Use of the "N" word

[SimonDoom]

That's how many chose to handle things in the 1920s-1930s. It's a big part of how our grandparents ended up having to shoot and hang Nazis instead of just punching them.

If the lesson you learned from Weimar Germany is that tolerance is what led to the rise of the Nazis, then you learned the wrong lesson, IMO.

America has its problems, but our position on free speech isn't one of them. I'm going to stick with it: You get to say whatever you want to, no matter how evil. The state cannot prosecute you for that.

We won't resolve this issue in this forum, and that's fine. I try to avoid politics in discussions about erotica because it's unproductive. It's interesting to discuss to the extent it concerns "what can I say in my erotic story?" That's what interests me here. Not politics.

 

[Bramblethorn]

To be fair, it's both sides. The left wants to expel To Kill A Mockingbird from school curriculums because kids will be exposed to the N word (OMG, the injury they will suffer!). But the right is trying to pass laws against kids being exposed to the word "gay." (OMG, they might be influenced to be gay!). They're both F'd up.

This is dishonest and false equivalency.

Simon has refused to provide cites for the "wants to expel TKAM from curriculums" claim, so it's hard to know exactly what he's referring to here. In a country of 300 million, no doubt one can find some left-wing people somewhere who hold that position. But assigning it to "the left" as a whole is dishonest - it's certainly not a policy of the Democratic Party, or any other influential left-wing org that I'm aware of, and it's not one that a majority of left-wing Americans would be likely to support.

Meanwhile, on the other side of things, laws that have already been passed (please don't minimise with "trying to pass"; Florida HB 1557 was signed off more than a month ago) with the full support of the GOP.

Any issue, no matter how one-sided, can be "both-sides"-ed if one is willing to play this kind of game, to treat actual statutes as being no more significant than some random person with a weird opinion.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Apples and bowling bowls, as Phil Leotardo would say.

You are trying to reduce a complicated, emotional debate to the most basic level.

• The word snugglebaby has not been labeled offensive.
• If someone, without the knowledge of your nickname for your partner, called her snugglebaby because she looks like a snugglebaby, you'd have no right to anger.
• If everyone in the world used the term snugglebaby for their partner, you'd have no right to anger.
• If someone, knowing your nickname for your partner, called her snugglebaby to antagonize you, then your anger would be justified.

Completely missing the point. If a co-worker or business contact called her "snugglebaby" that would be offensive to her. Because in that context it's patronising, inappropriate for a working relationship, sounds like a sexual come-on. And the fact that she accepts and even welcomes that term from me doesn't give others license to use it.

• The rapper in question is selling art. He has sold it to his fans, and he clearly has no problem with races other than his own purchasing his art. If he did, that would be racist.
• Because he is selling art, anyone purchasing his art, or participating in his art, is allowed, through common sense and decency, to repeat his art verbatim.

In my experience, when somebody invokes "common sense" in an argument it usually means there's a missing step in their logic that they don't know how to fill.

Do you get to sing along at home, or in your car with the windows up? Sure, knock yourself out.

Does listening to an artist grant you the right to sing up on stage with them? Lol no. The artist gets to decide who's up on that stage with them and what the conditions are.

• As the artist who has created said art for the people to enjoy, it was his obligation to defend his fan, and he failed to do so. He joined the mob.

No, he did not. He called a pause, helped her understand why the crowd was angry, gave her a chance to change what she was doing, and then made it clear to the crowd that he was cool with her.

He could've said nothing at all, let her go on making a fool of herself and incurring the hostility of the crowd. That might not have gone well for her when she got off stage. What he did was a lot kinder.

• Here is where I expect you to throw in another over-simplified rebuttal. Let's say "handguns." Handguns are a work of art that can be purchased and used as the law intends them to be used.

...what? No, handguns are not (in general) "a work of art". They're weapons. Some individual guns might be made as art, but it's not an inherent feature of handguns. Not sure where you're trying to go with this.

• We have no law against rapping the N word at a concert unless it breaks the obscenity laws.

And no law against anything Lamar or the crowd did in response.

Not saying the N word is a societal courtesy, but it's not a rule or a law. You may get sued if you abuse your power in conjunction with the N word, but it isn't illegal to say.

You're arguing against a position that nobody is taking here. AFAIK nobody was asserting that it should be illegal to use the N-word in that kind of situation. Not sure where you got that idea.

 

[Voboy]

When talking to people who live outside the USA, it's usually safe to assume that we're starting from the position that the US legal system is broken and should not be taken as a moral authority on pretty much anything.

Most Americans would say the same, I'd imagine, because they understand that "morality" is not really what law courts are about. "Justice" is, theoretically, and justice has frequently been at odds with morality in various cultures.

The US legal system is, indeed, far from perfect. But it's not even trying to be "moral," nor has it ever.

 

[DouglasFinney]

Most Americans would say the same, I'd imagine, because they understand that "morality" is not really what law courts are about. "Justice" is, theoretically, and justice has frequently been at odds with morality in various cultures.

It’s like William Gaddis says: “You get justice in the next world. In this world you have the law.”

 

[ElectricBlue]

Bull shit. It doesn't matter whether it's morally right. You have a fundamental right--in this country, at least-- to say things that are immoral. You can say whatever the hell you want to say, no matter how evil or rotten. In the United States, you have an unlimited right to be a Nazi and to espouse Nazi viewpoints, or whatever other evil, rotten viewpoints you want to espouse. And that is a principle I stand behind: No matter how much I hate what you have to say, I defend your right to say it. Yes, I actually do believe that. 100%.

This is about the only thing on which you and I differ.

I know my history, and know what happened when many nations said, "It's okay, it's only words."

1933. Only words.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Most Americans would say the same, I'd imagine, because they understand that "morality" is not really what law courts are about. "Justice" is, theoretically, and justice has frequently been at odds with morality in various cultures.

The US legal system is, indeed, far from perfect. But it's not even trying to be "moral," nor has it ever.

Agreed. And yet, in discussions like this, people frequently flip between talking about "what the law says" and "what people ought to do" as if they were interchangeable concepts.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is about the only thing on which you and I differ.

I know my history, and know what happened when many nations said, "It's okay, it's only words."

1933. Only words.

Yes, we disagree, strongly, on that point.

1933 didn't happen because people said, "It's only words." That's false history. Free speech is not why the Nazis came into power in Germany.

It's easy to go back in time and say, "If only we hadn't tolerated the Nazis." But, first, not tolerating them might not have had any effect. And, second and more importantly, once you accept that principle you give small groups of people the power to imprison others for what they say. I'll take freedom. History shows us that the suppression of free speech is far more harmful than empowering people to suppress speech some think is harmful.

 

[LegoHead]

Completely missing the point. If a co-worker or business contact called her "snugglebaby" that would be offensive to her. Because in that context it's patronising, inappropriate for a working relationship, sounds like a sexual come-on. And the fact that she accepts and even welcomes that term from me doesn't give others license to use it.



In my experience, when somebody invokes "common sense" in an argument it usually means there's a missing step in their logic that they don't know how to fill.

Do you get to sing along at home, or in your car with the windows up? Sure, knock yourself out.

Does listening to an artist grant you the right to sing up on stage with them? Lol no. The artist gets to decide who's up on that stage with them and what the conditions are.



No, he did not. He called a pause, helped her understand why the crowd was angry, gave her a chance to change what she was doing, and then made it clear to the crowd that he was cool with her.

He could've said nothing at all, let her go on making a fool of herself and incurring the hostility of the crowd. That might not have gone well for her when she got off stage. What he did was a lot kinder.



...what? No, handguns are not (in general) "a work of art". They're weapons. Some individual guns might be made as art, but it's not an inherent feature of handguns. Not sure where you're trying to go with this.



And no law against anything Lamar or the crowd did in response.



You're arguing against a position that nobody is taking here. AFAIK nobody was asserting that it should be illegal to use the N-word in that kind of situation. Not sure where you got that idea.

What happened to your well thought out responses? The "in my experience" line you used tells me that you aren't used to having to address rebuttals that you cannot refute. My first comment addressed to you stands.

 

[Wark2002]

The first draft of my story "Silken Banners Part I" used it; I thought it would be best preserved in its ugliness and would be effective; however, since the tone of the rest of the story was kinder and gentler and since it was the point of view of a small child I decided it wouldn't lose too much effectiveness if I wrote around it.

https://literotica.com/s/silken-banners-pt-01

 

[NewOldGuy77]

We're writing a type of fiction that trades in heightened everything. People can do whatever they want, but making a special exception for a single word immediately raises the question of hypocrisy. It's a taboo. We write about violating taboos. It's an element of race play. We write not only about race play, but the fictional smut that race play enthusiasts use to jerk off.

I wrote a story about a sadist, and she used the word "fag" like she'd won a lifetime supply of them from Publisher's Clearing House. Unless somebody asked me to use that term during a private, consensual, sexual encounter, I'd never say it myself.

Even out in the real world, people use the word. Brown-skinned folks in certain places use it constantly. I speak from personal experience. I was a criminal defense attorney. During private meetings with clients, I occupied that special position in the system where they wouldn't self-censor very much; they'd just keep apologizing afterwards. Curse then sorry. Slur then sorry. Hell, it was a relief to have rape cases. Then we all knew we'd have to be saying disgusting shit all the time no matter what. Probably saved hours by ditching all the apologies.

I heard the n-word so many times in five years that I feel like I should have some kind of honorary membership somewhere - although maybe not any place I'd want to go.

"like she'd won a lifetime supply of them from Publisher's Clearing House" - Damn, you're hysterical!

 

[lovecraft68]

Crickets.
Thought so.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Yes, we disagree, strongly, on that point.

1933 didn't happen because people said, "It's only words." That's false history. Free speech is not why the Nazis came into power in Germany.

You missed my irony.

My point was the same as Brambles: Nazism is a world view, it's abhorrent, yet you want to allow people to perpetuate it because you want to allow them "free speech".

 

[Winter_Fare]

Sooo... Joking aside, no-one can escape human nature, we're all racist. We all have biases that control our reactions and we can't possibly catch ourselves every single time and prevent them upsetting people.

The truth is that after the dust settled, people around the world were all horrified by the aftermath of world war. Human rights, conventions on warfare all this seems to have drifted away like chaff because conflict over resources is inevitable.

What leads to ghettoisation and under-resourced communities? Greed. Fear. Dehumanisation of the "underclass" dejour.

Who are the real villains? Vampire's, people, vampires. The richest of the rich who happily plan for every eventuality to preserve their wretched lives, sipping two hundred year old brandy while ordinary folks cull themselves out of the equation fighting over what's left.

Peace.

Everyone's racist

 

[SimonDoom]

Auschwitz wasn't "speech". The burning of the Institüt für Sexualwissenschaft wasn't "speech". The invasion of Poland wasn't "speech". The Christchurch massacre wasn't "speech".

Though "speech" certainly played its part in allowing those things to happen; Julius Streicher was hanged for running a Nazi paper that advocated genocide.

You're being ridiculous, now. Those are actions, not speech. Laws exist to stop people from hurting other people. Laws also exist to protect the right of people to advocate different political systems. The communists murdered millions of people. Do we ban communism, too? No. We let people say what they want, including Nazis.

You can disagree with me. That's fine. That's the whole point of free speech. But stop accusing me of dishonesty and bad faith. It's a very bad habit of yours to do that with people you disagree with. It's an indication of your fundamental intolerance of points of view different from yours.

 

[Winter_Fare]

You're being ridiculous, now. Those are actions, not speech. Laws exist to stop people from hurting other people. Laws also exist to protect the right of people to advocate different political systems. The communists murdered millions of people. Do we ban communism, too? No. We let people say what they want, including Nazis.

You can disagree with me. That's fine. That's the whole point of free speech. But stop accusing me of dishonesty and bad faith. It's a very bad habit of yours to do that with people you disagree with. It's an indication of your fundamental intolerance of points of view different from yours.

Free speech without universal high quality education is a recipe for disaster, because without critical thinking skills we're just angry chimps that like shiny things and shagging.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

My point was the same as Brambles: Nazism is a world view, it's abhorrent, yet you want to allow people to perpetuate it because you want to allow them "free speech".

You're not saying anything that hasn't already been said, and countered, a million times before. It's another eternal debate between ontology and epistemology, and where to place the power.

One of the premises that often pairs with strong support of free speech is the idea that abhorrent worldviews can - not will, but can - be exposed as such in the marketplace of ideas. What people seem to forget is that that's not a foregone conclusion. It requires real effort. Another paired premise is that the use of violence to do an end-run around the marketplace of ideas is itself a warning sign that a particular idea or ideology can't stand on its own merits.

Once you submit to the depressing idea that abhorrent worldviews are inherently competitive with "good" ones, you run into Orwell's problem: the regime that props up those abhorrent worldviews isn't necessarily going to look like a mustache-twirling villain's empire of cartoonish excess and spite - not even necessarily from the outside looking in. Even from an outsider's perspective, it could appear to be a serious, well-oiled machine. From an insider's perspective, it could appear to be intellectually credible, morally legitimate, and, indeed, vitally necessary for the continued prosperity of a people, nation, or species. Epistemology can easily trump ontology. The fact that a worldview is abhorrent won't matter much if it appears to be "good."

Even if one truly believes that their well-oiled machine is in service to a "good" ideology instead of an abhorrent one, how can one ever credibly defend it when its detractors can say "well if it's violently suppressing dissenting views, how are we ever to know?" At the bare minimum, this "good" ideology has denigrated the value of debate. It has elevated the importance of violence. It has conceded that "higher" truth matters far less than the ability to force people to accept something as truth.

What does that sound like?

Hell might denigrate the good intentions that pave its roads, but, tellingly, it doesn't tear those roads up.

 

[SimonDoom]

You missed my irony.

My point was the same as Brambles: Nazism is a world view, it's abhorrent, yet you want to allow people to perpetuate it because you want to allow them "free speech".

Yes, that's right. I do. I want them to be able to speak. The communists murdered millions of people, and I want them to be able to speak, too. I want racists to be able to speak. In America, you have a Constitutional right to be a Nazi, or a communist, or a racist, or whatever. Thank goodness for that, I say.

I don't trust ANYONE to decide who gets to say what. I am confident that once we vest someone with the power to be a speech cop, the power will be abused. It's happening right now in America. I can't speak to what's going on in Australia. So my position is you get to say whatever you want, with impunity, unless it legally rises to the level of incitement, defamation, or intellectual property infringement. The proper response to bad speech is good speech, not suppression.

 

[TxRad]

The "N" word I like is Naughty. The rest of this crap is arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[Winter_Fare]

The "N" word I like is Naughty. The rest of this crap is arguing for the sake of arguing.

No way, people obviously feel strongly around this issue and want to be heard. I'm just sitting here with actual tears rolling down my face from a link to a story I followed on this thread. The site allows the offending word, people write it in stories all the time. This is fact. The whole conversation about free speech is way over my head. Most of the family on my (white) mother's side were wiped out by their (white) neighbors in an act of genocide/ethnic cleansing depending on who you ask. Race based violence isn't always a black and white issue. The terrifying thing about where by grandparents came from is that it is similar to many other places, many other times, and racism seems to be a universal constant.

 

[Winter_Fare]

The first draft of my story "Silken Banners Part I" used it; I thought it would be best preserved in its ugliness and would be effective; however, since the tone of the rest of the story was kinder and gentler and since it was the point of view of a small child I decided it wouldn't lose too much effectiveness if I wrote around it.

https://literotica.com/s/silken-banners-pt-01

Fucking hell. Kleenex.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The dividing line between speech and action is a fine one, and probably drawn in different places in different jurisdictions anyway. When a registrar says "I pronounce you husband and wife", that's speech but also a legally binding action. "I'm gonna kill you" - speech but also a threat and thus often a crime. "X people deserve to die" - some might say better to have the opinion in the open, others might say it's incitement to violence and thus best legislated against before that violence happens. Some societies are more tolerant of violence and potential violence than others...

TKAM was removed from the curriculum in my school. Why? Mostly because after seven or so years the teacher was bored rigid of teaching it, and she also found it was surprisingly difficult for pupils (GCSE, so age 14-17) to write well about, because it basically does boil down to 'racism bad, mm'kay?' and 'doesn't Lee describe the surroundings, the like of which none of you have ever seen, well?' Not to mention most of us had zero clue that the whole civil rights era was even a thing - Lincoln got shot and slaves freed the same time as the Russian Emancipation of the Serfs, 1861 - whaddaya mean, black people were still treated legally like shit in the USA?? So you can imagine a teacher deciding to have a year off from all that, n-word not being particularly relevant but not having to explain that was probably a relief too. She did say that it was a great book and we should all read it, see, orange pile in the stockroom there, take one after the lesson. Failing that, watch the film.

But you could accurately say it was a lefty teacher removing the book from the curriculum.

Of course, according to XXX, Lee was a racist incel, being what she wrote...

 

[XerXesXu]

TKAM ... basically does boil down to 'racism bad, mm'kay?'

Of course, according to XXX, Lee was a racist incel, being what she wrote...

No comment necessary.

 

[SimonDoom]

Free speech without universal high quality education is a recipe for disaster, because without critical thinking skills we're just angry chimps that like shiny things and shagging.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that education gives people the critical thinking skills needed to handle free speech. In fact, the greatest threat to free speech comes from those who are highly educated.

 

[Winter_Fare]

I don't think there's any reason to believe that education gives people the critical thinking skills needed to handle free speech. In fact, the greatest threat to free speech comes from those who are highly educated.

Any research to back your supposition?

We do not have universal high quality education yet. There is evidence that even as things stand, "fake news" the ultimate in "free speech", is believed and shared far more readily by the uneducated. For example, uneducated people are more likely to fear vaccines and believe Q-anon BS.