Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

nymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#41

Post by lldbg »

foldr wrote: post #30
lldbg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that "sort of feel" is a bar high enough, when the consequences for an individual can and have been so severe.

Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? If we need a higher bar than that then I suppose we can all just go around insulting each other and expecting nothing to happen as a consequence. Good luck with that. If you want something more objective, why don't you just ask a sample of people whether they react the same to 'n-word' as they do to the n-word?

I won't let the reaction of a sample of people dictate how I express myself, and I will not hold other people to that standard either.

When did the pursuit of rationality get replaced by the onslaught of feelings? A person can feel insulted, without someone else insulting them. It happens all the time - it's called a misunderstanding. Along the same lines, we may brisk at language not offensive at all, made by people whom through no fault of their own were misunderstood.

And lets not pretend offensive language is not a natural part of how humans (that's us) express ourselves. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be so many swears.

And so we come back to the bigger issue. It is my belief that the society in which I live should be a rational one, and each person in it a rational actor who can distinguish between subtle nuances of meaning, both implied and expressed, and not rely on the stark contrast between allowed and disallowed, accepted or unaccepted. And I fear that if we pursue a mindless list of rules for behaviour, we will be less free for doing so.

We must show humility, knowing that we are not the just judge of each other, and give the benefit of doubt. It is not morally right to participate in a witch hunt on someone for _a word_ said years ago - so I will condemn doing so.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#42

Post by mattbee »

bill_mon wrote: post #26
kenjackson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huge difference IMHO. Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. Saying “n-word” is intended to do neither. Both are simply a collection of letters, but they carry a lot of baggage.

> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true. You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.

Some words carry intents, even vicious ones, even if you're ignorant of them.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#43

Post by bill_mon »

kenjackson wrote: post #40
bill_mon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m saying that the word carries intent. No, you're saying that you know the intent.

Yes. Even more than that. I’m saying virtually everyone knows the intent.

That would take a mind reader. You're simply guessing at intent, we all do.

But the problem in this case isn't intentions, but the mere mention of a word. Like Voldemort.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#44

Post by mbg721 »

danaliv wrote: post #10
RicoElectrico wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. Some on the left just want to get their "social justice fix" by pressuring to get people fired or shame them for absurd reasons like "cultural appropriation". And then they are surprised why far-right grows in reaction to this. Or maybe not, maybe that was the point of both sides to have an enemy you can fight with for eternity. Horsesh…

I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. Also, it’s just kind of... weird ... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one?

Perpetually magnifying the power of a specific word just gives the people who would be hateful anyway a much more efficient method of causing pain, and creates collateral damage among people who are specifically trying not to be hateful.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#45

Post by lldbg »

kenjackson wrote: post #34
lldbg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely meaning is foremost dictated by context? English does not have a context free grammar. I can say the actual n-word without meaning to enflame or diminish - it is very easy in fact: take a sentence where I would have used the literal n-word, and replace it with the actual n-word.

But the existence of the “n-word” as the less inflammatory alternative always draws into question why you’d use the actual word. In most cases with the example you give, the use of the actual word is probably much more offensive. That said I think there are a few places where the use is acceptable, but it’s not common and those uses almost never get called out anyways (so it is generally understood).

I don't think the word n-word is an alternative to the n-word. Which is kinda the point I made in the original post - a lady of the night is a prostitute is a whore, it's the same thing, the same meaning, if used in the same context.

Your last paragraph hints at this but: What someone is really saying when they say the n-word is the word nigger. That's what I understand it as. And, if the n-word is so offensive it mustn't be said at all, in any context, then the word n-word mustn't be used either. For other sorts of words that can be used in a not-so-nice context, usually we deal with this fact by simply saying that it was "insulting language" or "offensive" or that it "bears not being repeated". That's the sensitive way to deal with slurs, I think.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#46

Post by dbt00 »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #2

> On Friday, Bill Maher said the N-word on live television. And that's all the context we get. Not the full sentence, not whether it was part of a joke, I don't even know if the guy who said it was black (though I suppose not, given what follows). How am I supposed to evaluate an apology if I don't know what is being apologized for? And without that evaluation, this example adds nothing to the article. It fails as an…

Well, the article is from 4 years ago, and presumably people then were already aware of it, but since you asked:

> MAHER: Adults dress up for Halloween, they don’t do that in Nebraska?

> SASSE: It’s frowned upon. We don’t do that quite as much.

> MAHER: I gotta get to Nebraska more.

> SASSE: You’re welcome. We’d love to have you work in the fields with us.

> MAHER: Work in the fields? Senator, I’m a house ni*er.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#47

Post by bill_mon »

mattbee wrote: post #42
bill_mon wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. How could you possibly know this? Also, it's obviously just not true. You're saying that the intent matters, but what we're seeing these days is that the mere mention of a word is enough.

Some words carry intents, even vicious ones, even if you're ignorant of them.

No, intent is in my head only. When I say something, I know the intent, you guess at the intent when you listen.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#48

Post by mattbee »

bill_mon wrote: post #47
mattbee wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some words carry intents, even vicious ones, even if you're ignorant of them.

No, intent is in my head only. When I say something, I know the intent, you guess at the intent when you listen.

Signal, then? Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word.

It's this kind of thinking that led an ex colleague to wonder out loud whether he shouldn't seek some "desensitivity training" for the entire company (who had just reacted very negatively to a message he'd sent out) rather than communication training for him!

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#49

Post by bill_mon »

mattbee wrote: post #48
bill_mon wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, intent is in my head only. When I say something, I know the intent, you guess at the intent when you listen.

Signal, then? Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word. It's this kind of thinking that led an ex colleague to wonder out loud whether he shouldn't seek some "desensitivity training" for the entire company (who had just reacted very negatively to a message he'd sent out) rather than communication training for him!

> Your intent is irrelevant (& fairly assumed) when you use the wrong word.

If my intent is irrelevant, why bring it up?

And this is exactly what we're talking about: Is using the wrong word bad in itself, or does there need to be some intent? Can we determine intent objectively? Fairly? Does intent matter? What is a wrong word? Who decides? What consequences do taboo words have for society?

You can't just claim "Your intent is irrelevant ... when you use the wrong word." when that's the entire question.

Your ex colleague thinks people should grow thicker skin. You think we should police language. I don't see that your idea is very developed and it certainly doesn't work very well right now.

Re: Apology critics who want to teach you how to say you’re sorry (2017)

#50

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

danaliv wrote: post #10
RicoElectrico wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering. Some on the left just want to get their "social justice fix" by pressuring to get people fired or shame them for absurd reasons like "cultural appropriation". And then they are surprised why far-right grows in reaction to this. Or maybe not, maybe that was the point of both sides to have an enemy you can fight with for eternity. Horsesh…

I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs. When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not. Also, it’s just kind of... weird ... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one?

> I’m guessing you’re not the subject of any slurs.

I fail to see how this is relevant. In a discussion about principles it does not matter whether one is affected by a thing or not.

The point here is that use-mention is categorically a meaningful distinction.

> When it comes to slurs, use-mention isn’t nearly as much of a distinction as you think. The mere mention of a slur is enough to bring the painful memories of its use roaring back, whether you want them to or not.

This kinda brings us back to the question at the core of many modern left-vs-right issues: does anybody have the right not to be offended?

My position is a clear no: if hearing a word triggers some trauma for you, that's your issue to deal with. You can't expect the whole world to avoid even mentioning a word you're uncomfortable with.

And going from there, use/mention is indeed a meaningful distinction, because it is only the message that we can judge, not the wording. Calling someone "unpleasant" in one tone can convey much more aggression in one tone of voice than calling them an "asshole" in a different tone.

Cultural context plays almost as big a role as well: just as the same word might have completely different meanings in different languages (like "after" in english and German), words can have very different nuances or even entirely different meanings depending on the cultural context of the speaker.

> Also, it’s just kind of... weird... to insist on being allowed to say them. Of all the hills to die on, why that one?

Is it weird to insist on freedom of expression? I don't think it is, quite the contrary, actually.

Post reply on HN