India Arie shares videos of Joe Rogan using N-word

[Sheilbh]

Are you suggesting then that in fact context matters?

When have I said anything else?

Although that's not really what I mean. As I say I specifically mean the point around films and art because the only point I had to add on Rogan was about Spotify. But there are fairly hardline positions among some theorists that it is wrong to artistically represent real historic human suffering into art. That it is morally insupportable to make an aesthetic (and in the context of films - money-making) object out of suffering that real people endured. Adorno doesn't go that far but points to it - "to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric". How do you depict the violence and the hate - to what extent are you just repeating it, how does the "gaze" work in that piece, is it enjoying the violence (and the answer in a Tarantino film - is yes)? Is the only appropriate response ultimately documentary and pinning back to facts and reality like Lanzmann (or Binet for a fictonal take on that approach)?

As I say there is no answer - it's philosophy and ethics - and of course different societies will have different ethical approaches at different times. But you can see the impact of thinking about this on, for example, Son of Saul which is, in its way, or I Do Not Care If We Go Down In History As Barbarians which is a film about those ethical challenges in a specific society and context of making something about the Holocaust.

[Berkut]

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.

I think you are right - Pulp Fiction when it came out was intended to be contemporous. So when Tarantino's character was dropping DNS all over the place, we were intended to believe that his character used that language as a matter of course, and this was largely unremarkable in that context (note that his character was in fact saying this to another black guy who presumably had every agency to find offense and did not). To some extent, is that an attempt to normalize or excuse that kind of language?

Now, if you had a movie that came out today that was set in that time, then again, it is...more ok? I mean, you aren't trying to say that is ok, you are just saying that is how in fact people talked at that time. Django Unchained is less objectionable then Pulp Fiction, because we know they are trying to re-create a historical story (or at least a story about a historical story, since obviously DU is not really historical strictly speaking).

I actually think we all pretty much get this. In broad strokes, there is a largely a consensus about how this ought to be used, and those exceptions that are acceptable, or at least tolerable.

I think the push back happens when people want to start pushing outside that consensus of nuance, and just insist that it is fine (which is obviously racist), or insist that there can be no nuance, and therefore it is never fine (which is obviously just not true).

[Berkut]

Are you suggesting then that in fact context matters?

When have I said anything else?

Although that's not really what I mean. As I say I specifically mean the point around films and art because the only point I had to add on Rogan was about Spotify. But there are fairly hardline positions among some theorists that it is wrong to artistically represent real historic human suffering into art. That it is morally insupportable to make an aesthetic (and in the context of films - money-making) object out of suffering that real people endured. Adorno doesn't go that far but points to it - "to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric". How do you depict the violence and the hate - to what extent are you just repeating it, how does the "gaze" work in that piece, is it enjoying the violence (and the answer in a Tarantino film - is yes). Is the only appropriate response ultimately documentary and pinning back to facts and reality like Lanzmann (or Binet for a fictonal take on that approach)?

As I say there is no answer - it's philosophy and ethics - and of course different societies will have different ethical approaches at different times. But you can see the impact of thinking about this on, for example, Son of Saul which is, in its way, or I Do Not Care If We Go Down In History As Barbarians which is a film about those ethical challenges in a specific society and context of making something about the Holocaust.

But I think there is an answer - it just isn't one answer. The answer is, of course, "it depends". And what does it depend on? Context.

So is Rogan an asshole or not? The answer is....well, it depends on the context, and of course your personal views on that context.

Is "Schindlers List" a poor attempt to make money off of the Holocaust? Or is it a noble attempt to make one of the great human tragedies real to a generation that might have been losing sight of it?

I think there are arguments to be made there, one way or another.

[DGuller]

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.

Sometimes the second emotion is actually a repressed expression of the first emotion that is felt subconsciously, at least in the moment.  I'll admit that I myself on several occasion over the years came off the discussion pissed off, and not unjustifiably so (unfortunately there are a few posters who combine the ability to be right with the ability to really irritate you), but then reflected on it later on and at least saw the validity of the other person's POV.

[Zoupa]

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.

[Jacob]

Sometimes the second emotion is actually a repressed expression of the first emotion that is felt subconsciously, at least in the moment.  I'll admit that I myself on several occasion over the years came off the discussion pissed off, and not unjustifiably so (unfortunately there are a few posters who combine the ability to be right with the ability to really irritate you), but then reflected on it later on and at least saw the validity of the other person's POV.

That does happen too, yes. And it's a great reflection on you - and on anyone else - if they can admit they were wrong on something (especially if the other side was being obnoxious).

Conversely, though, the ability to outlast and out-obnoxious someone is not a reliable indicator of correctness.

[Berkut]

Yes, there are definitely some people who have no desire to engage with anyone else in good faith.

They often make a rather obvious attempt to pretend that they are just too good for it, and tell themselves it is "the other guy" who lacks self awareness or intellectual honesty.

[Berkut]

Conversely, though, the ability to outlast and out-obnoxious someone is not a reliable indicator of correctness.

Isn't that the truth.

[The Brain]

(unfortunately there are a few posters who combine the ability to be right with the ability to really irritate you)

[Berkut]

For the record, Zoupa's entire contribution to this thread in his effort to "engage in good faith":

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

A very reasonable question. Which many people then tried to answer reasonably.


Then:

Good luck Garbon, I give up.

I don't think the problem here is one of those who don't agree with him refusing to engage in good faith, or lacking intellectual honesty, or being obnoxious or unreasonable. They just don't agree with him, and have had a rather calm, and pretty interesting conversation about it.

[Berkut]

(unfortunately there are a few posters who combine the ability to be right with the ability to really irritate you)

I am 50-50 on that.

[crazy canuck]

That lack of self awareness is stunning.

[Berkut]

That lack of self awareness is stunning.

Oh please. Lighten up, Francis.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

My experience lines up with DGuller's.

The story of my turn against political correctness begins at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, during the Ethics class.  The professor says "there are some we would say are wrong even if the victim does not object.  For example we would say rape is wrong even if the woman enjoyed it."

A group of female students complains to the professor and I guess the dean on the grounds that women can't enjoy rape, or it's a myth that women enjoy rape, and what he said suggested women enjoy rape, and the professor apologizes.

I'm truly puzzled by the offense, and I ask one of the complainants to explain their grievance to me, since in my understanding of English syntax he in no way suggested or insinuated that women enjoy rape and I don't get what they're upset about.

All she can say to me over and over again is "you just don't get it.  You just don't get it." 

Well yeah I don't get it, that's why I'm asking.

Very little if any of the rhetoric of identity politics has improved my opinion since that point.

I think it's just about the excercise of power.  If we complain we're going to get a retraction so let's complain.

[ulmont]

The story of my turn against political correctness begins at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, during the Ethics class.  The professor says "there are some we would say are wrong even if the victim does not object.  For example we would say rape is wrong even if the woman enjoyed it."

A group of female students complains to the professor and I guess the dean on the grounds that women can't enjoy rape, or it's a myth that women enjoy rape, and what he said suggested women enjoy rape, and the professor apologizes.

I'm truly puzzled by the offense, and I ask one of the complainants to explain their grievance to me, since in my understanding of English syntax he in no way suggested or insinuated that women enjoy rape and I don't get what they're upset about.

I think you may have misunderstood the grievances here.  I can see several reasons why a different example crime might have been better:

1. The professor certainly did clearly suggest that women could enjoy rape, which does minimize the crime.

2. The professor picked a highly gendered crime and then doubled down on the gendered nature by saying "the woman."

3. The professor picked what is likely the most serious crime * percentage of victims = impact in their classroom.

None of that was necessary, and any other "victimless" crime example (gambling, prohibition, assisted suicide) actually makes the point more obviously that some things are illegal because the government says they're illegal and not because the supposed victim complains.