Hmmm you are probably right, it does seem like the person in question is flooding the chat with the word. That is a problem, the word itself should not be (probably except when intentionally used to cause harm, but intention is quite difficult to measure or prove)
The context removes all ambiguity. Spamming a slur in a public forum isn’t a debate about the word; it’s an attack on the community. The proof is in the outcome: hundreds of people have left the chat due to Valve’s non-existent moderation.
All words are “made up”, but with respect, that observation misses the key point. The spam is the delivery method, but the slur is what makes this an act of targeted hate and harassment, not just a nuisance.
Dismissing the word’s power ignores the very real historical and social weight it carries; weight the spammer is intentionally leveraging to cause maximum harm. It’s not a coincidence they chose that specific word.
I believe I’ve been clear on why this distinction matters, so I’ll leave it at that.
You’ve perfectly described the mechanism, but drawn the wrong conclusion. The power isn’t ‘given’ by individuals being sensitive; it’s inherited from the word’s historical use as a tool of oppression and violence. That weight is a social fact, not a personal choice.
To use an analogy: a gun is a real weapon because it causes physical harm. A slur is a social weapon because it invokes that history to cause psychological and social harm. The harm is no less real to its targets.
Your argument ultimately suggests that the targets of historical violence should also bear the burden of dismantling the tools used against them, while the rest of us do nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. We have reached an impasse, and I see no value communicating / explaining this premise to you any further.
I agree that we should do something, defend the person/group being attacked at least, and making sure that the historical circumstances that make a slur a slur no longer apply as a current context.
But that does not solve the issue either. Take “retard” or “idiot” for example. There was one word, became a slur, then the new non-slur one became the new slur, and so on.
That happens with all the slurs. Same with “swear words” like fuck. There is freck, it means exactly the same, used in the same context. Somehow that word is good and the other is bad. And at some point freck will become a swear word.
We should, at all points, defend and protect others being harassed or attacked if possible. What I’m arguing is that empowering those words is part of the issue why they are weaponized, and a futile attempt because other words will be used with the same intent in their place. It is not useful to censor the language.
I’m sorry that you see no value in discussing further, but thank you for doing it until this point at least, you have been the only one debating in good faith.
It’s not in any individual’s power to take that away though. And even if that personal choice were meaningfully possible, you’d put that on thousands of people suffering harassment rather than the few doing it?
That’s just handing public spaces over to oppressors.
Regardless of whether you think slurs are “made up” or not, free speech absolutism is an open invitation to bigotry. That’s why so many libertarians & right wingers are into the idea.
![The true beauty behind Valve's "hands-off" approach to moderating group chats [CW: Racism]](https://crazypeople.online/pictrs/image/572ed67f-7951-4688-aa83-1e3f9ae46487.png){kind=link}
Hmmm you are probably right, it does seem like the person in question is flooding the chat with the word. That is a problem, the word itself should not be (probably except when intentionally used to cause harm, but intention is quite difficult to measure or prove)
The context removes all ambiguity. Spamming a slur in a public forum isn’t a debate about the word; it’s an attack on the community. The proof is in the outcome: hundreds of people have left the chat due to Valve’s non-existent moderation.
Removed by mod
All words are “made up”, but with respect, that observation misses the key point. The spam is the delivery method, but the slur is what makes this an act of targeted hate and harassment, not just a nuisance.
Dismissing the word’s power ignores the very real historical and social weight it carries; weight the spammer is intentionally leveraging to cause maximum harm. It’s not a coincidence they chose that specific word.
I believe I’ve been clear on why this distinction matters, so I’ll leave it at that.
Removed by mod
You’ve perfectly described the mechanism, but drawn the wrong conclusion. The power isn’t ‘given’ by individuals being sensitive; it’s inherited from the word’s historical use as a tool of oppression and violence. That weight is a social fact, not a personal choice.
To use an analogy: a gun is a real weapon because it causes physical harm. A slur is a social weapon because it invokes that history to cause psychological and social harm. The harm is no less real to its targets.
Your argument ultimately suggests that the targets of historical violence should also bear the burden of dismantling the tools used against them, while the rest of us do nothing. I fundamentally disagree with that premise. We have reached an impasse, and I see no value communicating / explaining this premise to you any further.
I agree that we should do something, defend the person/group being attacked at least, and making sure that the historical circumstances that make a slur a slur no longer apply as a current context.
But that does not solve the issue either. Take “retard” or “idiot” for example. There was one word, became a slur, then the new non-slur one became the new slur, and so on.
That happens with all the slurs. Same with “swear words” like fuck. There is freck, it means exactly the same, used in the same context. Somehow that word is good and the other is bad. And at some point freck will become a swear word.
We should, at all points, defend and protect others being harassed or attacked if possible. What I’m arguing is that empowering those words is part of the issue why they are weaponized, and a futile attempt because other words will be used with the same intent in their place. It is not useful to censor the language.
I’m sorry that you see no value in discussing further, but thank you for doing it until this point at least, you have been the only one debating in good faith.
Classic crypto fascist comment. Post hog
It’s not in any individual’s power to take that away though. And even if that personal choice were meaningfully possible, you’d put that on thousands of people suffering harassment rather than the few doing it?
That’s just handing public spaces over to oppressors.
You may have heard the line about the nazi bar.
Regardless of whether you think slurs are “made up” or not, free speech absolutism is an open invitation to bigotry. That’s why so many libertarians & right wingers are into the idea.
2015 idubbbztv take