Of course, we have no idea of the context. But if it was anything like the linked video - and it could have been worse - it’s perfectly understandable why students would be surprised and perhaps upset.
If you disagree, its worth asking yourself, what reaction would you expect if you were a chinese professor enunciating the word “cunt” during a lecture, with no prior warning?
That video IS the context. It's Covid era - everything is streamed. We are all watching the same thing the students saw.
And if a Chinese professor prefaced the use of that word with an explanation about that word's usage in another language, I would find that a very memorable educational experience. That's it. I don't need to be warned about a sound because a similar sound with a different meaning is used in negative ways.
I would expect them to use their brains and understand that this is a word in a foreign language that has a completely different meaning than the offensive word in their own. Is that too much to ask for?
No, I really can't see why. And like many other women in this world, I've actually experienced being called that word in a threatening way. Sound alone does not make a word scary. Context and intent matter.
As far as saying "motherfucker" - I'd expect chuckles from any students paying attention. Then class would continue. It's not like students haven't heard all of these words before.
> Not only does this barely resemble the racial slur, it is indistinguishably used in a context where it's implicitly clear and even explicitly stated that it's a term from another language.
In the linked video it sounds exactly like the slur, To a surprising extent.
It was introduced with no warning and I’m not surprised people were shocked if this was the same context as the class - although we don’t know the full details!
I’d be surprised just to hear a word sounding like “fuck” in the middle of a chinese class, although it’s probably not considered as offensive.
It doesnt surprise me at all that some people were upset and it seems very unwise on the part of the professor, who would surely know that this would provoke a reaction. A suspension from teaching his one class for a term will defuse the situation and perhaps he can return to teaching after.
>It was introduced with no warning and I’m not surprised people were shocked if this was the same context as the class - although we don’t know the full details!
What possible other details could there be? We literally have the recording of what happened before. He explains that there is a filler word in chinese, gives the english translation and then the chinese word. Do you really think it's reasonable to expect an additional warning? Should every philosophy lecture come with a short preface that the word 'Kant' may come up and is not intended to cause any harm? (mind you, the dean's letter is actually way more strict: it literally straight up says that these words are 'unacceptable', no qualification about a warning or anything).
Hell, how far do you think this should go? If a student has a potentially offensive sounding name, do they have to give a warning before they introduce themselves? Or should they have to anglicize their name?
In the video it was clearly preceded by "in Chinese". And he was talking the whole time about filler worlds. Clearly, context has been established. And the audience of a communications class at university level can be expected to understand that other languages contain words that might sound offensive to English native speakers. Do people really think Prof. Patton intended to insult people of color, in an online class? Are people really getting offended when Chinese use 那个, or when they overhear Russians discuss кни́ги? Will I get censored for merely mentioning these words and not child-proofing my post with "warning: words in this post might be considered offensive"?
> That is not healthy for anyone that wants a free open society. Consumers will vote with their wallet. Those outraged aren't the target market.
I understand you may be disappointed if you would have enjoyed this kit, but I cannot understand your logic here at all. Either:
1) Lego are adhering to a broader set of principles - acting as in a free or open society
Or
2) Lego are purely seeking to maximise profits - in which case they have determined that releasing the product will, in a broader sense, reduce profitability.
One of these two outlooks is driving the decision right?Which one do you object to?
Except in this instance Lego didn't adhere to a broader since of principles, they fell under pressure from a third party group. The product wasn't allowed the chance to have the populous relate their opinion. One group, one voice, and fear of internet mob reprisal, took all of that away.
Did you support lego reducing, removing, and stoping manufacture of Police and Firemen sets? What about the White House? Where do you draw the line?
" I feel that Lego under represents bricks in non primary colors. As such they need to either remove their color or make all pieces in all colors so that I can enjoy them without being subjected to the hatefulness of harsh and cold primaries."
Its either a moral pressure (option 1) or a financial pressure (2) isnt it? What other kind of pressure is there?
Regarding your examples, i have no doubt that if Lego felt releasing such kits either violated their ethical standards (1) or threatened their profitability (2) they wouldnt make the kits, and that is where they (not I) presumably draw the line.
