The key thing to recognize about this is that intent DOES matter, and Stephens' clear intent here is to troll and provoke people.
"But he used the word as part of a historical quote!"
Yes, that is PART of the troll: to not cross over the line.
"But he used the word as part of a historical quote!"
Yes, that is PART of the troll: to not cross over the line.
https://twitter.com/studentactivism/status/1359939691672387584
This is the omission that has bedeviled the stupid cancel culture debate from the beginning: sometimes, you have to make a subjective determination of someone's intent, because some people are deliberately saying borderline stuff on purpose. They're not innocent bystanders.
Anyone who has a lot of time in online understands this: trolls exploit hard-and-fast rules. If you say, for instance, you can use offensive terms in historical context, some people will do it over and over, and then be mock-confused when you start to wonder about their motives.
The solution, as countless internet forums have found, but our intelligentsia cannot seem to figure out, is to prohibit malign, trolling intent, and adopt a flexible "we'll-know-it-when-we-see-it" standard of what that entails.
Eventually a mod has to make a judgement call.
Eventually a mod has to make a judgement call.
I am not a fan of Brooks or Stephens, but there's a key difference between them, and it's exactly what I describe upthread: Brooks is not primarily engaging in deliberate provocation. How do I know this? A brain, powers of observation, pattern recognition.
https://twitter.com/3vanSutton/status/1359956716352278528
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
