I’m sure they followed with, “But you’re one of the good ones…”
It’s funny, I almost made a similar comment but decided not to because I was worried it sounded too racist. Had typed out and discarded
"They usually tell me real nice things like "I’m one of the good ones "
-that guy probably
Completely blindsided! Who could have foreseen such things?
First of all, that speech is awesome.
But I want to comment on something regarding modding, and ask an honest question: Shouldn’t reiteration of historical speeches or texts be omitted from rules about slurs? I mean, reiterating a speech, or a section of Huckleberry Finn, is obviously not the same thing as devaluing someone by calling them a slur. We actually have a quite hot debate going on in my country about this now, where some teachers were harassed for “being racist”, because in class they read aloud a famous poem written by an immigrant about racism, where he writes some of the things that were shouted at him. The whole point of the poem, and of reading it in class, is of course to make a point out of how bad racism is, and to educate about racism. Still, these teachers have been stamped as “racists” because they reiterated specific words in the poem.
For the honest question (I’m not American or a native english speaker): Isn’t there a historical difference between the word “Negro”, and a certain similar word I’ll refrain from reiterating? The way I’ve understood it, the former is a historically more neutral form, that was simply used the way we today would use “black person”, while the latter has more or less always had some kind of devaluating undertone. I’ve gotten that interpretation, among other things, from having read speeches where people are promoting equal rights, and use “Negro” to refer to black people, while clearly not believing that they are inferior in any way (hence the promotion of equal rights). Of course, today, both words are considered unacceptable, but I would like to clarify if I’ve misunderstood, as it helps in interpreting things that were said or written in the past.
My reasoning is is that I don’t want to have to risk arguing why I should be allowed to say the N word, any N word each and every time I want to post this speech. Of all places, my comment was deleted on reddit’s /r/badcopnodonut in regards to Mayor of NYC, Eric Adams Tough on Crime stance a while back.
Maybe other forums and communities wont filter out this version of the N word, maybe not. Linking directly to a University’s webpage of the speech cuts out a lot of the possible head bashing.
Personally speaking, I think the slur could be used against all those “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” regardless of their skin color.
But I want to comment on something regarding modding, and ask an honest question: Shouldn’t reiteration of historical speeches or texts be omitted from rules about slurs?
I’m not a Lemmy mod, and I’ve never moderated a community on the scale that any of the Lemmy mods operate at, but I’ll share my 2cents anyways.
Moderators will often have “automods” setup that just automatically remove anything with a slur in it and mark it for review. Realistically there should never be any slurs uttered in your community, so you can safely blacklist them and reinstate comments in the rare instance that a comment contains a slur and is worth reinstating
In the case of a quote, if it is in context and has good reason to be there, including the slur, or ideally a partially censored version of the slur can very well be appropriate, but it’s one of those situations that’s calls for best judgment because someone might think they’re smart by quoting famous people who used slurs as a way to use slurs online and not be insta-removed. Really it comes down to one of the finer points of moderating which is curation. By a moderator opening the floodgates in allowing a certain kind of questionable conduct it can change the vibe of a community irreparably, so it’s important to be careful about allowing certain conduct and to do so on a case by case basis
The few times I posted that slur, it was with the full context of the speech. I have had my comment deleted, but responded with that exact link, which stayed up. I too, would be suspicious of its use without any context and mods might not have the time to check each user’s comment history to see if they’re a bad actor.
Find/replace N_____ > slave
But it’s way more impactful with the original wording. I always just link it because I feel that should be people’s first exposure to the speech.
Perhaps it depends on the audience. It was quite difficult for me to read before I mentally made the replacement, and I don’t think I would have gotten nearly as much from it without.
It was quite difficult for me to read before I mentally made the replacement,
Why?
Is it because the slur applies to you and makes you uncomfortable? That’s fair enough.
Or is it because it is a slur that was and is used by people like you, and having to face it makes you uncomfortable? In which case by prioritising your own feelings over acknowledging history and hearing Malcolm X’s words as he intended them, you are contributing to the erasure of his experience and that of those like him, and this is something for you to work on within yourself, not project on to the text by changing it.
It’s because the word doesn’t mean the same thing it meant when he said it.
It was difficult for me to fully parse, not so much that it made me uncomfortable.
I tried a number of words as replacements, but none made as much sense as the word slave, at least in my lexicon. Clearly there would be no issue changing the word in a translation, so why not in this case? I’m not suggesting we remove the original, merely that it can be presented in different ways for different audiences.
It’s because the word doesn’t mean the same thing it meant when he said it.
Yeah, it does.
It was difficult for me to fully parse, not so much that it made me uncomfortable.
Still a “you” issue, not an issue with the text, no matter what you call it.
I tried a number of words as replacements, but none made as much sense as the word slave, at least in my lexicon. Clearly there would be no issue changing the word in a translation, so why not in this case? I’m not suggesting we remove the original, merely that it can be presented in different ways for different audiences.
But you’re not translating, you say it yourself - you’re very deliberately trying to replace in order to make yourself comfortable, not because the text actually needs any adjusting (E: because he definitely isn’t talking only about slaves).
Saying history needs to be presented differently because it makes you uncomfortable is a wildly privileged thing to say, your feelings are not a priority in the fight against racism (or other bigotry), and being uncomfortable (aka facing reality, unsoftened for your delicate self) is necessary to unlearning.
Instead of getting defensive, check that privilege, learn to deal with such unbelievably mild discomfort (sorry, “difficulty to fully parse” 🙄), and have some respect for the words and experiences of others, especially when they talk about actual struggles people face in this world.
But you’re not translating, you say it yourself - you’re very deliberately trying to replace in order to make yourself comfortable, not because the text actually needs any adjusting.
What I said myself is that it’s not about comfort. I am translating, just like you might have to translate a poem by Robert Burns. I live closer (culturally and temporally) to Malcolm X than most anyone today to Robert Burns, and the amount that needs to change for a translation is smaller too.
I agree, if it was about it making me uncomfortable it wouldn’t be reasonable to make the change. But it’s not. Please do not put words into my mouth, especially after I have explicitly told you they are not true.
Here we have the unstoppable force of “no one should ever be treated that way” meeting the immovable object of “lol fuckin turd deserves exactly what he gets”
On the one hand, yeah, this is a horrible thing to say to someone
On the other, if anyone ever reminded you of Stephen from Django Unchained… This guy’s a pretty good candidate.
And now he is suing for discrimination, probably taking advantage of legislation passed by democrats
Yeah, “racial discrimination lawsuit” sounds like a bunch of woke Democrat talk to me.
Seriously, I do hope he wins some money off of those assholes, but I hope even more that this was a wakeup call for him about the sort of people he was affiliating with, and the sort of views he has been supporting.
Who could’ve predicted that fascists would act like such Nazis?
I never expected leopards to eat MY face!
The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Independent:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Tip: They most likely called him the N-word while he was out canvassing for them. Rascist are like that.
RascistRacists are like that.🤓
leopards & whatever.
faces or something
Conservatives are gullible as fuuuuck, no matter their skin color.
Yes that’s unsurprising and yes he’s probably a bad person, but also I feel the need to say that’s a really shitty thing to do to him. Even shitty people deserve to not be targeted by racist remarks.
Perhaps he will realize that his entire organization is filled with shitty people… nah
Kind of but let’s say:
Someone offered you to fight a bear for $5k.
He assures you the bear is safe.
People around you tell you it’s not, and don’t be an idiot.
Is it your fault if you chose to take the con man’s offer and fight the bear or the con man’s fault?
I started thinking about this after the titanic submarine disaster. Like, how is that not like a Darwin Award?
The difference is that racists are not bears. They’re people behaving poorly. I think this is better compared to a thief getting robbed by his partner in crime. Is he a fool? Yes. Is he a bad person? Yes. Can I blame his partner in crime for this? Also yes. In both cases it’s an idiot and a bad person walking into a position that another person behaved poorly towards them.
So what it comes down to is:
Are bigots and racists more like a bear that is obviously hazardous, or are they like your friend that betrays you.
I truly believe they are more like the first one if you just listen and think about the things they constantly say. But maybe that takes more critical thinking than I should expect from the average person.
Don’t think friend that betrays you, think criminal who you may feel you can work alongside, but demonstrates no loyalty to you beyond direct gains.
If we treat them as bears we ignore the capacity to change that is the very thing that damns them. You, me; and everyone here knows damn well that very few bigots change. And I’ve more than heard enough from bigots to know how monstrous some of them are. My existence happens to be political at the moment.
When a person decides to pick a fight with a particularly large and territorial member of the order Carnivora I place sole blame on the person and not the ursine participant because the person is a person and the bear is a bear. When a person decides to interact with a bigot of their own free will I have no sympathy for them and still blame the bigot because the bigot had the choice to change and I’m not going to let bigots off the hook for being a bigot. So really, it’s that either party could’ve averted this situation rather than just the one, and both should’ve.
You, me; and everyone here knows damn well that very few bigots change
because the bigot had the choice to change
So I like how you’re giving them agency and saying it’s on them to change. So my perspective is an extension of that. They are adults, I expect them to behave like one and/or be ready for the consequences.
So if someone knowingly acts as hostile as a bear, imo you should treat them like a bear to further discourage said behaviour. Imo its the biggest issue today, especially in politics (Harris’ campaign is turning it around it seems).
When someone acts horribly and in bad faith, you can’t act back in good faith and give them the benefit of the doubt or “realize their capacity to change”. You call them weird, you treat them like a bear.
When they go low, they got a knee to the face.
I think the difference is in how you and I treat bears lol. I treat bears as valuable members of an ecosystem that’re best kept in the wild, though can be glorious to view from a distance. I treat bigots like losers who need to be stopped because they’re going to hurt someone. We mock them, we keep their victims safe, and most importantly we make sure that they don’t get their way. Please don’t treat your local wildlife like that.
I recognize their capacity to change in that by applying sufficient pressure I can make them quit being so on this weirdo bullshit. They may stay a bigot but by the gods we can shut them the fuck up.
And I guess really the crux of my original stance is that if anyone deserves racism it’s a bigot, they’re experiencing hate like they express, but I don’t think anyone deserves racism. I’d rather he face no racism than any, so long as it means there’s no racism being faced by non bigoted people either.
When a bear is eating your face you dab his chin with a napkin is the other guys point.
I do agree with pretty much all that you’re saying. Especially the part that ideally, we are all human and human suffering (like experiencing racism) should be minimized.
Maybe it’s my age, but I guess I assume there will always be bigots and bad actors out there, yes we should actively fight to minimize it, but at the same time, after all those minimization efforts, we should still want and expect people to have critical thinking.
I guess even though bad actors aren’t good to have, I view them as almost a necessary evil (similar to how a bear is part of the ecosystem) so people learn about evil and critical thinking. Having said that, we are have waaaaaay more bad actors today than necessary.
no, they do.
They are enabling the racists to be further empowered to take further racist actions that effect other people. They deserve the same racism they’re enabling to happen to them.
The guy’s an uncle tom. if you think that’s a shitty, racist thing to say
-
He deserves it
-
Maybe I should call him an uncle ruckus instead.
I think there’s a worthwhile distinction between somebody “deserving” a consequence, versus having it coming because they (wholly or partially) brought it upon themselves.
The classic example is drunk driving. We don’t execute people for it, nor should we. But when somebody is hammered and runs into a tree at 2x the speed limit, they kind of had that coming even though it IS still a tragedy. We look at the silver lining that at least they didn’t take any innocents with them.
In this case, of course the racism is bad and shameful, and it’s the same assholes doing it. It should not be happening. But when the already-existing racists get help from one of the very people they’re trying to marginalize… I mean this is exactly the kind of crap the leopards eating faces meme was created for. I shouldn’t need to explain the absurdity, lol.
-
Strange, they all seemed like such nice bigots too
