[McWhorter] The New N-Word Standard Isn’t Progress

I don’t think the word should be used anywhere. It’s not empowering nor has it diminished in meaning over time. I suspect all taboo words have increased due to hypersensitivity and the lack of people being forced to get along outside comfort zones. It's a byproduct of echo chambers, cancel culture, and whatever digital medium giving people something to snitch or be outraged over to give more meaning to increasingly isolated and cold lives.

That said, white people are butthurt over not using it because they instinctively think they're the reason for allowing it to be banned, so now they argue from the original principle of fairness despite displaying their childish streak of wanting to say it more in private if only as a joke or the way Rogan tried to shroud it with self described cleverness

 

I use the word a lot. I don't do it around other races. Obviously you shouldn't use it as an insult but I would be less offended today.

I don't have a problem with @Os Trigonum posting this. It's a good discussion. It is ridiculous that some get backlash for just saying the word especially in the context of decrying the use of the word. I have had this thought before this was posted after controversies I can't remember now but within the last five.

There is no wizardry to the word. Hearing it as an insult is still hurtful but just hearing shouldn't be.

 

No, I don’t think it’s a conclusion you personally came up with. Conservatives had a political axe to grind with vaccine and mask requirements, and Fauci was a convenient person to focus on since he became the face of the health establishment. Consequentially, there have been all sorts of contortions of his words in conservative media and by politicians to try to portray him as a fraudulent liar, as might be done with any political foe. Your impression of his so-called lie is largely the result of you uncritically consuming these contortions, it appears.

 

Maybe it shouldn't be, but it still is. When I hear it spoken, even in a non-insulting context, it can often still be shocking. As with some other curse words (the c-word, for example). Just as I wouldn't casually drop shocking curse words around people, I wouldn't casually drop the n-word in a non-insulting context either. But someone doing so is, at worst, being insensitive. It doesn't mean they are racist.

 

The issue was whether the Right "cancels" people. "Cancel" has seem to have taken a much broader meaning than actually having someone lose their job. In the example of Joe Rogan, he hasn't lost his job or even been removed from Spotify yet many are saying he is being cancelled.

In the case of Dr. Fauci yes there is a lot of criticism out there about him. Whether you believe he is wrong or lied isn't quite the issue but whether he is being "cancelled" in terms of demands for his removal and as I specifically stated threats to his life and safety. In response to my point that he is being threatened your specific reply was

So does that justify threats on his life and safety and do you think it's more people on the Left or the Right who are threatening Dr. Fauci?

So the Religious Right is part of the Right but they aren't Right. I suppose then that Antifa is part of the Left but they aren't Left.

I'm sure you have criticized Republicans and I take your word that you didn't vote for Trump or support him. That said just in this thread alone you are downplaying just how much current Republicans are not only doing what you criticize the Left for.

I will note the original post that you made on this debate string was that the LEFT was doing these things. I pointed out both do.

Actually current MN governor Tim Walz is running on a tax rebate. Bill Clinton enacted the Small Business act which cut taxes and fees on many small businesses. The main domestic legislation that JFK passed was a tax cut.

I've already given you several examples of Republicans increasing regulation for in some cases specious reasoning and given how the debt has ballooned under Republican Administrations and Congresses I doubt there is much of a ground to stand on for claiming Republicans are against spending. IN fact it has been recent Democratic Administrations that we've seen the deficit cut.

 

He is saying that it's ok to cancel Fauci, the Beatles, Kirkpatrick, Maher, or teachers teaching the history of slavery because they are liberals. It's ok to censor, cancel, or whatever if they disagree with him, but if they are people he likes, than it's wrong to try and criticize or "cancel" them.

This is obviously what he wants and uses whatever mental gymnastics he needs to get there.

 

So no one has tried to cancel Joe Rogan from the left? Okay.

I specifically said he should not have been threatened.

The religious right is both part of the right and right leaning. The things they do that are specifically based on religion and not being right leaning should not be attributed to the right, but to the religion. I thought the Muslims/Pork thing made that point very clear. Do you think not eating pork is a right/left issue? Antifa is an entirely political group. Their raison d'être is to be left-leaning agitators. There is no a separate motive for Antifa to do something that is unrelated to being on the left.

Because they do it much less. Especially recently (say the last five or six years). In the 80s, it was the right that was far more censorious and up in people's business.

Both sides have supported tax cuts and tax increases. Ask any person on the street which side is for tax cuts and they will all say it is the right. It is a matter of degree. Every team in the NBA shoots threes and layups, but there was one team that to an extreme focused on threes and layups. Lots of directors have explosions in movies, but if you asked, who has explosions in movies, Francis Ford Coppola or Michael Bay, the answer is obvious. Both do it, but not to the same extent.

See above. It isn't a matter of absolutes.

I didn't mention spending once. You seem very stuck on this idea of absolutes. It is about trends. Here are two yes or no questions for you: 1. Does the right focus more on tax cuts than the left? 2. Does the left tend to focus more on increased regulations than the right? If your answer to both is yes (which is obviously true), then you are arguing semantics.

I'm pretty against cancelling everyone. I just recognize who does it more often. Good luck finding a post where I said the Beatles or Bill Maher or teachers teaching slavery should be fired. I think you will have much more luck finding posts where I say the answer to speech you disagree with is more speech that you agree with.

 

I think you are wrong there. I think when it comes to censorship, conservatives engage in it far more often, the left just doesn't do as good of a job blowing it up.

 

people so desperate to be able to use the n-word…

How about don’t? Period, end of the story

I am able to live my life just fine without using Asian slurs, Middle Eastern slurs, gay slurs, etc

 

But it’s very popular in rap and comedy .
There’s unwritten rules about use of the word by other ethnicities but that has been broken .

 

Sure they've tried but he hasn't been canceled.

Yet you justified that behavior.

So is devotion to Judeo Christianity not part of the Right?

You're essentially substituting your own definition of "Right" to exclude actions that you don't agree with from the Religious Right. Most including members of the Religious Right would say that their actions are very much attributable to being one and the same as being on the Right. You're engaging in the "No True Scotsman..." argument.

The above comments just so that it's a matter of relative views so again your original statement about Left and Right was incorrect since that was an absolutist statement.
I will also note that you are arguing on the basis of perception, "Ask any person on the street which side is for tax cuts and they will all say it is the right." while regarding the Religious Right arguing against perception "The things they do that are specifically based on religion and not being right leaning should not be attributed to the right," Most people including the Religious Right would consider everything they do to be part of the Right.

Spending generally goes along with the idea of increasing government which you did mention. Anyway again you're arguing on perception and relativity. I will agree with you on relative emphasis but that doesn't mean that what they emphasize is actually true.

At this point given how much regulation for things like voting, election laws, CRT, and stuff that makes parents uncomfortable the Right might actually be pushing more regulation than the Left now.

This is between you and Sweet Lou but I don't recall you pushing for cancelling the Beatles or Bill Maher. My response though is you are downplaying the "cancelling" (in terms of threats and other actions) made towards people like Dr. Fauci and Alex Vindman. In fact Vindman losing his job because of opposing Trump is the definition of "cancel". This isn't to say Trump doesn't have the right to fire Vindman but "cancel" has not been a matter of legality.

 

Yes I agree on the mental gymnastics that many ideologues are making in recent years.

As I said though in my other post I don't recall @StupidMoniker calling for the cancellation of those people listed.

 

I agree in terms of getting along with people we shouldn't be using that word but I don't think we should keep it as a banned word not to be used in any context.

In terms of literature and history things like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird and other's use that word because they are reflecting the cultural milleau of that time. To ban those books because people are uncomfortable about that word is missing the point of those books or understanding history.

To give another example the term "Chinaman" is offensive. It is used quite a bit in East of Eden and I would say anyone that wants to ban East of Eden for using that term is wrong.

 

I do think “cancel culture” is on the upswing on the Left. Respect for individual liberty seems to be at an all-time low, particularly when it collides with holding someone in a position of power or privilege accountable for a transgression.

I feel that individual liberty is more valued by people on the Right these days. Caring about it tends to be a more integral part of their political identity. Though if a poor person breaks a law, there does tend to be very little concern about their individual liberty.

 

I haven’t said anything about banning historical literature tho

a lot of non-black people getting real comfortable just blurting out the n-word, especially with a hard er

 

It's the juxtaposition of the vehement defense and concern for people like Joe Rogan or an engineer at Google and the sound of crickets when their political ideologies don't match - such as teachers.

 

They would say that parents have a right to complain about teachers who they think are spreading dangerous ideas to their children.

A better example of a double standard would be people on the Right trying to deplatform a left wing media personality, or to get an employee in a company fired for saying something controversial on a message board.

 

You mean like Chris Cuomo?

https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...my-of-the-people.299105/page-54#post-13844365

No outcry from conservatives or the regular anti-cancel crew on this one - in fact seems like a few people who complain a lot actually liked it.

Or this one by commodore: https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...my-of-the-people.299105/page-57#post-13934949 seems like he is rejoicing in the firing of someone from CNN..

 

This is more perception than reality. The biggest problem I have with the Right is that "individual liberty" as they define it is constrained by ideological belief. For example property rights and free speech are part of individual liberty and the right to criticized the speech of someone else is free speech. What we're seeing with Rogan and other examples is that his critics are being accused of trying to suppress his right to free speech but they are doing so by exercising their own right to free speech and also their own property right.

Rogan has the right to produce his show as he wants to and say what he wants to but the argument is made that somehow then Neil Young doesn't have the right to criticize Rogan or not have his property associated with Rogan because that would be "cancelling" Rogan. So it amounts to that Neil Young's own individual liberties are secondary to Rogan's if we accept the Right's argument.

The other big example we see how the Right isn't actually for individual liberties is how FL and TX pushed laws preventing private businesses from having their own policies regarding masking and vaccine requirements. The Right long argued that private entities should have the freedom to put in policies that are discriminatory such as with Hobby Lobby not extending health care benefits to gay employees, bakeries not having to make cakes for gay weddings and Catholic Charities not hiring people who weren't Christian. Yet when it's come to something that their base is against they've said that these private entities can't discriminate and must be compelled by force of law.

This view that the Right actually cares more about individual liberties is mere rhetoric and not as supported in action.