Hacker News Reader

Comment by r00bot | Hacker News Reader

My friend, if you think using those terms in that context is acceptable then I'm afraid this conversation has ran its course. It is my opinion that using those terms derogatorily is unquestionably racist/homophobic, regardless of who you're using them against. Your original comment was disingenuous due to the omission of key details regarding which "bad words" he used, and how they were used. Most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with saying bad or offensive words, but racial and homophobic slurs? Not so much.

View on HN

What a foolishly absolutist bunch of woke nonsense. These kinds of words aren't evil spells from some era of religious fanaticism. They're just words, and for such things context always matters, meaning that they can be said for all sorts of reasons that don't make one a racist.

You're free to disagree. I'm just explaining why the omission of those details changes the discussion greatly for people who hold similar beliefs to me. His original comment was framed in a way such that nobody could disagree, while the actual context makes it far less black and white.

I’m gay so perhaps I understand how these words can be hurtful better than you do.

But context matters. And I’m not going to get worked up by someone using slurs against white nationalists in a debate, even if I think it was misguided.

Yes, context matters. Hence why I added context that you disingenuously left out. You're free to disagree with my view, but you massively downplayed the situation when you called racial and homophobic slurs "bad words" in your original comment. This is important context which should not be omitted.

> I’m gay so perhaps I understand how these words can be hurtful better than you do.

Gay community successfully reclaimed all the slur words (gay, queer, fag etc).

While I wish everyone could do that (change themselves to not to be offended, instead of demanding me to endlessly change my words), that's not the case, slur words still exist.

reclaimed within the community

it would not be acceptable for someone outside it to use it.

gay and queer are not offensive even outside the community. It is acceptable for other people to use them. I haven't heard fag used non-offensively even inside the community, but maybe that's what needs to happen. Personally, I think it's great and that's what should happen to all slurs. They mean after all just "X but bad". When you turn them into just "X", you disarm the offenders and so the trend loses its memetic ability to replicate throughout tribes, and so people are less likely to denigrate only to assert their position as part of a tribe.

As an European, that baffle me the casual discrimination that are rooted in your US mindsets.

The whole "You can do/say X if you are Y, but if you aren't Y, you are a racist/bigot/*phobe" isn't healthy to build a society without discrimination.

Lots of Americans (maybe even most) would agree with you.

But the people currently in power (institutional, corporate, and government) are all settled that this is the new standard. So we all have to pretend to agree or get kicked out of school, fired, or deplatformed.

100% agree. As an Australian, it's fascinating to sit back and watch the mental gymnastics they need to run.

Context does matter, but the context is that the podcaster in question wasn't someone cleverly deconstructing white nationalism, but an edgelord who routinely says offensive things for attention (choice cuts: the video in which he tackles statements as apparently in need of contesting as "it's not OK to call me a fag" with such ingenious ripostes as "I don't even know that you're gay, but you're still a fucking fag" and his much-publicised comments about an MP being too ugly to rape) losing his temper at the white nationalist he'd invited on for a cosy chat because they were more interested in mocking his posh accent than finding common ground with him. A podcast persona he defends with the statement "Personally, I find racist jokes funny" . If a corporation decides it doesn't want to be associated with his content any more, it's not because they've completely misunderstood where he's coming from.

Regardless of what he said, do you think Visa / Mastercard should be content filters?

What if you said something bad about MasterCard's services? "Oops, no more credit cards for you" ?

This kind of monopolies should be treated like utilities, however I guess they're too useful as political tools to get that treatment.

No, I don't think they should be content filters.

Yeah, I think they should be classified as common carriers since a lot of the money individuals spend in the western world gets filtered through their coffers.

If they are allowed to decide who they will do business with on "moral" grounds what protections are there for people when those morals shift?

"Sorry, you're an unmarried mother, and we frown upon that so you're not allowed to use your debit card any more" is a stretch, but roughly 60 years ago it was the norm and we could easily backslide to that era again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com