M: “an aspect of combating racism (and other isms) through language that has been less explored is in the area of second order affects, and the psychological rebellion against them. Assume as a constant that racism (etc) is a socially harmful thing, full stop. (I guess in the scenario, even racist agree – they just think society needs to change instead of them.) Also assume that somehow the definition of racism is has been mutually agreed-upon, so there is nothing in the argument related to subjective definitions; people might be racist, but they can’t argue that their actions are not racist because in this scenario, everyone knows what racism is. Now… we are currently at a state where the only socially allowable insults that are related to gender, race, etc. in any way are those that are male or white. That’s not the primary argument, but it’s still notable: good intentions have created a situation where attempting to avoid singling out a particular mode of humanity has singled out a mode of humanity by default. And incidentally, the mode of humanity that the people are trying to get to relinquish power; even if just accidentally, or even because the language has been shaped by white males for so long that there’s an imprint on the dictionary and available word choices, it still is a direct result that the only flavored insults available and acceptable are towards white males. It’s parallel to the idea of “minority celebration month“ – conceptually it’s a good idea to celebrate the people who have been under represented and or oppressed for centuries, but it also means that anyone squarely in the majority never gets to celebrate themselves directly. Which is like a person who gets birthday cake from a different party every day, but never actually gets to celebrate their birthday: resentment can build up even if, on the balance, it shouldn’t be a problem. Back to the main argument. By removing completely all terms which could be racially motivated, you have limited the vocabulary. That alone is enough to cause a problem. It’s well established that denying something often makes it exponentially more appealing to people of a certain mindset (not even always the same group , depending on what’s being withheld). Now, multiply that by the fact that, when you dislike someone personally, you want to verbally injured them. It doesn’t even have to be a constant dislike; just someone cutting you off in traffic is enough to spike your hatred for them momentarily, and you’re looking for the right word. But the current state of things means that either you have to blandly search for a generic curse, instead of using a bespoke and possibly accurate word for fear of misinterpretation or just because you know that it could be hurtful to anyone else who hears. Which is kind of the point of an insult – an attack without physicality, expression of condemnation without physical damage. I don’t know what the answer is, I’m just saying that this is an area which has not been properly explored because, well, debate tends to focus on generalities rather than specific situations. I don’t personally have the desire to use most of the words that would qualify in this argument – and the ones I do usually Have a personally commentated androgyny and neutrality to them that still implies that I think that they are a little bitch – but that’s the whole point. Someone gets condemned for being racist for using an Italian store, when an actuality they completely adore everything Italian, except for this one prick who really needed to be verbally attacked. Again, This is a hypothetical; in a particular, I might call out as being simply excessive what I am using as an example here. If you take this line of reasoning, a step further, you could argue that preventing full access of the artillery of verbal anger is a subtle attempt to condone the actions of everyone except the white straight males I was talking about earlier. In a world where the only people who can be subjected to a personalized attack without societal condemnation are the same people with their hands on a disproportionate number of mechanisms by which to retaliate, it becomes inevitable that some of them who would otherwise be on the fence to encouraging of progressive activity otherwise will instead be driven to the side of the devils simply because of this subtle condemnation of their nature/embracing of everyone but them.” This might be rambling and I apologize; it’s a new thought. Would you please provide a targeted objective counter argument, preferably focusing on failings in my logic or specific factual items rather than vague societal maybes. Or if I’m mostly right and the rest would require uncertain, extrapolation, just say so and tell me I’m pretty.

M: I don’t see how it could be easily implemented on handheld devices, but if you’re looking for interface, improvement, suggestions, I would offer that in lists like this, it would be nice to be able to respond to each element of your response in a separate text box, which then gets submitted as a single response. I don’t know about other people, but when I get into the sub clauses, it becomes difficult to make sure I’ve covered every element that you’ve brought up. I don’t know if you can suggest this to anyone, but it could be useful. OK… First, I stand behind my statement that white straight males (let’s call them WSM for readability) are the “only fair target“, but would like to clarify that this is more of a passive result than an active element, which is how I believe your first point is approaching it. The argument isn’t that it’s OK with people for WSMs to be attacked – it’s that their majority status means that other people always have a higher degree of concern about anything but them; and unless the situation rises past a certain obvious threshold, the general public attitude when told about the situation in any less specific terms than “here is what happened, is it right“ – including myself fairly often – is a what aboutism : “yeah, but worse shit than that happens to non WSMs on a daily basis”. It’s not an active over correction but a default and unnoticed outside of an argument like this default omission. The ambiguity in your second point is sort of the reason why this argument needs to be made at all. I’m objecting to the lack of conversation as much as anything, because it means that it stays ambiguous, and we can’t learn whether my hypotheticals are valid to any degree. And I’m not saying the language restriction is CAUSING reactance; my claim is it may be catalyzing it. Like a clothing material that chafes minimally, but if placed over a small wound can quickly aggravate it to a serious injury. The third point again has to do with the need to address the question rather than ignore it. Also, it again is a question of degree: I’m not saying the restriction is going to send people down the slope. But I am saying that it could make a slope. They were potentially going to fall down that much muddier an easy to slip on. Fourth point: language adapts, but it also is a group social tool. So creativity on one person‘s part may not be recognized on the other side. And you’ll notice that two of the examples you used almost completely get applied to WSMs, and all of them would make the user visualize a white person. … I honestly ask you, what non-white based insults have formed in the last 10 years that aren’t frowned upon with the same intensity as the classics? (this has to be for general use; like how the word “fag” can be used by gays much more freely than the general public.) Also, we’re talking about spur of the moment, verbal insults. I agree completely with the need for creativity. My argument… I might not have been clear about this, partly because it’s a vague concept which requires case by case analysis to begin with, but my argument is supposed to include the idea that while the user of a term is speaking specifically to a person in the category, the word represents for a targeted condemnation, the person then can turn around and say that the user has demonstrated that they hate all people of that category. As an example, if I call someone a bitch in the heat of anger, then no matter the gender, if they argue loudly enough in the right way, then no matter how valid my temporary anger was, I can be labeled as being sexist. Meanwhile, as a parallel, most people would have a hard time believing the claim that, if I called them a dick, I was somehow hating men – even though that is a purely masculine word. Basically, I already knew this point to begin with – and whatever the validity in it, it secures and prevents the honest discussion of personal anger being expanded to a perception of universal hatred, which then over shadows pretty much any actual issue, which would have caused the insult to rise in the first place, no matter how severe. Fifth point: I’m not claiming any of that argument is wrong, but it disregard the idea that whatever direction you’re punching, being society prevented from punching at all isn’t the solution. I refer again to the birthday cake analogy. if you can figure out a way to resolve that sense of injustice a person would get from having an advantage of not being able to ever celebrate it, you probably would be approaching a solution to this argument as well. Prevention of asymmetric harm IS a worthwhile pursuit. But the correct approach can’t be the equivalent of saying someone has been drinking getting an unfair amount of water up until now, so for the next two weeks to start balancing things out they don’t get any water.

M: First point: you’re right, it is emotional – since it doesn’t make sense, we have to accept it as part of human nature, and instead concentrate on mitigating the effect. It makes the“why” part difficult to pin down and it’s cause without extensive analysis of the human psyche – but in this argument, it absolves us from needing to dive into the causality and let us focus on keeping the reaction minimized. Like a knee injury – unless it’s broken, the only real question is what kind of wrap do you use on it if it doesn’t need surgery. And you’ve got the metaphor wrong: I’m saying that WSMs and minority celebration months are like people who always get cake, but never get to celebrate their own birthday; they have the advantages, but never get to acknowledge them. But your statement of “more cake“ Actually encapsulates a concern with the situation that runs in line with this metaphor. The more power the WSM group accedes, the worse that sensation will get; no one has defined yet any specific criteria by which progress can be measured and balance can be said to be approached. That’s an oversimplification, but until WSMs are given some way to measure the approaching day, when they can be sure they won’t be accused of being racist or sexist or whatever, the only thing they can see is, metaphorically, more people around them getting more cake while they are stagnating. I’ve thought about this quite a bit; I’m all for equality, but when arguments, either through carelessness or a lack of time to clarify or whatever, make the kind of generalities about the many majorities that I’m in, even if it’s a joke it kind of curdles as the thought flashes through my head “I’m not like that at all, but who am I going to complain to“. And that’s just with someone who is completely pro-equality – now extend that to imagine how the average non-introspective person would start to feel after a while, even if they were a complete ally. Let me just vent on a related topic, which might be useful: the other day I was listening to a podcast on current legal issues from a female perspective, because new perspectives are useful. There was a throwaway joke when a guest was talking about people asking if they were doing something right. One female host joked “then it couldn’t have been a man“. And that hurt me personally – I’m always attentive, both sexually, and in general, to the point that I probably have gone too far the other way. That pain was amplified by the fact that there was no one to complain to. Not for me generally, but well, I would feel uncomfortable making a parallel comment, there is societally no easy way to say that I know they were trying to be funny, but goddamnit I’ve worked hard to make sure I wasn’t a trope male and I hate it when anyone generalizes like that, including about my groups. Sigh. About the nature of insults generally being white: I don’t know what BICOP is, but the other example still included the insult of “being white“. It has generally become accepted that avoiding being white is a good thing; even if not explicitly said, that makes white the bad choice. And it doesn’t have to be that way; it’s the approach as much as anything else. It’s funnier and easier and makes non-white fuel better because it’s a simple elevation when they often don’t have as much, but it’s not good long-term. It’s like… If the variations of humanity were flavors of ice cream, WSMs would be vanilla. If it were treated that way, there would still be jokes, but no one would believe that vanilla was a bad flavor. But the current approach often boils down to something that could be paraphrased “oh God, you don’t want to be vanilla“. On a related note, getting a little more risqué: I have concerns with the severe emphasis of color in pornography. The trope is that black males have large penises; that’s not going away without a really weird public service campaign or something. But the idea of there being an entire category of “big Black“ whatever – without oftenexplicitly mentioning any other colors on the male side of the industry – create a similar emphasizing of separation that I don’t think is doing anyone any good. On the white side, it emphasizes black as being “other“; on the Black side it creates or enforces so many of the macho crap we’re trying to stop through every other means. And honestly, with really stupid reasoning: in what I’ve seen, unless the person skin tone is ridiculously dark, at a certain point of penis starts to have a bit of color overlap. Which kind of renders the whole thing pointless. As far as the punching analogy goes: punching up has become way more universal, not targeted. Your minor argument attempts to stretch the metaphor too far, and also aims badly. The speech is a stand in for… I guess I would call it emotional endurance? Ego water? WSMs have been historically wallowing in the stuff, but that doesn’t mean the current incarnation of men therefore don’t get any, however, you define it – and if you try and keep it from them, they will react badly. They might need a diet, to mix metaphors, but that doesn’t mean they need to starve. And an end cap to ramble that kind of has lost where I was going: your rephrasing helped me clarify in my own mind That this is largely about emotions. Insults (and let’s be clear, the kind that are spur of the moment reactions to hormonal stress, like getting cut off in traffic) are emotional responses: not subject to logic in the way of most things. The importance is that it needs to be addressed before it becomes an issue, BECAUSE it’s emotional: trying to improve at the moment it comes in into play is nearly an impossibility. And allowances need to be made so that people can realize their error, instead of being shut down immediately and left to fester with their isolation. Which I won’t go into now but ties into the idea of canceling dash and whether it’s acceptable or not, there’s a vast distance between what we’ve been talking to and a public figure out whose job is communicating with people failing in that communication to such a severe degree And thank you for the compliment, but you can knock it off now. :)

M: Discussion closed for now, with one minor epilogue: point 4. First, I would argue that in that equation, it should be hypersexual, not hyper masculine. And the problem arises when the conflation is made, and, combined with the shall we say rhetoric of rap, causes the less thoughtful to mistake one for the other. A lot of this will be personal perspective, but it’s shipped by thought and extrapolation while acknowledging my own personal preferences… all of these will be referring to straight male catering porn, whether performers are male/female or lesbian. I can guess, but I wouldn’t definitively speak for other orientations without consulting them first. If anything, not only is every race in most porn somewhat dehumanized, but I’d say that’s the point of the current methodology. I’d say there were two major approaches: the preVCR version, in which a Ron Jeremy type person who doesn’t make the average man feel inadequate visually was the norm, or at least was “average” enough to let the male viewer aspire comfortably; or the more recent penis transportation system style, who often is completely cut from the shot from the neck up, whose purpose is to be the ideal body for the viewer to project their persona into. In the second version, dehumanization is the goal – if this is your fantasy girl, you don’t want to think about the person they’re fucking being anything but a surrogate for yourself. Actual personality would detract from that. I feel like the “neutering“ idea is less universal than some would present; it’s more subjective to individual attitude, equipment, experience, and kinks. Personally, I’ve had at least a couple encounters where I was too sufficient; if in a situation where I was… Working with one of these black men, I think I would have more of a problem with a second male I didn’t know being there than size comparisons. I think there’s more harm done in the “black men have big dicks” trope, then the actual porn; putting aside the fact that for some reason men are defining their sexuality and heterosexual capacity by comparison to other male genitalia, while often disregarding the quality of the females they’re pursuing, while the pornography may be supporting the problem, It’s not the source. A personality defined solely by sexual perception is not going to be a good and well rounded one no matter the heritage; the trope and the focus on it are what are doing the undermining. it’s the methodology that I’m really having the primary problem with. That and the size of the market. Fetishes are one thing. I haven’t got any I could easily identify or describe, but I do have an interest in this slice of the pornography pie, not because of the racial component, but because I enjoy small things that work well, in all things from electronics onward, and this seems to have extended to smaller women who are still able to apparently enthusiastically enjoy sex with something The size of a Red Bull can (it gives me hope I can find someone I’ll similarly fit into; and I found I prefer when there are visible signs of enjoyment that can’t be faked, so I feel kind of OK about that); and aesthetically, in a topic I think not enough people have really thought about because the black trope is there hogging the spotlight, there’s the aesthetic pairing: it’s easier and visually satisfying to see the yin yang of black and white. A lot of people who think they’re kinky might actually just prefer being able to tell if they’re looking at the man or the woman with a quick glance. So I don’t think that the categorization is the problem, it’s the emphasis of it. I hesitate to use the word fetishization given the topic, but it’s a non-sexual version of that. Sex is psychological, but this is… It’s like reverse sexual. It’s like the difference between sex and rape; taking what should be just some messy hormonal, fun and attaching your self perception of ego and power to it. From every direction. But because it’s ratio, and because it’s pornography, finding a venue to even start having a rational conversation about whether the idea of “interracial porn” needs to be reconsidered is nearly impossible.