Oh, yeah, that's bad. He's not even mentioning the words, he's just using them against white people instead of black, but the way he uses them is still meant as an insult. Oops.
Context matters. The alt-right people he targeted viewed it as an insult, so he used their own language against them and framed them as what they define as bad.
Yes but it's an insult targeted towards black people. I'm not sure it had the impact he thought it'd have, since some white racist would just think "but I'm not black", and he just ended up kind of perpetuating the insult.
I mean, I know he didn't mean disrespect towards black people, it was just in poor taste.
> However, pretty weak of you to vote me down instead
Ugh, first of all, stop assuming I downvoted you, I only now saw your reply.
Second of all, it's not about actively harming people in that specific instance, it's about perpetuating the perception. Using a word as an insult implies that the target group is inferior and to be associated with it is undesirable. That's why I don't like people calling others "niggers" as I don't like people calling others "homos", or "whores" or a whole slew of other things.
If someone inside the group calls someone else a derogatory term of the group, hey, it's your own group you're harming. If it's someone outside, I try to show them that it's a shitty thing to be doing that.
With regards to your offense that is fine when it is used in this way. However, what is your evidence that anyone in that group was there as collateral damage? The target was alt-rights in a livestream with 3000 views in total, and the context of his words clearly doesn’t match your characterization.
I think no one is fooled at this point by activists working hard to find something to be offended by, so that they can use it to attack a viewpoint opponent.
Maybe Patreon will becomes the first example of a company that gets serious damage by pandering to activists.
I agree that we should avoid any negative characterization or reduction of another individual to an unchosen group based upon immutable traits.
I know a party and an associated group in the US that need to clean up their act on this before they throw any stones in their glasshouse. Identity politics is divisive and a road to hell paved with good intentions.
If you say something to a sufficiently large group you’ll risk offending someone, so the principle you propose is too simplistic and unworkable. Who defines what is offensive and when context doesn’t matter? How many people is it ok to offend when you speak to a large group or post something online? If the audience is expanded by others, through leaks or other actions, is it still not ok?
With regards to your comments I apologize for assuming you downvoted. Somehow the downvote happens as a clockwork so there seemed to be a likely causality.
If a friend of mine calls someone else a "fag" jokingly, I will tell them that's not acceptable and to cut it the fuck out, as I don't like implying that being gay is a negative. If a gay person does it, it's on them.
Insulting a group from the inside is very different from insulting it from the outside.
