India Arie shares videos of Joe Rogan using N-word

[ulmont]

It's disappointing to observe the erosion of willingness and/or ability to discuss issues.  I don't think it furthers the cause of good guys.

We are aging bastards getting set in our ways. Languish of 18 years ago would have debated this for 200 pages.

Disagree. I think that we just know each other too well and know when there's a point in arguing and when there's not.

Why do you think most of my activity is in the Star Wars thread? I often read a story, consider posting it on Languish, and then think, "nah", because I kinda know who will react now, and it feels superfluous at that point.

[Habbaku]

Why do you think most of my activity is in the Star Wars thread? I often read a story, consider posting it on Languish, and then think, "nah", because I kinda know who will react now, and it feels superfluous at that point.

I would appreciate more of your links. Not like you have to respond back to the reactions. 

[Josquius]

In the time frame of a little less then 6 months, a variety of well known American celebrities (many of whome were white) said the n-word well over 300 times. It was, in fact, routine. They said it over, and over and over again.

They were, at the time, filming Django Unchained, and the film as released used the term over 100 times.

Tarantino caught some flack for his use of the word in his scripts, and he had caught some flack for its use in previous scripts as well (Pulp Fiction, notably).

How should we feel about it's use in that context? Would it be reasonable to put together a twitter video of each time Leonardo Dicaprio said the word in that movie, or Christopher Waltz, or Jamie Foxx, or Samuel L. Jackson, and then if someone asks respond that context does not in fact matter, the simple act of saying the word is damnation enough?

How would you feel if over a similar time frame a bunch of well known celebrities repeatedly talked about how much they hate Jews and want to kill them all-because they're making a film about the nazis.

Someone expressing opinion and acting is clearly different.

How does this have anything to do with what we're talking about?

We're talking about Joe Rogan saying "nigger" either on his podcast or a comedy show.  That is not action, and since his statements have been decontextualized we don't know what opinion he was expressing.

.

Yes. So it's a bit weird to defend it on the basis actors say it too.

[crazy canuck]

Good luck garbon, I give up.

I think we are supposed to enter Languish leaving everything we know about the world at the door.

We definitely need a subtitle for this forum - Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'entrate

[Eddie Teach]

In the time frame of a little less then 6 months, a variety of well known American celebrities (many of whome were white) said the n-word well over 300 times. It was, in fact, routine. They said it over, and over and over again.

They were, at the time, filming Django Unchained, and the film as released used the term over 100 times.

Tarantino caught some flack for his use of the word in his scripts, and he had caught some flack for its use in previous scripts as well (Pulp Fiction, notably).

How should we feel about it's use in that context? Would it be reasonable to put together a twitter video of each time Leonardo Dicaprio said the word in that movie, or Christopher Waltz, or Jamie Foxx, or Samuel L. Jackson, and then if someone asks respond that context does not in fact matter, the simple act of saying the word is damnation enough?

How would you feel if over a similar time frame a bunch of well known celebrities repeatedly talked about how much they hate Jews and want to kill them all-because they're making a film about the nazis.

Someone expressing opinion and acting is clearly different.

How does this have anything to do with what we're talking about?

We're talking about Joe Rogan saying "nigger" either on his podcast or a comedy show.  That is not action, and since his statements have been decontextualized we don't know what opinion he was expressing.

.

Yes. So it's a bit weird to defend it on the basis actors say it too.

He's not defending it.

[Zoupa]

Disagree. I think that we just know each other too well and know when there's a point in arguing and when there's not.

I suspect that sometimes people know not to argue because they know their views won't hold up to detailed discussion, but they want to hold on to them anyway.  The reason I suspect that is that some people do enter the discussion, but have a tendency to leave with a nasty parting statement when it doesn't go their way.  It's understandable if people leave the discussion due to abuse leveled at them, but often times the only sign of abuse is the willingness to defend a take they disagree with.

Not you though right? You're everything that's good and pure in this world.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes. So it's a bit weird to defend it on the basis actors say it too.

I think you missed his point.

He's saying (I think) that usage such as dead nigger storage in Pulp fiction show that the word can be used acceptably in context.  Therefore we need to know the way in which Joe Rogan said it.

In a nutshell, dead nigger storage is acceptable not because Tarantino is a famous director, but because people seem OK with it.

[Jacob]

In a nutshell, dead nigger storage is acceptable not because Tarantino is a famous director, but because people seem OK with it.

I don't know if people would still be okay with it if the film came out today, or that they'll be okay with it at all times in the future. There'll probably also be a period in time where it'll be okay in the film as an artifact of the time, but it won't be okay in new productions.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know if people would still be okay with it if the film came out today, or that they'll be okay with it at all times in the future. There'll probably also be a period in time where it'll be okay in the film as an artifact of the time, but it won't be okay in new productions.

Yeah I think there are questions around how to depict slavery - just like there is the Holocaust or other atrocities. It - and I think all art dealing with a real atrocity - is ethically fraught.

There's no answer.

[DGuller]

I think there is an answer to every such question, and it is to always look at context and intention, and pretty much nothing else, for every word and every sentence.  Ultimately communication is all about the ideas you're trying to convey to others.  It's not like you lose the ability to say some pretty vile stuff about black people as soon as the N-word is taken away from your vocabulary, GOP has an entire book of dog whistles that are composed of perfectly acceptable words.

[Sheilbh]

I meant specifically the film point/artistic representation of real human suffering in these cases on a mass scale - it's philosophy and ethics at the end of the day for which there is no answer and different victims and subsequent theorrists have ended up in very different places on this.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Is that accurate though?  Putting aside the Joe Rogan issue.

The way the streaming services work, the services keep <30% of revenue as gross profit, which is then used to pay out all operating costs, payroll etc.  70%+ goes to the rights owners.

It's possible one could increase the rights share a little bit more, but practically not very much more.  And even if you pushed it from 70 to 75 or even 80 it wouldn't make a huge difference.

From a purely financial point of view, it seems to me she should be cheering Joe Rogan because if it makes spotify a ton more money, there is more revenue to share around . . .

The reality is what is limiting her financial take has little to do with spotify, but rather with the facts that:
1) Unless she is a songwriter, her take is limited to the 16 or so percent cut she gets from Universal Music (record label), which keeps the vast majority of the royalty payments.  Even if she is a songwriter, the writers cut is smaller and has to be shared with the publisher.
2) The market often rewards shock and schlock over talent and there is also a long sad history of white acts making $ "laundering" black music.

However, these factors have always been present in the recording industry.  To the extent the streaming services have had any effect, it is arguably in facilitating market access to indies and self-publishers.

[Jacob]

I suspect that sometimes people know not to argue because they know their views won't hold up to detailed discussion, but they want to hold on to them anyway.  The reason I suspect that is that some people do enter the discussion, but have a tendency to leave with a nasty parting statement when it doesn't go their way.  It's understandable if people leave the discussion due to abuse leveled at them, but often times the only sign of abuse is the willingness to defend a take they disagree with.

I suspect the amount of time people go "secretly I realize I'm wrong while this other person is right, but I don't want to admit it" is much lower than the times they go "Jesus fucking Christ this other person lacks self-awareness, intellectual honesty, and even a tiny amount of desire to engage in good faith - what a pointless waste of time."

Alternately, they may simple not care that much having the detailed discussion on languish because they have other venues for debate they consider more interesting, fruitful, or otherwise worthwhile.

[Berkut]

In the time frame of a little less then 6 months, a variety of well known American celebrities (many of whome were white) said the n-word well over 300 times. It was, in fact, routine. They said it over, and over and over again.

They were, at the time, filming Django Unchained, and the film as released used the term over 100 times.

Tarantino caught some flack for his use of the word in his scripts, and he had caught some flack for its use in previous scripts as well (Pulp Fiction, notably).

How should we feel about it's use in that context? Would it be reasonable to put together a twitter video of each time Leonardo Dicaprio said the word in that movie, or Christopher Waltz, or Jamie Foxx, or Samuel L. Jackson, and then if someone asks respond that context does not in fact matter, the simple act of saying the word is damnation enough?

How would you feel if over a similar time frame a bunch of well known celebrities repeatedly talked about how much they hate Jews and want to kill them all-because they're making a film about the nazis.

Someone expressing opinion and acting is clearly different.

How does this have anything to do with what we're talking about?

We're talking about Joe Rogan saying "nigger" either on his podcast or a comedy show.  That is not action, and since his statements have been decontextualized we don't know what opinion he was expressing.

.

Yes. So it's a bit weird to defend it on the basis actors say it too.

I have NOT defended it on that basis at all.

I have asked for context, and been told that there is no possible context where it is defensible, therefore no need to provide context.

"Actors saying it too" is a rather clear attempt to show that in fact context DOES matter.

In fact, I went out of my way to *explictly* state that just because this one case is ok, that does NOT mean that Rogan's case is ok. I said that absolutely explicitly.

So how can you sit here now and claim that I am defending Rogan because actors say it too?

[Berkut]

I meant specifically the film point/artistic representation of real human suffering in these cases on a mass scale - it's philosophy and ethics at the end of the day for which there is no answer and different victims and subsequent theorrists have ended up in very different places on this.

Are you suggesting then that in fact context matters?