Octopus Overlords

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:59 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 18, 2021 8:16 pm The funny thing is is that I am NEVER initially responding to anything hepcat, or IMLB or Zarathud posts.

Touche.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 2:00 pm At least she didn't say that they looked Macedonian.

Mmmm nothing like a good Macedonian nut cookie straight from Hawaii.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:52 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:50 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:48 pm

stimpy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:46 pm If she loves Trump it has to be racist.
The 2 go hand in hand.

So that's a "no, that's fine" vote from stimpy.

If OO has taught me anything, it's that all Trump lovers are racists.
Why question it? She has been marked and shall forever bare the scarlet R.

It's my observation that OO has failed to teach you anything.

If OO has taught me anything, it's read to the end of the thread before replying because someone has probably already said what I was going to say. Why is it always hep, though?

What did Trump achieve beyond the excuse to be openly racist? Tax cuts? Judges? Stiggint?

I can’t see the appeal.

Stimpy - if you ever wonder why people respond to you the way they do, look back at this thread. If you didn't come in here with a chip on your shoulder, insulting people and looking for a fight, you did a great imitation.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:55 pm What did Trump achieve beyond the excuse to be openly racist? Tax cuts? Judges? Stiggint?

I can’t see the appeal.

The judge thing is a big draw for many supporters with judicial appointments made in the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court. Especially since they're judges for life.

Also don't underestimate the appeal of being able to be openly racist now that minorities are being "uppity".

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:15 am

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:55 pm What did Trump achieve beyond the excuse to be openly racist? Tax cuts? Judges? Stiggint?

I can’t see the appeal.

The judge thing is a big draw for many supporters with judicial appointments made in the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court. Especially since they're judges for life.

Also don't underestimate the appeal of being able to be openly racist now that minorities are being "uppity".

99% McConnell, 1% Trump

coopasonic wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:18 am

$iljanus wrote: ↑Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:15 am

Zarathud wrote: ↑Tue Jun 29, 2021 10:55 pm What did Trump achieve beyond the excuse to be openly racist? Tax cuts? Judges? Stiggint?

I can’t see the appeal.

The judge thing is a big draw for many supporters with judicial appointments made in the lower courts as well as the Supreme Court. Especially since they're judges for life.

Also don't underestimate the appeal of being able to be openly racist now that minorities are being "uppity".

99% McConnell, 1% Trump

He's the man behind the curtain. But you need a good face for the insurrection which Trump fills nicely.

But yeah, McConnell is the Palpatine of our times.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 6:36 pm NBC News

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's journalism school is not offering Nikole Hannah-Jones, the Pulitzer Prize-winning creator of The New York Times' "1619 Project," a tenured professorship after facing pressure from conservatives.

NC Policy Watch first reported that the UNC-Chapel Hill's board of trustees had decided not to approve tenure for Hannah-Jones at the Hussman School of Journalism and Media. According to the 19th, she is the first person in this role at UNC-Chapel Hill to be denied tenure by the board.

The university announced last month that Hannah-Jones would join the school as the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism in July. Conservatives quickly condemned the university's decision to offer Hannah-Jones the tenure-track position.
...
Despite the controversy, Hussman dean Susan King said she was "delighted" to welcome Hannah-Jones as an educator.

"While I am disappointed that the appointment is without tenure, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that she will be a star faculty member," King said in a statement obtained by NBC News.

After a whole lot of public pressure, the UNC board offered her tenure. She decided to take a position at another university.

Her statement on the process is pretty damning.

Many people, all with the best of intentions, have said that if I walk away from UNC, I will have let those who opposed me win. But I do not want to win someone else’s game. It is not my job to heal this university, to force the reforms necessary to ensure the Board of Trustees reflects the actual population of the school and the state, or to ensure that the university leadership lives up to the promises it made to reckon with its legacy of racism and injustice.

For too long, powerful people have expected the people they have mistreated and marginalized to sacrifice themselves to make things whole. The burden of working for racial justice is laid on the very people bearing the brunt of the injustice, and not the powerful people who maintain it. I say to you: I refuse.

In the case of my tenure, the university has, begrudgingly, done the absolute minimum. In a split vote, it did what it was supposed to have done 7 months ago and, in doing so, many believe the university has resolved the issue. It has not.

She's taking a tenured position at her alma mater, Howard University. She'll be in DC and much more connected to the heart of media culture, which is what her work and the job is all about.

UNC loses again.

The whole thing is absolutely disgusting and worse the racists involved are probably clapping each other on the back because they chased her away.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:06 pm She's taking a tenured position at her alma mater, Howard University. She'll be in DC and much more connected to the heart of media culture, which is what her work and the job is all about.

Howard is definitely richer for it but I still groaned because that is what the racists wanted to happen. I saw it over and over in public comments about this farce. "Why not teach at Howard or Xavier. They'll accept your 'hate' there". I get her decision and don't begrudge it at all but this was not a fine moment in any shape or form.

AWS260 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 6:26 pm
After a whole lot of public pressure, the UNC board offered her tenure. She decided to take a position at another university.

Her statement on the process is pretty damning.

Many people, all with the best of intentions, have said that if I walk away from UNC, I will have let those who opposed me win. But I do not want to win someone else’s game. It is not my job to heal this university, to force the reforms necessary to ensure the Board of Trustees reflects the actual population of the school and the state, or to ensure that the university leadership lives up to the promises it made to reckon with its legacy of racism and injustice.

For too long, powerful people have expected the people they have mistreated and marginalized to sacrifice themselves to make things whole. The burden of working for racial justice is laid on the very people bearing the brunt of the injustice, and not the powerful people who maintain it. I say to you: I refuse.

In the case of my tenure, the university has, begrudgingly, done the absolute minimum. In a split vote, it did what it was supposed to have done 7 months ago and, in doing so, many believe the university has resolved the issue. It has not.

Wow. One would hope that statement alone is enough to move mountains, but as she says, they moved begrudgingly to do the minimum only after arm twisting. One would also hope that would be stain and those in power would shift but that might be too much to hope for.

I'm glad she's able to opt out, make a statement, and find success/engulfment elsewhere.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06, 2021 7:06 pm She's taking a tenured position at her alma mater, Howard University. She'll be in DC and much more connected to the heart of media culture, which is what her work and the job is all about.

UNC loses again.

UNC is her alma mater, not Howard.

AWS260 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:12 am UNC is her alma mater, not Howard.

My bad. I thought I'd read the opposite.

So as it ever was.

From Texas:

Public schools in Texas are one step closer to no longer being required to teach about various American civil rights movements in social studies classes.

Bloomberg reports that on Friday, the state Senate voted 18-4 to pass Senate Bill 3, which drops requirements for teachers to include lessons on Cesar Chavez, Susan B. Anthony, the history of Native Americans, the writings of Martin Luther King, Jr. and other figures and documents in their curriculums.

This comes after Gov. Greg Abbott previously signed a bill that banned teachers from discussing critical race theory and the 1619 Project, while also dictating how they should teach about current events in their classrooms. The idea behind this new bill is to more explicitly define what can and can’t be taught.

According to Bloomberg, it would also prevent teachers from speaking about current events or controversial issues without “giving deference to any one perspective.”

This feels like a giant red flag moment.

What do you think drove the Neanderthals to extinction?

It is believed that critical species theory is what doomed the dinosaurs. Addressing reptile privilege eventually led to the rise of the mammals.

Yes we need to adjust our language as we become more aware of the harm that can be done by words. To me it is all about context. If a black speaker at a NAACP conference said: Let's call a spade a spade, would there be outrage?

I remember when Greg Gumball said a (black) football player had "running from the police speed," some found it offensive. But anyone runs like hell from the police. Had the player been white would there have been a reaction?

If you were referring to a medieval battle and used the description "a chink in the armor," no one would bat an eye, but per Wikipedia:

An [ESPN] editor used the phrase as a headline on the company's web site in February 2012; the headline was titled "Chink In The Armor", and referred specifically to Lin.[5] The headline was a reference to Lin's unsuccessful game against the New Orleans Hornets, suggesting that Jeremy Lin's popularity and winning streak were weakening.[6] While ESPN has used the phrase "chink in the armor" on its website over 3,000 times before, its usage in this instance was considered offensive because it directly referred to a person of Asian descent.[7] Many viewed the usage of the phrase as a double entendre.[5] Slate called it "a bad choice of words at best and a smirky, passive aggressive racist dig at worst".[8] ESPN quickly removed the headline, apologized, and said it was conducting an internal review.[9] The editor, Anthony Federico, denied any idiomatic usage, saying "This had nothing to do with me being cute or punny ... I'm so sorry that I offended people. I'm so sorry if I offended Jeremy."[5] Nevertheless, he was fired.[5]

I personally doubt the guy meant that as a racial slur, but there is no excuse for allowing that in the written word.

You need to consider context as well as the actual words you use.

I agree that context matters but but often the nuance is not important. It is woke for the woke God.

One anecdote of several I could share is that I saw a person run out of managing a team for angrily yelling 'guys listen' at a group of roller derby people arguing amongst themselves during a timeout in a tough game. Someone took offense since they believed that he was belittling a trans player by calling them a guy. That coach was one of the kindest people I know and some people defended to the point that it caused massive division where several players quit. And I've seen similar like 10 times. There is a toxic culture out there on the left around this.

We have also seen this across the public space over the last few years. So much of this new cancel culture rests on a premise that bad intent is the default. IMO it is a direct consequence of our low trust culture in America. So yes context matters but there is something really dark happening all around us. Again IMO the darkness is not only on the right. It just is *way* worse there.

I get that, and the Lin example is obviously cringe inducing and uncomfortable. Even if the author had no ill intent, even though it’s perfectly innocuous in one particular context, the word is a slur in many, many contexts, so common sense and decency argues for being extremely careful when using it or just using a different word or phrase entirely.

But, what about the reverse? When a phrase “call a spade a spade” from the Capital Riot thread, for instance, is innocuous in most contexts but has picked up a racial connotation in a few contexts (or has a racist origin), does that call for dropping the phrase?

Did you know referencing unwanted comments or a disturbance from “the peanut gallery” was racist? How about the phrase “long time, no see”? A quick google search tells me these are among 6 Common Phrases You Didn’t Know Were Racist - So Let’s Stop Using Them Immediately.

I knew about the "Gypsy" one, but the other top two seem pretty marginal. "Long time, no see" is just a shorthand way of speaking, I hardly think all abbreviations should be condemned. I wonder if anyone takes offense to "nosebleed seats." Maybe Scandinavians? And who knew that hepcat was anti-semitic?

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:09 am I get that, and the Lin example is obviously cringe inducing and uncomfortable. Even if the author had no ill intent, even though it’s perfectly innocuous in one particular context, the word is a slur in many, many contexts, so common sense and decency argues for being extremely careful when using it or just using a different word or phrase entirely.

But, what about the reverse? When a phrase “call a spade a spade” from the Capital Riot thread, for instance, is innocuous in most contexts but has picked up a racial connotation in a few contexts (or has a racist origin), does that call for dropping the phrase?

Did you know referencing unwanted comments or a disturbance from “the peanut gallery” was racist? How about the phrase “long time, no see”? A quick google search tells me these are among 6 Common Phrases You Didn’t Know Were Racist - So Let’s Stop Using Them Immediately.

Context is vital.


My post was about someone who used the phrase "Let's call an ace an ace" when negatively talking about Juneteenth. It's a calculated dog whistle. "Spade a spade" is marginal. "Ace an ace" is evocative of "black as the ace of spades" since it swaps one for the other in a strange new idiom.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 10:26 pm

Kurth wrote: ↑Sat Jul 24, 2021 11:09 am I get that, and the Lin example is obviously cringe inducing and uncomfortable. Even if the author had no ill intent, even though it’s perfectly innocuous in one particular context, the word is a slur in many, many contexts, so common sense and decency argues for being extremely careful when using it or just using a different word or phrase entirely.

But, what about the reverse? When a phrase “call a spade a spade” from the Capital Riot thread, for instance, is innocuous in most contexts but has picked up a racial connotation in a few contexts (or has a racist origin), does that call for dropping the phrase?

Did you know referencing unwanted comments or a disturbance from “the peanut gallery” was racist? How about the phrase “long time, no see”? A quick google search tells me these are among 6 Common Phrases You Didn’t Know Were Racist - So Let’s Stop Using Them Immediately.

Context is vital.


My post was about someone who used the phrase "Let's call an ace an ace" when negatively talking about Juneteenth. It's a calculated dog whistle. "Spade a spade" is marginal. "Ace an ace" is evocative of "black as the ace of spades" since it swaps one for the other in a strange new idiom.

Honestly, I still don’t understand. Is it a calculated dog whistle because they are mocking sensitivities about the “call a spade a spade” thing by using a very unusual (I’ve never heard someone say “let’s call an ace an ace”) phrase instead?

I think that’s about right.

I imagine to a deeply racist ear/mind, the ‘call and Ace an Ace’ gets turned into “you mean a Spade!” (like most of our’s reaction to the never heard before phrase). But then they go on to think how he’s not allowed to say “spade” here because he’s talking about Juneteenth and is forced to stay PC.
And in that moment they know they are of like mind with the speaker.

As it happens, "Call a spade and spade" originates in a completely non-racist context. Per Wikipedia (although I've seen mention of this in more scholarly sources), the phrase comes into English in the 16th century as a translation from Greek. The "spade" in the phrase is an old-fashioned term for a shovel or other digging tool.

However, I don't believe this makes the idiom OK for modern use. Language is always changing and acquiring new connotations, and "spade" has been ruined by racist usage. We lose nothing by avoiding the phrase.

It's the same story with "niggardly." Etymologically, the word has nothing to do with our N-word (and in fact doesn't even derive from Latin, as "negro" does), but that still doesn't mean it's fine to use it. Context is always contemporary. Since there's no way to employ it without reminding people of the slur, it should be dropped.

I mean in a world where people assume the worst of others this makes sense but even then it still is sad that we need to tip toe through our conversations in the 'public square'.

I would say that there's no longer any "innocent" use of something like "niggardly." If you're not aware that it can't *not* evoke the slur, that's on you.

Obviously this doesn't apply retroactively. The word appears in Shakespeare, but there's no racial context for it there.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:10 pm I mean in a world where people assume the worst of others this makes sense but even then it still is sad that we need to tip toe through our conversations in the 'public square'.

Especially when the path is littered with landmines.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:14 pm I would say that there's no longer any "innocent" use of something like "niggardly." If you're not aware that it can't *not* evoke the slur, that's on you.

Obviously this doesn't apply retroactively. The word appears in Shakespeare, but there's no racial context for it there.

Yup. I get it. I just think it's a sad reflection on the ultra low levels of trust in our broken society.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:06 pm The "spade" in the phrase is an old-fashioned term for a shovel or other digging tool.

In rural Ohio, where I grew up, it’s still used quite commonly.

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:06 pm

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 8:06 pm The "spade" in the phrase is an old-fashioned term for a shovel or other digging tool.

In rural Ohio, where I grew up, it’s still used quite commonly.

I don't think they were referring to that type of "usage.'"

I think you misunderstood me. I was responding to “old fashioned term”. Where I’m from the word spade (as in digging tool) is pretty common. This is an anecdotal aside, not a racial argument.

I'm nearly 50, yet I had no idea that "call a spade a spade" was an ethnic slur. I know the phrase exists, but I have read a lot of old timey books like shakespear and dickens. Does that mean I am uneducated and racially insensitive because I don't know the modern context?, or that I am an innocent who is rarely present in situations where slurs are being used?

Jaymon wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:46 am I'm nearly 50, yet I had no idea that "call a spade a spade" was an ethnic slur. I know the phrase exists, but I have read a lot of old timey books like shakespear and dickens. Does that mean I am uneducated and racially insensitive because I don't know the modern context?, or that I am an innocent who is rarely present in situations where slurs are being used?

It's not a slur in its origins. It has, however, taken on some baggage.

If you've ever heard the word "spade" used in a derogatory manner, the idiom is forever changed.

To call a spade a spade, 'negro' used to just be a descriptive (it's just the Spanish/Portugese word for 'black'), then that changed. Then black became unacceptable until people realized that not all dark-skinned people were African or American, making the terminology impossible to actually use (I once pissed off a PoC by calling him African American when they were a native Cuban.) Once again Black (now a proper noun for good reason) is acceptable.

My point: Language changes. What a word used to mean doesn't matter; awful doesn't mean 'wonderful', and 'terrific' doesn't mean scary. What matters is what a word means now. And when there is doubt, you fall back on two things: What's the least likely to cause harm, and what the people affected by the term think about it. Political angles shouldn't be a factor when it comes to a question of whether something hurts people.

But at the same time, we have to give people the benefit of the doubt. It takes time for changed meanings to spread, and if you've lived long enough, someone may not realize that some of the idioms they've picked up have other meanings. In some cases, it isn't always clear what's appropriate (see Oriental) such that the meaning - an implication - is still in flux. Someone who drops a changed term without any overt hostile intent should be given that benefit of the doubt. It's fine to point out the issue, but not to blame.

It's also tough sometimes to draw a line and pinpoint when a word or phrase has picked up enough baggage to make it toxic. I'm with Jaymon above: Before this discussion, I'd never once heard the word "spade" used as a racial slur. It's always just been a small shovel (usually for gardening) to me.

I wonder what percentage of people are aware that there's any racial baggage associated with "spade." My guess is, it's pretty small, at least based on Google searches.