Quote:
From a perspective of pure convenience, you're right. Apologizing and walking away is always more convenient than standing your ground.
However, when you get into obligation as a reason for insisting that the offender apologizes (your statements suggest a deeper perspective than just "convenience"), then you can't hold the idea that using the word "♥♥♥♥♥♥" to refer to a black person is not always wrong unless there's some sort of caveat or double standard or something. Arguably, in practice, using vulgarity where it applies is an exercise in socializing, for example. So it can't always be wrong to refer to a black person as "♥♥♥♥♥♥" or a woman as "♥♥♥♥♥" or whatever. Which means that the person who is confronted with an offended person isn't in the wrong because of the word itself, but technically because of the presence of the offended person. If we're philosophizing about this, we need to draw some sort of line between "justified offence taken" and, well, other kinds of offence taken.
The negative history of the word is strongly associated with acts of actual oppression, in a practical sense rather than being a bad thing in and of itself. Harrassment, fewer opportunities, etc. I think that effort should be put into decreasing that sort of thing, rather than attacking words rather than actions.
|
It certainly is more than simply convenience – it's a question of ethics. I consider the offended person's hurt to be more important than the offender's ego, which is why I believe it's better to listen and understand where they're coming from than double down on the initial "transgression".
Regarding your rationale for being opposed to the "intent is not magic" quote, can you tell me how you'd honestly react if you did call someone a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ or ♥♥♥♥ (not that you actually
would, but hypothetically), and that person turned around and told you they were extremely upset by it? Would you repeat what you've just told me ("Hey, it's not *always* wrong to call someone a ♥♥♥♥♥♥!"), or would you listen to what they're saying and why they felt hurt by it? Certainly the latter, right? Not everyone has the privilege of living in an ivory tower where this scenario is purely philosophical and nothing more – the wrong words can cause real damage.
Quote:
|
As I said in the thread, I believe that free speech ultimately benefits society.
|
In general, I agree. However, the right to free speech doesn't include hateful speech, nor does it oblige someone to behave in a hurtful manner just because they can get away with it. Sure, one doesn't have an "obligation" to apologize if they offend a minority as a result of their insensitivity or bigotry - but if they don't, it does make them, well, a bit of an arsehole.
Quote:
|
Bad things happen when you insist that an oppressed group should be protected from bigotry
|
Even worse things happen when we insist they shouldn't be.
I mean, heaven forbid people think more about the consequences of their words and actions, and the possibility that perhaps they should be more considerate.
Quote:
|
and when you define bigotry solely from the POV of said group.
|
Why not? The people in that group are the ones who have had the most experience being subjected to the receiving end of bigotry - so why can't they be trusted to know what's hurtful when they experience it? We sure as hell can't trust
bigoted people to define bigotry - I mean, ask a member of Stormfront about their views on immigration and I'm certain you'll find they'll tell you they're not bigoted whatsoever, but it doesn't make them right!
About Me 
