https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/04/india-arie-shares-videos-of-joe-rogan-using-n-word-as-she-leaves-spotify-16051925/
QuoteIndia Arie is the latest artist to ask for her music to be taken off Spotify in the row against Joe Rogan, with the singer sharing videos of the podcaster using the N-word.
The Grammy-winner also elaborated on a recent statement, which comes after musicians like Neil Young and Joni Mitchell took their music off Spotify, citing Rogan's spreading of misinformation about the Covid-19 vaccine as their reason.
Arie shared various clips of Rogan using the slur and said she 'empathises with the people who are leaving for Covid misinformation reasons.'
Referring to the clips of Rogan using the N-word, Arie said her position was that he 'shouldn't even be uttering the word, don't even say it under any context'.
She mentioned reports that Rogan signed a $100million (£73million) deal with Spotify, and claimed the company pays musicians a fraction of what they should be paid despite music being the 'backbone of the service'.
She went on to claim that that money is being invested into creators like Rogan and asked: 'What if we all leave?'
'Do what you want but take me off,' she added. 'Or, pay me too. And I don't just mean me. Us, artists like me. Pay artists of colour too.'
Arie had previously shared a statement saying: 'I have decided to pull my music and podcast from Spotify.
'Neil Young opened a door that I must walk through. I believe in freedom of speech. However, I find Joe Rogan problematic for reasons other than his Covid interviews.
'For me it's also his language around race. What I am talking about is respect – who gets it and who doesn't.
'Paying musicians a fraction of a penny and him $100m? This shows the type of company they are and the company they keep. I'm tired.'
Rogan has previously addressed allegations of racism against him, saying: 'It's not real racism, it's a joke. There's a difference.'
Comedian-turned-MMA commentator Rogan is behind Spotify's most popular podcast, with an estimated 11million listeners per episode, and has faced criticism for his views on the Covid-19 vaccine, including him previously urging 'young, healthy' people not to get jabbed.
In response, various artists have demanded their music is taken down from Spotify.
In a lengthy video, Rogan responded by saying: 'I'm not trying to promote misinformation, I'm not trying to be controversial. I've never tried to do anything with this podcast other than just talk to people and have interesting conversations.'
I don't think I ever expected her name to be in international news again. Nor did I expect she'd be the one bringing fire against Rogan.
This week I learned who Joe rogan is.
I thought the problem was transphobia rather than swearing?
Quote from: Tyr on February 05, 2022, 05:28:22 AM
This week I learned who Joe rogan is.
I thought the problem was transphobia rather than swearing?
Also providing a big platform to e.g. people spreading misinformation about Covid 19.
Rogan is a long time nut who became inexplicably popular.
I have never heard of India Arie, if I read correctly her problem isn't that Rogan uses the N-word or spreads misinformation, but that he gets paid more?
India is offering Spotify a deal. Pay me more, and I'll let Joe Rogan say nigger.
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2022, 10:47:32 AM
I have never heard of India Arie, if I read correctly her problem isn't that Rogan uses the N-word or spreads misinformation, but that he gets paid more?
No, I very much doubt that given India Arie left the mainstream long ago.
Quote from: Syt on February 05, 2022, 05:36:18 AM
Also providing a big platform to e.g. people spreading misinformation about Covid 19.
Isn't it a bit different with the podcasts though? From my understanding Spotify paid loads of money to already very popular podcasts for them to move exclusively onto Spotify.
If Spotify ends that deal all that happens is those podcasts go back to the podcast app (where they probably had a larger platform ironically) and would probably still be available on Spotify.
Spotify was in a bind, revenue had stagnated and it still wasn't profitable. The solution to that is the increase revenue from the stream of lucrative ads attached to podcasts.
They currently are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Quote from: Grey Fox on February 05, 2022, 12:15:14 PM
Spotify was in a bind, revenue had stagnated and it still wasn't profitable. The solution to that is the increase revenue from the stream of lucrative ads attached to podcasts.
They currently are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Well, what they were looking for was a way to get "exclusive content" - podcasting isn't really going to move the needle financially-wise, compared to music it's still a pretty small earner. One of their problems is that music streaming platforms, as opposed to video streaming, pretty much have all the same catalog. It's very hard to differentiate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 05, 2022, 12:11:13 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 05, 2022, 05:36:18 AM
Also providing a big platform to e.g. people spreading misinformation about Covid 19.
Isn't it a bit different with the podcasts though? From my understanding Spotify paid loads of money to already very popular podcasts for them to move exclusively onto Spotify.
If Spotify ends that deal all that happens is those podcasts go back to the podcast app (where they probably had a larger platform ironically) and would probably still be available on Spotify.
I think Tyr was identifying one of the problems with Rogan, not the Spotify platform. Spotify bought his large audience with the exclusive deal. One of the significant problems with Rogan is he does provide a big platform to people who spread misinformation on a number of topics. The one that has gotten people's attention is the idiocy he and his guests spout about COVID. His defense is he brings on all points of view. It is the absurdity where a complete misunderstanding of the limits of freedom of expression has gotten us.
Quote from: celedhring on February 05, 2022, 12:24:10 PM
Well, what they were looking for was a way to get "exclusive content" - podcasting isn't really going to move the needle financially-wise, compared to music it's still a pretty small earner. One of their problems is that music streaming platforms, as opposed to video streaming, pretty much have all the same catalog. It's very hard to differentiate.
Good point. I guess all they have is their suggestion algos.
As reported by Daily Mail
QuoteSpotify has taken down 113 episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience podcast from its platform as of Saturday night, after Rogan issued an apology for having used racial slurs on his platform in the past.
JRE Missing, a website that automatically detects deleted episodes of Rogan's podcast, has been tracking the changes
Most of the pulled episodes were recorded before his recent COVID-19 controversy and involved far-right commentators - or outright conspiracy theorists - including Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Owen Benjamin and Canadian writer Gavin Miles McInnes.
Canadian writer? In the conspiracy nutjob system, some nationalities and occupations are considered especially heinous. These are their stories.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:01:08 AM
Milo Yiannopoulos
What's that guy been up to? Seems things have gotten quiet around him.
I had a look what Gina Carano is up to on her Twitter, and it's gone pretty deep into the anti-mask/anti-vaxx bubble it seems like.
I googled him and Daily Mail has info on that too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10264523/Milo-Yiannopoulos-right-wing-troll-toured-Australia-selling-religious-statues-YouTube.html
QuoteThe sad downfall of Milo Yiannopoulos: Right-wing troll who once held a sold-out tour in Australia blasting feminism and Islam is now selling religious statues on YouTube
...
But after several years out of the spotlight, the 37-year-old has resurfaced spruiking an $87.50 statue of the Virgin Mary for an extremist Christian organisation.
'She's just under 12 inches tall, she's available in those two different accent finishes,' Yiannopoulos tells the audience in the bizarre clip.
'We've got statues in the shop that are fully painted but the thing I like about her is this wonderful, burnished, bronzey, aged colour she's got.. the face on this is especially good.'
The video was posted by Church Militant - a far-right, Orthodox Catholic movement with anti-gay, anti-transgender views.
Yiannopoulos married his long-term boyfriend, John, in 2017 and once said that sex between a 13-year-old boy and an older man could be 'life-affirming'.
But earlier this year he revealed he was now 'anti-gay' and 'anti-sodomy'.
'When I used to kid that I only became gay to torment my mother, I wasn't entirely joking,' he told conservative website LifeSite in March.
'Of course, I was never wholly at home in the gay lifestyle — Who is? Who could be? — and only leaned heavily into it in public because it drove liberals crazy to see a handsome, charismatic, intelligent gay man riotously celebrating conservative principles.'
He also said he planned to dedicate the next 10 years to reviving the widely banned practice of conversion therapy that aims to forcibly change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, claiming 'it does work.'
Poor Mart. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:46:45 AM
I googled him and Daily Mail has info on that too.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10264523/Milo-Yiannopoulos-right-wing-troll-toured-Australia-selling-religious-statues-YouTube.html
QuoteThe sad downfall of Milo Yiannopoulos: Right-wing troll who once held a sold-out tour in Australia blasting feminism and Islam is now selling religious statues on YouTube
...
But after several years out of the spotlight, the 37-year-old has resurfaced spruiking an $87.50 statue of the Virgin Mary for an extremist Christian organisation.
'She's just under 12 inches tall, she's available in those two different accent finishes,' Yiannopoulos tells the audience in the bizarre clip.
'We've got statues in the shop that are fully painted but the thing I like about her is this wonderful, burnished, bronzey, aged colour she's got.. the face on this is especially good.'
The video was posted by Church Militant - a far-right, Orthodox Catholic movement with anti-gay, anti-transgender views.
Yiannopoulos married his long-term boyfriend, John, in 2017 and once said that sex between a 13-year-old boy and an older man could be 'life-affirming'.
But earlier this year he revealed he was now 'anti-gay' and 'anti-sodomy'.
'When I used to kid that I only became gay to torment my mother, I wasn't entirely joking,' he told conservative website LifeSite in March.
'Of course, I was never wholly at home in the gay lifestyle — Who is? Who could be? — and only leaned heavily into it in public because it drove liberals crazy to see a handsome, charismatic, intelligent gay man riotously celebrating conservative principles.'
He also said he planned to dedicate the next 10 years to reviving the widely banned practice of conversion therapy that aims to forcibly change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, claiming 'it does work.'
:bleeding:
The clip of him selling the Virgin Mary statue is pretty incredible:
https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1460383730036576256?s=20&t=IjHxzWGn3KNQd-oyM2YJeA
His career is just pure grift though. Before he pivoted to the right he set up an online tech news site that didn't pay its staff (most of whom are still journalists in the UK/London who "take an interest" in what he's up to), so he moves to the US and Breitbart - again, from my understanding, some financial irregularities follow etc. It feels natural that this is where he ends up.
I mean, it wasn't like Rogan hid who he was. He's always been scum.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/1016817/joe-rogan-video-laughing-joey-diaz-forcing-female-comedians-oral-sex/
What is the context of Rogan using the n-word?
I am automatically suspicious when these claims are made and there is a curious lack of actual examples of the sin...
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
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 10:37:14 AM
What is the context of Rogan using the n-word?
I am automatically suspicious when these claims are made and there is a curious lack of actual examples of the sin...
I'm not sure there can be a legitimate reason for a white 'talk show' host to say the n word that many times.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 12:28:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 10:37:14 AM
What is the context of Rogan using the n-word?
I am automatically suspicious when these claims are made and there is a curious lack of actual examples of the sin...
I'm not sure there can be a legitimate reason for a white 'talk show' host to say the n word that many times.
I watched a video just the other day where Kent Wallace said the N word like 20 times during a segment.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 12:43:15 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 12:28:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 10:37:14 AM
What is the context of Rogan using the n-word?
I am automatically suspicious when these claims are made and there is a curious lack of actual examples of the sin...
I'm not sure there can be a legitimate reason for a white 'talk show' host to say the n word that many times.
I watched a video just the other day where Kent Wallace said the N word like 20 times during a segment.
Yesterday, I watched a movie where Rose Byrne is a voice actor for a robot.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 12:28:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 10:37:14 AM
What is the context of Rogan using the n-word?
I am automatically suspicious when these claims are made and there is a curious lack of actual examples of the sin...
I'm not sure there can be a legitimate reason for a white 'talk show' host to say the n word that many times.
I would tend to agree, although again, not being sure is not the same as being sure.
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2022, 10:49:32 AM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 02:20:28 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2022, 10:49:32 AM
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? :huh:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 05, 2022, 09:24:36 AM
Rogan is a long time nut who became inexplicably popular.
He is a charismatic guy and a comedian. He was also on a very popular TV show. I mean sure he was eccentric but he was not some Alex Jones guy or anything.
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2022, 10:49:32 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 02:23:21 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 02:20:28 PM
Quote from: Syt on February 06, 2022, 10:49:32 AM
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? :huh:
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 03:15:03 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:20:48 PM
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.
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."
Planet of the Apes is difficult to defend.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 03:28:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:20:48 PM
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? :huh:
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 03:28:20 PM
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?
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:27:18 PM
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?
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 03:28:20 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:20:48 PM
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.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 03:28:20 PM
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.
Good luck garbon, I give up.
What possible context could it be ok?
<People list contexts where it is ok>
ZOMG I GIVE UP! OH THE HUGE MANATEE!
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:29:22 PM
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."
It's okay for the humor to evolve, and I for one think it's a good thing that implying that someone is gay is no longer a punchline. It's just that inevitably we're going to continue to evolve, and things that are acceptable today will be looked at dimly in the future.
If we allow people to evolve with the times, without retroactively judging them, then that's fine. However, if people have to start protecting themselves against retroactive judgments in the future, then they would have to limit what they're saying today to a much wider extent. They'll say less things that would be judged dimly in the future, but they'll also say less things that would still be fine in the future. It's hard to tell which acceptable thing today would stay acceptable or not, so you'll have to cast your defensive net wide.
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?
Quote from: The Brain on February 06, 2022, 03:12:14 AM
Canadian writer? In the conspiracy nutjob system, some nationalities and occupations are considered especially heinous. These are their stories.
"Canadian writer" is underselling McInnes by a fair shot. He was one of the founders of the Proud Boys which - as you probably know - is one of the leading alt right groups involved in street violence.
Quote from: Jacob on February 06, 2022, 04:16:18 PM
Quote from: The Brain on February 06, 2022, 03:12:14 AM
Canadian writer? In the conspiracy nutjob system, some nationalities and occupations are considered especially heinous. These are their stories.
"Canadian writer" is underselling McInnes by a fair shot. He was one of the founders of the Proud Boys which - as you probably know - is one of the leading alt right groups involved in street violence.
More to the point he was the only person whose nationality and occupation was considered worthy of mention.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:47:10 PM
Good luck garbon, I give up.
I think we are supposed to enter Languish leaving everything we know about the world at the door.
Though I realize that was churlish. -_-
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 05:25:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:47:10 PM
Good luck garbon, I give up.
I think we are supposed to enter Languish leaving everything we know about the world at the door.
Not that case at all.
Here is what I honestly think is happening.
I think there is an argument to be made that Rogan is an asshole who should never have used the n-word as often as he did, and his casual use of it is worth of some level of contempt.
Those who want to make that argument however, want it to be simple. They want it to be obvious. There is no nuance here - he is some white guy we don't like, therefore he is an asshole, and anyone who says "Well....maybe...." is probably an asshole as well.
The argument is not just that he was wrong to use the word, but that it is absolutely obvious that he was wrong - there is no nuance or context that matters here.
OK.
Now, it is pretty easy to trot out a bunch of examples of where the use of the word is clearly NOT problematic. It depends on who uses it, when they use it, and who it is directed against. Hence it is trivial to show that in fact context DOES matter. Some rapper using it in a song? That's not the same. Some actor using it in a movie about slavery where it was used and used in the worst possible manner? That's not the same either.
Now, just because it is ok for Jamie Foxx or Leo Dicaprio to drop the n-word 48 times in a movie or while rehearsing for a movie does NOT make it ok for Joe Rogan to use the word however many times he used it during a podcast. But it DOES mean that that in fact the context does matter.
You can't have it both ways. Either context actually doesn't matter, and we should be cancelling Samuel L. Jackson, or context DOES matter, in which case we need to look at the context and make a reasonable conclusion about the particulars of the case. And that opens up the reality that not everyone is going to agree on those particulars and their relevance to the crime.
I think the argument that context matters and some thought should go into our reactions to the twitter mob's outrage is precisely because we are not leaving everything we know about the world at the door.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 06, 2022, 03:31:37 PM
Planet of the Apes is difficult to defend.
Yeah that's pretty bad. I have defended Rogan's imperfections and foibles a lot over the years, but yikes. Probably good for him she doesn't have a recording of that.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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.
We would've, but I don't think the reason would be because we would be 18 years younger. I think the reason is because "proof by STFU" has been normalized elsewhere and made its way to here. If the thinking is that by refusing to engage in conversation you're making a statement that your POV is so obviously in the right that there is no meaningful discussion to be had, then I think it's misguided.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:51:03 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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.
We would've, but I don't think the reason would be because we would be 18 years younger. I think the reason is because "proof by STFU" has been normalized elsewhere and made its way to here. If the thinking is that by refusing to engage in conversation you're making a statement that your POV is so obviously in the right that there is no meaningful discussion to be had, then I think it's misguided.
I think there were plenty of people engaged in the "I refuse to debate any longer!" method of concession to the weakness of their argument 18 years ago.
That is not a new invention.
The invention is old, its normalization is new.
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 07:08:05 PM
The invention is old, its normalization is new.
Ridiculous. I am out of here.
Good luck, DG, I give up.
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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.
Yeah, but there would have been like 4-5 times as many unique voices weighing in.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 06, 2022, 08:23:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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.
Yeah, but there would have been like 4-5 times as many unique voices weighing in.
True. Message boards were just a cooler place to be back then.
I have hard time caring about things anymore. The best I can do is make a few jokes now and then. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 05:25:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:47:10 PM
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 - abandon all hope ye who enter here
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2022, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 05:25:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:47:10 PM
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
:smarty:
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Syt on February 07, 2022, 07:42:57 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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. :P
Yeah, that's also why I keep myself mostly to inocuous threads, as the controversial ones tend to make me regret taking part in them. :P
Quote from: Syt on February 07, 2022, 07:42:57 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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. :P
:lol:
Syt, that's pretty much my view, though often I'll also think 'I've probably posted a thread about this before, but have forgotten' so I don't start it. :)
It's so much effort. Copy paste. Snip out the ads....
So very tired....
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Exactly. They are in fact clearly different.
That difference? It is called "context".
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
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.
Quote from: Syt on February 07, 2022, 07:42:57 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
Quote from: Valmy on February 06, 2022, 06:44:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 06:34:26 PM
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. :P
:lol:
Quote from: Syt on February 07, 2022, 07:42:57 AM
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. :P
I would appreciate more of your links. Not like you have to respond back to the reactions. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 09:31:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 07, 2022, 07:12:24 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 06, 2022, 11:39:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 05:25:28 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:47:10 PM
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
:smarty:
:cheers:
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 09:31:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 04:08:46 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 09:49:42 AM
Quote from: The Larch on February 07, 2022, 07:29:11 AM
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.
:lol:
Not you though right? You're everything that's good and pure in this world.
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 11:12:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 11:42:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 12:59:46 PMI 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 03:41:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2022, 03:20:48 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 09:49:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 09:31:35 AM
Quote from: Tyr on February 07, 2022, 05:17:29 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 06, 2022, 04:08:46 PM
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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2022, 01:16:45 PM
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?
Quote from: Berkut on February 07, 2022, 01:30:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 12:59:46 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 11:42:27 AM
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).
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 07, 2022, 01:43:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on February 07, 2022, 01:30:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 01:24:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 09:49:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 01:24:20 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 09:49:42 AM
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.
:)
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 01:52:29 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 01:57:26 PM
Conversely, though, the ability to outlast and out-obnoxious someone is not a reliable indicator of correctness.
Isn't that the truth.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 01:52:29 PM
(unfortunately there are a few posters who combine the ability to be right with the ability to really irritate you)
:blush:
For the record, Zoupa's entire contribution to this thread in his effort to "engage in good faith":
QuoteIn 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:
QuoteGood 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.
Quote from: The Brain on February 07, 2022, 02:02:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 01:52:29 PM
(unfortunately there are a few posters who combine the ability to be right with the ability to really irritate you)
:blush:
I am 50-50 on that.
That lack of self awareness is stunning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2022, 02:08:35 PM
That lack of self awareness is stunning.
Oh please. Lighten up, Francis.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 01:24:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 04:40:14 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 04:40:14 PM
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.
Yeah that makes sense. "You just don't get it" is not a compelling argument, nor a useful response to an honest request for information.
I'm not sure how it's relevant to the whole "if you're not continuing to engage on the topic at languish it's because you actually realize the other person is right" argument that DGuller put forward and that I disagree with.
This Saturday a bunch of people in pickup trucks and cars drove through my city, honking loudly, declaring the Trudeau was a traitor, that vaccines are terrible, that vaccine and mask mandates are evil, and a whole bunch of stuff - some of which was contradictory (which is fine, it was a whole bunch of different people and maybe they don't all agree). Their planned route took them past three different hospitals (and hospital workers had been warned not to wear their scrubs in public on that day for fear of harassment), and ended downtown. One of the intended speakers at their destination downtown (in front of a TV station) was organizing using the slogan "the Media is the Virus". Since it was declared to be in support of the convoy occupying Ottawa (and honking and blowing truck horns 16 hours a day), it wasn't clear whether they intended to depart at all.
They passed not far from where I live. So we went out - my wife and I - with some signs that said "honk if you're a bully", "Canadians support healthcare workers, not the FluTruxKlan", "Support healthcare workers, patients, and journalists", and "Honk in your own neighbourhood - people live and work here."
We were standing at a corner by ourselves - we deliberately avoided big groups at that point - and some guy came up and decided to chat with us. He was clearly pro convoy and was looking to engage. I chatted with him a bit, going with "yeah we can all have our opinions and should express them, I disagree with the convoy... and I think the honking is obnoxious". Very quickly he started throwing all sorts of random things out - blathering about Vimy Ridge, about media control, about concentration camps in China, and all sorts of other things. At one point he got out his phone and started filming me as well. When he mentioned China we told him that if he thought Canada was anything like China - a statement he'd just made - then he didn't know shit about China. In response he went up three notches throwing out "are you calling me racist" and "you're racist".
At that point I told him that as far as I was concerned, the conversation was over. He exploded at me saying "oh are you telling me to stop talking? You're against freedom of speech! You're a fascist!" I replied with "you can say what you want, but I'm done talking to you."
So... my point is that I did not stop engaging with him because I deep in my heart knew he was right. I stopped engaging with him because I decided it was not fruitful for me to engage with him and I had better things to do.
And what I'm suggesting to DGuller is that that dynamic may in fact sometimes also apply to people who chose to withdraw from a conversation, whether it has to do with topics of political correctness, international politics, local politics, or indeed any other topic that has nothing to do with politics.
In fact, come to think of it, I think you were one of the first posters I noticed chosing to not get in it too deep on a number of political topics even though some folks - myself included - wanted to engage with you. I don't think it's because you in your heart of hearts actually think the other person is correct or you are wrong. I think it's because you decided that type of engagement was a waste of time for you.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 04:40:14 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 01:24:20 PM
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.
I agree that "you just don't get it" is a really bad way to educate people, only marginally better than "you just don't get it because you're not X". It's probably more likely to make the target of education dig in (at least secretly) than to learn something.
I definitely would say though that the example itself that you cite does trigger the cringe instinct in me. I come from a culture where rape is trivialized on a cultural level, and the jokes about rape victim enjoying it are dime a dozen. By far the most common reaction to someone coming out with an accusation of rape is "she probably enjoyed it in the moment, but then got pissed off at him". It's doubly disgusting when people you love and respect do it, and you're not in a position to lecture them, so you just have to hold down your vomit and try to change the subject. I think that professor really could use an explanation, hopefully a better one than "you don't get it".
Quote from: ulmont on February 07, 2022, 05:43:48 PM
1. The professor certainly did clearly suggest that women could enjoy rape, which does minimize the crime.
He certainly clearly did not.
If I were to say "if the moon were made of cream cheese then blah blah blah" in no way whatsoever suggests that the moon might be made of cream cheese.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 05:49:40 PM
In fact, come to think of it, I think you were one of the first posters I noticed chosing to not get in it too deep on a number of political topics even though some folks - myself included - wanted to engage with you. I don't think it's because you in your heart of hearts actually think the other person is correct or you are wrong. I think it's because you decided that type of engagement was a waste of time for you.
You mentioned this previously, right after your self imposed exile ended, but I don't really know what you're talking about. There are a few posters I purposely don't respond to, but other than I don't think I've started ducking debates.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 06:08:05 PM
If I were to say "if the moon were made of cream cheese then blah blah blah" in no way whatsoever suggests that the moon might be made of cream cheese.
If you were to say, "if the vaccines really were safe, they would have gotten the full FDA approval and not just an emergency use authorization", on the other hand, I'm not going to think you believe the vaccines really are safe. Your take of closer to cream cheese than vaccine safety is yours, but I highly doubt it universal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 06:09:36 PM
You mentioned this previously, right after your self imposed exile ended, but I don't really know what you're talking about. There are a few posters I purposely don't respond to, but other than I don't think I've started ducking debates.
Heh... I recall a number of times spending like half an hour composing what I thought was a detailed and solidly argued yet respectful post in the hope of getting a similar response and engage in what I hoped would be an interesting and substantivie discussion - I respect your perspective and analysis - and then getting a single emoticon or a short line like "I disagree" in response.
To me that came across as a desire to not engage - which is fine, of course - and over time I adjusted how I interact with you. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how I took it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 06:09:36 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 05:49:40 PM
In fact, come to think of it, I think you were one of the first posters I noticed chosing to not get in it too deep on a number of political topics even though some folks - myself included - wanted to engage with you. I don't think it's because you in your heart of hearts actually think the other person is correct or you are wrong. I think it's because you decided that type of engagement was a waste of time for you.
You mentioned this previously, right after your self imposed exile ended, but I don't really know what you're talking about. There are a few posters I purposely don't respond to, but other than I don't think I've started ducking debates.
And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 06:17:04 PM
Heh... I recall a number of times spending like half an hour composing what I thought was a detailed and solidly argued yet respectful post in the hope of getting a similar response and engage in what I hoped would be an interesting and substantivie discussion - I respect your perspective and analysis - and then getting a single emoticon or a short line like "I disagree" in response.
To me that came across as a desire to not engage - which is fine, of course - and over time I adjusted how I interact with you. Maybe that wasn't your intention, but that's how I took it.
I think what can happen is when the fur is flying and I'm simultaneously debating six posters I will slack and not respond to each and every one.
I'm sorry if you felt slighted. Would you like to raise your point again? :P
Quote from: ulmont on February 07, 2022, 06:12:55 PM
If you were to say, "if the vaccines really were safe, they would have gotten the full FDA approval and not just an emergency use authorization", on the other hand, I'm not going to think you believe the vaccines really are safe. Your take of closer to cream cheese than vaccine safety is yours, but I highly doubt it universal.
Let's start again. Try to make a sentence starting with "even if" which suggests the if clause is true.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2022, 06:20:00 PM
And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.
Yes, we all pick and choose who we engage with, but the problem is when you choose people based on what they're saying rather than how they're saying it.
I'm going to name names here instead of speaking obliquely: it's very hard to find the legitimate "how" in people's response to you on the first page that made you "give up". It sure looked a lot like the very thought that some people might think differently from you made you give up.
It's not like it came as a surprise to you that you were going to debate me, I was the one you quoted when you asked the question. If you quit because you knew that you wouldn't enjoy debating with me based on past experience, then why ask me a question in the first place?
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2022, 06:20:00 PM
And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.
Yeah, I don't think you stopped responding but rather that the nature of your responses indicated a lack of desire to engage more fully. And, to the point of the topic at hand, I don't think it meant you thought I was right and you were wrong and you couldn't defend your point of view, but rather that you didn't think it worth your time to discuss in more detail.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 06:28:48 PM
I think what can happen is when the fur is flying and I'm simultaneously debating six posters I will slack and not respond to each and every one.
Very possibly.
QuoteI'm sorry if you felt slighted. Would you like to raise your point again? :P
:cheers:
... no thanks, I don't remember any specific points at all :lol:
In fact - I ended up admiring your ability not to get suckered into a long drawn out argument you didn't care to participate in.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2022, 06:20:00 PM
And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.
Yes, we all pick and choose who we engage with, but the problem is when you choose people based on what they're saying rather than how they're saying it.
I'm going to name names here instead of speaking obliquely: it's very hard to find the legitimate "how" in people's response to you on the first page that made you "give up". It sure looked a lot like the very thought that some people might think differently from you made you give up.
It's not like it came as a surprise to you that you were going to debate me, I was the one you quoted when you asked the question. If you quit because you knew that you wouldn't enjoy debating with me based on past experience, then why ask me a question in the first place?
Sometimes it not the particular argument but the net history of that posters. Sometimes people slip and start to engage and then remember it's not worth it.
There are certain posters where it's not worth it. They don't argue in good faith and it's more aggravating then it's worth. The point isn't what they're arguing it's to show how smart they are and you must be a total idiot not to agree.
*edit* to quote Gul Dukat " A true victory is to make your enemy see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 06:30:08 PM
Let's start again. Try to make a sentence starting with "even if" which suggests the if clause is true.
I copied your model. But sure. "Even if the vaccines were unsafe, they wouldn't let people know because of the panic." "Even if Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, they've already covered up the evidence."
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2022, 06:35:27 PM
Sometimes it not the particular argument but the net history of that posters. Sometimes people slip and start to engage and then remember it's not worth it.
Sure, happens to me sometimes as well. But why not just quietly slip out of the thread? Why exit with a passive aggressive parting shot? That's like trying to kick someone in the nuts and then running away, because you decided you're above having a fight.
Yeah... I mean, we're all here because it's a habit or because we've got nothing better to do. So the instinct is to reply if it's a topic that's of interest.
On the other hand, we've also all been here long enough that we have some ideas about the patterns and how they're likely to play out. So sometimes, maybe, you post something and then realize "right, this isn't going to go anywhere I'd like to go, I'm out."
And DGuller - I like you and respect you as a poster. I particularly appreciate your sense of humour, and am happy to talk with you on a number of topics. When it comes to anything relating to "wokeness" I'm pretty confident that were we to sit down together in person and talk, we could find things to agree on and things to disagree on in a mutually respectful and stimulating fashion. I think some of your points have merit - even the ones where I find I'm typically typecast as disagreeing with you on this forum - but have found it impossible to have what I consider a useful or interesting discussion on the topic. So I try to avoid it here - not just with you, come to think of it - though I'm happy to discuss any number of other topics with you.
I promise you, cross my heart, that it's not because I secretly think you're completely correct and that I actually know I'm full of shit. And while I can't speak for Zoupa (including the potential for him to find agreement with you where I might), I'm pretty confident that his lack of desire to get into it with you on the topic is also not driven by a secret knowledge that you're actually right and he is wrong.
Okay, I appreciate the frankness. What can I or people sharing my personality flaws do differently to enable useful conversations to take place?
Zoupa asked an extremely specific question. He asked the question, and invited response.
He got very specific answers, and they were given in a reasonable manner.
He then got nasty and stormed away.
No, I think we all are quite aware that the idea that he might be wrong never once even remotely crossed Zoupa's mind.
But I don't think there is any doubt that he thought he had laid out a crushing point, and then realized that he actually completely missed his rhetorical mark caused him to retreat flouncing away and lobbing out an implication that it is everyone else who is unwilling to engage honestly on the way out the door.
He could have
1. Responded with the same good faith others were responding in, acknowledged that his questions perhaps was not what he intended it to be, and started to engage in the rather more nuanced (and IMO a hell of a lot more interesting) discussion about what context actually matters, or
2. He could have decided that he had made a tactical error in the argument, said "Well, ok - that's not really the point though, what about....?" and again, engaged in a point not directly related to the point THAT HE BROUGHT UP AND INVITED RESPONSE TO, or
3. He could have simple bailed on the conversation without the passive aggressive accusation that it is the "others" who are being unreasonable.
All of those would have been reasonable, rational, and adult ways to respond to that interaction. Storming out with a passing personal attack and then following it up with drive by attacks on posters who are involved in a discussions motives is bullshit.
And you defending it as some kind of high minded "oh, perhaps he is just above it all" is kind of bullshit as well. Sure, maybe he IS above it all - but his behavior around this topic certainly does not suggest it.
Quote from: ulmont on February 07, 2022, 06:41:23 PM
I copied your model. But sure. "Even if the vaccines were unsafe, they wouldn't let people know because of the panic." "Even if Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, they've already covered up the evidence."
Your fine examples made me think long and hard, which is a good thing.
I disagree that those examples are suggesting the if clause is true. What they are doing, IMO, is saying the absence of condition A (letting people know, proof of Epstein's murder) is insufficient evidence of falsity of condition B (vaccines unsafe, Epstein murdered). We can not know the truth or untruth of the if clause solely on the basis of the assertion.
Is that the same as suggesting it's true? I don't think so, but I can sort of see why others would think differently.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:19:36 PM
Quote from: ulmont on February 07, 2022, 06:41:23 PM
I copied your model. But sure. "Even if the vaccines were unsafe, they wouldn't let people know because of the panic." "Even if Jeffrey Epstein was murdered, they've already covered up the evidence."
Your fine examples made me think long and hard, which is a good thing.
I disagree that those examples are suggesting the if clause is true. What they are doing, IMO, is saying the absence of condition A (letting people know, proof of Epstein's murder) is insufficient evidence of falsity of condition B (vaccines unsafe, Epstein murdered). We can not know the truth or untruth of the if clause solely on the basis of the assertion.
Is that the same as suggesting it's true? I don't think so, but I can sort of see why others would think differently.
IMO, I think the issue here is not one of pure logic, but rather relevance. In human conversation, we generally don't mention irrelevant things. The rules of logic say that making an if-else statement makes no claims about the truthfulness of the if clause. The unspoken rules of human communication do lead one to the conclusion that the if clause could at last possibly be true, as otherwise the statement would be completely irrelevant and communicating nothing at all.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 06:30:35 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2022, 06:20:00 PM
And he's not saying you have. What I think he means is that we all pick and choose what and who to engage with. Some posts from some posters are not worth your time and effort.
Yes, we all pick and choose who we engage with, but the problem is when you choose people based on what they're saying rather than how they're saying it.
I'm going to name names here instead of speaking obliquely: it's very hard to find the legitimate "how" in people's response to you on the first page that made you "give up". It sure looked a lot like the very thought that some people might think differently from you made you give up.
It's not like it came as a surprise to you that you were going to debate me, I was the one you quoted when you asked the question. If you quit because you knew that you wouldn't enjoy debating with me based on past experience, then why ask me a question in the first place?
Quote from: Zoupa on February 06, 2022, 03:33:37 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 06, 2022, 03:28:20 PM
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?
So this was the original interaction. We were talking about Joe Rogan using the non-abbreviated n-word multiple times. I specified the time period of 2010-2022, since that is when his podcast came on the air.
I guess I should have written "In which context FOR JOE ROGAN THE PODCASTER is using the full word instead of the abbreviation appropriate, in the time period 2010-2022?", because some super insightful posts followed like "but what about Pulp Fiction, see context matters!!!!".
It was at this point that I realized I had better things to do, and wished good luck to garbon if he chose to continue to engage in this typical Lansguish goalposts/semantic BS. You'll notice he also ducked out of the thread.
All that to say to it wasn't your post or responses personally that made me go "meh". It's that I'd rather finish my campaign in Age of Wonders Planetfall while dicking around at work than engage in a roundabout discussion on Languish.
Quote from: Zoupa on February 07, 2022, 07:31:17 PM
I guess I should have written "In which context FOR JOE ROGAN THE PODCASTER is using the full word instead of the abbreviation appropriate, in the time period 2010-2022?", because some super insightful posts followed like "but what about Pulp Fiction, see context matters!!!!".
FWIW, I really did think that you were asking a general question. I don't know if the context was clear enough, but regardless at that moment it was not clear to me, as evidently I didn't answer the question you were intending to ask. All my posts in that thread were general in natural, I don't even know who Joe Rogan is, so when you quoted me, I assumed you were making a general point.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:28:11 PM
IMO, I think the issue here is not one of pure logic, but rather relevance. In human conversation, we generally don't mention irrelevant things. The rules of logic say that making an if-else statement makes no claims about the truthfulness of the if clause. The unspoken rules of human communication do lead one to the conclusion that the if clause could at last possibly be true, as otherwise the statement would be completely irrelevant and communicating nothing at all.
I disagree. The professor was saying under no conditions would we find rape acceptable. He's demonstrating the absoluteness of the prohibition.
I thought the entire discussion was about context.
And yes, context does in fact matter, and if Zoupa thinks people answering the question he asked rather then the question he wishes he had asked is "moving the goalposts/semantic BS" I would suggest that demanding that people answer the question he is asking a couple days later after the responses is a much better example of "moving the goalposts/semantic BS". In fact, I think that is in fact the EXACT definition of moving the goalposts.
Context does in fact matter. It matters for Joe Rogan, and it matters for exactly the reasons many people pointed out how context does in fact matter before Zoupa tantrumed out to play some Age of Wonders in a rage.
What I find fascinating is that through all of this, Zoupa has not even bothered to find out what the actual context is that is apparently so damning to poor Joe.
(For the record, I think Rogan is basically an asshole as a podcaster. I don't know if he is a racist, but I don't think I learned much about that from the clip provided of him saying the word some number of times)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:44:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:28:11 PM
IMO, I think the issue here is not one of pure logic, but rather relevance. In human conversation, we generally don't mention irrelevant things. The rules of logic say that making an if-else statement makes no claims about the truthfulness of the if clause. The unspoken rules of human communication do lead one to the conclusion that the if clause could at last possibly be true, as otherwise the statement would be completely irrelevant and communicating nothing at all.
I disagree. The professor was saying under no conditions would we find rape acceptable. He's demonstrating the absoluteness of the prohibition.
I think the problematic part was the "even if she enjoyed it". That implies, not by logic but by assumption of relevance, that there are women who don't enjoy being raped and women who do enjoy being raped. Good for him that he stressed that both cases are equally unacceptable, but I think the problematic part was implying that there are women who enjoy being raped.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:48:45 PM
the problematic part was implying that there are women who enjoy being raped.
This is what we're debating.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 06:52:44 PM
Okay, I appreciate the frankness. What can I or people sharing my personality flaws do differently to enable useful conversations to take place?
And I appreciate the frank question. Honestly, I don't think it's particularly your personality flaws, but a combination of the medium, the volatility of the topic, the stress of our times and so on.
The things I'd suggest are all the things we perceive or accuse each other of not doing when get into a tiff, not something that's inherent in you, I don't think. Like, I'm pretty sure that whatever I might put down, someone on this forum who thinks I'm full of shit will think (or say) "yes Jacob, so why don't you start doing that instead of being disingenuous?"
I mean, it all comes down to arguing in good faith. Things like acknowledging that disagreement may be based on different experiences, analysis frameworks, or priorities that are nonetheless legitimate; reading in good faith; forgiving slips rather than escalating; looking for points of agreement; avoiding conflating someone's position in a discussion with the stereotypes allegedly held by people "on that side"; not putting words in people's mouths; not overinterpreting small statements in an excessively negative light and so on.
... I think they're things we all feel we're doing a pretty decent job of ourselves (and forgive when we slip, because we're only human), while at the same time we get incredibly frustrated when the person who's pissing us off is so obviously not doing that.
But at this point we have 20 years of these patterns, so I don't know how easy it'll be to break them. I mean, I know that my style and sense of humour has put me in a spot where at least some folks assume I'm being disingenuous when I'm being earnest. And even if we do put it aside, all it'll take is for some other jackass to come in with something to rile one of us up and we'll easily get derailed. There's a lot of history here and it carries weight.
Getting pissed off and hammering something out denouncing someone for being an idiot can be pretty satisfying (or the alternative - disdainfully dismantling them with a wall of cold impeccable logic), and it's typically easier than engaging in detail with emotional openness on topic we feel strongly about. In fact, you could probably argue that languish was built on the foundation of us all enjoying the first two, and now that some of us are getting a bit tired of it it's either figure out a way to communicate in a different way or just engage less.
All that said - if there's one thing I'd ask for it's to dial down the speculation on other people's motivations for posting what they post. It never goes anywhere constructive.
If you want, though, next time some "woke" topic comes up I'm willing to give it a go (subject to time and subject matter interest) to have a discussion with you and see if we can make it worthwhile.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:52:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:48:45 PM
the problematic part was implying that there are women who enjoy being raped.
This is what we're debating.
Okay, then can you clarify what it was that you were disagreeing with in your prior post? That's what I thought I was debating all along. I was making a point that implication didn't stem from pure laws of logic, but rather the assumption that we don't add irrelevant bits to what we say. The "even if" statement where the clause can't be true would be irrelevant.
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 07:53:24 PM
If you want, though, next time some "woke" topic comes up I'm willing to give it a go (subject to time and subject matter interest) to have a discussion with you and see if we can make it worthwhile.
Yes, let's give this a go. :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2022, 01:24:20 PM
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.
Generally I find most venues of debate are incredibly echo room-y and/or toxic these days. I kind of think it is me, I have just been at it for so long I no longer have the desire to do it I think.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 01:10:42 PM
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.
Yeah and in fact I am a little more concerned to hear that he used one of those more than out of contexts use of the N-word. It kind of suggests he is serious, that is pretty disappointing. I hope it is not true.
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 08:05:27 PM
Okay, then can you clarify what it was that you were disagreeing with in your prior post? That's what I thought I was debating all along. I was making a point that implication didn't stem from pure laws of logic, but rather the assumption that we don't add irrelevant bits to what we say. The "even if" statement where the clause can't be true would be irrelevant.
It can be relevant. "My vertical leap is so shitty even if gravity didn't exist I still couldn't dunk a basketball."
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 08:17:09 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 08:05:27 PM
Okay, then can you clarify what it was that you were disagreeing with in your prior post? That's what I thought I was debating all along. I was making a point that implication didn't stem from pure laws of logic, but rather the assumption that we don't add irrelevant bits to what we say. The "even if" statement where the clause can't be true would be irrelevant.
It can be relevant. "My vertical leap is so shitty even if gravity didn't exist I still couldn't dunk a basketball."
Okay, I see what you're saying. Now that I think of it, I kind of use that device myself sometimes. It's a habit that comes from math, where you deliberately go to ridiculous extremes just to test the absoluteness of your conclusion, or to isolate the first principles. Now that I think of it some more, people very often misunderstand my point when I employ that device. :hmm: I'm not even sure where I'm going with this.
My favorite podcaster, who is a friend of Rogans, just dropped a podcast talking about this very thing. I am curious what Sam Harris will say, but I suspect I won't agree with him.
So Rogan has apologized, and has some interesting comments that are relevant to the discussion here and context:
"Rogan said the compilation was drawn from "12 years of conversations" on his show, and that it looked "horrible, even to me." The clips, he said, had been taken out of context, which he said included discussions about how it had been used by comedians like Richard Pryor and Redd Foxx, who were Black, and Lenny Bruce, who was white."
I think that is context that matters - discussing the use of the word is not the same as using it yourself, even using it in a joke.
"When posting the clip compilation, Arie said that Rogan "shouldn't even be uttering the word. Don't say it, under any context." In his video, Rogan said that he had come to agree with that view. "It's not my word to use," he said. "I'm well aware of that now." He added that he had not spoken the slur "in years."
I think I basically agree with him - I think this mirrors what I said in the other thread. It's a word whose use is fraught, and should simply be avoided except in very particular circumstances.
But I also think that is a view that has evolved - at the time he used the word in discussion about the use of the word, it was not considered to be at all as problematic as it is now.
Does his apology matter? Does it move the needle at all?
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:48:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:44:24 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:28:11 PM
IMO, I think the issue here is not one of pure logic, but rather relevance. In human conversation, we generally don't mention irrelevant things. The rules of logic say that making an if-else statement makes no claims about the truthfulness of the if clause. The unspoken rules of human communication do lead one to the conclusion that the if clause could at last possibly be true, as otherwise the statement would be completely irrelevant and communicating nothing at all.
I disagree. The professor was saying under no conditions would we find rape acceptable. He's demonstrating the absoluteness of the prohibition.
I think the problematic part was the "even if she enjoyed it". That implies, not by logic but by assumption of relevance, that there are women who don't enjoy being raped and women who do enjoy being raped. Good for him that he stressed that both cases are equally unacceptable, but I think the problematic part was implying that there are women who enjoy being raped.
Maybe he read The Fountainhead.
Why?
Put the idea in his head.
In the wake of the Joe Rogan controversy, Dixie Chicks have been trending for me on Twitter as a reminder that the right isn't shy about shutting down speech they disagree with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks_controversy
The offending remark at the time (in reference to the Iraq War): "Just so you know, we're on the good side with y'all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."
Trevor Noah's take, in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SYrX41BtA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SYrX41BtA)
Quote from: The Larch on February 08, 2022, 04:22:50 AM
Trevor Noah's take, in case anyone is interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SYrX41BtA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5SYrX41BtA)
Trevor is pretty great.
His point about the Planet of the Apes comments being considerably worse is well taken, and a great point that matters to the conversation.
I haven't watched him in a while, but I thought that was a very well reasoned response.
It was a reasonable take, and I agree that for reasons of pragmatism and avoidance of unnecessary irritation, you just shouldn't use the word, even if you're not a racist. I also agree that the planet of the apes part is inexcusable, and that's the one quote where there appears to be sufficient context to judge.
"You knew that offending black people would get a laugh out of those white friends you were with".
Exactly spot on.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2022, 07:52:35 PM
Quote from: DGuller on February 07, 2022, 07:48:45 PM
the problematic part was implying that there are women who enjoy being raped.
This is what we're debating.
Statutory rape is rape even if the woman was consenting and enjoyed the sex. I'd argue that cases like statutory rape are exactly the kinds of victims-opinion-does-not-matter laws the professor was talking about.
:hmm: Also a good point.
On the N-word, I'd take Trevor Noah's argument one step further: no one (not just white people) should use the N-word, because it can only get them in trouble. Blacks seem to use the word to be edgy (none of the blacks I know, except maybe some of my students, feel the need to be edgy and I'm pretty sure none - except the students - of them use the word), but edgy is over-rated.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 08, 2022, 02:12:16 AM
Put the idea in his head.
Oh sorry... reading comprehension fail on my part. I thought you were making random book recommendations :blush:
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2022, 10:51:59 AM
Statutory rape is rape even if the woman was consenting and enjoyed the sex. I'd argue that cases like statutory rape are exactly the kinds of victims-opinion-does-not-matter laws the professor was talking about.
And qualifying with "statutory" would have knocked out several of the possible reasons for concern I mentioned. Very significant modifier.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2022, 11:05:22 AM
On the N-word, I'd take Trevor Noah's argument one step further: no one (not just white people) should use the N-word, because it can only get them in trouble. Blacks seem to use the word to be edgy (none of the blacks I know, except maybe some of my students, feel the need to be edgy and I'm pretty sure none - except the students - of them use the word), but edgy is over-rated.
I guess then you get into the question of to what extent shouldn't you.
Are we talking murder or eating chocolate after you've brushed your teeth or any of a bazillion places in between.
Quote from: ulmont on February 08, 2022, 11:27:26 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2022, 10:51:59 AM
Statutory rape is rape even if the woman was consenting and enjoyed the sex. I'd argue that cases like statutory rape are exactly the kinds of victims-opinion-does-not-matter laws the professor was talking about.
And qualifying with "statutory" would have knocked out several of the possible reasons for concern I mentioned. Very significant modifier.
But "statutory" creates a more restricted case than the point he is making. His argument isn't about statutory rape. That's just an example.
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2022, 01:18:50 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2022, 11:05:22 AM
On the N-word, I'd take Trevor Noah's argument one step further: no one (not just white people) should use the N-word, because it can only get them in trouble. Blacks seem to use the word to be edgy (none of the blacks I know, except maybe some of my students, feel the need to be edgy and I'm pretty sure none - except the students - of them use the word), but edgy is over-rated.
I guess then you get into the question of to what extent shouldn't you.
Are we talking murder or eating chocolate after you've brushed your teeth or any of a bazillion places in between.
Isn't this entire discussion about the extent? There are no black-and-white answers about anything. Your observation seems like a tautology.
Quote from: Berkut on February 07, 2022, 09:23:57 PM
Does his apology matter? Does it move the needle at all?
It matters quite a bit to me. I earnestly believe Rogan means well and just wants to have interesting conversations with people. But he has his biases and he was always a California hippie type guy.
And yeah the monkeys part bothered me much more, just because there are lots of reasons to say the N-word however misguided that may be...but the monkey comment is something you say when you really mean it. Obviously he has been a close friend and colleague to many black comedians and actors and athletes and other celebrities over the years and had many on his show over the years so I don't know. Sucks.
Man.
He's a California hippie in what sense?
He's not from Texas. :alberta:
Surprisingly, I saw no comments re: Rogan on my family's Facebook pages (the most recent brief outrage was about Whoopie Goldberg's comments about Jews and the Holocaust on The View).