Can a typeface be racist?

[Mise]

Well, I think I took long enough to write my last post that I missed the deep-ending exchange that immediately preceded it.

Yes, we probably do agree on the major points here. I think we draw the line slightly differently. Neither of us much cares about Chop Suey, but I think anyone that actually took real offense to it needs counseling. Like others pointed out, its a kitschy font with a tounge-in-cheeck name stylized to resemble what could pass to the unfamiliar for the brushstrokes of a CJKV language. There's no implication of social inferiority or that slanty-eyes can't see straight or whatever the heck racism vs an Asian would look like these days. I think rape analogies are a bit out of left-field.

Does that make more sense?

Yup - that makes sense. And yeah, I'm pretty, uhh, "liberal?" on the question of where to draw the line. By which I mean, I'm quite happy to censor myself if it means not offending people. I realise that I'm certainly a lot further along the scale than even most liberals, but I think that most people, even the "anti-PC brigade" (I love using that term), would agree that not offending people is something that we should aim to achieve, even if we miss the mark, and even if it's difficult sometimes. I'm not surprised or "angry" or whatever at where other people draw the line, but I am angry that some people aren't even in the same space as us at all.

To be clear about the rape joke analogy, I wasn't really saying that using the Chop Suey font is like telling a rape joke; I was saying that my response to not being able to use the Chop Suey font is like my response to not being able to tell rape jokes any more - I don't care at all.

 

[Lone Wolf]

That was hardly racial in character, though, and while it applied to East Germans as much as to Poles or Russians, it did not apply to Polish-Americans or Russian-Americans.

True, but if a Russian that at least partially identifies itself with the USSR is going to be offended by fake Cyrillic, his offence will stem from the same roots as Chinese offence to Chop Suey. I can even imagine a Russian who completely rejects the USSR (a rare phenomena nowadays) be offended that the "stupid Americans" associate everything Russian with "evil Commuиism".

Personally, to my Russian eye fake Cyrillic looks like names of Lovecraftian horrors.

 

[Traitorfish]

True, but if a Russian that at least partially identifies itself with the USSR is going to be offended by fake Cyrillic, his offence will stem from the same roots as Chinese offence to Chop Suey.

What an Asian-American might object to in the use of Chop Suey is the flattening of an entire world culture down to a series of vulgar clichés, and the associated flattening of actual Asian people down to the walking embodiment of these clichés. That is generally not something that Eastern Europeans experience, however stereotype-beset they might find themselves.

I can even imagine a Russian who completely rejects the USSR (a rare phenomena nowadays) be offended that the "stupid Americans" associate everything Russian with "evil Commuиism".

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing to be offended about.

 

[luiz]

Well, that's rather the point, isn't it: that we have a responsibility to inform ourselves about the possible consequence of our actions, rather than simply blundering along on a string of good intentions. The absence of intent to harm is not an excuse for being reckless, pig-ignorant, or self-centred.

But of course the responsibility to inform ourselves about the possible consequences of our actions is proportional to the possible consequences themselves. So it's pretty inexcusable to claim ignorance about the effects of alcohol on driving, but nobody is forced to know (or for that matter to accept) that a certain typeface might be offensive to someone.

Of course we can come up with bizarre examples but intent is a pretty good metric.

 

[Traitorfish]

Either you're using a definition of "intent" so broad as to be functionally useless, or you're wilfully dodging the point.

 

[Farm Boy]

He could prove me wrong in his argumentation, but isn't a "reasonable person" standard usually applied to "intent" in homicide/murder trials? It seems somewhere around the same wibbly wobbly timey wimey area he's using the word.

 

[The_Tyrant]

The only racism nowadays exist in minorities (Black Panthers, Mexican nationalists, etc)

 

[Mise]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't really see what's unreasonable about self-censoring in this case, and not using the "Chop Suey" font again. If a "reasonable person" is what we're going for, then I think trying not to offend people, and correcting myself if I do offend people, is just what a reasonable person does. And in any case, we should probably try to be a "good person" rather than merely a reasonable one. If Jesus accidentally offended someone, I don't think he'd act like a pompous arse and say "well I didn't mean it!!! You shouldn't be so damn sensitive OMG." He'd probably show a little humility and apologise.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I find it very funny is the only people who are actually "offended" in this thread, are the people outraged by the possibility that people might not like what they have to express. Most of them are squeemish manchildren who are overcompensating for their masculine inadequacies, but I'm sure they won't be offended by me saying this, because it's my intent that matters, not the content.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't really see what's unreasonable about not using a certain typeface. If a "reasonable person" is what we're going for, then I think trying not to offend people, and correcting myself if I do offend people, is just what a reasonable person does. And in any case, we should probably try to be a "good person" rather than merely a reasonable one. If Jesus accidentally offended someone, I don't think he'd act like a pompous arse and say "well I didn't mean it!!! You shouldn't be so damn sensitive OMG." He'd probably show a little humility and apologise.

Well that or, as he more frequently did, own up to it and say "Good, you should be offended."

 

[Farm Boy]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't really see what's unreasonable about not using a certain typeface. If a "reasonable person" is what we're going for, then I think trying not to offend people, and correcting myself if I do offend people, is just what a reasonable person does. And in any case, we should probably try to be a "good person" rather than merely a reasonable one. If Jesus accidentally offended someone, I don't think he'd act like a pompous arse and say "well I didn't mean it!!! You shouldn't be so damn sensitive OMG." He'd probably show a little humility and apologise.

And I think the appropriate action was indeed taken. What I think is also appropriate is a communal eye-roll that this conversation could even take place.

The only racism nowadays exist in minorities (Black Panthers, Mexican nationalists, etc)

You might be able to make the argument that the only racism sometimes tolerated in the mainstream is of this sort, but the assertion that those are the only types of racism that exist is off base by much of my personal experience. I've been around plenty of the old-school type that pasty people have/had towards those with natural tans.

 

[luiz]

Either you're using a definition of "intent" so broad as to be functionally useless, or you're wilfully dodging the point.

I don't see how I could have been clearer.

He could prove me wrong in his argumentation, but isn't a "reasonable person" standard usually applied to "intent" in homicide/murder trials? It seems somewhere around the same wibbly wobbly timey wimey area he's using the word.

Well yeah, exactly. And of course a reasonable person would not be offended by this typeface. A reasonable person is not expected to know (or to care) about fringe individuals looking for new and bizarre reasons to be offended.

------

It's usually my experience that those talking of "masculine inadequecies" of people they don't know and have never seen are the most pathetic, deeply repressed teenagers who never got within touching distance of a member of the opposite sex.

 

[warpus]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I don't really see what's unreasonable about self-censoring in this case, and not using the "Chop Suey" font again. If a "reasonable person" is what we're going for, then I think trying not to offend people, and correcting myself if I do offend people, is just what a reasonable person does. And in any case, we should probably try to be a "good person" rather than merely a reasonable one. If Jesus accidentally offended someone, I don't think he'd act like a pompous arse and say "well I didn't mean it!!! You shouldn't be so damn sensitive OMG." He'd probably show a little humility and apologise.

I agree that it has the potential of being reasonable in that sense, but they aren't doing it because they're reasonable - they're doing it because they want to make more money... which I guess is reasonable too because that is what a company should be doing.

but in the end it's "We'll offend less people and increase our profits!" and not "Let's not offend people because we're good people"

Then again maybe the people on the board of that company (or whoever is in charge) ARE good people, and they're so good that they take every single little complaint to heart.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It's usually my experience that those talking of "masculine inadequecies" of people they don't know and have never seen are the most pathetic, deeply repressed teenagers who never got within touching distance of a member of the opposite sex.

Why are you so upset? My intentions are what matters there, doesn't it?
And whether it's true or not, what does it matter?
Content is irrelevant.

 

[JollyRoger]

It's usually my experience that those talking of "masculine inadequecies" of people they don't know and have never seen are the most pathetic, deeply repressed teenagers who never got within touching distance of a member of the opposite sex.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Mise]

I agree that it has the potential of being reasonable in that sense, but they aren't doing it because they're reasonable - they're doing it because they want to make more money... which I guess is reasonable too because that is what a company should be doing.

but in the end it's "We'll offend less people and increase our profits!" and not "Let's not offend people because we're good people"

Then again maybe the people on the board of that company (or whoever is in charge) ARE good people, and they're so good that they take every single little complaint to heart.

Well I just see that as the market delivering socially desirable results. The free marketer in me likes it for this reason.

But yeah, that's a good point. I wonder if the individuals that staff these companies make changes that aren't necessasrily profit making but simply do them because it's the "right" thing to do.

 

[innonimatu]

Dunno, Larry Wolff and his "My-book-is-just-like-Orientalism-but-in-regards-to-Eastern-Europe" had been receiving quite good reviews.

Really? I'd never heard of the guy, will take a look. But which of his books exactly did you meant?

 

[luiz]

Why are you so upset? My intentions are what matters there, doesn't it?
And whether it's true or not, what does it matter?
Content is irrelevant.

And what were your intentions if not to insult?

The form you used to insult me was perfectly PC- no taboo word, no unpolite term on itself. But your intent was obviously to insult, and that's what matters, the intentional message, not your choice of words.

So you made my point for me. Much like Mise.

The difference is I've come to expect this sort of bizarre, self-affirming weirdo behavior from one of you two, but not the other.

 

[ParkCungHee]

And what were your intentions if not to insult?

I'm not going to tell you. You should simply know my intentions, if you're going to judge me by those, and not by my content.

The form you used to insult me was perfectly PC- no taboo word, no unpolite term on itself.

What's all this about content? At any rate, I did mainly out of concern for the moderation staff, but if you really want to hear it, your also a filthy wog from a third world ********, full of blood. If you want anything else, I'm afraid I charge 15 bucks an hour to say degrading in private chat.

But your intent was obviously to insult, and that's what matters, the intentional message, not your choice of words.

You have access to knowledge of my intentions? Then tell me what my intention is by not addressing this point.

 

[cardgame]

As a serial killer, the "Chiller" font is deeply offensive and I demand it be removed from all word processing applications.