India Arie shares videos of Joe Rogan using N-word

[Valmy]

In India Arie's video on it she shares a collage of him using the word a whole bunch of times, though admittedly the context for each instance is unclear. She also includes a clip in which he tells a story about them looking at a property or something in a mostly black area, saying: "we walked into Planet of the Apes. We walked into Africa, dude. We walked in the door and there was no white people." Which makes me much less inclined to believe that his using the n-word is "just joking" or otherwise not serious in every single one of those instances.

Link: https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1489342772557586444?s=20&t=uN4xNUQJUmBs0scGVfyoUw

Interesting he said that. He almost said something like that on his podcast once and then saying basically 'oh sorry that was racist' so I gave him a pass for it at the time.

Just shows that ordinary people with ordinary biases and eccentricities get problematic when suddenly they are a platform for 11 million people.

[Berkut]

In India Arie's video on it she shares a collage of him using the word a whole bunch of times, though admittedly the context for each instance is unclear. She also includes a clip in which he tells a story about them looking at a property or something in a mostly black area, saying: "we walked into Planet of the Apes. We walked into Africa, dude. We walked in the door and there was no white people." Which makes me much less inclined to believe that his using the n-word is "just joking" or otherwise not serious in every single one of those instances.

Link: https://twitter.com/scobie/status/1489342772557586444?s=20&t=uN4xNUQJUmBs0scGVfyoUw

It seems like someone went to a lot of work to remove the context from each of those instances. Why?

Because she wasn't making an endlessly long video essay but posting on Instagram?

Instagram videos can be as long as you like, it is just a link, right?

I suspect there is a reason beyond the desire for brevity.

And if you want to point something out as important as someones incessant racism, maybe it would make sense, if that was your actual concern, to do so in a format that allows for a more thorough investigation and presentation of evidence.

Of course, if in fact showing something to be certainly the case is NOT what is desired, rather you just want to incite the mob to action, then carefully trimming away context into mob appetite sized pieces would be the way to go.

[DGuller]

I think the article already spelled out the problem.  She claims that there is no context that would excuse the use of the word, so a mere clip of the word being said should be considered fatally damning.

I have two problems with this:  as a general principle I disagree with the modern notion that merely vocalizing the full word is a strict liability offense deserving of social capital punishment.  I don't think in a modern society there should be any word deserving of such status.

Another problem is that whatever you think of the modern standard on the use of the word, clearly that wasn't always the case.  If we start judging people in the past with today's standards, then the only reasonable thing to do is to never say anything ever.  It's hard to predict how the standards would evolve in the future.  I don't think there is any comedian from 20 years ago who would survive if we judge what they said 20 years ago with today's standards.  Maybe having a humorless society is what some people are striving for, but I don't think we should be.

[garbon]

I don't think she was necessarily saying he is racist but rather that she doesn't think he should be using the term at all nor so often.

I don't know why she would need full context of his remarks to make that claim.

[garbon]

I think the article already spelled out the problem.  She claims that there is no context that would excuse the use of the word, so a mere clip of the word being said should be considered fatally damning.

I have two problems with this:  as a general principle I disagree with the modern notion that merely vocalizing the full word is a strict liability offense deserving of social capital punishment.  I don't think in a modern society there should be any word deserving of such status.

Another problem is that whatever you think of the modern standard on the use of the word, clearly that wasn't always the case.  If we start judging people in the past with today's standards, then the only reasonable thing to do is to never say anything ever.  It's hard to predict how the standards would evolve in the future.  I don't think there is any comedian from 20 years ago who would survive if we judge what they said 20 years ago with today's standards.  Maybe having a humorless society is what some people are striving for, but I don't think we should be.

Great, but the word has a terrible history and to pretend like it is just like any other word is lazy.

I know you love to defend that people shouldn't be called out for terms they used in the past and thus your argument about judging people from comments 20 years ago but his podcast has only existed for 12 years. At no point in the last 12 years could anyone had thought it was a great idea for a white person to be saying the n-word. That's not judging something simply by contemporary standards but what would have been standards since the inception of his podcast. Wtf?

[DGuller]

I don't think she was necessarily saying he is racist but rather that she doesn't think he should be using the term at all nor so often.

I don't know why she would need full context of his remarks to make that claim.

If she thinks he shouldn't be using the word regardless of context, then obviously she doesn't need context for her own judgment.  In that case, though, why are we particularly interested in what she thinks?  She may also think that he should shave more often, which is also her right.

My guess is that she wouldn't publish such video unless she was trying to appeal to other people's judgment, though.  It wasn't just a "hey, guys, here is what I think of Joe Ragan, in case anyone was curious, and here's why I think that."  If she is trying to to appeal to other people's judgment, though, then she should consider other people's ideas of what is and isn't reasonable.  I hope that enough of other people still consider context important.

[garbon]

More to your point, DGuller, I think it is okay for humor to evolve and spend less time punching down on minority groups. That's okay and doesn't mean that "having a humorless society is what some people are striving for."

[Admiral Yi]

Planet of the Apes is difficult to defend.

[garbon]

I don't think she was necessarily saying he is racist but rather that she doesn't think he should be using the term at all nor so often.

I don't know why she would need full context of his remarks to make that claim.

If she thinks he shouldn't be using the word regardless of context, then obviously she doesn't need context for her own judgment.  In that case, though, why are we particularly interested in what she thinks?  She may also think that he should shave more often, which is also her right.

My guess is that she wouldn't publish such video unless she was trying to appeal to other people's judgment, though.  It wasn't just a "hey, guys, here is what I think of Joe Ragan, in case anyone was curious, and here's why I think that."  If she is trying to to appeal to other people's judgment, though, then she should consider other people's ideas of what is and isn't reasonable.  I hope that enough of other people still consider context important.

I think it is reasonable to say we aren't and have yet to reach a place where a white man should be hosting a talk show where he uses the n-word and expects he won't face opprobrium. The clips without context may play up the harshness of the term (although really none seem to be him saying it in anger as much as I could watch) but it is indeed a harsh term even if you are just quoting others or making a joke.

Oh and on why we are interested in what she thinks - well it was a story for her followers - presumably they care what she thinks?

[Zoupa]

If she is trying to to appeal to other people's judgment, though, then she should consider other people's ideas of what is and isn't reasonable.  I hope that enough of other people still consider context important.

In which context is using the full word instead of the abbreviation appropriate, in the time period 2010-2022?

[DGuller]

Great, but the word has a terrible history and to pretend like it is just like any other word is lazy.

I know you love to defend that people shouldn't be called out for terms they used in the past and thus your argument about judging people from comments 20 years ago but his podcast has only existed for 12 years. At no point in the last 12 years could anyone had thought it was a great idea for a white person to be saying the n-word. That's not judging something simply by contemporary standards but what would have been standards since the inception of his podcast. Wtf?

My recollection was that 12 years ago using the full word regardless of context wasn't a capital offense.  Definitely addressing a black person by that name was a grave offense for many decades by then, but you could still quote it in entirety without having a lightning bolt instantly strike you down.  Even when it was used inappropriately, it wasn't always a capital offense (there can be gradations of sanctions).

Right here on this forum, Seedy was using that word occasionally, the whole episode of him craving big black cock rabbits came from his use of the word.  It may have been in poor taste, like a lot of things Seedy said, but I don't think anyone here agitated to cancel him.  Maybe we should all be canceled for tolerating it?

[DGuller]

If she is trying to to appeal to other people's judgment, though, then she should consider other people's ideas of what is and isn't reasonable.  I hope that enough of other people still consider context important.

In which context is using the full word instead of the abbreviation appropriate, in the time period 2010-2022?

Quoting verbatim what someone else said, for one.  Playacting a racist would be another one.

[Berkut]

I don't think she was necessarily saying he is racist but rather that she doesn't think he should be using the term at all nor so often.

I don't know why she would need full context of his remarks to make that claim.

I think her basic point is being lost, and her basic point is pretty damn good.

Her primary objection is that the platform is making a shitload of money off of artists like her by paying her almost nothing for her music.

They are then turning around and giving $100 million to some dumb ass white guy who isn't even bright enough to know now to drop the n-word all over the place, and she has the rather understandable feeling that it is *her* revenue that they are transferring over to Rogan.

This is a pretty legit complaint, I think.

Focusing on him using THE FORBIDDEN WORD mostly just detracts from that point, but is effective in getting her voice raised, and absent that, perhaps nobody would notice what she has to say at all.

[Berkut]

If she is trying to to appeal to other people's judgment, though, then she should consider other people's ideas of what is and isn't reasonable.  I hope that enough of other people still consider context important.

In which context is using the full word instead of the abbreviation appropriate, in the time period 2010-2022?

Isn't it better to define those contexts where it is not appropriate?

In any case, there are plenty of contexts where it appears to be entirely appropriate, at least insofar as those who raise the mob for it's use in some cases are entirely quiet about its use in other cases. For example, when black people use it towards one another.

[Zoupa]

Good luck garbon, I give up.