[throsby]

I agree. I found the livestream that Patreon transcribed in the article[1]. From what I can tell, the context is that he is responding to an alt-right troll commenting in the chat.

He appears to be throwing the racially-charged language back at the troll and criticising them for being so disrespectful. From his mocking tone, I did not get the impression that he condoned their prejudice.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74llFWdeKNM&feature=youtu.be...

[zimpenfish]

> He appears to be throwing the racially-charged language back at the troll

He seems to be using the N word specifically as a pejorative because they're annoying him. (And then uses "faggot" also as a pejorative because why not?)

"White people are meant to be polite and respect each other", combined with the use of the N word towards the commentators, is fairly racially charged, no?

[throsby]

Yes, everything he said was racially charged and confrontational. But that doesn't necessarily make it hate speech.

Let's assume for a moment that the target of these pejoratives was an alt-right troll who directed those exact slurs at Sargon of Akkad. Let's say they made it obvious they were homophobic white supremacists by attacking Sargon's mixed heritage as 'racial impurity'.

When I steelman Sargon's emotional response, what I get is: "don't you alt-right trolls realise that you behave exactly the same way as you claim the [nasty black people] do? You are not living up to the false standard you have set for the polite and respectful white 'master' race, so your claim to superiority amazes me. If you are going to behave like the [nasty black people] and [nasty gay people] you despise so much, then don't expect me to bother wasting my time debating you."

Do you find this interpretation implausible for some reason? Can anyone offer a better one?

[zimpenfish]

> Let's assume for a moment that the target of these pejoratives was an alt-right troll

Do we know that it was?

> Do you find this interpretation implausible for some reason?

I do but that's because, taking all the interactions I've had with his output into account, I'm not given to charitable interpretations of his intentions.

> Can anyone offer a better one?

Yes, he's happy to use casual racism and homophobia until someone calls him out on it then he backtracks to claim it's satirical. But what you really mean here is "can anyone offer a better one that I agree with" and I suspect the answer there is no.

[throsby]

Sorry mate, your assumptions on what I "really mean" are incorrect. I was looking to promote divergent thinking to see what other interpretations were out there. Everyone can have a different subjective opinion on which is best and whether I agree or not is beside the point. Not every conversation has to be a debate, you know?

> he's happy to use casual racism and homophobia until someone calls him out on it

I don't listen to this fellow often because I find the sound of his voice irritating and I don't like how he cherry-picks evidence to support his views on UK politics. But none of the limited output I have consumed contained any casual racism. Can anyone link to any other examples that demonstrate this?

[nugga]

Sargon claims he is using the word in the way described in this stand up comedy routine where Chris Rock (a black person) talks about the difference between 'Black people and niggers' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3PJF0YE-x4

Sargon said something like he was denigrating the 'alt right / nazi trolls' for behaving the way the 'nazis' claim the people they hate behave in.

[zimpenfish]

> Sargon claims

Well, of course he does. He'd be stupid not to. But it's very easy to say "ONLY JOKING" whenever you get called on your offensive bullshit that you originally intended.

[nugga]

Yes didn't he say he meant to cause offense? Using that word (or any word) to offend non blacks does not somehow cause it to grow tentacles and attack every black person alive. Context and intent matters and I don't think you or anyone else gets to make that call on "hidden motives" or effects beyond what is stated on record.

[zimpenfish]

> I don't think you or anyone else gets to make that call on "hidden motives" or effects beyond what is stated on record.

Of course we do. Subtext, hidden meanings, coded language, dogwhistling, etc. are all valid things that people can discern in others' speech.

[UncleMeat]

Chris Rock regrets that bit exactly because it has given cover to bigots to use the n word in this way.