Should we censor/avoid offensive words?

[beancounter]

I think it would be really helpful is someone specified exactly what they thought "white privilege" is, and provide a link to a source that supports their view.

 

[das_nut]

There's lots of unexamined privilege in this thread, yo.

It's like anything else. Lots of people here are middle class, white, and educated. They really have no idea about what life is like for lots of other people.

The treatment one would likely get upon expressing those views is not opression.

How is it not oppression? Don't you think that known vocal neo-Nazis are less likely to get hired? More likely to get fired? Even if they don't express their opinions at work? What about renting? Do you think if you knew someone was a neo-Nazi, you might pass them up for someone else when it came to renting an apartment? Do you think cops may give them a hard time? That a jury may be more likely to convict them?

Just because you may agree or sympathize with such actions does not mean it's not oppression.

Sometimes oppression makes sense. We oppress those convicted of serious crimes such as rape and murder, by locking them up. It's easy to justify such oppression by defining acts that are harmful to society and thus removing those from society who commit such acts. (Although we also tend to oppress those convicted of non-violent crimes that only harm themselves.) When it comes to freedom of expression, it's gets more ... prickly. Should it be okay to treat potential employees, potential renters, or those suspected of a crime differently because of the opinions they hold?

If that doesn't make you pause and think, I'd really like a well-reasoned response why oppressing someone based on their opinion, and not their actions, is morally justifiable.

 

[Mischief]

If that doesn't make you pause and think, I'd really like a well-reasoned response why oppressing someone based on their opinion, and not their actions, is morally justifiable.

Arguably an opinion that is not expressed and not acted upon does no one any harm. Of course, the holder of that opinion is also not going to be "oppressed" by that opinion because no one will know that he holds it.

Now, expressing an opinion is actually an action; you're either speaking it, or writing it or otherwise taking some action to disseminate it.

That's why your co-worker might think that every woman who works in the office should come to work naked and suck his dick and that's not going to be actionable. However, once he starts expressing that opinion, that creates a hostile work environment, and that will likely result in him losing his job. Whether you consider that job loss to be oppression or whether you see it as a well justified result of his oppression of others depends on your perspective and probably on your view of whether women should come to work naked and suck on their male colleagues' dicks.

 

[AeryFairy]

You misunderstand me, I think. They may face discrimination - although probably not as much as you'd think; here in the UK there's a political party (or two, actually) with some white supremacist views getting far too much of the vote for my personal comfort.

But facing discrimination is not the same as facing oppression.

Oppression is the experience of repeated, widespread, systemic injustice. It need not be extreme and involve the legal system (as in slavery, apartheid, or the lack of right to vote) nor violent (as in tyrannical societies). Harvey has used the term "civilized oppression" to characterize the everyday processes of oppression in normal life. Civilized oppression "is embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutions and rules, and the collective consequences of following those rules. It refers to the vast and deep injustices some groups suffer as a consequence of often unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary interactions which are supported by the media and cultural stereotypes as well as by the structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms."

Taken from this essay: http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/nature-origins-oppression

 

[Clueless Git]

I think it would be really helpful is someone specified exactly what they thought "white privilege" is, and provide a link to a source that supports their view.

There is a bit of the "all cows are animals so all animals must be cows" logic behind the white priveledge argument I think.

Crazy to deny that an improportionate % of those born with priveledge are white.

Quite insane to extend that into the belief that all whites are priveledged though.

But facing discrimination is not the same as facing oppression.

The article you posted almost (if not entirely) relies on using "unjust and prejudicial" patterns to make it's definition of oppression, Aery.

 

[AeryFairy]

The article you posted almost (if not entirely) relies on using "unjust and prejudicial" patterns to make it's definition of oppression, Aery.

I'm afraid I don't follow your point, would you care to expand?

 

[Clueless Git]

Arguably an opinion that is not expressed and not acted upon does no one any harm.

Inarguably opinions that cannot, for fear of retribution, be either expressed or acted upon are opinions that are oppressed by threat of retribution.

Personaly I'm a big advocate (vastly different to being a flawless practitioner) of consistency.

Picking and choosing which opinion(s) may or may not, at the least, be expressed is far from consistent.

Seems that everyone in the world agrees with ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" except for when people say things they disapprove of.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'm afraid I don't follow your point, would you care to expand?

Without examples of what you think the article uses to define oppression that is/are neither unjust and/or prejudicial I would struggle with that one, Aery.

I can only point out that the article relies on using "unjust and prejudicial" patterns to make it's definition of oppression.

"Unjust and prejudicial" being the key definers of 'discrimination'.

 

[Mischief]

Inarguably opinions that cannot, for fear of retribution, be either expressed or acted upon are opinions that are oppressed by threat of retribution.

Personaly I'm a big advocate (vastly different to being a flawless practitioner) of consistency.

Picking and choosing which opinion(s) may or may not, at the least, be expressed is far from consistent.

Seems that everyone in the world agrees with ""I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" except for when people say things they disapprove of.

Oh, I'm all for people saying what they think. It exposes exactly what they are.

 

[AeryFairy]

Without examples of what you think the article uses to define oppression that is/are neither unjust and/or prejudicial I would struggle with that one, Aery.

I can only point out that the article relies on using "unjust and prejudicial" patterns to make it's definition of oppression.

"Unjust and prejudicial" being the key definers of 'discrimination'.

So, you are saying that since unjustness and prejudice define (negative social) discrimination, something extra needs to be used to define oppression? Since oppression, although a form of discrimination, is distinct from it?

Because, if that's what you were positing, then the portion of essay I quoted as a definition for oppression should give some insight as to the difference between that and discrimination. Oppression is discrimination which follows the social temperament we live in. It is systematic, ingrained into society on many levels, and most importantly, it necessarily involves the oppressed being powerless in some form. You can discriminate against someone who has power over you. You cannot oppress someone who has power over you.

So, basically, all oppression is discrimination, but not all discrimination is oppression.

 

[Clueless Git]

So, you are saying that since unjustness and prejudice define (negative social) discrimination, something extra needs to be used to define oppression?

More that as discrimination is both a requisite and precursor of oppression that discrimination should always be regarded as unnaceptable.

Oh, I'm all for people saying what they think. It exposes exactly what they are.

I like the idea of investigating why people think what they think before forming conclusions myself.

 

[AeryFairy]

More that as discrimination is both a requisite and precursor of oppression that discrimination should always be regarded as unnaceptable

I agree that negative social* discrimination should always be regarded as unacceptable. I don't think anything in my argument has suggested otherwise. Stating that certain discriminations aren't oppressions takes nothing away from them, it only suggests that they are not operating in quite the same way.

*I am making the distinction here because discrimination on its own can be taken as simply distinguishing between two things, and we are talking about a specific use of the term. By negative social discrimination, I am talking about the discrimination enacted within society (either on an institutional level or an individual one) which has negative effects on people/groups of people within said society.

 

[Mischief]

I like the idea of investigating why people think what they think before forming conclusions myself.

I think the "why" becomes apparent pretty readily.

Take, for example, word X. Someone likes to use it. Others point out that it is a word that is hurtful to a lot of people. The person responds with, "Well, it shouldn't be, because at one time it was the standard term of usage with respect to such people, and everyone is just being overly sensitive."

It's pretty obvious that, at a minimum, the person is putting his own ego above the feelings of others. Whether there's more involved, such as disdain for the persons described by word X, or an affirmative intent to insult, or an attempt to bring attention to himself, etc., doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Mischief]

I agree that negative social* discrimination should always be regarded as unacceptable.

Really? What about people who abuse animals, children, their significant others, etc.?

 

[AeryFairy]

Really? What about people who abuse animals, children, their significant others, etc.?

I should have been more specific in my description - discrimination in terms of either something a person is (race, gender, sexuality and so forth), or a held belief (religious, political, etc). On the belief side of things, if actions are taken in accordance with those beliefs which harm others, then there absolutely should be consequences (obviously). However, as much as I completely disagree with certain moral/political stances, people have the right to have them. I also have the right to call those people out on their crap if they choose to express those views to me.

I wasn't really thinking of those when I made my response - I was mostly considering discrimination of the former type.

 

[Clueless Git]

I agree that negative social* discrimination should always be regarded as unacceptable. I don't think anything in my argument has suggested otherwise. Stating that certain discriminations aren't oppressions takes nothing away from them, it only suggests that they are not operating in quite the same way.

*I am making the distinction here because discrimination on its own can be taken as simply distinguishing between two things, and we are talking about a specific use of the term. By negative social discrimination, I am talking about the discrimination enacted within society (either on an institutional level or an individual one) which has negative effects on people/groups of people within said society.

I'm following your line of argument, Aery, and I don't disagree with it all by a very long shot.

The idea appears to be that positive discrimination is OK?

If so my problem is this: Positive discrimination always equates to a negative discrimination against the group(s) it excludes.

 

[AeryFairy]

I'm following your line of argument, Aery, and I don't disagree with it all by a very long shot.

The idea appears to be that positive discrimination is OK?

If so my problem is this: Positive discrimination always equates to a negative discrimination against the group(s) it excludes.

Positive discrimination can be okay, in my opinion, because it doesn't always have a negative impact.

Take the topic at hand. I've already stated that some words are okay for certain people to use and not others - this can be classed as positive discrimination. I don't see how, for example, it takes anything away from men to say they should not use gendered slurs ('*****', to give a mild example) whilst allowing women to claim the term back for themselves if they wish. Where is the negative impact on men in this scenario?

 

[Mischief]

I should have been more specific in my description - discrimination in terms of either something a person is (race, gender, sexuality and so forth), or a held belief (religious, political, etc). On the belief side of things, if actions are taken in accordance with those beliefs which harm others, then there absolutely should be consequences (obviously). However, as much as I completely disagree with certain moral/political stances, people have the right to have them. I also have the right to call those people out on their crap if they choose to express those views to me.

I wasn't really thinking of those when I made my response - I was mostly considering discrimination of the former type.

I don't disagree that people have the right to have whatever hate filled beliefs they may have, but, to the extent possible, I don't associate with or at least minimize my contact with racists, bigots, rampant misogynists, etc. So, I don't just call them out, I guess you could say that I shun them to the extent possible. Are you saying that you call them out but otherwise include them in your life to the same extent as people who aren't racist, bigoted, misogynistic, etc.?

 

[AeryFairy]

I don't disagree that people have the right to have whatever hate filled beliefs they may have, but, to the extent possible, I don't associate with or at least minimize my contact with racists, bigots, rampant misogynists, etc. So, I don't just call them out, I guess you could say that I shun them to the extent possible. Are you saying that you call them out but otherwise include them in your life to the same extent as people who aren't racist, bigoted, misogynistic, etc.?

In a way... This is certainly true of family members; a large chunk of mine hold some bigoted views, and I still interact with them. I've also had some very heated debates on these topics in lectures over the years, and interacted with the people taking the opposing view. Friends are a little different; I'm far more likely to get along with someone who shares similar views as me. If someone is outwardly racist, sexist, homophobic, or so on (rather than being a little misguided but otherwise well meaning), then I probably would not interact with them on a personal level. It's fairly impossible to be friends with someone who sees you as a lesser person than them.

As for whether this counts as negative social discrimination (is this what you were getting at?), I don't think it does - not having my friendship/not interacting with me socially doesn't really count as a negative effect on that person. If we are really that incompatible in terms of our views, they probably don't want to be friends with me either.

 

[Clueless Git]

I've already stated that some words are okay for certain people to use and not others - this can be classed as positive discrimination.

Why on Earth would any group being excluded from use of word(s) that other group(s) are allowed to use see that as positive?

What 'moral' consistency is there in wanting a right (to do/say/think) for self or same that you wouldn't want to be a right for all?