The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[lio45]

The same not-entirely-powerless idiots who did it to Wendy Mesley and Catherine Russell, among others.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

The same not-entirely-powerless idiots who did it to Wendy Mesley and Catherine Russell, among others.

I don't understand. Do you mean the CBC?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Who (or what) do you think is going to censor your discussion of situation #1?

So, do you admit or deny that of the two, #1 has a greater chance of generating (very mild) censorship of this kind (below)?

Originally Posted by rousseau

Lio, this is an English-speaking forum. While it's something of a free-for-all, there are certain norms that are non-negotiable. One of the major ones relates to the use of what we call the "N-word."

You can't casually and arbitrarily spell that word out in full the way that you're doing. It's painful to look at, and whatever point you're trying to make is obscured and overshadowed by how cavalierly you're throwing that word around.

Every culture has live wires where you don't go. This is one of ours. Perhaps you're not aware of this? In any case, no more N-words please.

(Also, I apologize to rousseau for breaking my earlier commitment in this specific case)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I don't understand. Do you mean the CBC?

Indeed a good example: you're more likely to lose your CBC job by quoting verbatim (as a reporter) someone who called someone else a — than by quoting verbatim someone who said he'd kill someone else. Doesn't that (established now, I would say) fact prove my point?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

So, do you admit or deny that of the two, #1 has a greater chance of generating (very mild) censorship of this kind (below)?




(Also, I apologize to rousseau for breaking my earlier commitment in this specific case)

That isn't even "very mild" censorship. Its someone disagreeing with you.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

That isn't even "very mild" censorship. Its someone disagreeing with you.

It's someone pointing out to me that there's a pretty strict taboo against using this word in the cultural space where our interaction's taking place. Of course it's censorship. If that isn't censorship, then the concept is meaningless: Wendy Mesley's termination wasn't censorship either, etc.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Indeed a good example: you're more likely to lose your CBC job by quoting verbatim (as a reporter) someone who called someone else a — than by quoting verbatim someone who said he'd kill someone else. Doesn't that (established now, I would say) fact prove my point?

OK, I'm not sure what that has to do with our discussion of the situation (as neither of us works for CBC).

In any event, if an employer disciplining an employee for his or her use of language is censorship, it is a type of censorship which is widely accepted in Canada. McDonald's may fire a cashier for not greeting customers with the corporate-approved greeting script. Big Joe's Furniture Warehouse may fire the janitor who called "Big Joe" an —. A radio station may fire a disc jockey shoe when he says "—" on the air (damaging the station's relationship with advertisers and listeners.)

You and I are free to discuss your proposed situation as much as we like (although I choose not to type out the full "n-word" because it may offend some people and I don't think it adds anything to my ability to discuss the situation).

EDIT: walked back my position on employers a bit.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's someone pointing out to me that there's a pretty strict taboo against using this word in the cultural space where our interaction's taking place. Of course it's censorship. If that isn't censorship, then the concept is meaningless: Wendy Mesley's termination wasn't censorship either, etc.

Point of clarification: Mesley was suspended, not terminated.

Arguably, the Wendy Mesley situation was censorship. CBC's rule (which certainly exists) that journalists not use the n-word on air when reporting is censorship. It seems like a reasonable rule to me though. Use of the word offends some people and adds little, if anything, to the reporting (at least in the vast majority of circumstances).

Some one pointing out that it is culturally taboo to call your grandmother a f-ing c-word is not censorship. Similarly, rousseau, who has exactly zero authority over you on this forum, pointing out cultural taboos to you is not censorship.

[Acajack]

"In any case, no more n-words please" sounds like "mild censorship" to me. He wasn't simply disagreeing, he was telling him stop using a specific word.

In the context of a discussion forum such as this one, if someone insisted on using the n-word spelled out every time referencing it was relevant (ie in this thread), it's conceivable that that person would be banned.

So that's censorship too.

In that sense, isn't it obvious that any use of the n-word in full (regardless of context or justification) could very likely be grounds for being subjected to censorship, both here and at the CBC (even off-air) and in many other places, I assume?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

"In any case, no more n-words please" sounds like "mild censorship" to me. He wasn't simply disagreeing, he was telling him stop using a specific word.

In the context of a discussion forum such as this one, if someone insisted on using the n-word spelled out every time referencing it was relevant (ie in this thread), it's conceivable that that person would be banned.

So that's censorship too.

Rousseau has zero authority over you. He cannot censor you.

If the forum banned you for spelling out the full n-word, I agree that could arguably be censorship. However, if so, again, it is the type of censorship that has long been accepted in Canadian society. Many forums use software to automatically "bleep" out curse words etc used by posters. No one bats an eye. Forumers can also be banned for trolling or other bad behaviour. Its the website owner's prerogative.

Incidentally, thanks to the diversity of the internet, there are literally hundreds of forums where one can use the n-word to their heart's content (and indeed such use is actively encouraged and celebrated).

Originally Posted by Acajack

In that sense, isn't it obvious that any use of the n-word in full (regardless of context or justification) could very likely be grounds for being subjected to censorship, both here and at the CBC (even off-air) and in many other places, I assume?

I guess. Just like the use of plenty of other words, in plenty of other contexts, could lead to "censorship". This is nothing new. Community standards are constantly shifting. Not long ago, the government actively censored portrayals of gay —. Thankfully we have moved away from that sort of arbitrary and draconian censorship.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

... taboo to call your grandmother a f-ing c-word is not censorship.

?!? Of course it is. It's almost textbook. "f-ing" is a censored version of "—", "c-word" is a censored version of "—". In a perfectly uncensored world - and don't get me wrong here, I'm absolutely not saying that would be the ideal world - there would be zero question that you'd simply call my grandmother a — — if that's what you meant to say.

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Similarly, rousseau, who has exactly zero authority over you on this forum, pointing out cultural taboos to you is not censorship.

So, in your view, would the situation be very different if that exact same post had been from Xelebes instead of rousseau?

[Pavlov]

Its worth pointing out that use of the n-word is widely accepted in certain contexts (for example, in artistic works, serious academic work, etc). In those contexts, use of the word has value. I'm still waiting for someone to point out an example of how, for example, Wendy Mesley's use of the full word added value to her meeting.

Or how use of the word in this discussion forum adds value to the discussion (although of course no one is apparently censoring the use of the word on this forum in any event).

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Its worth pointing out that use of the n-word is widely accepted in certain contexts (for example, in artistic works, serious academic work, etc). In those contexts, use of the word has value. I'm still waiting for someone to point out an example of how, for example, Wendy Mesley's use of the full word added value to her meeting.

Or how use of the word in this discussion forum adds value to the discussion (although of course no one is apparently censoring the use of the word on this forum in any event).

I guess we see this from opposite points of view. In my view, I don't see how Wendy Mesley making sure she says "N-word" changes anything to anything. Everyone knows what it is anyway.

It's just like the characters in Harry Potter. Making sure they're always using "You Know Who" doesn't make Voldemort any less Evil, less dangerous or less threatening. Reality is the same. I don't see what it changes to name it by a different label, since everyone knows what reality is in any case.

You: "I don't see how everyone calling him "You Know Who" or "He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named" is a problem; using the actual V-Word would not add any concrete value to the meetings that are discussing the Dark Lord and how to address the problem he poses to the magical world".

Me: "I don't see how calling him that (instead of just simply calling him by, y'know, his name) adds any value to anything, since everyone knows who he is and refusing to refer to him by his name doesn't make him any less dangerous or a problem."


... I think my position makes more sense as the default one here than yours.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

EDIT: walked back my position on employers a bit.

I was going to disagree on your original position (I saw your post before it got edited) by pointing out that you and I must definitely not have the same definition of "censorship". (Yours seemed extreme enough that nearly nothing would qualify.)

I completely agree that employers should be allowed to practice some censorship. If employees don't like it, they can go work somewhere else. That's the best equilibrium between employees' rights and employers' rights.

Though, if we're instead talking about our publicly-funded national broadcaster, it's different.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Its worth pointing out that use of the n-word is widely accepted in certain contexts (for example, in artistic works, serious academic work, etc).

Would you say Concordia is a place where one can do "serious academic work"...?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

?!? Of course it is. It's almost textbook. "f-ing" is a censored version of "—", "c-word" is a censored version of "—". In a perfectly uncensored world - and don't get me wrong here, I'm absolutely not saying that would be the ideal world - there would be zero question that you'd simply call my grandmother a — — if that's what you meant to say.

I used "f-ing" and "c-word" voluntarily because I think its more polite. No one coerced me to do so.

Or, in your view, are norms of politeness "censorship"? Are the rules of spelling and grammar "censorship"?

Originally Posted by lio45

So, in your view, would the situation be very different if that exact same post had been from Xelebes instead of rousseau?

Different in the sense that one could call it "censorship"? Yes (presuming that Xelebes is a forum moderator). Different in the sense that it is inappropriate, objectionable, or problematic? No, not in my view.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Its worth pointing out that use of the n-word is widely accepted in certain contexts (for example, in artistic works, .

You need to be of a certain or race or skin colour in order to use it in an artistic work these days, I'd argue.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Would you say Concordia is a place where one can do "serious academic work"...?

Depends very much on the work in question. Not everything that happens on Concordia campus is "serious academic work". For example, is just reading out the title of a book "serious academic work"? Did use of the full word add anything to the academic quality of the work? Was there any value at all in doing so? Probably not.

Anyway, as far as I know, the university has not taken any action against the professor (who you are obliquely referring to). I'd be surprised if it did (especially if she is tenured.)

Now, my view could certainly be different if a university prohibited its professors from using the word in a academic article analyzing the history of the word, or the cultural significance of the word, or where the use of the word could reasonably be argued to add value to the academic work. It would very much depend on the circumstances.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Depends very much on the work in question. Not everything that happens on Concordia campus is "serious academic work". For example, is just reading out the title of a book "serious academic work"? Did use of the full word add anything to the academic quality of the work? Was there any value at all in doing so? Probably not.

Anyway, as far as I know, the university has not taken any action against the professor (who you are obliquely referring to). I'd be surprised if it did (especially if she is tenured.)

Now, my view could certainly be different if a university prohibited its professors from using the word in a academic article analyzing the history of the word, or the cultural significance of the word, or where the use of the word could reasonably be argued to add value to the academic work. It would very much depend on the circumstances.

You're right to a point, though having a professor in a university setting refer to a semi-famous book's title as "White N-words of America" is at a minimum Voldemort-level silliness.

If they are going to study it in class the students are going to see the full title on the cover anyway, and while I read the book long ago, I can recall if the n-word is in the text. It likely is but I cannot say for sure.

And if students quote passages in the book when discussing it, they will be required to say n-word too, or face punishment?

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You need to be of a certain or race or skin colour in order to use it in an artistic work these days, I'd argue.

To escape mainstream criticism? For the most part, yes, I agree with that. I say "most part" because I do think the hip hop community might accept a non-black artist using the n-word if it was necessary to make some important political point (where saying "the n-word" would not have the same effect). But any mainstream artist would have to be very careful about it (and it would be hard to fight the perception that it wasn't just being used to generate attention or publicity, etc.)

Anyway, again, in the cost-benefit analysis, I fail to see how the cost of this cultural norm (some de minimis infringement on the freedom of expression of non-black rappers) outweighs the benefits (offending a significant number of people by the frivolous use of a politically and historically charged word).