Racism scandal in fashion industry

[butterbumps!]

I get the sense this sentiment is really what's central to your impulse to litigate this here:

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

When confronted with racism, on the other hand, we'll behave and speak in a lot more insecure manner. We'll feel the need to go out of the way to make sure that whatever we say or do cannot in any way, shape or form ever be construed as racist, even if there was zero malicious intent behind it. This, IMO, is what happened in the H&M story.

Intent is what made words like monkey stick as a racial slur. Lack of intent, for example seeing black kid wearing a hoodie in question without any symbolic undertones, has the potential to un-stick it.

I have encountered this argument numerous times before, and100% of the time in my experience, it is because the person speaking it has had their feelings hurt by having something they said called out as racist (or sexist, or some kind of problematic).  The argument goes "I didn't mean anything racist by this, you shouldn't be offended by it!  I'm not racist!"    I get it.   It's hard to square one's concept of themselves as a good person with the fact that something they've done or said is bad in some way, and it smarts to have it pointed out to you.   So they try to argue that seeing racism in the statement is what's actually wrong, because intention counts for everything, and if the intent was not there, then it's not racist.  And sometimes, like here, they will go for the gold and try to present themselves as a kind of hero, a truly progressive figure, for advocating that we should just reclaim the offensive terms to neutralize them.

You are totally missing the fact that intention has little (if anything) to do with the harm caused by something like the ad.   For a black kid who is called a monkey by his classmates as an intentionally racist slur, how does that ad not reinforce the same racist messages he is being subjected to by his associates?  Whether the ad made it through because of some purposely racist intention or just negligent stupidity does not mitigate the harm caused by perpetuating the slur.

It's also not up to the speaker to be an arbiter of what's offensive to other people or not.   If you did not like to be addressed as "Chucklefuck"and you told me so, I'd be a complete dick if I kept addressing you as "Chucklefuck," and justified it by saying "I didn't mean any offense by it so you are wrong to see it as offensive, and btw, it's only by embracing "Chucklefuck" we can change it's meaning from something negative, so you need to endure my calling you that for your own good."

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Which says nothing about their stance on it. Could it be possible that they realized the ad was racist and genuinely apologized? Certainly.
But could it also be possible that H&M, as a capitalist company with the aim on making money, deiced apology is the cheapest way to cut their losses and restore their reputation? Equally possible.Normalizing non-slur nature was not the intent, just the unintended side-effect, of course. But yes, morally speaking, I believe that in, such a case, they should not have removed the ad.

It doesn't necessarily matter in the grand scheme whether their apology was heartfelt or calculated to stay in their liberal customers' good graces.  The point is that they addressed this controversy fairly graciously.  When someone tells you they find something offensive, it's typically good form to apologize and modify your speech/ tone/ terminology to something less offensive.   Their response, btw, is one worth emulating when being called out for saying something problematic in the future: "Ok, I didn't mean it that way, I'm sorry I said that, I'll be more mindful in the future."

[Xray the Enforcer]

Won't somebody please think of the feelings of white people? They've been so neglected these last few hundred years. 

[Shryke]

19 hours ago, drawkcabi said:

The ad was offensive. H&M is a Swedish company controversial ad was on a UK website. It is perfectly reasonable to see this is as an unintentional act of cultural insensitivity. H&M removed the item and issued an apology. In a rational world that should have been the end of it.

Those who want to continue to make an issue of it are either trolls or virtue signalers or some horrible combination thereof and need to get over themselves.

 

Yeah, I can't figure out what more there is or should be to this story. Someone in H&M marketing fucked up and when it was pointed out H&M seems to have gone "Oh shit!" and backed the fuck off and apologized. This is how this shit is supposed to work. Then we all move on.

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, I can't figure out what more there is or should be to this story. Someone in H&M marketing fucked up and when it was pointed out H&M seems to have gone "Oh shit!" and backed the fuck off and apologized. This is how this shit is supposed to work. Then we all move on.

I remember when the story was reported a couple months ago.  And I remember moving on then.  Those were the days.

[Seli]

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

...

No, it goes without saying that I don't have any kind of mind-reading power. And neither do people on the opposite side of the debate, who jumped off the chairs to scream racism, who also did it without knowing the motive. I just made an educated guess not to assume racism, when I saw no actual reason to suspect it (supermatist photographers notwithstanding) So all in all, I don't think this argument favours either side.

...

Intent does not matter, so no mind-reading is necessary. The combination of that text and that model is inherently problematic, which H&M acknowledged after it was pointed out to them. That they failed to pick up that fact before publication is an inherent problem of the sheltered existence many people that have the power to make the campaign and decisions have.

[Knight Of Winter]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I have encountered this argument numerous times before, and100% of the time in my experience, it is because the person speaking it has had their feelings hurt by having something they said called out as racist (or sexist, or some kind of problematic).  The argument goes "I didn't mean anything racist by this, you shouldn't be offended by it!  I'm not racist!"    I get it.   It's hard to square one's concept of themselves as a good person with the fact that something they've done or said is bad in some way, and it smarts to have it pointed out to you.   So they try to argue that seeing racism in the statement is what's actually wrong, because intention counts for everything, and if the intent was not there, then it's not racist.  And sometimes, like here, they will go for the gold and try to present themselves as a kind of hero, a truly progressive figure, for advocating that we should just reclaim the offensive terms to neutralize them.

Butterbumps (and Xray to an extent):

My own personal feelings and sentiments are utterly irrelevant here. In fact, I'm gonna be a notch down on your 100% percent here, since I've never in my life either been a victim or a perpetrator of a racism, nor have I ever encountered it. My country has pretty much zero problems with it (that's because there are very few non-white people here, not because we're particularly enlightened). In fact, I'm noticing that I'm arguing more academically and dispassionately than a lot of people who have (presumably) witnessed racism first hand. To me, it's strictly impersonal discussion on what constitutes racist behavior and how to make better society in the long run.

My paragraph about society's insecurity should be taken pretty much at a face value, for I believe that we, as a society, feel a lot of need to go out of our way to make sure that our behavior and words couldn't be seen as racist, instead of just assuming it's a given. Maybe it's necessary when discussing the issue with some random people whose opinions you don't know and want to make sure you're all on the same page, but here, at least - let's assume we all know that racism sucks and don't need to emphasize it every third sentence.
 

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

You are totally missing the fact that intention has little (if anything) to do with the harm caused by something like the ad.   For a black kid who is called a monkey by his classmates as an intentionally racist slur, how does that ad not reinforce the same racist messages he is being subjected to by his associates?  Whether the ad made it through because of some purposely racist intention or just negligent stupidity does not mitigate the harm caused by perpetuating the slur.

It's also not up to the speaker to be an arbiter of what's offensive to other people or not.   If you did not like to be addressed as "Chucklefuck"and you told me so, I'd be a complete dick if I kept addressing you as "Chucklefuck," and justified it by saying "I didn't mean any offense by it so you are wrong to see it as offensive, and btw, it's only by embracing "Chucklefuck" we can change it's meaning from something negative, so you need to endure my calling you that for your own good."

I can agree that measuring whether something is offensive or not can't be exclusively in the eyes of an "offender". Meanwhile, I believe society as a whole errs lot more often on the opposite direction, on the side of caution. As a big proponent of polite and respectful discourse and not offending people, I genuinely believe that it's very hard to have any kind of meaningful public discussion without risking offending someone. (in ALL of the following cases I'll be making very very broad generalizations, which DO NOT apply to entire groups as a whole): black people get offended because you unintentionally put them in the same sentence as a object of racial slurs (H&M's ad); white people get offended because you call them out on their entitled and imperialistic behavior of the past, or even present (in France, one presidential candidate lost significant amount of support after he dared to say France should  be ashamed of its colonial history), some religious groups get offended because they see Christmas trees in a public place; conservatives (my favourites) claim mortal offense because they have to "suffer" gay prides in their towns (in my country, they use this very exact phrase: it offends our feelings); gun owners get offended because you want to restrict gun control, politicians get offended because you called them liars and thieves, veterans get offended when you point out their war crimes etc. Sooner or later, you get a sterile and lifeless public discourse where every public figure tiptoes around sensitive subjects (which DO need to be discussed) because some group is inevitably going to be offended somehow by something. And nobody's better off as a result.

My point is: yes, we should have respect for each other and yes, we should not give intentionally insult each other (I very much agree with your Chucklefuck  example). but, at the same time, we have to have free-spirited kind of society where ideas are discussed, and where measuring whether something is offensive or not can't be solely in the eyes of "offended". If I told you that I have very unpleasant memories of Kirby and hate everything he stands for; so I'm asking you to change your avatar while we're having this conversation - would you comply or would you tell me to kindly fuck off? Latter, I hope.
 

2 hours ago, Seli said:

Intent does not matter, so no mind-reading is necessary. The combination of that text and that model is inherently problematic, which H&M acknowledged after it was pointed out to them. That they failed to pick up that fact before publication is an inherent problem of the sheltered existence many people that have the power to make the campaign and decisions have.

This whole stupid, offensive and derogatory black people - monkey correlation is not inherent but man-made. What I'm arguing this whole time is that it needs to be man-unmade.

[Seli]

17 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

...

 

This whole stupid, offensive and derogatory black people - monkey correlation is not inherent but man-made. What I'm arguing this whole time is that it needs to be man-unmade.

Easy to argue when one is not the one targetted. And even then it can be problematic. See for example the reclamation of the term queer, which is accepted by some in the community, but is still difficult for others due to the use as a slur in past decades.

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

This whole stupid, offensive and derogatory black people - monkey correlation is not inherent but man-made. What I'm arguing this whole time is that it needs to be man-unmade.

You don't decide this kind of thing. It happens or it doesn't, over a long time.
To talk about reclaiming derogatory terms (or similar ideas) is like wishing away racism itself: it's a nice sentiment, but utterly useless in itself.
In fact, not only is it useless, but it's even counter-productive since it might harm actual attempts to fight racism.

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I can agree that measuring whether something is offensive or not can't be exclusively in the eyes of an "offender". Meanwhile, I believe society as a whole errs lot more often on the opposite direction, on the side of caution.

Not really, no. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree on both counts: i) I don't think society errs too often on the side of caution and ii) I think that society should err on the side of caution anyway.

The idea that "society" goes "too far" on a subject is one of these talking points you hear here and there. What it usually means is that the speaker/writer is uncomfortable with an evolution of society because it might affect them personally.
And when it's about anti-racism, what it usually means is that the speaker/writer would rather not have to think twice about what they say.

I hear you bro. It's hard to have to think before you talk/write, because you're afraid that you might offend someone. I'm not even kidding. I remember reading an article explaining that white folks actually suffer from an increased level of stress when dealing with black co-workers. They're afraid of letting something slip, you see, and suffering the indignity of being labeled a racist. That's kinda tough.

But if you're going to talk about big issues in society, perhaps it's a good idea to take a step back and stop focusing on what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable, on what you like or don't like, on what you would prefer... etc. Because anti-racism isn't about you. It's not even about individuals. It's about what a society wants to do as a collective. I know it's not easy for everone to think in collective terms, but that's what this is about.

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Sooner or later, you get a sterile and lifeless public discourse where every public figure tiptoes around sensitive subjects (which DO need to be discussed) because some group is inevitably going to be offended somehow by something.

It hasn't happened and will never happen.
That's just a hypothetical fantasy based on a false equivalency (getting rid of offensive statements = tiptoing around sensitive subjects).

I think if you continue down this road you will find that public discourse is certainly not sterile and lifeless.

[butterbumps!]

2 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

My own personal feelings and sentiments are utterly irrelevant here. In fact, I'm gonna be a notch down on your 100% percent here, since I've never in my life either been a victim or a perpetrator of a racism, nor have I ever encountered it. My country has pretty much zero problems with it (that's because there are very few non-white people here, not because we're particularly enlightened). In fact, I'm noticing that I'm arguing more academically and dispassionately than a lot of people who have (presumably) witnessed racism first hand. To me, it's strictly impersonal discussion on what constitutes racist behavior and how to make better society in the long run.

My paragraph about society's insecurity should be taken pretty much at a face value, for I believe that we, as a society, feel a lot of need to go out of our way to make sure that our behavior and words couldn't be seen as racist, instead of just assuming it's a given. Maybe it's necessary when discussing the issue with some random people whose opinions you don't know and want to make sure you're all on the same page, but here, at least - let's assume we all know that racism sucks and don't need to emphasize it every third sentence.

Ok, as you say.  Your line of argument, which has been entirely about concern about giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt, and placing the problem of racist language in terms of intent, has totally nothing to do with you feeling bad about being called out in the past or future. 

Quote

I can agree that measuring whether something is offensive or not can't be exclusively in the eyes of an "offender". Meanwhile, I believe society as a whole errs lot more often on the opposite direction, on the side of caution. As a big proponent of polite and respectful discourse and not offending people, I genuinely believe that it's very hard to have any kind of meaningful public discussion without risking offending someone. (in ALL of the following cases I'll be making very very broad generalizations, which DO NOT apply to entire groups as a whole): black people get offended because you unintentionally put them in the same sentence as a object of racial slurs (H&M's ad); white people get offended because you call them out on their entitled and imperialistic behavior of the past, or even present (in France, one presidential candidate lost significant amount of support after he dared to say France should  be ashamed of its colonial history), some religious groups get offended because they see Christmas trees in a public place; conservatives (my favourites) claim mortal offense because they have to "suffer" gay prides in their towns (in my country, they use this very exact phrase: it offends our feelings); gun owners get offended because you want to restrict gun control, politicians get offended because you called them liars and thieves, veterans get offended when you point out their war crimes etc. Sooner or later, you get a sterile and lifeless public discourse where every public figure tiptoes around sensitive subjects (which DO need to be discussed) because some group is inevitably going to be offended somehow by something. And nobody's better off as a result.

And here you seem to be trying to declare equivalency across all different kinds of offense-taking, as if to say "well anyone can take offense to anything, so maybe we should all just stop getting offended!"   If bigots get their dander up about my support of gay rights, or having colonialism pointed out to them, or telling them to stop saying racist shit, they can nurse their offense for all I care.  I'm not, and I don't purport to be, a bigot sympathizer who endeavors to strip gay rights, whitewash history or say racist shit.

But you keep talking about how you aren't racist, never say anything racist, think racism is wrong, and want there to be less racism in the world.   If that's the case, and you actually are not racist and care about decreasing racism, then when someone tells you that something is racist, why are you spending so much effort trying to litigate why people shouldn't find it racist from your position as an outsider to the group being targeted? 

The point is that if you actually care about the issue in question, such as not being racist, then when you are told you've said something racist, apologizing and saying you'll be more mindful in the future is the typically right thing to do.   If you don't agree with or care about the issue in question, you wouldn't apologize or concern yourself with their offense-taking.  In the case of my disgust for anti-gay bias, I wouldn't apologize for offending homophobes for saying that I see gays as people deserving of rights.  I'm not trying to get right with those people the way you are positioning yourself on the side of antiracism.  For someone who is so super anti-racist and wants to stop racism, you sure do seem very reluctant to just accept that there are things out there that are racist even if they are things that don't immediately occur to you as being racist.

[Knight Of Winter]

2 hours ago, Seli said:

Easy to argue when one is not the one targetted. And even then it can be problematic. See for example the reclamation of the term queer, which is accepted by some in the community, but is still difficult for others due to the use as a slur in past decades.

That is absolutely true, but there's not much I (or people in my position) can do about it.
 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

You don't decide this kind of thing. It happens or it doesn't, over a long time.
To talk about reclaiming derogatory terms (or similar ideas) is like wishing away racism itself: it's a nice sentiment, but utterly useless in itself.
In fact, not only is it useless, but it's even counter-productive since it might harm actual attempts to fight racism.

I certainly don't. But who does? God? Nature? Aliens? Dice throw? Or, as I believe, human collective as a whole?
 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

The idea that "society" goes "too far" on a subject is one of these talking points you hear here and there. What it usually means is that the speaker/writer is uncomfortable with an evolution of society because it might affect them personally.
And when it's about anti-racism, what it usually means is that the speaker/writer would rather not have to think twice about what they say.

I'm comfortable with the evolution and, as I've written in my response to butterbumps, have no personal stake at racism/anti-racism (other than very abstract wish for a fairer society). As for other people who use the same argument as me, just for the purpose getting a license  for various kinds of insults - well, I (vehemently) don't agree with them and can't speak for them.

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

But if you're going to talk about big issues in society, perhaps it's a good idea to take a step back and stop focusing on what makes you comfortable or uncomfortable, on what you like or don't like, on what you would prefer... etc. Because anti-racism isn't about you. It's not even about individuals. It's about what a society wants to do as a collective. I know it's not easy for everone to think in collective terms, but that's what this is about.

Gah, of course it's not about me. Just the very idea that well... we should err less on a side of caution means that I, as well, am gonna hear lots of things I don't like or prefer or which make me uncomfortable. I'm trying to honestly present an idea which I think makes for a more open and freer society, not get carte blache to insults minorities and then scream "I'm oppressed" when somebody calls me on my bullshit.

Again, and I feel the need to emphasize this since it's been wrongly implied twice already: this is not personal for me. It may surprise you, but according to every possible segregation (economical, political, educational, human-rights, religious etc.) I'm in minority in my country; so I'm well aware of possible repercussions of my ideas.
 

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

It hasn't happened and will never happen.
That's just a hypothetical fantasy based on a false equivalency (getting rid of offensive statements = tiptoing around sensitive subjects).

I disagree here, but for now I would not like to digress from the main topic and open another can of worms.

ETA:

15 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

post
 

A few minor points:

1) it's not about purposely giving offense and it's definitely not about "we should stop being offended". It's more that getting and giving offense is unfortunate inevitable consequence of a healthy public discourse.

2) the fact that I'm an outsider to the group being targeted is irrelevant. Today it's not "my" group. tomorrow it might as well be. In the grander scheme of things it's all the same.

Otherwise, you raise some fair points, I'll dwell on them for a time.


 

[Rippounet]

7 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I certainly don't. But who does? God? Nature? Aliens? Dice throw? Or, as I believe, human collective as a whole?

It's complex. Language and linguistic associations are linked to culture, socio-economic conditions, fashion, and chance, among many other things.

I know that there are some old racist or anti-semitic expressions that survive in the French language for instance, simply because people don't even realize they are racist or anti-semitic and feel the expressions convey something else and are kinda cool-sounding. Conversely, some expressions are abandoned in favor of others in an attempt to better hide the racism or anti-semitism.
Language is a very complex thing. You never know how it's going to evolve.

7 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Gah, of course it's not about me. Just the very idea that well... we should err less on a side of caution means that I, as well, am gonna hear lots of things I don't like or prefer or which make me uncomfortable. I'm trying to honestly present an idea which I think makes for a more open and freer society, not get carte blache to insults minorities and then scream "I'm oppressed" when somebody calls me on my bullshit.

Hmmm... I think I get your point, I just don't see what the benefits of a "more open and freer society" are supposed to be.
This reminds me of a thread a few months back about freedom of speech. As I wrote back then, I used to be in favor of absolute freedom of speech, before realizing that societal pressure to not say certain things is actually for the best.
I think I'd go for a comparable argument here: a society being too open and free would just open itself to the worst opinions out there, and perhaps even turn against itself.
Because for society to exist, a certain amount of freedom needs to be given up by individuals. One can nitpick about going "too far" in one direction or the other, but there is always a kind of balance at stake.

[mormont]

17 hours ago, Jo498 said:

So do you think that H&M meant to cater to closet white supremacists with that shirt and ad? Certainly not. So what is your explanation instead of naiveté?

Insensitivity. 

17 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

That's not really that much of a argument, is it?

If you want, you can elaborate on this and we can talk and exchange ideas. Or we can follow the pattern and share few snide dismissive remarks. Personally, I would find former infinitely more interesting and productive.

Sure. Basically, linguistic shifts on slurs do not come about because a single member of the dominant class, the class who made that word into a slur, decides that it shall no longer be a slur. The idea that you, as a (presumably) white person, can decide on behalf of people who are the targets of racial slurs which of those slurs should no longer be considered offensive is as arrogant as the idea that you, as a (presumably) white person, can do more good than harm in using a racial slur no matter what your intentions, is foolish. 

Slurs can only be 'reclaimed' by those against whom they are directed. Not you. 

11 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

My own personal feelings and sentiments are utterly irrelevant here.

Then why did you start this thread? Why are you arguing? 

Your behaviour suggests that this is not true, and in fact you consider your own personal feelings and sentiments to be very significant. 

[baxus]

12 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

In fact, I'm gonna be a notch down on your 100% percent here, since I've never in my life either been a victim or a perpetrator of a racism, nor have I ever encountered it. My country has pretty much zero problems with it (that's because there are very few non-white people here, not because we're particularly enlightened). In fact, I'm noticing that I'm arguing more academically and dispassionately than a lot of people who have (presumably) witnessed racism first hand. To me, it's strictly impersonal discussion on what constitutes racist behavior and how to make better society in the long run.

I find this very hard to believe. Not flat out calling it a lie, but I am saying that it's more likely you live in this bubble where you overlook some racist behavior and remarks and don't even register them as racist.

The fact that there are "very few non-white people" in your country doesn't have to mean your country "has pretty much zero problems" with racism. Looking at your profile page, I see you're from Croatia so I pretty much straight out call bullshit on that statement.

Take a better look at the position of Gypsies in your country. Look into the way refugees from Syria and Afghanistan have been treated on your borders in the past couple of years. THEN come here and say that there is no problem with racism in your country.

I feel the need to point out that this is not meant for Croatia alone. The same goes for ALL of the former Eastern Europe (including Serbia, which is where I live). The "we don't have many non-white people so we are not racists" is a load of bull crap.

[butterbumps!]

11 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

A few minor points:

1) it's not about purposely giving offense and it's definitely not about "we should stop being offended". It's more that getting and giving offense is unfortunate inevitable consequence of a healthy public discourse.

2) the fact that I'm an outsider to the group being targeted is irrelevant. Today it's not "my" group. tomorrow it might as well be. In the grander scheme of things it's all the same.

Otherwise, you raise some fair points, I'll dwell on them for a time.

Mormont covered the issue you bring up in point 2 (that it most definitely is relevant whether you are part of the group being targeted).  And it's easy to sit back and say "it could be my group next" when one is not part of any group that has historically suffered oppression, as it's just not an equivalent scenario (since you are apparently from a land of no -isms suffered and speaking from "total academic detachment," per your claims, I am assuming that you are not part of a group suffering oppression.  Being part of a minority =/= having a history of oppression.  It's the oppression by a dominant group, not simply minority status, that's operative in terms of racism).

About your first point-- ok, I don't understand the issue?   It's very clear from all of your posts that you are extremely concerned about vilifying people who cause unintentional offense.  But this H&M story should show you that people are pretty willing to forgive those kinds of missteps when the speaker (in this case H&M) quickly own their mistake and apologize.  As far as I know, there isn't a massive campaign against H&M for this (though, as Jo pointed out upthread, they are a human rights nightmare of a company for other reasons and probably should be boycotted).  

Why is being offended necessarily an "unfortunate" consequence of public discourse?  People were offended, they communicated this to H&M, H&M quickly owned it, everyone (well, excluding you I guess) moved on.  What are you actually upset about?

[Knight Of Winter]

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It's complex. Language and linguistic associations are linked to culture, socio-economic conditions, fashion, and chance, among many other things.

I know that there are some old racist or anti-semitic expressions that survive in the French language for instance, simply because people don't even realize they are racist or anti-semitic and feel the expressions convey something else and are kinda cool-sounding. Conversely, some expressions are abandoned in favor of others in an attempt to better hide the racism or anti-semitism.
Language is a very complex thing. You never know how it's going to evolve.

Oh, no doubt about that. It's incredibly complex and I find it infinitely fascinating.. My point was just that the language is human construct and is ultimately under people's control (though of course way beyond the scope of a single individual).

Which is great, for if neither the "offended" nor "offenders" realize the word is racist, then it truly ceased being racist.
 

14 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Hmmm... I think I get your point, I just don't see what the benefits of a "more open and freer society" are supposed to be.

This reminds me of a thread a few months back about freedom of speech. As I wrote back then, I used to be in favor of absolute freedom of speech, before realizing that societal pressure to not say certain things is actually for the best.
I think I'd go for a comparable argument here: a society being too open and free would just open itself to the worst opinions out there, and perhaps even turn against itself.
Because for society to exist, a certain amount of freedom needs to be given up by individuals. One can nitpick about going "too far" in one direction or the other, but there is always a kind of balance at stake.

Yes, I remember that thread. In meantime, I thought the difference could maybe be in our backgrounds. To my understanding, you (and presumably some other people in this thread), come from countries where "open" society indicated saying whatever you wanted with impunity, without feeling any kind of "brakes" not to give unnecessary offense. Hence, you favour "less open" society.

Here, the situation is reverse. It is mainstream/majority who want to make certain values into dogmas and shut down any kind of discussion about them, calling it "protecting our values" and such. So, naturally, certain fondness for a "more open" society appeared in me and like-minded people.
 

6 hours ago, mormont said:

Sure. Basically, linguistic shifts on slurs do not come about because a single member of the dominant class, the class who made that word into a slur, decides that it shall no longer be a slur. The idea that you, as a (presumably) white person, can decide on behalf of people who are the targets of racial slurs which of those slurs should no longer be considered offensive is as arrogant as the idea that you, as a (presumably) white person, can do more good than harm in using a racial slur no matter what your intentions, is foolish. 

Slurs can only be 'reclaimed' by those against whom they are directed. Not you. 

Several points here.

Firstly, I'm talking about how a society (i.e. all of us) should work in ideal circumstances; not about myself being a brave harbinger of change I'm about to gloriously bring. That would indeed be foolish and arrogant. Last thing I want would be to racially offend other people; I'm saying that I hope we all, one day, get to the point we're so certain and secure in our non-racist ideology that no amount of accidental (no matter how insensitive) images of black boys in wrong hoodies will make us question our values and create the need to loudly reinforce them. Till such a time comes (and again, not with me as a harbinger), I'll keep hoping and debating

Secondly (and this is a big digression when I don't want to lose the main thread of this conversation, so under spoiler tag it goes)

Spoiler

While I understand what its meaning, its implications and why have you used it here; the very phrase "dominant class" always seemed to be missing the point for me. Word dominant would imply some position near the top of societal hierarchy. Meanwhile, for all you know, I could be a jobless homeless broken guy who prostitutes himself to brutal sadistic customers to get money for drugs; in which case being white would make me dominant to...pretty much nobody. I'd say individuals can be more or less dominant, and race (among countless other things, but to a larger degree than most) puts one towards or away from "dominance". The very phrase "member of a dominant class" implies some inherent position of power which one does not necessarily posses.

Other hypothetical possibility would be that I live in a society which places to value on race (racism is not universal through human history) where such a term would be obsolete.

It goes without saying that none of this negates the fact that in many countries average white guy has many perks and privileges compared to average black guy. That's part of what it constitutes racism and is a real problem. In the term of fight against racism, term "dominant class" could be helpful, but in broader scale (the one of sociology) I find that it needlessly oversimplifies complexity of societal standing. and relations.

And lastly, here you touched on something I consider quite interesting, not just on practical but philosophical level as well: can an idea be valued and discussed independently of its originator? Do it merits and flaws change depending on who proposed it? Back to the matter at hand: can a racial slur be more or less offensive depending on who uses it? For I think not: it would remain offensive or not regardless of who utters it. You're a moderator here: if you found a post with racial slur, would you remove them or check member's background and deemed them ok if you concluded that the person in question is a member of historically oppressed group who maybe trying to "reclaim" the word? If reclaiming happens, it should be under equal conditions for everyone involved.

Actually, here's a quick interesting thought experiment: would you feel any differently if you (purely hypothetically) found out that H&M's CEO, board of directors and every designer and photographer who made this hoodie, are all black?
 

5 hours ago, baxus said:

I find this very hard to believe. Not flat out calling it a lie, but I am saying that it's more likely you live in this bubble where you overlook some racist behavior and remarks and don't even register them as racist.

The fact that there are "very few non-white people" in your country doesn't have to mean your country "has pretty much zero problems" with racism. Looking at your profile page, I see you're from Croatia so I pretty much straight out call bullshit on that statement.

Take a better look at the position of Gypsies in your country. Look into the way refugees from Syria and Afghanistan have been treated on your borders in the past couple of years. THEN come here and say that there is no problem with racism in your country.

I feel the need to point out that this is not meant for Croatia alone. The same goes for ALL of the former Eastern Europe (including Serbia, which is where I live). The "we don't have many non-white people so we are not racists" is a load of bull crap.

Yes, you have a point regarding Gypsies and immigrants. I obviously didn't want to spread bullshit, but since this thread is mainly focused on racism against black people (who are very rare in Croatia), I overlooked other forms of racism which certainly do exist. My mistake.
 

4 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Mormont covered the issue you bring up in point 2 (that it most definitely is relevant whether you are part of the group being targeted).  And it's easy to sit back and say "it could be my group next" when one is not part of any group that has historically suffered oppression, as it's just not an equivalent scenario (since you are apparently from a land of no -isms suffered and speaking from "total academic detachment," per your claims, I am assuming that you are not part of a group suffering oppression.  Being part of a minority =/= having a history of oppression.  It's the oppression by a dominant group, not simply minority status, that's operative in terms of racism).

Ok, for one, I certainly didn't claim I come from a enlightened utopia of no -isms, just from a land with no racism (and have retracted in the last paragraph due to baxus's post). Other -isms: sexism, anti-secularism, chauvinism and nationalism are all having a time of their lives in my country.

Secondly, one does not need to be a part of any group to be oppressed. I don't think I have to explain this.

Thirdly, you are correct in assuming that I'm not a part of any group that has been historically oppressed, but again I don't see why it should matter. I'm not a big fan of particularism, for example viewing racism as a issue which needs to be solved by "oppresed" group with the help of enlightened individuals from the "oppressing" one. Anti-racism is a fight for equal-soceity (equal rights, equal opportunity...), and as such, it's everyone job to contribute to it. (hence, when racism does happen, anti-racist organizations should not be the ones to react. everyone should react: syndicates, feminists, stamp collectors, truck drivers, lawyers, hikers... If there's one thing I liek about h&M incident, it's the massiveness of reaction it generated)  And each can offer a different perspective in order to create it. Perspective of a first-hand victim of a racial oppression is not the one I can bring, true.
 

4 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Why is being offended necessarily an "unfortunate" consequence of public discourse?  People were offended, they communicated this to H&M, H&M quickly owned it, everyone (well, excluding you I guess) moved on.  What are you actually upset about?

Here, I didn't talk about H&M case at all, but about public discourse in general. I got the feeling that you at least partially agree with me on this issue; since you spoke how you're not worried at all about conservatives, bigots etc. being offended about your values and words.

[mormont]

9 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Several points here.

Firstly, I'm talking about how a society (i.e. all of us) should work in ideal circumstances; not about myself being a brave harbinger of change I'm about to gloriously bring. That would indeed be foolish and arrogant.

Again, why then have you started this thread, some time after the issue was resolved, and why do you adopt the positions you're adopting? Your behaviour and your positions are inconsistent.

Maybe some day we'll live in this utopia where no word is a slur, but you have nothing to offer on the subject of how to get there. Yet you keep offering that nothing at considerable length. That suggests someone who is mostly interested in this issue as an intellectual exercise.

[Knight Of Winter]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Again, why then have you started this thread, some time after the issue was resolved, and why do you adopt the positions you're adopting? Your behaviour and your positions are inconsistent.

Maybe some day we'll live in this utopia where no word is a slur, but you have nothing to offer on the subject of how to get there. Yet you keep offering that nothing at considerable length. That suggests someone who is mostly interested in this issue as an intellectual exercise.

To discuss what I consider an important societal issue, to hear other what other people have to say about it, to discuss ideas...

What did you expect? For me to write a tractate on the subject of racism, the need to redefine it, complete with step by step guide on how to get there?

[Seli]

21 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

That is absolutely true, but there's not much I (or people in my position) can do about it.
 

...

 

On the one hand that is true, and that is where the discussion ends. On the other hand there is something we can do. We can try to defang words, images by not using them anymore in the discriminating racists context. Remind others why it is harmful. And let time do its thing.

[IheartIheartTesla]

On 3/3/2018 at 5:29 PM, drawkcabi said:

The ad was offensive. H&M is a Swedish company controversial ad was on a UK website. It is perfectly reasonable to see this is as an unintentional act of cultural insensitivity. H&M removed the item and issued an apology. In a rational world that should have been the end of it.

Just a small comment, but I feel Sweden and the UK belong to the Western zeitgeist as much as the US (or any other developed country barring say Japan, this should include Australia and NZ) where the notion of combining monkey and black person in many if not most contexts should raise red flags and ring alarm bells. If anything there is more exposure to that at football games which should have made them extra sensitive.

Heck, I grew up in India till the age of 21, and even I was aware of historical and contemporary ways black people have been depicted in media in connotations that were negative. Sorry, but I cant excuse them on the basis of their nationality.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Oh, no doubt about that. It's incredibly complex and I find it infinitely fascinating.. My point was just that the language is human construct and is ultimately under people's control (though of course way beyond the scope of a single individual).

My point is that it's most likely beyond even people's control.

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Which is great, for if neither the "offended" nor "offenders" realize the word is racist, then it truly ceased being racist.

Sure. But the crucial point that most people here are trying to make is that this is for the offended to decide. They know better than anyone when words are used to hurt them.

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Yes, I remember that thread. In meantime, I thought the difference could maybe be in our backgrounds. To my understanding, you (and presumably some other people in this thread), come from countries where "open" society indicated saying whatever you wanted with impunity, without feeling any kind of "brakes" not to give unnecessary offense. Hence, you favour "less open" society.

The very opposite actually. In my country things like holocaust denial and hate speech are forbidden by law. I used to see such measures as unnecessary and potentially counter-productive ; but I have come to see them as essential and insufficient.

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Here, the situation is reverse. It is mainstream/majority who want to make certain values into dogmas and shut down any kind of discussion about them, calling it "protecting our values" and such. So, naturally, certain fondness for a "more open" society appeared in me and like-minded people.

You seem to imply that values and ideas are relative. I disagree with that.
I think it's easy to figure out a moral imperative to respect the humanity in all humans, and that any act or speech violating such a principle should be forbidden and punished.
I don't think this is up for debate.
And I don't care about it being approved by the majority or not. I think the very purpose of such measures is to ensure the majority doesn't shift away from such a principle. Because it has happened before, and it might happen again.

The paradox in your discourse is that you apparently agree that racism is fundamentally bad, but then go on to say that you would rather it wasn't considered unacceptable in the public sphere... because... freedom?
This makes no sense whatsoever. If you agree that racism is evil then you should agree to fighting it. In fact, if you agree that racism is evil, then it's hard to see how measures designed to fight it could go too far.

Talking of which, I'd like to point out that in my country, talking about "races" for humans is considered inherently racist. I was taught in middle school that races are a social construct with no basis in biology and that any attempt to categorize humans according to arbitrary physical traits is inherently bad. We talk of ethnicities, nationalities or religions, but the only ones who talk about races in the public sphere are people who are openly neo-nazis. The American obsession with race can even be disturbing to some of my fellow citizens.
This should not be understood as meaning that we need to be color-blind or that racism no longer exists. It simply means that racism is originally based on a poor understanding of human biology. Take this extract from a scientific paper for instance:

Quote

Using the two most commonly used biological concepts of race, chimpanzees are indeed subdivided into races but humans are not. Adaptive traits, such as skin color, have frequently been used to define races in humans, but such adaptive traits reflect the underlying environmental factor to which they are adaptive and not overall genetic differentiation, and different adaptive traits define discordant groups. There are no objective criteria for choosing one adaptive trait over another to define race. As a consequence, adaptive traits do not define races in humans. Much of the recent scientific literature on human evolution portrays human populations as separate branches on an evolutionary tree. A tree-like structure among humans has been falsified whenever tested, so this practice is scientifically indefensible. It is also socially irresponsible as these pictorial representations of human evolution have more impact on the general public than nuanced phrases in the text of a scientific paper. Humans have much genetic diversity, but the vast majority of this diversity reflects individual uniqueness and not race.

All this to say is that there are objective truths and objective moral imperatives when it comes to discussing racism. This isn't about "dogma" or "shutting down the discussion." There are people who are wrong.

I have found that it is actually remarkably pertinent to analyse recent history with socio-economic concepts rather than racial terms. Many factors and correlations become much clearer when setting aside racist pre-conceived ideas.

4 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Firstly, I'm talking about how a society (i.e. all of us) should work in ideal circumstances; not about myself being a brave harbinger of change I'm about to gloriously bring. That would indeed be foolish and arrogant. Last thing I want would be to racially offend other people; I'm saying that I hope we all, one day, get to the point we're so certain and secure in our non-racist ideology that no amount of accidental (no matter how insensitive) images of black boys in wrong hoodies will make us question our values and create the need to loudly reinforce them. Till such a time comes (and again, not with me as a harbinger), I'll keep hoping and debating

 

Which is a nice sentiment, but with all due respect, once again, utterly pointless and possibly counter-productive.
We do not live in ideal circumstances, and you started this discussion with a real-life example that is really quite shocking. And I've seen the expression "coolest monkey in the jungle" been used by racists on the internet since then (last time was yesterday for the record).
I also don't understand what you were hoping for with this thread. I mean, I share the sentiment, but would rather express it in private with some friends after a couple of drinks rather than on an internet forum.