Do you mean people who look Asian and you think are foreign because you think they must be white to be as Canadian/English/American/etc as you? That's racist as hell.
Oh and trying to frame basic human dignity as a matter of political opinion about which reasonable people can disagree is bullshit.
Basic human dignity as defined by you. Reasonable people as defined by you.
These things are not objective truths. Different times and different cultures have had different views, and would consider you just as indecent as you consider them. Future times and cultures will be different again. Claiming that the current zeitgeist is the one that just happens to have got things absolutely Right is just hubris.
No, I'm pretty certain that @Arethosemyfeet is using a definition outside of themselves. And sure, if they want to go on and suggest that that definition is broadly universal and has reasonably existed in the past and will continue to do so in the future, that would indicate that the current zeitgeist isn't the yardstick they're using.
But otherwise well done at defending being a shit to other people.
Oh and trying to frame basic human dignity as a matter of political opinion about which reasonable people can disagree is bullshit.
Basic human dignity as defined by you. Reasonable people as defined by you.
These things are not objective truths. Different times and different cultures have had different views, and would consider you just as indecent as you consider them. Future times and cultures will be different again. Claiming that the current zeitgeist is the one that just happens to have got things absolutely Right is just hubris.
I'm sure there are things the present is blind to, but where it errs I don't see any reason to believe it is in the direction of treating people too well. Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote, or to a fair trial (as examples) are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
The argument against forgiveness is the view that people do bad things because they are fundamentally bad people.
Most of the time this is false. Usually people do bad things in order to fulfil ordinary short-term wants because in the heat of the moment they don't see or attend to the reasons why they shouldn't. And they can and often do learn better and grow out of it, if allowed to.
I'm not sure of the reasoning by which Condé Nast is either in a position to forgive Ms. McCammond's past attitudes or morally obligated to continue its association with her and trust her to manage the types of people she has previously maligned. Condé Nast is not the party sinned against (if you want to pitch it in those term) and it seems perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not employing racists or homophobes in management positions.
Anyway, being opposed to racism and homophobia isn't a belief system. It's common decency.
it's an attempt to portray his political views about race and sexual orientation as being above debate, as something that only someone with a twisted mind could ever doubt or disagree with.
Oh and trying to frame basic human dignity as a matter of political opinion about which reasonable people can disagree is bullshit.
I agree that the notion that asians are people entitled to the full measure of basic human dignity is so obviously true that there is no scope for reasonable people to disagree.
@Russ, can you make up your mind about whether treating people with decency/dignity is optional or required?
Oh and trying to frame basic human dignity as a matter of political opinion about which reasonable people can disagree is bullshit.
Basic human dignity as defined by you. Reasonable people as defined by you.
These things are not objective truths. Different times and different cultures have had different views, and would consider you just as indecent as you consider them. Future times and cultures will be different again. Claiming that the current zeitgeist is the one that just happens to have got things absolutely Right is just hubris.
This is not a productive line of argument for you.
Unless you can prove the objective existence of the goddess Nemesis, Arethosemyfeet can just respond that it's just hubris as defined by you. He doesn't need to be absolutely right unless there is an absolutely right; he just needs to be right as defined by him or right as defined by the current zeitgeist.
Either there is an objective right and wrong and we can have a reasonable idea of how to get better or worse approximations, or there isn't an objective right and wrong and it doesn't matter.
... it seems perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not employing racists or homophobes in management positions.
The point under test was whether posts made by a teenager reasonably reflect the views and understandings of an adult many years later. I can see why Conde Nast would choose to avoid the issue entirely, but that has nothing to do with avoiding hiring a racist or a homophobe.
I'm not sure of the reasoning by which Condé Nast is either in a position to forgive Ms. McCammond's past attitudes or morally obligated to continue its association with her and trust her to manage the types of people she has previously maligned. Condé Nast is not the party sinned against (if you want to pitch it in those term)...
That seems a valid point - it's not for them to forgive her past utterances. It's for those to whom those utterances were addressed to forgive them (if there is anything to forgive).
And it's for CN to accept her statement that she no longer holds those views, unless there's evidence to the contrary.
...and it seems perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not employing racists or homophobes in management positions.
If by "racist" you mean someone who in the present tense treats their subordinates unfairly because of their race, then I agree.
If by "racist" you mean someone who once upon a time made a remark that you think was racially insensitive but has since learned better, then no.
I've set out my reasons; such a remark is not proof of a lifelong attitude, but rather the sort of social error that anyone could make when 17 years old.
@Russ, can you make up your mind about whether treating people with decency/dignity is optional or required?
Treating people as people - basic human dignity - is required. But giving any particular status (beyond human status) to any particular group is optional.
And it's for CN to accept her statement that she no longer holds those views, unless there's evidence to the contrary.
Why? Why is Condé Nast obligated to take her obviously self-interested statements at face value? Or rather, why are they obligated to take her current self-interested statements at face value and ignore her earlier statements? You've obviously decided that any declaration by Ms. McCammond is prima facie credible. Any particular reason for this, other than a general hostility to holding anyone accountable for their attitudes on race or sexual orientation?
...and it seems perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not employing racists or homophobes in management positions.
If by "racist" you mean someone who in the present tense treats their subordinates unfairly because of their race, then I agree.
Hold on a second. Why? Aren't you opposed to setting any kind of racial orthodoxy? If so, why isn't it legitimate to discriminate against the 'lesser races' (however defined) or 'deviant sexual orientations' (ibid.)?
If by "racist" you mean someone who once upon a time made a remark that you think was racially insensitive but has since learned better, then no.
I've set out my reasons; such a remark is not proof of a lifelong attitude, but rather the sort of social error that anyone could make when 17 years old.
That's not really a reason. It should be noted that at the time Ms. McCammond made her now infamous tweets she was a student at the University of Chicago, at least according to her Wikipedia bio. I'm pretty sure that at her age her employers were interested in her academic achievements as a measuring stick for her suitability for a given job. If they can consider some things that were in her head at the time (like how well she did in Spanish) why not other things (like racist or homophobic attitudes)? Conversely, if her youth is a reason to ignore what she thinks (or thought), why isn't it a reason to ignore what she learned?
@Russ, can you make up your mind about whether treating people with decency/dignity is optional or required?
Treating people as people - basic human dignity - is required. But giving any particular status (beyond human status) to any particular group is optional.
I've set out my reasons; such a remark is not proof of a lifelong attitude, but rather the sort of social error that anyone could make when 17 years old.
Using racist or homophobic language is a bit more than a "social error". A "social error" is double-dipping in the communal dip, or not buying your round at the bar. Discriminatory language is a sign that, at least at some level, you hold discriminatory attitudes.
But they are the kinds of attitudes that it's easy to hold fairly lightly (if you have taken on societal attitudes but not really thought about them) and there are plenty of people who have held such attitudes as teens who strongly oppose them as adults.
So I agree that the fact that you were a bit racist as a teenager doesn't mean that you're still racist. If all the evidence I had about someone's racial attitudes was a handful of things they did in high school, I don't think I'd have much evidence of anything at all. But as @Crœsos points out, I'm a random white guy on the internet - it's not me who has been sinned against here.
OK so we are saying it is not enough for Ms. McCammond to state that she no longer holds these views. Is there anything she could have done over the last ten years, or anything she could do over the next ten years, to demonstrate that her views have indeed changed? And if so, would it then be OK for her to hold a job like this? Or not?
OK so we are saying it is not enough for Ms. McCammond to state that she no longer holds these views. Is there anything she could have done over the last ten years, or anything she could do over the next ten years, to demonstrate that her views have indeed changed? And if so, would it then be OK for her to hold a job like this? Or not?
The news led more than 20 members of the magazine‘s staff to write a letter of protest highlighting McCammond’s “past racist and homophobic tweets” which she deleted in 2019.
“As more than 20 members of the staff of Teen Vogue, we’ve built our outlet’s reputation as a voice for justice and change – we take immense pride in our work and in creating an inclusive environment,” their statement read.
“That’s why we have written a letter to management at Condé Nast about the recent hire of Alexi McCammond as our new editor-in-chief in light of her past racist and homophobic tweets.
“We’ve heard the concerns of our readers, and we stand with you. In a moment of historically high anti-Asian violence and amid the on-going struggles of the LGBTQ community, we as the staff of Teen Vogue fully reject those sentiments.”
The letter ended with staffers hoping “an internal conversation will prove fruitful in maintaining the integrity granted to us by our audience”.
Given McCammond's dismissal, my guess is that the internal discussion wasn't as fruitful as it might have been.
Well I don't think she would have had much of a chance to convince her co-workers or participate in an internal discussion, given that she was dismissed before having started work.
And it's for CN to accept her statement that she no longer holds those views, unless there's evidence to the contrary.
Why? Why is Condé Nast obligated to take her obviously self-interested statements at face value?
You appear to be placing a partial quote from me at the head of your post to suggest that I am advocating the position you wish to argue against. Here is my entire post, including what you chose to delete:
The point under test was whether posts made by a teenager reasonably reflect the views and understandings of an adult many years later. I can see why Conde Nast would choose to avoid the issue entirely, but that has nothing to do with avoiding hiring a racist or a homophobe.
It is very hard to interpret your use of my truncated quote as anything but disingenuous.
Oh and trying to frame basic human dignity as a matter of political opinion about which reasonable people can disagree is bullshit.
Basic human dignity as defined by you. Reasonable people as defined by you.
These things are not objective truths. Different times and different cultures have had different views, and would consider you just as indecent as you consider them. Future times and cultures will be different again. Claiming that the current zeitgeist is the one that just happens to have got things absolutely Right is just hubris.
I'm sure there are things the present is blind to, but where it errs I don't see any reason to believe it is in the direction of treating people too well. Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote, or to a fair trial (as examples) are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
That's not hubris. That's something else entirely.
Using racist or homophobic language is a bit more than a "social error". A "social error" is double-dipping in the communal dip, or not buying your round at the bar. Discriminatory language is a sign that, at least at some level, you hold discriminatory attitudes.
Using language that suggests to your listeners/readers that you hold attitudes of animosity or superiority to people of other races when you do not in fact hold such attitudes seems like a social error to me.
Arethosemyfeet: Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote.......... are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
Even when those electors are so stupid, so gullible, and so xenophobically racist as to vote for parties led by the likes of Trump, not to mention that scumbag Johnson!? I would have thought the working class should only be enfranchised when it has become 'a class for itself'. What's happened to your revolutionary ardour!
It may be the case that the franchise of Athens today is better than in classical times, but I wonder whether lowering the voting age to 16 is an improvement on 18 or even 21, of not so long ago; and whether current methods of compiling the electoral register in the UK are better than the house-to-house visitation by representatives of the local authority of yester-year are an improvement. One also notes that the present UK administration is considering voter suppression.
The house-to-house method is unknown here. It was probably stopped in the UK because it exposed those surveying to the desperate conditions forced upon so many people by the policies of the government.
When was (UK) house to house visitation by representatives of the local authority, Kwesi? I’ve been registered as a voter since the early 1970s and do not remember it.
Arethosemyfeet: Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote.......... are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
Even when those electors are so stupid, so gullible, and so xenophobically racist as to vote for parties led by the likes of Trump, not to mention that scumbag Johnson!? I would have thought the working class should only be enfranchised when it has become 'a class for itself'. What's happened to your revolutionary ardour!
Johnson is in power because of retirees rather than workers. In any case the evidence of history is that a restricted franchise results in a self-interested kleptocracy. At least with universal suffrage there is the possibility of change without violence. The right has taken great pains over the last 40 years to destroy the institutions of working class power and political education while leaving those of the upper classes intact.
Arethosemyfeet: Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote.......... are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
Even when those electors are so stupid, so gullible, and so xenophobically racist as to vote for parties led by the likes of Trump, not to mention that scumbag Johnson!? I would have thought the working class should only be enfranchised when it has become 'a class for itself'. What's happened to your revolutionary ardour!
Johnson is in power because of retirees rather than workers. In any case the evidence of history is that a restricted franchise results in a self-interested kleptocracy. At least with universal suffrage there is the possibility of change without violence. The right has taken great pains over the last 40 years to destroy the institutions of working class power and political education while leaving those of the upper classes intact.
I've been thinking about the demise of Friendly Societies here, which happened in the 1970's and '80's. I am wondering whether they were really something quite good for ordinary people, emphasis on wondering. I'm guessing they had them in Britain, because we had them...
Arethosemyfeet: Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote.......... are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
Even when those electors are so stupid, so gullible, and so xenophobically racist as to vote for parties led by the likes of Trump, not to mention that scumbag Johnson!? I would have thought the working class should only be enfranchised when it has become 'a class for itself'. What's happened to your revolutionary ardour!
Johnson is in power because of retirees rather than workers. In any case the evidence of history is that a restricted franchise results in a self-interested kleptocracy. At least with universal suffrage there is the possibility of change without violence. The right has taken great pains over the last 40 years to destroy the institutions of working class power and political education while leaving those of the upper classes intact.
I've been thinking about the demise of Friendly Societies here, which happened in the 1970's and '80's. I am wondering whether they were really something quite good for ordinary people, emphasis on wondering. I'm guessing they had them in Britain, because we had them...
If we had them as recently as that it was under a different name.
So "lesser humans" would be fine? A particular status of "of equal worth to my group" is optional?
Do children have less status than adults ? Do members of the tribe have more status in the tribe than non-members ? Tribal elders more status than other members ?
Seems to me these are political questions.
You may choose to draw a line between "status" and worth.
Think that differences in rights, responsibilities, status are fine -what's objectionable is a belief in existential greater/lesser worth, or inferiority/ superiority. Christianity has traditionally no problem in combining a belief in the equal worth to God of every soul with acceptance of differences in status on earth.
Do not tell me what I think and impugn my motivations @Russ or you and I are going to have a falling out in the Hot Place.
I'm sorry if I've mis-represented your point of view, Karl. It was not intentional.
But I struggle to see how you can object to others extrapolating from your words to the thoughts and attitudes behind them. At the same time as thinking it proper that someone else's career should be ruined on the basis of extrapolation from their words to the thoughts and attitudes behind them...
Using language that suggests to your listeners/readers that you hold attitudes of animosity or superiority to people of other races when you do not in fact hold such attitudes seems like a social error to me.
We've had this kind of discussion before (with respect to some guy who used racist language while playing poker with his buddies, as I remember). My point was then, and remains, that people who don't at some level hold those attitudes don't use that language, even if they've been drinking or whatever.
I think the only way you could describe some use as a "social error" is if you were for example a foreigner, with poor grasp of the language of whatever country you were in, and adopted a racist term without understanding that it was racist.
The right has taken great pains over the last 40 years to destroy the institutions of working class power and political education while leaving those of the upper classes intact.
I am sure you're right about 'taking great pains' - but I'm not sure 'the right' is due all of that dubious credit, nor that the upper classes are unscathed. Masonry (never been one, once new some), like Methodism (still am one), is dying a death of 1000 cuts in England. And I guess I believe that in selling an individualist dream to Joe and Josephine public, Maggie and Co were pushing on a reasonably-well-lubricated door.
(Real power, of course, still lies with money and not with the Rotary Club. On the subject of clubs and money, you might like to break out the tiny violins.)
The right has taken great pains over the last 40 years to destroy the institutions of working class power and political education while leaving those of the upper classes intact.
I am sure you're right about 'taking great pains' - but I'm not sure 'the right' is due all of that dubious credit, nor that the upper classes are unscathed. Masonry (never been one, once new some), like Methodism (still am one), is dying a death of 1000 cuts in England. And I guess I believe that in selling an individualist dream to Joe and Josephine public, Maggie and Co were pushing on a reasonably-well-lubricated door.
(Real power, of course, still lies with money and not with the Rotary Club. On the subject of clubs and money, you might like to break out the tiny violins.)
The eye-watering numbers in that report tell me the Revolution cannot come quickly enough. We could solve half the deprivation problems of the world and still leave these fuckers with more than most people ever dream of.
We could solve half the deprivation problems of the world and still leave these fuckers with more than most people ever dream of.
There's all sorts of things that that article makes me think, but the biggest one isn't even about the exorbitant sums of money mentioned. It's that there was a group of a few thousand golfers who apparently thought of the golf club as "their" club, but had no ownership or control of it whatsoever. There was one chap who was apparently "elected captain" of the golf club, but that doesn't seem to mean anything at all. They were all customers. It would be like me describing my local supermarket, or perhaps my local pub, as "mine". Yes, I'd be upset if a nice little pub I used to frequent got bought out and decided to reinvent itself as an establishment playing loud music and selling alcopops and fizzy horse piss to teenagers, but it wasn't actually my pub.
If the few thousand wealthy golfers wanted it to be their golf club, perhaps they should have bought it?
We've had this kind of discussion before (with respect to some guy who used racist language while playing poker with his buddies, as I remember). My point was then, and remains, that people who don't at some level hold those attitudes don't use that language, even if they've been drinking or whatever.
I think the only way you could describe some use as a "social error" is if you were for example a foreigner, with poor grasp of the language of whatever country you were in, and adopted a racist term without understanding that it was racist.
I'd agree that there are terms that are only used in a derogatory sense, that someone of goodwill who is fully at home in the language wouldn't use by accident because they wouldn't think in those terms.
But those who fall outside that "fully at home" include not only foreigners learning the language. But also teenagers trying out new words that they've picked up from their peer group. And also some elderly people for whom those words were normal when they learned them but have come to be more derogatory over time.
And for those groups the inference of attitude from vocabulary is false.
We've had this kind of discussion before (with respect to some guy who used racist language while playing poker with his buddies, as I remember). My point was then, and remains, that people who don't at some level hold those attitudes don't use that language, even if they've been drinking or whatever.
I think the only way you could describe some use as a "social error" is if you were for example a foreigner, with poor grasp of the language of whatever country you were in, and adopted a racist term without understanding that it was racist.
I'd agree that there are terms that are only used in a derogatory sense, that someone of goodwill who is fully at home in the language wouldn't use by accident because they wouldn't think in those terms.
But those who fall outside that "fully at home" include not only foreigners learning the language. But also teenagers trying out new words that they've picked up from their peer group. And also some elderly people for whom those words were normal when they learned them but have come to be more derogatory over time.
And for those groups the inference of attitude from vocabulary is false.
Rather implying that such people are stupid and are unable to self-correct when informed of their faux pas. Which is a notion I'd reject - my 80-something mum is more than willing to change her language, as is my 50-something self, as are my 20-something children. Because none of us actually want to give offence, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of transgressive or ossified usage.
But those who fall outside that "fully at home" include not only foreigners learning the language. But also teenagers trying out new words that they've picked up from their peer group. And also some elderly people for whom those words were normal when they learned them but have come to be more derogatory over time.
And for those groups the inference of attitude from vocabulary is false.
I think I'm going to disagree with this. Your suggestion requires your teenager to "innocently" pick up the use of a racist epithet from their peer group, without picking up any of the racist attitudes that come along with it, and I find that very unlikely indeed.
@Doc Tor's comment about older people seems bang on the mark to me.
And also some elderly people for whom those words were normal when they learned them but have come to be more derogatory over time.
Can you give an example of a word that has come to be more derogatory than it was 50 years ago? Because where I live what's changed is that is has become less acceptable to use derogatory terms -- the terms themselves have always been derogatory.
I think I'm going to disagree with this. Your suggestion requires your teenager to "innocently" pick up the use of a racist epithet from their peer group, without picking up any of the racist attitudes that come along with it, and I find that very unlikely indeed.
You've led a very sheltered life. One of the vivid memories of my childhood was when my mother was socializing with some African American friends of the family. In response to some comment, she opined that there was a n***** in the wood pile. Almost as soon as she said it, she "heard" the expression for the first time in her life. The thing that made the impression on me was that she completely fell apart. Our friends worked hard to console her, but she was inconsolable. The casual racism that permeated her childhood worked its way into normal speech without requiring conscious parsing of the speaker -- which seems to me to be generally true of language. How many native speakers of English write, say, "to the manner born?" To a greater extent than we often realize, words in phrases function as syncategorematic expressions.
I think I'm going to disagree with this. Your suggestion requires your teenager to "innocently" pick up the use of a racist epithet from their peer group, without picking up any of the racist attitudes that come along with it, and I find that very unlikely indeed.
You've led a very sheltered life. One of the vivid memories of my childhood was when my mother was socializing with some African American friends of the family. In response to some comment, she opined that there was a n***** in the wood pile. Almost as soon as she said it, she "heard" the expression for the first time in her life. The thing that made the impression on me was that she completely fell apart. Our friends worked hard to console her, but she was inconsolable. The casual racism that permeated her childhood worked its way into normal speech without requiring conscious parsing of the speaker -- which seems to me to be generally true of language. How many native speakers of English write, say, "to the manner born?" To a greater extent than we often realize, words in phrases function as syncategorematic expressions.
I think you've simply taken LC's comment and echoed it back to them. I grew up referring to Chinese takeaways and corner shops run by Indian subcontinent immigrants by derogatory (but common) terms. I can argue that I didn't mean anything by it, and was always perfectly polite and decent towards such people, but not that I hadn't picked up any racists attitudes that shipped with those words.
Ruth, I’m not Russ, but I assumed he means something along the following lines:
When I was growing up, I was taught that I should never say that someone was black, as that was very rude and unpleasant, and that the polite thing to say was ‘coloured’. By the time I was in my late twenties or so, I knew that I should use the word black but never use the word coloured. People of my parents generation and older had not caught up with this; the right thing to say had changed around them. They had no intention to be rude.
I am aware that I am quite possibly in that situation now and have painted a big target on my back.
Actually, songs are excellent examples of communication that often flies under our consciousness. But the assumption that we are really aware of or influenced by the subliminal messages is highly suspect. None of this is intended to suggest that we don't live in a racist society. But the idea that it's the subliminal messaging that spreads the poison assumes too much. Or so ISTM.
I think if you grew up in an environment where white people make free use of the n-word, and you use it yourself as an adult, it’s highly unlikely you haven’t internalized some pretty racist attitudes.
I think if you grew up in an environment where white people make free use of the n-word, and you use it yourself as an adult, it’s highly unlikely you haven’t internalized some pretty racist attitudes.
I think you failed to grasp the point about syncategorematic expressions. My mother would never have used the n-word in normal speaking. The expression "n-word in the wood pile" was a different matter. As far as I can tell, she never heard it as a separate, meaningful word before that day. That was the entire point I was trying (and apparently failing) to communicate originally. Language is a funny thing. It's like a friend, when he first moved to Boston, thought that the natives had a charming expression for things that were expensive: they cost "a nominal egg." Of course, they were just saying "an arm and a leg" with a Boston accent, but my friend had grokked the meaning of the expression without properly recognizing any of the individual words in it.
No, I understood what you meant the first time. But that’s really irrelevant to the kinds of situations we’re talking about, I think. People aren’t being dragged for honestly not realizing some idiom contains a racist slur.
And also some elderly people for whom those words were normal when they learned them but have come to be more derogatory over time.
Can you give an example of a word that has come to be more derogatory than it was 50 years ago? Because where I live what's changed is that is has become less acceptable to use derogatory terms -- the terms themselves have always been derogatory.
Colored? It was, at least I understand it—though I well may understand incorrectly—at one time the term preferred by African Americans, as indicated by the use the word by the founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), but in most contexts now it would be heard as derogatory.
Good point, @MMM and @Nick Tamen. That one's changed in the last 100 years in the US. But over 50 years ago my mother heard me say "colored," which I'd picked up at school in the first grade, and she firmly told me, "We say 'black people.'" There aren't a whole lot of people left who can claim the word changed in their lifetimes; my mother is in her 80s. And is there another example? All the other derogatory words I can think of for racial and ethnic groups have not changed.
Good point, @MMM and @Nick Tamen. That one's changed in the last 100 years in the US. But over 50 years ago my mother heard me say "colored," which I'd picked up at school in the first grade, and she firmly told me, "We say 'black people.'" There aren't a whole lot of people left who can claim the word changed in their lifetimes; my mother is in her 80s. And is there another example? All the other derogatory words I can think of for racial and ethnic groups have not changed.
There is a question mark over "gypsy" which seems to be offensive in the US but a self-label for some folk in the UK. I believe a similar complication exists with "eskimo" where it is still in use in Alaska but considered pejorative in Canada, a relatively recent (~last 40 years or so) development.
Not ethnic but the use of "homosexual" is fast becoming a sign of homophobia whereas "queer" is moving from being an insult to a self-descriptor.
Comments
Basic human dignity as defined by you. Reasonable people as defined by you.
These things are not objective truths. Different times and different cultures have had different views, and would consider you just as indecent as you consider them. Future times and cultures will be different again. Claiming that the current zeitgeist is the one that just happens to have got things absolutely Right is just hubris.
But otherwise well done at defending being a shit to other people.
I'm sure there are things the present is blind to, but where it errs I don't see any reason to believe it is in the direction of treating people too well. Call it hubris if you like but I'm content that the modern version of who should have the right to vote, or to a fair trial (as examples) are superior to those that pertained in ancient Athens or Norman England.
I'm not sure of the reasoning by which Condé Nast is either in a position to forgive Ms. McCammond's past attitudes or morally obligated to continue its association with her and trust her to manage the types of people she has previously maligned. Condé Nast is not the party sinned against (if you want to pitch it in those term) and it seems perfectly reasonable to have a policy of not employing racists or homophobes in management positions.
@Russ, can you make up your mind about whether treating people with decency/dignity is optional or required?
Unless you can prove the objective existence of the goddess Nemesis, Arethosemyfeet can just respond that it's just hubris as defined by you. He doesn't need to be absolutely right unless there is an absolutely right; he just needs to be right as defined by him or right as defined by the current zeitgeist.
Either there is an objective right and wrong and we can have a reasonable idea of how to get better or worse approximations, or there isn't an objective right and wrong and it doesn't matter.
The point under test was whether posts made by a teenager reasonably reflect the views and understandings of an adult many years later. I can see why Conde Nast would choose to avoid the issue entirely, but that has nothing to do with avoiding hiring a racist or a homophobe.
That seems a valid point - it's not for them to forgive her past utterances. It's for those to whom those utterances were addressed to forgive them (if there is anything to forgive).
And it's for CN to accept her statement that she no longer holds those views, unless there's evidence to the contrary.
If by "racist" you mean someone who in the present tense treats their subordinates unfairly because of their race, then I agree.
If by "racist" you mean someone who once upon a time made a remark that you think was racially insensitive but has since learned better, then no.
I've set out my reasons; such a remark is not proof of a lifelong attitude, but rather the sort of social error that anyone could make when 17 years old.
Treating people as people - basic human dignity - is required. But giving any particular status (beyond human status) to any particular group is optional.
Why? Why is Condé Nast obligated to take her obviously self-interested statements at face value? Or rather, why are they obligated to take her current self-interested statements at face value and ignore her earlier statements? You've obviously decided that any declaration by Ms. McCammond is prima facie credible. Any particular reason for this, other than a general hostility to holding anyone accountable for their attitudes on race or sexual orientation?
Hold on a second. Why? Aren't you opposed to setting any kind of racial orthodoxy? If so, why isn't it legitimate to discriminate against the 'lesser races' (however defined) or 'deviant sexual orientations' (ibid.)?
That's not really a reason. It should be noted that at the time Ms. McCammond made her now infamous tweets she was a student at the University of Chicago, at least according to her Wikipedia bio. I'm pretty sure that at her age her employers were interested in her academic achievements as a measuring stick for her suitability for a given job. If they can consider some things that were in her head at the time (like how well she did in Spanish) why not other things (like racist or homophobic attitudes)? Conversely, if her youth is a reason to ignore what she thinks (or thought), why isn't it a reason to ignore what she learned?
Again, can you make up your mind? I mean here you are claiming that your "political views about race and sexual orientation as being above debate, as something that only someone with a twisted mind could ever doubt or disagree with", something you earlier found abhorrent. Or is it that your political views about race and sexual orientation (such as basic human dignity) are above debate, whereas everyone else's contentions on these subjects is an ego-boosting persecution of heretics?
Using racist or homophobic language is a bit more than a "social error". A "social error" is double-dipping in the communal dip, or not buying your round at the bar. Discriminatory language is a sign that, at least at some level, you hold discriminatory attitudes.
But they are the kinds of attitudes that it's easy to hold fairly lightly (if you have taken on societal attitudes but not really thought about them) and there are plenty of people who have held such attitudes as teens who strongly oppose them as adults.
So I agree that the fact that you were a bit racist as a teenager doesn't mean that you're still racist. If all the evidence I had about someone's racial attitudes was a handful of things they did in high school, I don't think I'd have much evidence of anything at all. But as @Crœsos points out, I'm a random white guy on the internet - it's not me who has been sinned against here.
A good start would be convincing your co-workers that you no longer held such views, and doing so before being placed in a position of authority over them.
Given McCammond's dismissal, my guess is that the internal discussion wasn't as fruitful as it might have been.
That's not hubris. That's something else entirely.
Using language that suggests to your listeners/readers that you hold attitudes of animosity or superiority to people of other races when you do not in fact hold such attitudes seems like a social error to me.
If I thought the colour of your skin had any bearing on the validity of your insights and arguments I'd be racist.
Even when those electors are so stupid, so gullible, and so xenophobically racist as to vote for parties led by the likes of Trump, not to mention that scumbag Johnson!? I would have thought the working class should only be enfranchised when it has become 'a class for itself'. What's happened to your revolutionary ardour!
It may be the case that the franchise of Athens today is better than in classical times, but I wonder whether lowering the voting age to 16 is an improvement on 18 or even 21, of not so long ago; and whether current methods of compiling the electoral register in the UK are better than the house-to-house visitation by representatives of the local authority of yester-year are an improvement. One also notes that the present UK administration is considering voter suppression.
MMM
Johnson is in power because of retirees rather than workers. In any case the evidence of history is that a restricted franchise results in a self-interested kleptocracy. At least with universal suffrage there is the possibility of change without violence. The right has taken great pains over the last 40 years to destroy the institutions of working class power and political education while leaving those of the upper classes intact.
I've been thinking about the demise of Friendly Societies here, which happened in the 1970's and '80's. I am wondering whether they were really something quite good for ordinary people, emphasis on wondering. I'm guessing they had them in Britain, because we had them...
If we had them as recently as that it was under a different name.
I stand corrected.
Do children have less status than adults ? Do members of the tribe have more status in the tribe than non-members ? Tribal elders more status than other members ?
Seems to me these are political questions.
You may choose to draw a line between "status" and worth.
Think that differences in rights, responsibilities, status are fine -what's objectionable is a belief in existential greater/lesser worth, or inferiority/ superiority. Christianity has traditionally no problem in combining a belief in the equal worth to God of every soul with acceptance of differences in status on earth.
I'm sorry if I've mis-represented your point of view, Karl. It was not intentional.
But I struggle to see how you can object to others extrapolating from your words to the thoughts and attitudes behind them. At the same time as thinking it proper that someone else's career should be ruined on the basis of extrapolation from their words to the thoughts and attitudes behind them...
That's exactly the presumption I'm talking about. You've assumed what I think and extrapolated based on that.
We've had this kind of discussion before (with respect to some guy who used racist language while playing poker with his buddies, as I remember). My point was then, and remains, that people who don't at some level hold those attitudes don't use that language, even if they've been drinking or whatever.
I think the only way you could describe some use as a "social error" is if you were for example a foreigner, with poor grasp of the language of whatever country you were in, and adopted a racist term without understanding that it was racist.
I am sure you're right about 'taking great pains' - but I'm not sure 'the right' is due all of that dubious credit, nor that the upper classes are unscathed. Masonry (never been one, once new some), like Methodism (still am one), is dying a death of 1000 cuts in England. And I guess I believe that in selling an individualist dream to Joe and Josephine public, Maggie and Co were pushing on a reasonably-well-lubricated door.
(Real power, of course, still lies with money and not with the Rotary Club. On the subject of clubs and money, you might like to break out the tiny violins.)
The eye-watering numbers in that report tell me the Revolution cannot come quickly enough. We could solve half the deprivation problems of the world and still leave these fuckers with more than most people ever dream of.
There's all sorts of things that that article makes me think, but the biggest one isn't even about the exorbitant sums of money mentioned. It's that there was a group of a few thousand golfers who apparently thought of the golf club as "their" club, but had no ownership or control of it whatsoever. There was one chap who was apparently "elected captain" of the golf club, but that doesn't seem to mean anything at all. They were all customers. It would be like me describing my local supermarket, or perhaps my local pub, as "mine". Yes, I'd be upset if a nice little pub I used to frequent got bought out and decided to reinvent itself as an establishment playing loud music and selling alcopops and fizzy horse piss to teenagers, but it wasn't actually my pub.
If the few thousand wealthy golfers wanted it to be their golf club, perhaps they should have bought it?
Seize the means of recreation? I'll get my coat...
I'd agree that there are terms that are only used in a derogatory sense, that someone of goodwill who is fully at home in the language wouldn't use by accident because they wouldn't think in those terms.
But those who fall outside that "fully at home" include not only foreigners learning the language. But also teenagers trying out new words that they've picked up from their peer group. And also some elderly people for whom those words were normal when they learned them but have come to be more derogatory over time.
And for those groups the inference of attitude from vocabulary is false.
Rather implying that such people are stupid and are unable to self-correct when informed of their faux pas. Which is a notion I'd reject - my 80-something mum is more than willing to change her language, as is my 50-something self, as are my 20-something children. Because none of us actually want to give offence, rather than hiding behind a smokescreen of transgressive or ossified usage.
I think I'm going to disagree with this. Your suggestion requires your teenager to "innocently" pick up the use of a racist epithet from their peer group, without picking up any of the racist attitudes that come along with it, and I find that very unlikely indeed.
@Doc Tor's comment about older people seems bang on the mark to me.
Can you give an example of a word that has come to be more derogatory than it was 50 years ago? Because where I live what's changed is that is has become less acceptable to use derogatory terms -- the terms themselves have always been derogatory.
You've led a very sheltered life. One of the vivid memories of my childhood was when my mother was socializing with some African American friends of the family. In response to some comment, she opined that there was a n***** in the wood pile. Almost as soon as she said it, she "heard" the expression for the first time in her life. The thing that made the impression on me was that she completely fell apart. Our friends worked hard to console her, but she was inconsolable. The casual racism that permeated her childhood worked its way into normal speech without requiring conscious parsing of the speaker -- which seems to me to be generally true of language. How many native speakers of English write, say, "to the manner born?" To a greater extent than we often realize, words in phrases function as syncategorematic expressions.
I think you've simply taken LC's comment and echoed it back to them. I grew up referring to Chinese takeaways and corner shops run by Indian subcontinent immigrants by derogatory (but common) terms. I can argue that I didn't mean anything by it, and was always perfectly polite and decent towards such people, but not that I hadn't picked up any racists attitudes that shipped with those words.
When I was growing up, I was taught that I should never say that someone was black, as that was very rude and unpleasant, and that the polite thing to say was ‘coloured’. By the time I was in my late twenties or so, I knew that I should use the word black but never use the word coloured. People of my parents generation and older had not caught up with this; the right thing to say had changed around them. They had no intention to be rude.
I am aware that I am quite possibly in that situation now and have painted a big target on my back.
MMM
Actually, songs are excellent examples of communication that often flies under our consciousness. But the assumption that we are really aware of or influenced by the subliminal messages is highly suspect. None of this is intended to suggest that we don't live in a racist society. But the idea that it's the subliminal messaging that spreads the poison assumes too much. Or so ISTM.
I think you failed to grasp the point about syncategorematic expressions. My mother would never have used the n-word in normal speaking. The expression "n-word in the wood pile" was a different matter. As far as I can tell, she never heard it as a separate, meaningful word before that day. That was the entire point I was trying (and apparently failing) to communicate originally. Language is a funny thing. It's like a friend, when he first moved to Boston, thought that the natives had a charming expression for things that were expensive: they cost "a nominal egg." Of course, they were just saying "an arm and a leg" with a Boston accent, but my friend had grokked the meaning of the expression without properly recognizing any of the individual words in it.
There is a question mark over "gypsy" which seems to be offensive in the US but a self-label for some folk in the UK. I believe a similar complication exists with "eskimo" where it is still in use in Alaska but considered pejorative in Canada, a relatively recent (~last 40 years or so) development.
Not ethnic but the use of "homosexual" is fast becoming a sign of homophobia whereas "queer" is moving from being an insult to a self-descriptor.