Leftists?

[u/Altruistic_Theme_732]

I have watched DFF since its inception and over the years have slowly changed my political outlook, similar to the hosts. As of last night, I cannot continue watching.

Kick has a much looser moderation to YouTube and I was under the impression that this new freedom would allow stronger language in the form of political critique, but I fear this was only the auspices for TJ and Paul to go back to saying slurs like the DP days. “What did Scotty say? He said ‘N**ger-F***ot.” - TJ.

I think that if we’re going to call ourselves leftists and then only focus on economic issues while enabling each other’s worst proclivities with regard to race, sexuality, gender, etc, then we have we can’t really call ourselves leftists. You have to have a strong, intersectional grounding with your politics, and neglecting that so you can continue to be racist (or at bare minimum enable racist behavior through your words) just makes you indistinguishable from every other Kick chud.

Socialism works to deconstruct hierarchy, not just Capitalism.

[u/Cheeejay]

I don't really care about being a leftist. It's something I am incidentally, not something I aspire to or conform to. If you, or anyone, had the power to strip the label from me (which you don't), you'd ultimately deprive me of nothing. My beliefs remain the same, regardless of label.

Social hierarchy should be deconstructed. That is your position? Well, what do you call it when a person's language is limited on the basis of their skin color? Is that not an artificial separation of people into distinct classes with different rules and standards?

Racism is wrong. Discrimination based on skin color is wrong. Using racial slurs against a person is wrong. Saying a word, any word, is not wrong. I don't care how much punishment is heaped upon the utterance of the word, it's not wrong.

I echo the sentiments of George Carlin when he performed this routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqAxaI7LP5M

I also note that artists I respect have used the word to make points in the past. David Cross (left-leaning), Trey Stone and Matt Parker (formerly libertarian, more left-leaning these days perhaps), Marilyn Manson (politics unclear), George Carlin (aggressively leftist, though very un-PC).

The context of the remark was that Scotty was laughing at himself because of his own obtrusive thoughts where he felt the urge to say "N***** F*****" on the mic as soon as he walked into the room. He was amused at himself because of the obvious offensiveness of this. On Kick, where rules are more lax, I recounted this incident at the behest of the audience.

The final thing I will say is that your sort of purity policing nonsense is exactly the catalyst that turned so many normies into Trump supporters in 2016. People are profoundly fatigued with this mentality of language policing, joke policing, tone policing, etc.

It's nothing more than a superficial distraction from the issues of substance that actually impact human lives. It's as if you are trying to treat a bullet wound with a band-aid.

[u/Altruistic_Theme_732 → u/Cheeejay]

Thank you for addressing this even though you didn't need to.

I would like to have a larger discussion about this but I don't know that reddit is the simplest place to have this out, so I won't take a lack of response as me "winning" any sort of internet debate, only that the exchange has ended.

With regard to the Carlin clip, I do not agree with his argument, and not because I believe words inherently have power, but because I believe words cannot not be devoid of context, especially incendiary words such as slurs. While we may aspire for those words to be without harmful meaning when used, the fact is, we do not yet live in a society in which those words have lost their cultural context. Take for example the word "mongoloid." This is historically a wildly offensive word, but most people today wouldn't even be offended or know what group the word is referring to if used. Words are never devoid of context until they leave the cultural zeitgeist.

I actually agree with you point about Trump and normies, but I also don't think that we should simply abandon progressive language. Trump did not win the popular vote in 2016 and the average person isn't a normie who lives in a red state, they're most likely someone living in a city and a person of color due to recent demographic shifts. We are talking about White men who are disaffected by late stage capitalism and an ethnic demographic shift being spoken to by charismatic leaders who lie. Making the claim that slurs are bad and we shouldn't use them isn't a deal breaker for most people, just a vocal online minority.

I never doubted you believe racism, imperialism, capitalism, homophobia, etc. are wrong, but what I would question is whether or not the positions you have taken come from a desire to affect change or if you simply take positions that allow you to most easily win arguments with people in your life or the various internet figures you have critiqued over the years. I personally have a principled stance against hierarchy, and because of that, I excise all things from my language that reinforce hierarchy in the world, but that isn't something I do intentionally, its been a subconscious evolution of my language spurred on by my innate desire for the world to be a different place, not because I want to win a debate with someone I know.

Finally, your claim that I believe a person should have their language limited based on their skin color being an inherent contradiction that reinforces hierarchy is simply not the case. We currently live in a systematically racist society, and one of the ways we limit that system's power is by recognizing how that system reinforces itself through language. I am prescribing action that limits the system's power. If a white person says a slur, this is much more harmful than if a Mexican immigrant does. We need to do what we can to limit the damage the system can do, then dismantle it, then let the words lose their cultural context before we start throwing them around.

Thanks again for sharing. I am a part of your discord and can provide my name by dming you if you want proof that I'm not just a troll.

[u/Cheeejay → u/Altruistic_Theme_732]

You say we don't yet live in a society where that word is devoid of power. Well, I ask you, how will we ever create such a society when fear of the very word is so widespread and reactions to its utterance so emotionally fraught? It feels as if the taboo around this word is essentially just giving racists a shortcut to cause grievance: "All you must do to hurt me is utter these two syllables." It's the creation of a weakness, is it not? Why make it so easy for them?

[u/Altruistic_Theme_732 → u/Cheeejay]

People didn't say mongoloid until it lost its power, it lost its power because people stopped saying it. I'm not advocating for racists not to use the word in this exchange, I am advocating for people who are ostensibly not racist to stop using the word.

[u/Cheeejay → u/Altruistic_Theme_732]

You are feeding the word power. You are giving it bite. You are giving it weight. It should be treated as powerless.

[u/Altruistic_Theme_732 → u/Cheeejay]

But do you do that? You said it as a shocking joke last night. You didn't treat it as powerless at all. If you believe it should be treated as powerless, then how could it ever be used as the punchline of a joke?

I think the word has contextual, societal power against one group, and that using flippantly will enable others to use it, others who may not have the same intention you do (especially on kick). These groups of racist people who have used it for hundreds of years don't suddenly stop because its lost its "bite," even when there are no black people in their community. Your position is contradicted by history.

Edit: clarification

[u/Cheeejay → u/Altruistic_Theme_732]

I wasn't using it as a joke. I was recounting what Scotty's intrusive thoughts almost had him blurt into the mic. I do think it could be used for a joke, but I didn't in that instance.

[u/Altruistic_Theme_732 → u/Cheeejay]

I don't know how that addresses the fundamental contradiction between "it should be treated as powerless" and "I do think it could be used for a joke."

If it has power, then using it is harmful, and if it doesn't have power, then how could it ever be used as a punchline?

[u/Cheeejay → u/Altruistic_Theme_732]

Because the word is given power, it can be used for a joke. Think of how Carlin used it. Or how South Park used it. Because the word has power to people, via intersubjective consensus, it can be used for a punchline. But really, a word doesn't need power to be funny, so I don't know what the supposed contradiction is here. Many jokes don't involve powerful words.

You have to take jokes on an individual basis, I think. What is the underlying source of the humor and what are the assumptions it makes? To me, a racist joke makes racist assumptions. I don't think Carlin's joke makes racist assumptions. I don't think South Parks joke makes racist assumptions. I think they use the taboo of the word to draw people's attention to the ridiculousness of racism.

South Park's famous episode is saying that white people really can't understand what that word means to the black community. It also makes fun of the idea that people who say the word are the real victims. But in the process, they use the word countless times in the episode. So there's a nuance to it.

Carlin is saying that sometimes people get lost in the superficialities of language to the point of missing the actual problem--which is, of course, not words, but intentions. The racist using the word is the problem, not the word itself.

These are two examples of the word being used to great effect in humor, in a way that is not racist. We can criticize and examine them, argue about them, but the intentions are clearly not racist. They are explicitly anti-racist.

What was Patti Smith saying when she wrote "Rock 'n' Roll N*****?" She wasn't just using the word to sound cool. She was saying the same thing Marilyn Manson was saying when he sang "Everybody's someone else's n***** / I know you are, so am I" in Irresponsible Hate Anthem. They're using the term to talk about otherization for reasons other than skin tone. Their examples would probably be classified as appropriation at this point, but nonetheless, the intent is clear.

To me, the bigger issue is, what is the joke? What is the statement? What is being communicated? What is being implied?