204
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
204 points (95.9% liked)
politics
19138 readers
3492 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
think you might have grabbed a slightly tilted takeaway from this…
He's not wrong though; you have to battle ideas not words. Education is the solution.
Too bad the electorate keeps putting in idiot racists who want to sabotage the education system.
Indeed, they recognize that education is the antithesis of their ideals.
Maybe that is because nuance is not part of the US dictionary. Always have to choose a side.
But the "idea" here is that the n-word is hurtful and there's absolutely never a proper use for it.
The idea that the racists have is that anyone not white is inferior, that's a whole different argument than just using a word that only has the purpose of hurting people.
I disagree, I think words having powerful, negative meaning like that is a symptom of a deeper problem, not a root problem in and of itself. We shouldn't be tackling the problem of people using words, we should be tackling the problem of why do they want to use those words in the first place?
You're not wrong, but people who hold a conservative ideology tend to react very poorly when you tell them that their emotional fear/disgust response to the existence of minorities is the problem.
It's not the root problem, but that's what I mentioned as a separate issue.
As another one put it ¿Por que no los dos?
The word has no place in society, but also the reasons one chooses to use it is problematic. It's not so much "banned" but it's a "fuck around and find out" word. There are repercussions for the words you choose to use, just like if a presidential candidate started tossing "fuck" around a lot. That word isn't banned, but you know that would kill their campaign completely.
Por que no los dos?
The n-word is atrocious and we're better off without it - even if people use stand-ins in its place that word had far too much baggage. We should also be battling ideas and teaching people to be less shitty.
What bothers me here is that one of you got downvoted into oblivion, the other got upvoted just as much, and from where I'm standing, it seems like both of you are on the same side.
my read was that by putting “banning” in quotes, there was a subtext to the comment.
no one is “banning” words - the milieu is that we don’t use certain words for certain (in this case obvious and terrible) reasons.
by pushing the focus to the “banning” and not the obvious dog whistle, this comment seems to be shifting the convo away from people being racist shits to a discussion on language.
hence this entire comment chain.
i just want people to get the takeaway that jesus fuck people are racist, not “liberals can’t ban words, see?”
Maybe I'm being overly generous here, to me the user just sounded frustrated with the boundaries of civil discourse masking but not solving a problem. I assumed the problem was self-evident/they weren't denying it.
To me that feels like a call for more action, not less. It's all too easy to pretend something isn't happening when the verbiage around it becomes more palatable (exactly what dog whistles are for).
But again, maybe I'm being too generous.