Red Mosquito

Trag's post brings up another issue here. Are people willing to allow for redemption? Steve Albini's posts seem like a good template to me, no?

macphisto wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

macphisto wrote:I’m glad you’re here, B, and I trust you’ll be taking swift and decisive action against these unprovoked, unwarranted, and fucking disgusting personal attacks.

If the material of the post is sufficient, seems an appropriate analogy

I’ve reread this several times, even mouthing the words slowly to myself, and I still have no idea what you’re trying to say.

What post?

What analogy?

Sorry. Was a callback to a post in this thread.

macphisto wrote:It’s just a word, and we shouldn’t give words the power to ruin lives, especially when the group supposedly harmed by such word violence is allowed to—and often does—throw it around casually with total impunity.

Any white person making this argument, especially using the term “supposedly harmed”, is racist. You can’t possibly understand what that word means to someone who is black yet you’re bothered that it might offend black people.

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:It’s just a word, and we shouldn’t give words the power to ruin lives, especially when the group supposedly harmed by such word violence is allowed to—and often does—throw it around casually with total impunity.

Any white person making this argument, especially using the term “supposedly harmed”, is racist. You can’t possibly understand what that word means to someone who is black yet you’re bothered that it might offend black people.

You assuming I’m white is racist.

What a twist that would be

Macphisto is actually a Japanese weightlifter.

Anyways, that was fun.

Which part should we move on to next? The clip of him laughing hysterically as a man describes forcing women to perform oral sex in order to get stage time at his comedy club?

We don’t have to hang out on the racial slur part all day. Let’s mix it up a bit.

In reply to Trag:
I'm foggy on the details with Albini, but I don't think he should apologize based on what I can remember. Well - of course - I don't believe anyone should ever apologize to the angry mob for any reason whatsoever, because fuck them, they don't have anyone's best interests at heart and just want submission, but even still...I don't really operate under your framework. And to the extent I "ally" with anyone, it's on an individual level. I have little interest in selflessly adding my body to the cause of some racial identity group or another.

Three perhaps controversial points:

1. Feeling of Offense doesn't grant you any special powers or rights.

2. Offensiveness/inoffensiveness isn't good or bad, and is a poor basis for creating social norms.

Generally speaking, you shouldn't go around offending people, but offensiveness (as determined by who exactly?) in itself isn't a justifiable basis for determining whether we should or shouldn't do something (in this case: a blanket social ban on a word, and harsh judgments and consequences for people who say it, regardless of their intent or context.) But a growing number of people treat the feeling of offense as a first principle that dictates every action or policy, which is not just illogical but harmful to individuals and society. If you want to argue that the feeling of offense points to something that causes real material harm, fine, but "offensiveness" in itself isn't enough of a reason to act the way we do. I don't care that you're offended. Show me material damages, not hurt feelings.

3. Feeling of Offense has to be justified to me if you expect me to act on it.

The feeling of offense can and usually does indicate a genuine wrong, then again sometimes it doesn't. I don't buy the idea that the person claiming offence is the final authority on what is offensive, and that this judgment is final. You have to justify that belief to me before I act on it.

For example, say you were at a dinner party with some insufferable white liberals (and you are not), and like insufferable white liberals tend to do, they compliment you on how articulate you are, or they change the way they speak when talking to you, or else treat you like a magical innocent faerie in need of their special protection from the other, evil whites. Your offense would be justified here because their insufferable white liberal behavior points to an underlying racism and superiority, which causes real harm to you, regardless of their intent.

Contrast that with being offended over someone saying the n-word in a descriptive or analytical way, or even in - dare I say it - a friendly bonding way, with no intent to harm anyone. Offense isn't justified rationally here. There is no underlying racism here, there is no material harm to you. Oh but there is a historical reason you feel this way? Okay. That explains why the feeling of offense is there, but it doesn't justify it as an absolute Truth that dictates everyone's behavior for all time.

It may simply be an irrational, emotion based response that has nothing to do with the situation at hand, but at worst, it's ploy in a power game. "Yes! You said the naughty word! Minus 50 points for you and plus 50 for me! I'm morally superior!" The latter is increasingly the case.

BurtReynolds wrote:It may simply be an irrational, emotion based response that has nothing to do with the situation at hand

Oh it may be that, for sure.

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:It’s just a word, and we shouldn’t give words the power to ruin lives, especially when the group supposedly harmed by such word violence is allowed to—and often does—throw it around casually with total impunity.

Any white person making this argument, especially using the term “supposedly harmed”, is racist. You can’t possibly understand what that word means to someone who is black yet you’re bothered that it might offend black people.

You assuming I’m white is racist.

Don't we have video of you and I subsequently wrote 7 o'Clock parody lyrics about it?

(Not relevant to this Rogan conversation, just saying I think we know for sure that you are)

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:It’s just a word, and we shouldn’t give words the power to ruin lives, especially when the group supposedly harmed by such word violence is allowed to—and often does—throw it around casually with total impunity.

Any white person making this argument, especially using the term “supposedly harmed”, is racist. You can’t possibly understand what that word means to someone who is black yet you’re bothered that it might offend black people.

You assuming I’m white is racist.

Don't we have video of you and I subsequently wrote 7 o'Clock parody lyrics about it?

(Not relevant to this Rogan conversation, just saying I think we know for sure that you are)

I think you have me confused with someone else (which is a microaggression).

Anybody else think it's weird that more musicians haven't left Spotify? I can't imagine they're worried about the lost revenue.

Where's Edward Vedder?

Everyone's kinda playing it close to the vest.

Did Young piss everyone off?

macphisto wrote:

Bammer wrote:

macphisto wrote:

wease wrote:

macphisto wrote:It’s just a word, and we shouldn’t give words the power to ruin lives, especially when the group supposedly harmed by such word violence is allowed to—and often does—throw it around casually with total impunity.

Any white person making this argument, especially using the term “supposedly harmed”, is racist. You can’t possibly understand what that word means to someone who is black yet you’re bothered that it might offend black people.

You assuming I’m white is racist.

Don't we have video of you and I subsequently wrote 7 o'Clock parody lyrics about it?

(Not relevant to this Rogan conversation, just saying I think we know for sure that you are)

I think you have me confused with someone else (which is a microaggression).

I 100% thought that was you opening the Subway shop

BurtReynolds wrote:Anybody else think it's weird that more musicians haven't left Spotify? I can't imagine they're worried about the lost revenue.

Where's Edward Vedder?

Everyone's kinda playing it close to the vest.

Did Young piss everyone off?

They all need money. Might as well take whatever's there. There's ethical dilemmas in everything, big time musicians want to play the game, keep the lifestle they've had for many years etc.

Neil supposedly said he's much better off being on Amazon Music. Is Amazon a moral standard as a company?

rick malone wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Anybody else think it's weird that more musicians haven't left Spotify? I can't imagine they're worried about the lost revenue.

Where's Edward Vedder?

Everyone's kinda playing it close to the vest.

Did Young piss everyone off?

They all need money. Might as well take whatever's there. There's ethical dilemmas in everything, big time musicians want to play the game, keep the lifestle they've had for many years etc.

Neil supposedly said he's much better off being on Amazon Music. Is Amazon a moral standard as a company?

Neil wants to be on the next spaceship.

Nothing you see on the internet is real (except things i post)

BurtReynolds wrote:Anybody else think it's weird that more musicians haven't left Spotify? I can't imagine they're worried about the lost revenue.

Where's Edward Vedder?

Everyone's kinda playing it close to the vest.

Did Young piss everyone off?

I think Young found himself a pointless strategy. Spotify is just a platform. That Jon Stewart clip I posted had a good point. FoxNews is on cable. Is everyone that disagrees with FoxNews supposed to never be on cable?

Why is Neil offering music on the internet? There are racists using the internet.

I get that he is mad about Rogan, but this move does little.