British and Australian English do not — andrewk

The terminal "r" is pronounced in some versions of British English. Not relevant but I can't stand this generalization.

I agree it's a matter of etiquette, and I agree it's not always right to insist on being able to mention it. But it might be important to insist on it sometimes. I insist on being able to do it here, for example.

It's worth pursuing not least because it belittles the experience of actual racism to see unwitting racism in the mention of a racist word, mentions that are obviously not racist. And this does now happen.

I agree with all of that except, I think, for the last sentence, which is what this is all about I guess.

Get the popcorn

What do the admins and the moderators and other old timers think? — ssu

I'm really happy we rose to the top so quickly, but I do worry about the quality sometimes. We didn't fulfill all of the hopes we had in the beginning, like the thriving articles site and the monthly readings--which went on for a few months but died out--but generally I think it's great.

Yes, and that kind of complicates the use/mention thing, which gets infected by user/context/falsely attributed phonetic variant issues, confuses people, and leads to general strife on both sides. — Baden

I don't exactly see how it complicates the use/mention thing. I can see how it's complicated in the way I described above, by the sheer violence of the word, which as with "cunt" makes even the mention of it uncomfortable. But the linguistic angle you've outlined and which I agree with doesn't seem to add any complication that I can think of with respect to use/mention, though I'll note that it's not nearly so uncomfortable to mention the word "nigga" as it is to mention the n-word, hence my repeated use of "n-word".

It centred around the general status of AAVE/BVE — Baden

Oh yeah. Good times. I thought that was here on TPF.

Otherwise yes, thanks, that's what I was thinking, that they're actually different words (which is not to say it's always cool to use "nigga").

Blacks (African Americans, err, Negroes... niggers?) use "nigger" in the same way that cock suckers use "queer". — Bitter Crank

Maybe you can stop being an idiot about this now especially as this was discussed before and it was explained in detail to you where you were going wrong. — Baden

I missed that discussion. I'd be interested to read the linguist's take on it.

Off the top of my head and loosely speaking, if using it--as opposed to mentioning it--can be unobjectionable, then you still gotta use it right. The unobjectionable way of using it happens to be inaccessible to most white people, because it's associated with black sub-cultures. But if anecdotal evidence is worth anything at all, I happen know people in black London sub-cultures who have close white friends in those sub-cultures who use the word just like they themselves do. They know how to use it in a way Hanover never could, not only or even primarily because he's not black, but because he's not of that sub-culture.

Generally I agree with andrewk that it's a use and mention thing. Nobody worth listening to is arguing for the use (in this sense, and also leaving aside its use by black people for the moment); the issue is whether it's all right to mention it. I'll find it horribly condescending of you to presume that a certain type of person ought to be protected from your mere mention of any word. However at the personal level it really depends. Even just the mention of "nigger", like that there, has the same violent frisson as mentioning "cunt", a word that I rarely use or even mention outside of a certain group of close friends, so I pretty much never even mention the n-word at all.

But the cultural significance of all this is that in the public sphere, intent and the use-mention distinction are being ignored. And that is stupid.

Have I read you wrong, or you me? — StreetlightX

Not sure. Let me think about that.

This is probably one of the few sensible things said in this thread so far. The middling liberal approach taken by many in this thread looks at issues of ‘deplatforming’ and so on as though politics and power only ever intervene after the fact, as though the ground of speech were a priori neutral and only then ‘interfered’ with from the outside, per accidens. But this is naïvety at best, utter stupidity at worst - anyone who isn’t a complete idiot knows that only some are ever given a platform to begin with - are ‘platformed’. The rest - the majority - simply shout into the void.

It is simply political infantilism to believe that everyone has a platform - is born with one, as it were - and that harm only comes from 'taking it away’. As if some stupid toy. Platforms are rare, hard-fought over, and mercilessly defended and attacked. Those who complain about ‘deplatforming’ usually have nothing to say about platforming to begin with, because they are so utterly insensible to the play of power everywhere at work long before some wanker has their stupid ‘say’ on a lectern somewhere. Their defence of ‘free speech’ is nothing but a defence of the arrangement of power just as it is - the status quo, all the while denying that power has any role to play expect on the side of those who argue for ‘deplatforming’. It’s hypocrisy unnamed. — StreetlightX

Only "their" defence of free speech? I guess you mean either the defence of free speech for the views you don't like; or, which for you comes to the same thing, the defence of free speech for all views. I guess you mean that, say, my defence of free speech is also a "defence of the arrangement of power just as it is", only maybe I don't know it.

But there is disagreement over what that arrangement of power is, and disagreement over what is a defence of the status quo and what is not. For example, I'm a quasi- or ex- or crypto-leftist, and I believe that neoliberal capitalism and the present cultural orthodoxy that passes for leftism are more than merely compatible: they are two sides of the same coin. And that's despite the existence of bogeymen like the Kochs. The point is not to argue here for that thesis, but to try and show that your moral and intellectual high ground isn't necessarily so high, i.e., that there's a debate to be had, one that you assume has been had already.

Liberal shills have nothing to say about the structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated that the situations they are decrying. They'll bark your ear off about 'deplatforming' and remain deafeningly, fatally silent about the far more significant, far more pervasive issue of platforming. Their politics is reactive, as reactive as any they blab about with their reams of words. — StreetlightX

Is anyone who defends free speech without compromise, or who complains about deplatforming, a "liberal shill"? What about the people who do so while also having things to say about the "structural, socio-economic conditions that precipitated that the situations they are decrying"?

Like most of your stuff about actually existing politics, your post is impatient, polemical, authoritarian, and--in common with most philosophers when they talk about the real world--disappointingly second-hand and mainstream-ideological. But if you're taking sides in a battle, on behalf of a party, then I guess that's appropriate. I mean, even accepting your stuff about power, from that point if you don't accept that there is a debate to be had about who holds the power in the first place, then it just comes down to who can shout the loudest, who can use the power of the state for their own ends (and who can lament the deplorableness of the common people in the class war of the Left against the working class).

Your post is really just an argument in favour of ad hominem. Do not look to the argument, you say, look to the person--and their power, identity, etc. As such it is close to being fallacious if interpreted as rational, though perhaps useful or understandable if interpreted as bloodthirsty polemic or Leninist revolutionary propaganda. It doesn't come close to being thoughtful or philosophical.

For super easy reading and kind of continental: Why the World Does Not Exist by Markus Gabriel. I just read it and liked it quite a lot.

Thoughtless cant is allowed here; I wouldn't class your post as low quality in the context of this discussion.

I'm not sure why you think it's appropriate to post with precisely the kind of thoughtless cant that one finds on Twitter, and which I'm trying to draw attention to.

I'll let the staff member who did it explain before I say anything.

Maybe you could discuss theological issues with other believers in the Theology part of the forum — I like sushi

Note that there is no theology part of the forum. On the old PF there was a religion section but we don't have an equivalent here, only philosophy of religion. Intra-religious or theological discussions are not very welcome.

Latest privileged white academic in the firing line for having incorrect views is Camille Paglia. It was only a matter of time I guess.

Art students are trying to get the social critic fired from a job she has held for three decades

Thanks, but I wasn't aware of dodging anything. I think it was a good point. You opposed two things that seemed to me unrelated, so I pointed it out.

So your point is that you're offended because a philosopher has negatively judged your sexual practice? And I'm pathetic?

the idea of caviar ... actual caviar — Benkei

I had to use google for this, which for some reason makes me feel superior.

I still like actual caviar.

Again, I see you condemning my language as trying to put something beyond reasonable debate as if calling something an obscene disgusting practice is the language that keeps things within reasonable debate. — unenlightened

This doesn't work. You're condemning a man for his views or his words, but if Scruton is condemning anything at all, it's not a person for their views or words, but a general sexual practice. Only the former condemnation has anything to do with putting things beyond reasonable debate.

Anyway, I reckon obscenity and disgust are crucial in any comprehensive discussion of sexuality, so I don't see any problem with that language.

Fair enough. My point was not particularly against you, but rather the general point that seeking to restrict women's freedom is not necessarily, obviously and uncontroversially sexist, or is not enough to justify consigning a view to somewhere beyond reasonable debate (the place you aim to put someone when you call them sexist, fascist, malevolent, etc.)

So maybe the bonkers remark was intemperate too.

The idea that the Scruton quotation about masturbation--here repeatedly and bizarrely interpreted out of context--is sexist, but controlling women's reproductive freedom is not, is bonkers.

EDIT: But I said I wasn't going to get into that. Sorry.

Existing, in my case. Anyhow, it's a false equivalency. In the case of abortion, there's a balance of rights to be considered between the unborn child (of whatever sex) and the pregnant woman. There's another life at stake. — Baden

But then, you would say that. I'm not going to get into abortion, but my point is that in both your case and in Scruton's, there are other things you think need to be balanced against the individual rights of the woman. And I think you both believe that your positions seek a better result for society.

Fair enough, although I think it's in the same ball park, and illiberal in the same way. Likewise your intemperate and uninformed rush to condemn a philosopher as extreme, illegitimate, idiotic, sexist, racist, and so on.

I am open to correction, but on the face of it, I would say that a view that wishes to restrict the role of women is a sexist view in any normal understanding. — unenlightened

Maybe, but then it's just another sexist opinion to be countered with argument. Compare: at least a couple of liberal-leftish members here are in favour of existing, or even more extensive, obstacles to getting an abortion. Me, I happen to think those obstacles profoundly restrict the freedom of women. But this is an issue for debate, not for shutting people down.

Kenan Malik in the Guardian:

Most of those who excoriated Eaton replayed parts of the interview that made his tweets look misjudged but ignored the uglier parts of Scruton’s views. Like Eaton himself, they seemed more interested in feeding the outrage machine than in illuminating debate. So we have a curious situation in which Scruton is sacked for his comments, there is ire at how his comments were presented by an editor on Twitter, but little discussion about his actual views, their context or consequences.

Part of the problem is that the conditions for fruitful public debate involve many elements, some of which may seem contradictory: a willingness to be robust in one’s critique while also being charitable in interpreting our opponents; refusing to portray opponents as simply “evil, pernicious and wicked” while also not ignoring that which is so; being committed to free speech but also to a kind of speech that allows debate to flourish.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/21/david-lammy-roger-scruton-rush-damn-our-opponents

I think this is about right. Having read a few of Scruton's books, I would defend him as a subtle and humane thinker. However, I wouldn't defend his long-standing anti-immigrant views or his anti-anti-smoking writings, and I often disagree with him, e.g., on sex, politics, and music. But mostly I'd want to see these things addressed in debate, certainly not with offence-finding witch-hunts, misrepresentation and banishment beyond the pale.

:rofl: :cry:

I see. Kinda feel like replying but we're off-course already.

gets used as a device to bash 'witch hunt' leftists on the head with — fdrake

Isn't that to be expected of an article that explicitly bashes witch hunt leftists?

Thanks, I should've linked to it.

Yes, in fact I would want to extend Fisher's criticism to cover all political interventions, not only the intraleft disputes that he addresses in the article. It's possible he wouldn't agree with me on that, I'm not sure.

I don't think the passage is particularly sexist, unless you interpret any disgust in response to female masturbation as sexist. Scruton believes that all masturbation is obscene, whether male or female. Treating one's own body in that way, as a mere object, is obscene in his view, hence "the obscene display of her body". He thinks male masturbation is disgusting too, but it's not possible for a man to masturbate "during the act of coition" so the clearer case of the obscenity of masturbation intruding into the sacred act, as he sees it, of sex between a man and woman is female masturbation.

His views are fairly reactionary on this subject. He regrets the sexual revolution, which was a movement that I think was largely a good thing, especially in the way it expanded sexual freedom for women. So in the end his views do probably imply a more traditional role for women, that is, a restricted one. But this is a legitimate political position--traditional conservatism--rather than simple sexism or misogyny.

There's no gotcha here, no case for calling out. It's time to grow up and exit the vampire's castle.

1/10 — S

Generous, I'd say.

You make a good case for companions or commentaries for help and guidance with Kierkegaard, but not so much for using one as the central, required, text in a reading group. Doesn't it make more sense for each member to use secondary work of their own choosing and use that to help them interpret the primary source before posting in the group?

Anyway, I'll butt out now: the participants can decide for themselves.

Generally speaking, commentaries and companions are a bad idea in reading groups. Whoever takes part in a reading group should work through the original along with everyone else, and only consult the secondary literature occasionally, to supplement and clarify the reading.

If you're not willing to properly take part in a reading group, why would you think it okay to ask the people who are doing the work to do it in a way that suits you?

I have told you why. Your discussions in themselves are mostly not very good, but the fact that they are so numerous--I'm guessing you post two or three new discussions almost every day--makes it a more serious problem. In my opinion, your posting behaviour dominates the forum to its detriment.

You are free to say whatever you like, but here, we make editorial decisions to maintain quality. It has nothing to do with free speech, any more than when I delete posts about embroidery.

Is there something there that you'd like to see addressed in some way? What is the threat you're referring to?

Can, I post a pic of you're implicit threat made via PM to me? — Wallows

Sure, or I can post what I wrote myself.

The "Psychobabble" one was already in the lounge area, which kind of makes it redundant to delete already — Wallows

The Lounge shouldn't just be the Wallows dump.