior and its possible motivation. In Huggy's case, the accusation is pure bullshit. Whether Steelcurtain has in fact made any such accusation, and whether or not his reasoning in this case is similarly bullshit remains to be seen. In the absence of any arguments from me, I ask that people withhold judgement until all the facts are in, as it appears very possible that Steelcurtain is basing his conclusion on a strawman of my argument (a strawman which others have embraced), which would render his conclusion, and that of others, invalid. (Not wrong, necessarily, just not rationally supported by the specific reasoning being used to draw that conclusion in the specific case.) So, I'll leave it to you, Steel, to explain to us what my arguments about bujee and fresa tell you and why. And I give you explicit permission to break from your recusal regarding this specific question and not hold you at fault for doing so, if in fact, doing so would be a breach of your recusal.