On 09/20/2018 05:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Ethan Furman wrote:
And I have to argue against his use of the n-word* as being part of the reason -- he wasn't calling anybody that, he was using the word as an example of a taboo in one culture that is not in others. Using that as part of the reason to ban him helps me understand the sentiment voiced at the sprints of the feeling that the CoC is a weapon waiting to shoot us down.
But using that word, even with quote marks around it, *is* a serious taboo in American culture. And partly this is because "white person who finds convoluted excuse to use the n-word" is such a cliche that the affected folks have given up with arguing about it and just don't want to hear it anywhere, in or out of quotes, with or without an excuse attached. There's no reservoir of good-faith left to fall back on.
Now sure, that taboo is an American thing, and I wouldn't support automatically banning someone who used it in genuine ignorance, was repentant when they realized what they'd done, etc. Context absolutely matters. But in context here it's clear that Jacco knew perfectly well that he was violating a taboo, and I can't read his usage as anything but an intentional provocation. Especially when combined with all the other things in his email.
You make good points. -Ideas is not, after all, a sociology course, and he did already know that.
I withdraw my objection.
-- ~Ethan~