The not so Great Racism in Canada Thread

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

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

Way I see it, I'd say general social norms (accepted by most) have pushed you to willingly choose to censor yourself in that particular case, because you think that's preferable to the uncensored version for some reason.

It could be that we're using slightly different definitions and maybe you're the one who's right (unlike me, you're having this conversation in your first language).

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure

Sometimes I learn nuances thanks to SSP. It has unarguably helped my English over the last decade, that's for sure.

Yes (presuming that Xelebes is a forum moderator).

We don't have to presume that.




I still find "Pavlov-Style Censorship" to be a strange and somewhat illogical thing. If I want to call your grandmother a — —, then that's what I'll do. I absolutely don't see any circumstances where I'd want to call her a "f-ing c-word". It's either "she's a — —" (~0% chance), or something different (probably along the lines of "Pavlov's grandmother is a super nice adorable old lady", but it could also be something like "she's being a total idiot" if that's what she is being...)

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

Well, a very significant number of people obviously do find casual use of the word by non-black persons to be offensive (and have found so for many generations now). Is that not reason enough not to casually use it (without some justification for how the benefits of its use outweigh that obvious cost)?

[jamincan]

The censored form of a word definitely carries different weight and meaning for me than the uncensored version. That's true for pretty much any taboo word. It's taboo for a reason, don't go crying to your mother when people retaliate.

[Acajack]

We have lots of slurs for lots of groups, and their use is rightfully frowned upon in society. But to my knowledge, only the n-word gets the full Voldemort treatment.

I guess the question some people are asking is why?

Certainly in most circles it's perfectly acceptable to say the following with these exact words:

"This racist dude referred to his Arab neighbours as camel jockeys."

"The referee is under investigation by the NHL for having referred to francophone players as frogs."

For example, this article from June of this year contains one of the worst slurs against Indigenous people and it is fully spelled out in English and French in the article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...tract-production-health-canada-1.5633186

[jamincan]

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.

Words can't be divorced from the context they're presented in. A whole lot of things are going to factor in to how they are received, including race.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

Way I see it, I'd say general social norms (accepted by most) have pushed you to willingly choose to censor yourself in that particular case, because you think that's preferable to the uncensored version for some reason.

It could be that we're using slightly different definitions and maybe you're the one who's right (unlike me, you're having this conversation in your first language).

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure

Sometimes I learn nuances thanks to SSP. It has unarguably helped my English over the last decade, that's for sure.





We don't have to presume that.




I still find "Pavlov-Style Censorship" to be a strange and somewhat illogical thing. If I want to call your grandmother a — —, then that's what I'll do. I absolutely don't see any circumstances where I'd want to call her a "f-ing c-word". It's either "she's a — —" (~0% chance), or something different (probably along the lines of "Pavlov's grandmother is a super nice adorable old lady", but it could also be something like "she's being a total idiot" if that's what she is being...)

I'm not sure there is clear correct answer (regarding the definition of "censorship"), to be honest. But for the sake of what initially started this tangent, I don't think it matters. It is clear that sensible people accept some form of "censorship" in our society (whether from the state or social norms). Indeed, "self-censorship" through cultural norms is one of the foundations of human civilization. So it is senseless to rail against "censorship" as an evil idea, and rather spend our time analyzing whether particular instances of censorship are justified or not.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

Words can't be divorced from the context they're presented in. A whole lot of things are going to factor in to how they are received, including race.

Well, right now the n-word is verboten for use by anyone who isn't black, in all contexts and circumstances.

At least it's clear.

NEVER.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We have lots of slurs for lots of groups, and their use is rightfully frowned upon in society. But to my knowledge, only the n-word gets the full Voldemort treatment.

I guess the question some people are asking is why?

Certainly in most circles it's perfectly acceptable to say the following with these exact words:

"This racist dude referred to his Arab neighbours as camel jockeys."

"The referee is under investigation by the NHL for having referred to francophone players as frogs."

For example, this article from June of this year contains one of the worst slurs against Indigenous people and it is fully spelled out in English and French in the article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...tract-production-health-canada-1.5633186

I'd argue f***** is similarly taboo. Speaking as a gay man (but not for all), I physically recoil when I hear it in most contexts.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

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).

It's no skin off my back, as it's not a word I'd use or regret not being able to use.

I might in the past have used it a handful of times in the way Wendy Mesley or that professor at Concordia used it, but I certainly wouldn't do that anymore.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

We have lots of slurs for lots of groups, and their use is rightfully frowned upon in society. But to my knowledge, only the n-word gets the full Voldemort treatment.

I guess the question some people are asking is why?

Certainly in most circles it's perfectly acceptable to say the following with these exact words:

"This racist dude referred to his Arab neighbours as camel jockeys."

"The referee is under investigation by the NHL for having referred to francophone players as frogs."

For example, this article from June of this year contains one of the worst slurs against Indigenous people and it is fully spelled out in English and French in the article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/...tract-production-health-canada-1.5633186

I expect that it is because of the different historical contexts of those slurs. They aren't so viscerally identified with an abhorrent institution like slavery (or the Jim Crow era that followed).

However, certainly (and unsurprisingly), casual use of those slurs also risks incurring negative consequences.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I expect that it is because of the different historical contexts of those slurs. They aren't so viscerally identified with an abhorrent institution like slavery (or the Jim Crow era that followed).

However, certainly (and unsurprisingly), casual use of those slurs also risks incurring negative consequences.

It's mostly because we live right next to the U.S., and we have their movies, TV, music, culture, etc. as if they were our own, and that specific issue is their biggest internal historical quagmire by far.

If we were in another part of the world, something like "macaque" or "chankoro" would be verboten and we'd all be saying the m-word or the c-word instead.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I'd argue f***** is similarly taboo. Speaking as a gay man (but not for all), I physically recoil when I hear it in most contexts.

I agree. There are others as well. For example, I can think of one which refers to female indigenous persons.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I'd argue f***** is similarly taboo. Speaking as a gay man (but not for all), I physically recoil when I hear it in most contexts.

That's not my impression. It's definitely frowned upon but I'd think you could still say it as a reference, as in "those homophobes called him a ....".

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Well, a very significant number of people obviously do find casual use of the word by non-black persons to be offensive (and have found so for many generations now). Is that not reason enough not to casually use it (without some justification for how the benefits of its use outweigh that obvious cost)?

There's extremely good reasons why I would never call your grandmother a — —, or a black tenant of mine a — —, or a gay tenant of mine a — —. These are stupid, low-level insults that aren't even insults.

If I ever have reason to insult a black person (because that person is being an idiot, or lazy, or crooked) then I'll use a more specific insult.

For example, I recall a Haitian tenant who was one of the dirtiest and messiest tenants I've ever had, and I'm not saying this lightly. (Judging him by the contents and condition of his unit, not the color of his skin.)

I guess my point here is that in my view, there's no reason to ever use "f-ing", "c-word" or "n-word". If you don't want to call someone a — —, then just don't do it.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's mostly because we live right next to the U.S., and we have their movies, TV, music, culture, etc. as if they were our own, and that specific issue is their biggest internal historical quagmire by far.

If we were in another part of the world, something like "macaque" or "chankoro" would be verboten and we'd all be saying the m-word or the c-word instead.

Yes, agreed. I think, in particular, black Canadians identify (in some respects at least) with black culture from the US.

(Perhaps I should have disclosed this earlier [as it probably affects how I view these issues), my wife is mixed race (half Caribbean, half-white) [and of course therefore my son is as well]).

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by lio45

There's extremely good reasons why I would never call your grandmother a — —, or a black tenant of mine a — —, or a gay tenant of mine a — —. These are stupid, low-level insults that aren't even insults.

If I ever have reason to insult a black person (because that person is being an idiot, or lazy, or crooked) then I'll use a more specific insult.

For example, I recall a Haitian tenant who was one of the dirtiest and messiest tenants I've ever had, and I'm not saying this lightly. (Judging him by the contents and condition of his unit, not the color of his skin.)

I guess my point here is that in my view, there's no reason to ever use "f-ing", "c-word" or "n-word". If you don't want to call someone a — —, then just don't do it.

Just to clarify - I used the acronym version of those words out of my own sense of politeness. My point was that there is a cultural norm prohibiting saying "— —" or "f-ing c-word" to one's grandmother.

We've moved well past that point though.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

I agree. There are others as well. For example, I can think of one which refers to female indigenous persons.

This is about 15 minutes from where I sit:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Baie+S...0b2f50d28!8m2!3d45.4193568!4d-75.7360683

Though Quebec isn't always a good reference for PC culture.

So....

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Squaw+...09785170f!8m2!3d39.197607!4d-120.2354422

[lio45]

Originally Posted by jamincan

I'd argue f***** is similarly taboo. Speaking as a gay man (but not for all), I physically recoil when I hear it in most contexts.

Originally Posted by jamincan

The censored form of a word definitely carries different weight and meaning for me than the uncensored version.

But... surely you're fully aware of what this "the letter f followed by five stars" means, right? How can you not see it as the same word? We all know it is.

If there's cat poop on my living room floor... I'll pick it up.

"Cat poop on my living room floor but I've just put a carpet on it so I can't see it anymore though I fully know it's still there" strikes me as a hybrid scenario that has no benefits.

Either pick it up, or else you don't yet know it's there (and would pick it up as soon as you realize it's there), or else you tolerate it there. These are the three scenarios that make sense to me. Pick one.

I guess you'll say it's easy for me to not be afraid of words. I can't really refute that argument. I like to think that while nearly all Harry Potter characters physically recoil when they hear the name "Voldemort", I would not, at all. But I can't prove that beyond doubt, since I'm not in the same context as them and won't ever be.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Pavlov

Just to clarify - I used the acronym version of those words out of my own sense of politeness. My point was that there is a cultural norm prohibiting saying "— —" or "f-ing c-word" to one's grandmother.

We've moved well past that point though.

There's indeed a cultural norm prohibiting me from gratuitously insulting your grandmother. Reasonable people (like you and I) don't ever do such things.

My point was that I, personally, see no difference between "— —" and "f-ing c-word", or between "You Know Who" and "Voldemort".

I don't see myself ever coming close to considering calling your grandmother a "— —" in any circumstance.

Also, "your own sense of politeness" is a certain form of censorship. (Not saying it's a bad one, just saying it is.)

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

But... surely you're fully aware of what this "the letter f followed by five stars" means, right? How can you not see it as the same word? We all know it is.

If there's cat poop on my living room floor... I'll pick it up.

"Cat poop on my living room floor but I've just put a carpet on it so I can't see it anymore though I fully know it's still there" strikes me as a hybrid scenario that has no benefits.

Either pick it up, or else you don't yet know it's there (and would pick it up as soon as you realize it's there), or else you tolerate it there. These are the three scenarios that make sense to me. Pick one.

I guess you'll say it's easy for me to not be afraid of words. I can't really refute that argument. I like to think that while nearly all Harry Potter characters physically recoil when they hear the name "Voldemort", I would not, at all. But I can't prove that beyond doubt, since I'm not in the same context as them and won't ever be.

I can tell you that when I was younger words like frog, french fry, pepsi, pepsi jos louis, peasoup, peasouper, etc. certainly did evoke psychological and even physical intimidation for me.

Even though those terms have faded from use a bit, they're still out there and anti-francophone sentiment still exists in Canada (it has its ups and downs) but I grew up and learned to not let them affect me. In spite of the bad experiences associated with them in my youth.