[nostromo]

I’m not being disingenuous. I didn’t follow him at all, but learned about the incident after Sam Harris spoke about it and subsequently moved off of Patreon.

You may not agree with the tone, I don’t either, but he’s debating literal white nationalists in this quote - and he knew what words they use to hurt others the most (the n and f words) so he used them against the white nationalists he was debating.

I wouldn’t recommend anyone try to do this in 2022, but you can’t argue that he’s a racist from this when you understand the context (again: literally arguing with avowed racists against racism).

It’s like people’s brains turn off the second they hear an offensive word.

[texaslonghorn5]

> and he knew what words they use to hurt others the most (the n and f words) so he used them against the white nationalists he was debating.

I don't understand the logic here. There's no logical reason to think these racial/homophobic slurs would hurt the white nationalists or cause them to rethink their viewpoints.

> you can’t argue that he’s a racist from this when you understand the context (again: literally arguing with avowed racists against racism).

Is he not literally digging deeper into these same racist stereotypes to make his point? That's how I interpret the two quotes. He's equating the white nationalists to those two groups in order to denigrate the nationalists, which implies the two groups are also bad.

[nostromo]

My take is that he’s attempting to use their world view (that Europeans are more civilized than others) against them by pointing out they’re the ones with brutish views and violent behavior, and they’re white. He’s not espousing their views, he’s showing their inconsistency.

By the way, from what little I know about him, I don’t agree with much that he believes. But in any case, Patreon was wrong to deplatform him (something Twitter and YouTube haven’t done).

[r00bot]

My friend, if you think using those terms in that context is acceptable then I'm afraid this conversation has ran its course. It is my opinion that using those terms derogatorily is unquestionably racist/homophobic, regardless of who you're using them against. Your original comment was disingenuous due to the omission of key details regarding which "bad words" he used, and how they were used. Most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with saying bad or offensive words, but racial and homophobic slurs? Not so much.

[helloworld11]

What a foolishly absolutist bunch of woke nonsense. These kinds of words aren't evil spells from some era of religious fanaticism. They're just words, and for such things context always matters, meaning that they can be said for all sorts of reasons that don't make one a racist.

[r00bot]

You're free to disagree. I'm just explaining why the omission of those details changes the discussion greatly for people who hold similar beliefs to me. His original comment was framed in a way such that nobody could disagree, while the actual context makes it far less black and white.

[nostromo]

I’m gay so perhaps I understand how these words can be hurtful better than you do.

But context matters. And I’m not going to get worked up by someone using slurs against white nationalists in a debate, even if I think it was misguided.

[notahacker]

Context does matter, but the context is that the podcaster in question wasn't someone cleverly deconstructing white nationalism, but an edgelord who routinely says offensive things for attention (choice cuts: the video in which he tackles statements as apparently in need of contesting as "it's not OK to call me a fag" with such ingenious ripostes as "I don't even know that you're gay, but you're still a fucking fag" and his much-publicised comments about an MP being too ugly to rape) losing his temper at the white nationalist he'd invited on for a cosy chat because they were more interested in mocking his posh accent than finding common ground with him. A podcast persona he defends with the statement "Personally, I find racist jokes funny" . If a corporation decides it doesn't want to be associated with his content any more, it's not because they've completely misunderstood where he's coming from.

[r00bot]

Yes, context matters. Hence why I added context that you disingenuously left out. You're free to disagree with my view, but you massively downplayed the situation when you called racial and homophobic slurs "bad words" in your original comment. This is important context which should not be omitted.

[bmacho]

> I’m gay so perhaps I understand how these words can be hurtful better than you do.

Gay community successfully reclaimed all the slur words (gay, queer, fag etc).

While I wish everyone could do that (change themselves to not to be offended, instead of demanding me to endlessly change my words), that's not the case, slur words still exist.

[gyaru]

reclaimed within the community

it would not be acceptable for someone outside it to use it.

[wdroz]

As an European, that baffle me the casual discrimination that are rooted in your US mindsets.

The whole "You can do/say X if you are Y, but if you aren't Y, you are a racist/bigot/*phobe" isn't healthy to build a society without discrimination.

[Handytinge]

100% agree. As an Australian, it's fascinating to sit back and watch the mental gymnastics they need to run.

[nostromo]

Lots of Americans (maybe even most) would agree with you.

But the people currently in power (institutional, corporate, and government) are all settled that this is the new standard. So we all have to pretend to agree or get kicked out of school, fired, or deplatformed.

[yakubin]

gay and queer are not offensive even outside the community. It is acceptable for other people to use them. I haven't heard fag used non-offensively even inside the community, but maybe that's what needs to happen. Personally, I think it's great and that's what should happen to all slurs. They mean after all just "X but bad". When you turn them into just "X", you disarm the offenders and so the trend loses its memetic ability to replicate throughout tribes, and so people are less likely to denigrate only to assert their position as part of a tribe.

[burmanm]

Regardless of what he said, do you think Visa / Mastercard should be content filters?

What if you said something bad about MasterCard's services? "Oops, no more credit cards for you" ?

This kind of monopolies should be treated like utilities, however I guess they're too useful as political tools to get that treatment.

[r00bot]

No, I don't think they should be content filters.

[BizarroLand]

Yeah, I think they should be classified as common carriers since a lot of the money individuals spend in the western world gets filtered through their coffers.

If they are allowed to decide who they will do business with on "moral" grounds what protections are there for people when those morals shift?

"Sorry, you're an unmarried mother, and we frown upon that so you're not allowed to use your debit card any more" is a stretch, but roughly 60 years ago it was the norm and we could easily backslide to that era again.

[barrysteve]

This is what happens when every word is recorded and every word is a 'statement'.

The English culture was heavily influenced by Kant who argued for a duty ethic, which was trained into schoolboys by the observation and participation in moral emotions during classroom tasks.

Sargon is making a (very lazy) appeal to emotional reasoning, to which Brits would respond. The idea that you don't fulfill the category of behaviour you're 'supposed to be', is something Brits can hear in his text and everyone else (except some aussies and canadians) doesn't hear.

The idea that these racists are not 'behaving white' and they are being like the thing they rail against, isn't to be understood on face value, it is supposed to generate emotional self reflection in the people that were raised in that philosophy.

I've never liked Sargon, he always appears so smug. Probably an unwelcome judgement, but he's not racist from that statement. Just an idiot.

[krageon]

The entire statement is founded on racist reasoning to engender an emotional response. If you're racist tactically, that still means you're racist. Just like the person who was quoted was being.

[barrysteve]

You seem to mean being a "racist" is just saying racist things. Which means nearly nothing to me. I have no idea what you mean by Racist Reasoning™ when his real reasoning is completely different to what you have experienced before, as I described above.

There is meaning to words further than Prima Facie. We aren't programmed robots that interpret words like a machine, they have an added effect on the rest of our human 'functionality', which people commonly try to access via emotions, persuasion and hypothetical arguments.

Real racism happens whether or not you police saying Racist Words. The fact that I have to explain this is beyond credibility.

It would appear that racism in your country is like saying some Magic Words that summon angry political groups and has almost nothing to do with intent, logic, meaning or anything else. Just saying words is bad enough to be condemned, like He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named in Harry Potter.

I had more explanation written out, showing how the traditional Scholastic dialogue works in Master and Commander, when Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany are discussing the fate of a sailor who failed to salute, and how they let go of making "official statements" in favour of personal, emotional arguments and come upon the truth through that dialogue. I have lost interest in responding to this hyper-literal, internet Enlightenment view which encourages mediocrity and tribalism.

I have zero sympathy for your view, it oversimplifies life into a world-view that can't contain it and has almost no meaning. If this is where the conversation ends, I would be very happy with that.

[sangnoir]

> You seem to mean being a "racist" is just saying racist things.

What's with racism purism? That you have to embody racism with your whole self in order to be really racist. I never see this purist concept applied to anything else: "Oh, he was only saying libertarian ideas, that doesn't mean he's libertarian" - sure, but why does it matter if the speaker is libertarian (or not)? What matters, and is indisputable, is their statement was libertarian.

[barrysteve]

You don't see a lot of "purist" stuff because it happens in the emotions and feelings where normal language is shaped to make for a movement in those areas without having to be explicit about it. That's the whole point and why Sargon's move was so lazy using explicit swear words and cheap logic.

>but why does it matter if the speaker is libertarian (or not)? What matters, and is indisputable, is their statement was libertarian.

Because you can't contain people in speech. How is this even a question? Policing speech does one third of what the unwritten rules and unspoken feelings do for maintaining social order. You can feel a father's disapproval, you can be emotionally moved towards the Good, ect, ect. The speech acts nearly always come after the thing that happened.

A car crash always has people mourning and setting up new safety rules and making 'indisputable statements' well after the event itself. Most 'statements' are just empty posturing and perfect-form chasing.

Golly gosh this feels like taking a horse to water but being unable to make it drink.

[krageon]

If it bothers you this much when someone tells you not to speak in a manner that's offensive to most people and tuned in a way explicitly to foster that offense (in this case because it's racist), that really says the most about you.

Racist language is a part of racism, just like nazi dogwhistles are a part of nazism. Perhaps this is offensive to you and that sucks, but it doesn't change the fact that this is how terrible people advertise themselves. By using their reasoning, their words and their stance on other people you signify that you sympathise. That is all anyone really needs to understand about this linguistic smokescreen.