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

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

kenjackson wrote: post #18
lldbg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between saying n-word and the actual word? The concept that symbolises in my head is the same - and so any difference necessarily is to the benefit of the speaker, not the listener.

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.

That's an odd accusation to be making. I've gotten so used to reading "the n-word", that at this point it also comes as a more natural thing to me, so it's what I would generally use, but that's a fairly recent thing, and not something I do with any other word (offensive or not).

Claiming that anybody uses a word with the intent to inflame or diminish is both a strawman argument and top tier poisoning the well.

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

#52

Post by kenjackson »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #51
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. That's an odd accusation to be making. I've gotten so used to reading "the n-word", that at this point it also comes as a more natural thing to me, so it's what I would generally use, but that's a fairly recent thing, and not something I do with any other word (offensive or not). Claiming that anybody uses a word with the intent to inflame or diminish is both…

If I tell you the word blah is inflammatory (especially to a marginalized group) just in its mere mention and the word blech is its non-inflammatory substitute to use when you want to talk about the word blah. Then you proceed to use the word blah, I can’t make any assumptions about intent?

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

#53

Post by kenjackson »

bill_mon wrote: post #43
kenjackson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re either arguing that we never know intent, ever, so you can’t judge someone. Or that intent can’t be inferred from one word, not sure which one. But both seem like poor positions.

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

#54

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

kenjackson wrote: post #52
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Saying the actual word is meant to inflame or diminish. That's an odd accusation to be making. I've gotten so used to reading "the n-word", that at this point it also comes as a more natural thing to me, so it's what I would generally use, but that's a fairly recent thing, and not something I do with any other word (offensive or not). Claiming that anybody uses a word with the intent to inflame or diminish is both…

If I tell you the word blah is inflammatory (especially to a marginalized group) just in its mere mention and the word blech is its non-inflammatory substitute to use when you want to talk about the word blah. Then you proceed to use the word blah, I can’t make any assumptions about intent?

You could take your assumptions, but they would be wrong and ridiculous.

If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead, why would I care? I'd use "blah" because that's the right word. It's literally the actual word I'm talking about.

And as for the point that it's "inflammatory": that's not my problem. I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway.

And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word"? Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded. Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery? I mention that just in case you want to pull the "oh but you're not black" argument.

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

#55

Post by kenjackson »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #54
kenjackson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I tell you the word blah is inflammatory (especially to a marginalized group) just in its mere mention and the word blech is its non-inflammatory substitute to use when you want to talk about the word blah. Then you proceed to use the word blah, I can’t make any assumptions about intent?

You could take your assumptions, but they would be wrong and ridiculous. If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead, why would I care? I'd use "blah" because that's the right word. It's literally the actual word I'm talking about. And as for the point that it's "inflammatory": that's not my problem. I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or anot…

> If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead

I didn't say you weren't allowed to say it, I said it would be inflammatory. "blah" is only the right word if you choose to be inflammatory. So given that this is the word you have chosen to use, why should I assume you meant something different? Now you may not want to deal with the consequences of that word, after you've used it -- that's fine, but I know what you meant at the time.

> I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or another can detail the whole discussion. If that's the case, then I'd rather leave that conversation anyway.

Always your choice to not be in any conversation. I'd argue that most people that use the word are intending to derail the conversation. People aren't that stupid. They know what they're doing.

> And why don't I have the right to be offended by the phrase "n-word"

You can be. You an be offended by the word "the". You can completely remap the English language any way you like. That's your choice.

> Every time I hear it I feel the implication that my freedom of expression (a human right, mind you) is being slowly eroded.

Why? Because we've given you more choices to express yourself? Are you triggered by all euphemisms? In fact there are audiences that will love it if you say the actual n-word -- especially in a derogatory way toward Black people if you like. Enjoy your freedom of expression, you can exercise it.

> Need I point out that, as an east-German the issue of freedom of expression is historically much closer to me than racism and slavery

Racism is still very much alive today, so I'm not sure how freedom of expression is much closer to you today than racism is for Blacks -- but I guess you wouldn't know since you're not Black.

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

#56

Post by bill_mon »

kenjackson wrote: post #53
bill_mon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re either arguing that we never know intent, ever, so you can’t judge someone. Or that intent can’t be inferred from one word, not sure which one. But both seem like poor positions.

I find both to be correct.

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

#57

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

foldr wrote: post #32
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.

>English does not have a context free grammar. Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.

We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.

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

#58

Post by foldr »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #57
foldr wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>English does not have a context free grammar. Pedantic note: the 'context' in context free grammar has no relation to the kind of context you're talking about here. It's a very technical notion.

We're talking about the linguistic concept of grammar, not the mathematical one, which makes a huge difference here.

As a linguist, I can assure you that there is no 'linguistic' concept of a context-free grammar as distinct from the mathematical concept.

A language being non-context-free just means that the string language doesn't fall within a certain class. It in fact took quite a while to show conclusively that English was not context-free; it's far from obvious.

None of this has anything to do with 'context' in the sense we're talking about here.

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

#59

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

kenjackson wrote: post #55
DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could take your assumptions, but they would be wrong and ridiculous. If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead, why would I care? I'd use "blah" because that's the right word. It's literally the actual word I'm talking about. And as for the point that it's "inflammatory": that's not my problem. I'm not interested in having any conversation where the invocation of one word or anot…

> If you told me I'm not allowed to say "blah" and should use "blech" instead I didn't say you weren't allowed to say it, I said it would be inflammatory. "blah" is only the right word if you choose to be inflammatory. So given that this is the word you have chosen to use, why should I assume you meant something different? Now you may not want to deal with the consequences of that word, after you've used it -- that's…

> Why? Because we've given you more choices to express yourself?

1. Make up a new word 2. Give people the choice to use the new word 3. Destroy them if they choose not to.

Sure.

> Racism is still very much alive today

Try criticising the government in china and you will soon realise that censorship is also very much alive today. Not that this makes a difference in either case, of course.

> so I'm not sure how freedom of expression is much closer to you today than racism is for Blacks.

Forst of all, "Blacks": https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W17-3014.pdf

Second, black people exist outside of america, in case you didn't know. So mentioning them as just "blacks" already shows a rather narrow view of the world.

Freedom of expression is closer to me than racism. Racism is probably closer to many black Americans than freedom of expression. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intentionally misunderstand that just to have a ridiculous strawman to argue against.

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

#60

Post by foldr »

bill_mon wrote: post #35
foldr wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Well that's really the only bar we have for offensive language, isn't it? We can construct any bar we'd like. You seem to completely dismiss concern for the bar being too low, why is that? Lots of people might feel sort of offended by women showing their hair -- should we accept that bar?

We were talking about the bar for evidence, not the bar for taking offense.
Post reply on HN