Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkWiiPlayer | Hacker News Reader

> 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 example because it doesn't show whether this was a good and appropriate apology or not.

View on HN

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. Horseshoe theory in practice.

> The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering.

I don't think this is a good argument in general to be made when trying to justify the rise of the far-right, but in this particular instance, where Maher made an offensive attempt at humor, it's unjustified.

The context of the incident doesn't really matter to the article in question, and if one would want to know about context it's really easy to find out - this is an artice on the internet and not in a print after all.

And there is really not much nuance to his comment that would justify an in depth explaination.

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?

> Of all the hills to die on, why that one?

It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced. I say that from a far-left perspective, and as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs. There is a time and place for speech; and certainly in an academic or otherwise serious adult context, any racial slur can be used. If you cannot do so safely, this means that there's not really free speech, and it is a totally fine hill to die on.

> It is morally unacceptable that on 2021 there are new taboo words being introduced.

This particular conversation started with a very old one; regardless, I’m not sure I follow. This claim is in no way self-evident.

> as somebody who has been on the receiving end of ugly ethnic slurs

I’m very sorry to hear that.

> I’m very sorry to hear that.

No need to be sorry, you didn't do anything wrong. If anything, I'm much more hurt by the prospect of a world where taboo words cannot even be discussed about, than a world where random weirdos insult me on the street.

If you want to be sorry about something useful, please make efforts so that taboo words can be used safely, at least when talking about them! Millions of people are learning English every day all over the world. How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them?

>How can you even teach these people about offensive words without mentioning them?

Isn't this a straw man? Who has objected to teaching people learning English about the existence of the n-word?

We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us.

The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".

> We are having a discussion about this taboo word right now and no-one is stopping us.

I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please?

> The problem is the inference from "it may in some special circumstances be necessary to mention the n-word" to "anyone should be free to say the n-word at any time without anyone objecting".

It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".

>I'm not a native English speaker and I was not talking about any specific word; my argument was general. What word do you refer to by "the n-word", precisely? Can you write it down, please?

I’m sure if you genuinely don’t know what the n-word refers to then an English speaker will be happy to explain it to you – although given your existing command of English it seems odd that you couldn’t find out the answer using Google.

> It seems to me that these two extremes are quite wrong. A moderate middle-ground seems to be better: "anyone should be free to say any word, as long as they are not using it as a slur to insult another person".

As a standard of acceptable behavior (rather than a legal standard) this seems obviously too lenient. For example, it means I could roam the streets shouting the n-word at the top of my lungs as long as I wasn’t directing it at anyone in particular.

Given the existence of a universally understood euphemism (’n-word’) it is generally difficult to use the n-word without showing a certain level of disregard for black people (and indeed anyone who’s offended by racist language).

It seems to me that there is a more diverse spectrum of hurtful words (of which slurs are a subset) than is commonly understood, and where they lie on the spectrum can have different moral implications.

- On the one extreme, there are trigger words peculiar to particular individuals that are not widely known, which also have neutral everyday meanings. It's difficult to fault a person for uttering them.

- Then there are words that are hurtful against particular communities, but their slur status are not widely known and they also have a common neutral meaning.

- There are also words with a widely known slur status but with neutral meanings that are entrenched (e.g. retarded).

- And of course there are words like the n-word that everybody uses for the slur meaning, even when they don't mean to directly offend.

People make everyday words into slurs all the time when they decide to communicate an insult with them. And even among widespread slurs not all slurs trigger hurt to an equal degree; at one extreme when a word is intended as a slur is uttered by a weak person and there is no history of tolerated bigotry associated with the slur, it is typically less effective at hurting.

> 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.

Do you suppose if among (black) people who frequently use the n-word to establish closeness, reporting on someone using it as the n-word as a slur would be just as unacceptable as using it directly intending to insult (as improbable as the latter would happen)?

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.

> 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.

Hypothetically, if Bill Maher had refused to apologies he would have been on the fast track to being identified as a member of the alt-right.

It is difficult to assess what "far-right grow[th]" means in a context where far right is defined as a position relative to the beliefs of the far left. It isn't clear who is changing their opinions.

In a sense, given that this would have been unremarkable in the 50s, presumably the only thing the modern far-right has been doing is shrinking.

I always hear this sentiment that the far right is a reaction to "SJWs" but I don't think it makes any sort of sense. Is the idea that there wasn't a "far right" before SJWs were a thing. More to the point, there were waves of racial terror periodically throughout US history in response to efforts to guarantee basic civil rights. But I hope we can look back and see those phenomena for what they were. Why are we so sure that this time is different?

>The use-mention distinction, any nuance and context whatsoever stopped mattering

There is a certain amount of ambiguity between use/mention. The possibility of ambiguity leads to people being paranoid. Everything that is "mentioned" is being "used" for the purpose of mentioning it. It's a choice that is made, and intentions can be inferred. It's easy to see it as passive-aggressive behavior, and impossible to know what is in someone's heart.

Just because you know or claim to know the truth about something doesn't mean it's automatically logical for someone else to agree. Thinking about things carefully often leads to less certainty.

Dangerous questions!

This is the world Americans now live in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McNeil_Jr.#Dismissal_fr...

Incidentally and apropos to the subject at hand, McNeil's apology is a pretty good one:

“I was asked at a dinner by a student whether I thought a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she had made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title. In asking the question, I used the slur itself,” McNeil said in his note to the staff. “I should not have done that. Originally, I thought the context in which I used this ugly word could be defended. I now realize that it cannot. It is deeply offensive and hurtful. The fact that I even thought I could defend it itself showed extraordinarily bad judgment. For that I apologize.”

https://www.thewrap.com/ny-times-reporter-donald-mcneil-jr-o...

It's not a good apology. It's a sad surrendering of one's dignity to appease an angry mob.

Exactly. Keep up the good fight. The well-intentioned like yosamino are blindly walking off the cliff.

You did notice that I specifically commented on the structure of the apology wrt to the contents of the article - not about it's neccessity ?

> good fight.

Good fight for what specifically ?

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.

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.

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.

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).

> 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.

I’m saying that the word carries intent. In part because there is a well known alternative that can be used in almost any situation if intent is not intended.

There are a few exceptional situations, but none have been noted here.

> 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.

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.

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!

> 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.

I could have sworn I saw a comedy one time in which a uptight racist lady said about some other character something like "I don't want to say anything but they are just a real n-word if you know what I mean" with the pursed lips and nodding that one would assume such a character would do - late 80s early 90s movie.

So obviously one can imagine a scenario where the word is used to inflame or diminish while at the same time trying to make the speaker seem (in their own minds at least) better than they actually are.

True. You can use the phrase n-word with negative connotation. But the existence of the term is meant to be non-inflammatory to discuss the n-word precisely because the n-word itself is inflammatory. Any word could be offensive with context, but some words can be offensive without context — which again is why the term n-word is used.

So why is the actual n-word, outside of context offensive? Because it was often used in contexts that were non-offensive to the speaker but offensive to the listener. For example, “Tom you’re a good n-word, but you know you can’t go with us to the show.” To the speaker this is a cordial use, given the subject.

And then there is the David Chapelle effect, where some people just really enjoy saying it in the “right context” a little too much.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

Can't you sort of feel that it doesn't have the same psychological impact? I immediately bristle if I actually hear someone say the n-word (as opposed to 'the n-word').

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?

> 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.

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.

It is similar to the difference between "you" and "sir"/"madame". It signals that the people being referred to are important enough that the speaker will modify their behaviour.

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.

What do you need the full sentence for, though? A passing familiarity with ethnic slurs and why they're tabooed, will already give you the answer that once you start splitting hairs about why or why not something that was said is offensive, then that is probably an indicator that - even if if it was a joke or the person saying it was part of the minority being slurred - it was inappropriate to say it.

A passing familiarity with Bill Maher will give you the answer that he's not probably a person who would care all that much about my argument.

All that being said, I am not sure I follow your conclusion that it's impossible to evaluate an apology without knowledge what it's for. The argument the article brings forth is about the structure and content of apologies in general. There's no need to cover each offense in detail.

once you have evaluated the structures of apologies to find what constitutes a good apology, and disseminated your findings far enough, it will cease to be a good apology because it would become a target and cease to be meaningful, everyone who didn't actually believe in apologizing would nonetheless use the well-structured apology to get what they wanted out of it - forgiveness of their fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com