CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Fuck it, couldn't find the proper clip of Maher and Brand having their full disagreement. I guess Maher's official Youtube channel thought it was too embarrassing to be isolated and uploaded...
If Mort Divine ruled the world
- Thread starter Zephyrus
- Start date
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Again, I stick with my original point here: that you're trying to raise a disagreement with assumptions you yourself don't agree using assertions that are misleading, vague, or inaccurate. I didn't question the proportion. I questioned why they're worth listening to and implied that they're only there to rattle off shallow talking points while having tits, with tits and parroting being the two qualifications required--ironically for an audience who actually hates women doing what these women think they're doing, i.e., exercising non-conforming, independent thought, yet jerk off to them after writing how libtards are cucks in the comments section. The men far out-number the women here, drastically more-so than on MSM and similar de-centralized left-wing media.
Ah, gotcha.
Centralized media as well, sure, but it corresponds much more closely to the Fox News blonde-bombshell than, say, Rachel Maddow.
I wouldn't say I was raised traditional conservative, but I was born and raised in what is now Trump country and very much absorbed all of it. I branched out to libertarianism later, as I found it's intellectual aspects attractive until I realized the intellectualism was mostly a facade. I liked Maher's show the whole way through though, despite hating him, because of the other opinions offered on the show. The show used to be more genuine in this respect, I'm sure you'll acknowledge. It wasn't uncommon for conservatives (libertarians obviously included) to be the majority on the show before. He's getting older and doesn't have the patience for it anymore.
Sorry, but sexist rant, no. Since when did you get all PC?
I meant among the radio-but-not-radio-show hosts, but yeah.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
I don't think Maher's show has had any balanced ratio in many years, but I won't assert it with any surity because I haven't really kept up with him. I loved Politically Incorrect and even now still return to old episodes for some entertainment. It was like Colin Quinn's Tough Crowd with less comedian guests. I eat that shit up, I love a good shitfest. Another great moment of Maher's modern show was when Sam Harris triggered Ben Affleck.
I don't really know where I would put myself politically anymore.
I don't care that you're being sexist, but you are objectively speaking --- being sexist.
I agree with HBB: "I'm sure there are women that are popular largely because they are attractive, but that applies to everything. Some men have great TV faces too, of course."
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Yeah, I've never been a fan of Harris, but the Affleck thing was embarrassing. And agreed that one of the best was Hitchens flicking of the crowd.
In a rehashing of already-discussed news:
Gillette goes abroad: Gillette's "The Best a Man Can Be" campaign seems to have hit the German market, but the thrust is different. The ad caught my eye on FB. "The Best Man has Many Faces." The one I saw stars a guy with big muscles doing work outs and doing community organizing with kids. Background is he used to get in trouble on the streets, in a fitting, thick Ruhrgebiet accent (jo, ich bin Daniel und ich trainiere heute die Kids, damit sie nicht auf der Straße abbhängen). He overcame it with sports and sees helping others reach the next level in life as being a man.
Pre-post edit:
I just did some looking around, however, to see if they had a translated version of the commercial that caused a shitshow. I didn't look closely and didn't immediately spot one, but I did notice that this ad and a couple other similar ones were posted back in November, so now I'm a little curious of how long they've been testing the waters on this. The slogan is actually the same, "Das Beste im Mann." I'll write it of as differences in cultural marketing styles. American marketing is about lifestyles, as in, "We're no longer a brand, we're a lifestyle" (Gibson recently took this pivot), and it has been for the last 20-30 years. Occasionally they try to take this to the next pitch as a social movement--"we've ditched the box. Have you? Join the movement"--boils over to a faux cultural movement. Feel good and do more than just buy a product. I think they rolled the dice wrong and underestimated the stupidity of the American consumer on this one. Doesn't matter though. Gillette isn't going anywhere. Moxie made quite the case in that respect.
In a rehashing of already-discussed news:
Gillette goes abroad: Gillette's "The Best a Man Can Be" campaign seems to have hit the German market, but the thrust is different. The ad caught my eye on FB. "The Best Man has Many Faces." The one I saw stars a guy with big muscles doing work outs and doing community organizing with kids. Background is he used to get in trouble on the streets, in a fitting, thick Ruhrgebiet accent (jo, ich bin Daniel und ich trainiere heute die Kids, damit sie nicht auf der Straße abbhängen). He overcame it with sports and sees helping others reach the next level in life as being a man.
Pre-post edit:
I just did some looking around, however, to see if they had a translated version of the commercial that caused a shitshow. I didn't look closely and didn't immediately spot one, but I did notice that this ad and a couple other similar ones were posted back in November, so now I'm a little curious of how long they've been testing the waters on this. The slogan is actually the same, "Das Beste im Mann." I'll write it of as differences in cultural marketing styles. American marketing is about lifestyles, as in, "We're no longer a brand, we're a lifestyle" (Gibson recently took this pivot), and it has been for the last 20-30 years. Occasionally they try to take this to the next pitch as a social movement--"we've ditched the box. Have you? Join the movement"--boils over to a faux cultural movement. Feel good and do more than just buy a product. I think they rolled the dice wrong and underestimated the stupidity of the American consumer on this one. Doesn't matter though. Gillette isn't going anywhere. Moxie made quite the case in that respect.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
In hindsight Hitchens was a warhawk but those were glorious days.
Sounds good to me. A lot better than a black dude stepping in front of a white guy who was about to try and chat up a passing woman. That shit was just weird faggotry.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
HamburgerBoy
Active Member
- Sep 16, 2007
- 15,042
- 4,728
- 113
You didn't ask me but it's been a long-standing sexual fantasy of mine to become an English professor and find the most socially awkward white kid in class to force to say "my pals" during a reading, so naturally this story upsets me a lot.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
What I'm about to say will probably be unpopular, but I'm not presenting it as my position. I'm upset by the way that Adamo's been treated, and I think he handled the discussion professionally and admirably (and this just goes to show that academic freedom is really an issue for professors, not students). That said, I still think there's a conversation to be had.
Some years ago, R. Scott Bakker published a controversial blog post in defense of censored versions of Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. His argument: if non-censored versions of the text are going to be banned while the discussion goes on, then we should permit censored versions so that students can still read it.
I'm not sharing this to voice my agreement with it; in fact, I highly disagree with it because Bakker shifts the goalposts of the debate. He's no longer addressing the ethics of language itself, but has instead taken a pragmatist approach toward education. I sympathize with his intentions (which are ultimately in service to education), but I lament his evading the actual issue. I share this because it points to what I see as the primary impasse of this controversy: scope of discussion vs. efficacy of education (both of which are aspects of academic freedom).
The IHE article's final paragraphs capture this dilemma:
I think this is the savviest take on the issue, i.e. that saying the word aloud poses a possible stumbling block for students in the class. Speaking honestly, I think Adamo handled the issue professionally and educationally by allowing the students to discuss whether the word should be spoken. Fortunately, his honors seminar afforded the time for that discussion, which isn't always the case in every seminar. And I think it's fine to conclude that speaking the word is ultimately more distracting than not saying it.
It's easy to discuss stories and essays that use the word without speaking it. I've done it both ways in class. The first time I ever taught Flannery O'Connor's "The Artificial N--er," I used the word; but I also told the class at the outset that I'd be saying it because it's in the story, and that they didn't have to use it if they didn't want to. I never asked students how they felt about it, but I found my using the word personally distracting. It impeded my ability to engage with the class in the moment.
Since then, I've also begun by saying that the story contains the racial slur, and that we don't need to say it aloud even though we'll be reading it on the page. We were able to refrain from using it for two classes while we discussed the story, and it didn't negatively impact the conversation. It takes about the same amount of time to say "artificial n--er" and "artificial n-word." Not saying the word doesn't erase the historical gravity of the word, while saying it can have the effect making students feel uncomfortable.
To return to Bakker's comment, I disagree wholeheartedly with introducing censored texts in class; but I think that reading texts--historical and cultural documents--is different than speaking aloud in a classroom, even when discussing the content of a text. There's no way around the fact that we're talking about these texts today, and today's cultural atmosphere has an impact on how students encounter language. If that poses a serious challenge to educational continuity, then I'm okay with not speaking the word aloud; but I'm not okay with censoring the word from the page. The unspoken word allows students to grapple silently and internally with what it means for an author to have used it. When spoken aloud, it potentially forces students to grapple also with what group dynamics behind the spoken utterance.
tl;dr, I'm disappointed with how Adamo's been treated, but I do think there's more to discuss regarding how we approach teaching the n-word. I don't think it's cut and dry.
rms
Active Member
I'm much more pro language than most, I think. Viggo getting in trouble for saying "n is a bad word" is ridiculous.
Don't have time to fully read Eins point but I really think it's more control from a minority group than anything else. I'm in this bullshit writing class finishing my degree this semester for CS and the professor asks "what else was science wrong about?" And I almost said "eugenics" just so it wouldn't be the most boring and pointless class I've sat in .
Don't have time to fully read Eins point but I really think it's more control from a minority group than anything else. I'm in this bullshit writing class finishing my degree this semester for CS and the professor asks "what else was science wrong about?" And I almost said "eugenics" just so it wouldn't be the most boring and pointless class I've sat in .
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
I agree with the sentiment that under no circumstances should Baldwin be censored, but that's not the problem here. The problem isn't whether they should be read; it's whether or not n----- should be enunciated--note, enunciated, not communicated-- by non-black students/professors in a classroom discussion involving direct quotes from the text. There is a quandary on multiple levels here. I got into debate with my girlfriend about this last night that was a bit more heated than I would have preferred, in part because Europeans have quite a different relationship (though increasingly similar) to race in society, culture, and academia, or at least they view it differently as it is more often an abstract affair than it is in the United States, and, admittedly, because our discussion wasn't in English and she judged my lack of precision in articulating my argument as calling her racist. I mention this latter point because it seems to generally be the sticking points of these debates where both sides get derailed and no progress is made.
The first is the practical consideration from the perspective of a white instructor, which is also the theme of the article and Ein's post: does enunciating it serve the intended purpose of fostering a pedagogical environment? The question here is, what are we trying to do in the classroom? If it's to provoke thought, then the shock value attached to the word and resulting visceral feelings it invokes can't be overlooked. Best case scenario, imo, the minimal effect might be to that of the classroom door catching hard when closed. Is that a move in the right direction? If the intent is to confront students with the word, is there a net benefit that is going to result? Does a black student in the classroom need to confront him with it? Will that help him or her know what it's like to be confronted with something racist? I think that's where abstract considerations of the benefits of enunciating it get lost and lose any potential value when put in practice.
Like Ein, I've faced this problem, though in quite a different setting and personal orientation thereto, which most here are quite aware of. I'm typically the smart-ass in seminar discussions who has a quote and answer for every question posed. In such discussions, however, I backed mostly out at my Bachelor's institution, with the exception of asking follow-up questions to the professor or classmates. Enunciating n------ was, of course, out of the question in any case. I didn't want to be the smart-ass white-boy who just convinced half the class I was a dumb-ass racist. But, more so, from the perspective of a student in a seminar, I saw the reason for me being there was to explore the text and learn more from it. I can elaborate in discussions on Heidegger my lived experience as Dasein, or on Nietzsche with the social construction of morality, etc., but can I elaborate on my lived experience of racism as a black man? No. Listening to my classmates did, on the other hand, provide me with insights which I otherwise wouldn't have heard.
The other consideration which comes to mind here, which wasn't raised in the article, is more of a philosophical one, and I'll be shorter here and leave it as an open question to you guys. The whole point of reading these texts and having classes such as these is to not only learn about these topics, but also to pay respect to them and to their purpose, i.e. intended audience and to what the text was intended to spur them to. As a white professor, does enunciating "n-----" in the sentence being quoted to students (with the foregoing in mind, of course) really pay respect to the text? I'll throw that out to you guys.
I just want to add that I feel bad for the professor in question and hope for his sake that this affair ends as undramatically for him as possible. He has, ironically, worked hard to make his place of work more inclusive for minority students. He made a mistake, and it's one that causes a lot more painful than a crappy argument or bad quote that found itself being published and harangued in the journals. This brings up the very solid question of, "why is the academic left jumping on him when they're doing little to counter far more consequential academic problems like the Dark Enlightenment or more pervasive, long-standing ideologies fundamentally cancerous to their world view like neoliberalism?," but that's a what-aboutism that misses the point here.
The first is the practical consideration from the perspective of a white instructor, which is also the theme of the article and Ein's post: does enunciating it serve the intended purpose of fostering a pedagogical environment? The question here is, what are we trying to do in the classroom? If it's to provoke thought, then the shock value attached to the word and resulting visceral feelings it invokes can't be overlooked. Best case scenario, imo, the minimal effect might be to that of the classroom door catching hard when closed. Is that a move in the right direction? If the intent is to confront students with the word, is there a net benefit that is going to result? Does a black student in the classroom need to confront him with it? Will that help him or her know what it's like to be confronted with something racist? I think that's where abstract considerations of the benefits of enunciating it get lost and lose any potential value when put in practice.
Like Ein, I've faced this problem, though in quite a different setting and personal orientation thereto, which most here are quite aware of. I'm typically the smart-ass in seminar discussions who has a quote and answer for every question posed. In such discussions, however, I backed mostly out at my Bachelor's institution, with the exception of asking follow-up questions to the professor or classmates. Enunciating n------ was, of course, out of the question in any case. I didn't want to be the smart-ass white-boy who just convinced half the class I was a dumb-ass racist. But, more so, from the perspective of a student in a seminar, I saw the reason for me being there was to explore the text and learn more from it. I can elaborate in discussions on Heidegger my lived experience as Dasein, or on Nietzsche with the social construction of morality, etc., but can I elaborate on my lived experience of racism as a black man? No. Listening to my classmates did, on the other hand, provide me with insights which I otherwise wouldn't have heard.
The other consideration which comes to mind here, which wasn't raised in the article, is more of a philosophical one, and I'll be shorter here and leave it as an open question to you guys. The whole point of reading these texts and having classes such as these is to not only learn about these topics, but also to pay respect to them and to their purpose, i.e. intended audience and to what the text was intended to spur them to. As a white professor, does enunciating "n-----" in the sentence being quoted to students (with the foregoing in mind, of course) really pay respect to the text? I'll throw that out to you guys.
I just want to add that I feel bad for the professor in question and hope for his sake that this affair ends as undramatically for him as possible. He has, ironically, worked hard to make his place of work more inclusive for minority students. He made a mistake, and it's one that causes a lot more painful than a crappy argument or bad quote that found itself being published and harangued in the journals. This brings up the very solid question of, "why is the academic left jumping on him when they're doing little to counter far more consequential academic problems like the Dark Enlightenment or more pervasive, long-standing ideologies fundamentally cancerous to their world view like neoliberalism?," but that's a what-aboutism that misses the point here.
Dak
mentat
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,301
- 478
- 83
- 46
This teacher shouldn't be suspended,
Now a teacher getting caught saying it as a racial slur is something that you would have to suspend the teacher for
But what was actually happening was actually helping students learn something
Now a teacher getting caught saying it as a racial slur is something that you would have to suspend the teacher for
But what was actually happening was actually helping students learn something
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,301
- 478
- 83
- 46
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Obviously I'm just some pleb, but as someone who has read Baldwin and other black writers, I think censoring the text, censoring yourself while reading the text, or watering it down by replacing ni**er with "n-word" while reading the text is to pay disrespect to the man and his material. Whether or not enunciating the slur pays respect is one thing, I guess at a bare minimum it shows enough respect to actually read what the man wrote word for word, but for me the disrespect is obvious.
I don't see how race relations can ever improve while we wade around in this nebulous double-standard where some people can say ni**er and others can't say it in any context, not even while reading Baldwin to a class.
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
Blurry_Dreams
Active Member
- Apr 2, 2018
- 5,301
- 478
- 83
- 46
Similar threads
