What shape his mouth makes or whether it sounds more like an M or and N (I have no confidence in anyone’s, including my own, ability to confidently make the distinction) is of little concern to me. The idea that someone like Rich Lowry, or almost any other white person, is going through life with the N word constantly on the tip of their tongue to the extent that they are at risk of slipping out of their mouth during a recorded interview is such a profound and bizarrely distorted worldview. That he might winkingly say it intentionally is an even more ridiculous failure to model the mental state of others.
Somebody’s never been down south lmao. I’m from Louisiana, and it’s extremely plausible to me that a 56 year old white guy from Virginia would use that word when talking about black people enough that it might slip out.
I think it’s clear at this stage that the people who participate in these “cancellations” are just looking for opportunities to hurt people and see them suffer.
I believe that I have seen this clip. It seemed extremely clear that he was not saying a word which started with M, but one which started with n.
Edit: after rewatching the clip, I admit that it’s more ambiguous whether he started with “m” or “n”. Still unclear how you confuse the rest of it though.
I also had the experience of thinking it sounded like N, but after seeing the (much more charitable and reasonable) "immigr"-mixup explanation, I'm guessing it's an auditory hallucination of my brain auto-completing an ambiguous sensory input based on what the people sharing the clip told me to expect. (I gather that psyc research shows that audio perception is very influenced by expectations in this way.)
I'm not qualified to determine whether or not "rounded lips" signify anything. I hear something that sounds more like "n" than "m", and I don't buy that he said the rest with a hard R as a mispronounciation of migrants. I don't think you can credibly say that this clip unambigiously favors your position.
But I am also not going to watch it further, because debating about this is, of course, a waste of everyone's time.
It's not some complicated question of linguistics. Look at what shape your lips are in when you say "M" and then when you say "N". In one case, they're rounded, in the other they're not.
If you mixed up migrants and immigrants, you'd get a hard R, just like there's a hard R in immigr...
I may be alone in thinking this but I believe that all the following statements are true: (i) what he said started with an m and rhymed with the slur, (ii) he did not mangle migrant and immigrant he mangled migrant and the slur, (iii) this does not make him a racist, it is understandable that a slur he would be keen to avoid would inadvertently be uttered, (iv) he does not use this kind of language in private and would be mortified if he felt that he had indeed inadvertently uttered it, (v) he should not be cancelled by anyone for this.
What I find highly implausible is that he mangled migrant and immigrant, which is the favored explanation of his defenders. For one thing the vowel is after the r in both words.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can't think of Lowry without recalling the time he caved to a mob (which included Republicans and conservatives, to be clear) and deplatformed John Derbyshire from National Review, all over something Derbyshire wrote on another platform.
If Lowry wants to show he's learned a lesson and piss the ISU/Badger folks off, I'd suggest inviting Derbyshire (and Steve Sailer, while we're on the subject) to start contributing to NR again.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Rich Lowry got canceled for saying a racial slur, but the accusation is false? Someone describing the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird would say that Tom was arrested for rape, but was innocent. They wouldn't say that he was "arrested for not raping someone".
I agree with you that Lowry probably doesn't use racial slurs, but this framing is completely unnecessary and distracts from your argument that the people hearing a slur are confused (or acting in bad faith).
Maybe he should not be judged for mis-speaking but I’ve reviewed the tape a dozen times now after reading this… and as far as I can tell, he clearly says the n-word.
I have seen the clip professionally slowed down and it seems clear to me that that he was saying the n word. To his credit, he did correct himself very quickly, but is that much to his credit? I’m not sure.
1. A few of your readers, such as myself, likely consider your theories Bullshit on the grounds that A they are theories and B they tend to be based on such bogus social constructs as mathematics
2. We constitute a readily discernable minority Out-Group in terms of philosophical views that deviate from those of the dominant In-Group (who likely attach "objective truth" or similar voodoo incantations to mathematics)
3. Now suppose one day you make a "slip of the tongue" and label our Out-Group as "Re-Lyo-tards"
4. Your fellow In-Group members will likely initially approve of your "slip" and possibly even applaud the humor
5. But the ensuing outcry among the Out-Group will win sympathy among the broad In-Group, who, despite initial approval, will now see you unfavorably
6. And thus you become "canceled" by your own In-Group for a slip of the tongue that was nonetheless based on agreed In-Group principles
Within the context of this hypothesis,the parallels between you and Lowry are abundantly clear:
1. Lowry represents an In-Group where migrants are a minority vilified Out-Group, you represent an In-Group where Lyotardians are a minority vilified Out-Group
2. Lowry makes a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group, you make a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group (ie, suppose your slip arose from "Recject their Lyotard claims", which could be perceived as "Reject the Re-Lyo-tard clains")
3. Outcry ensues, outcry ensues
4. Cancelation ensues, cancelation ensues
Moral of the story: Marginalized vilified Out-Groups gain the good and wholesome power of influence through the potential of canceling In-Group members one-by-one via associations (accidental or otherwise) with more generally sympathetic Groups
Within the context of this hypothesis,the parallels between you and Lowry are abundantly clear:
1. Lowry represents an In-Group where migrants are a minority vilified Out-Group, you represent an In-Group where Lyotardians are a minority vilified Out-Group
2. Lowry makes a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group, you make a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group (ie, suppose your slip arose from "Recject their Lyotard claims", which could be perceived as "Reject the Re-Lyo-tard clains")
3. Outcry ensues, outcry ensues
4. Cancelation ensues, cancelation ensues
Moral of the story: Marginalized vilified Out-Groups gain the good and wholesome power of influence through the potential of canceling In-Group members one-by-one via associations (accidental or otherwise) with more generally sympathetic Groups
What shape his mouth makes or whether it sounds more like an M or and N (I have no confidence in anyone’s, including my own, ability to confidently make the distinction) is of little concern to me. The idea that someone like Rich Lowry, or almost any other white person, is going through life with the N word constantly on the tip of their tongue to the extent that they are at risk of slipping out of their mouth during a recorded interview is such a profound and bizarrely distorted worldview. That he might winkingly say it intentionally is an even more ridiculous failure to model the mental state of others.
Somebody’s never been down south lmao. I’m from Louisiana, and it’s extremely plausible to me that a 56 year old white guy from Virginia would use that word when talking about black people enough that it might slip out.
I mean, do you not know racist people that use the n-word word with glee?
I am in my 40s and that word was commonly used around my high school in NJ. Lowry is a little older and from further south.
I think it’s clear at this stage that the people who participate in these “cancellations” are just looking for opportunities to hurt people and see them suffer.
I believe that I have seen this clip. It seemed extremely clear that he was not saying a word which started with M, but one which started with n.
Edit: after rewatching the clip, I admit that it’s more ambiguous whether he started with “m” or “n”. Still unclear how you confuse the rest of it though.
Did you try slowing it down? How do you explain his rounded lips?
I also had the experience of thinking it sounded like N, but after seeing the (much more charitable and reasonable) "immigr"-mixup explanation, I'm guessing it's an auditory hallucination of my brain auto-completing an ambiguous sensory input based on what the people sharing the clip told me to expect. (I gather that psyc research shows that audio perception is very influenced by expectations in this way.)
Yep, and it’s clearly an M if you slow it down.
More ambiguous? It's not at all ambiguous if you slow it down and rewatch it. What do you mean "the rest of it?"
I'm not qualified to determine whether or not "rounded lips" signify anything. I hear something that sounds more like "n" than "m", and I don't buy that he said the rest with a hard R as a mispronounciation of migrants. I don't think you can credibly say that this clip unambigiously favors your position.
But I am also not going to watch it further, because debating about this is, of course, a waste of everyone's time.
It's not some complicated question of linguistics. Look at what shape your lips are in when you say "M" and then when you say "N". In one case, they're rounded, in the other they're not.
If you mixed up migrants and immigrants, you'd get a hard R, just like there's a hard R in immigr...
I may be alone in thinking this but I believe that all the following statements are true: (i) what he said started with an m and rhymed with the slur, (ii) he did not mangle migrant and immigrant he mangled migrant and the slur, (iii) this does not make him a racist, it is understandable that a slur he would be keen to avoid would inadvertently be uttered, (iv) he does not use this kind of language in private and would be mortified if he felt that he had indeed inadvertently uttered it, (v) he should not be cancelled by anyone for this.
What I find highly implausible is that he mangled migrant and immigrant, which is the favored explanation of his defenders. For one thing the vowel is after the r in both words.
Just my two cents.
I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can't think of Lowry without recalling the time he caved to a mob (which included Republicans and conservatives, to be clear) and deplatformed John Derbyshire from National Review, all over something Derbyshire wrote on another platform.
If Lowry wants to show he's learned a lesson and piss the ISU/Badger folks off, I'd suggest inviting Derbyshire (and Steve Sailer, while we're on the subject) to start contributing to NR again.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Rich Lowry got canceled for saying a racial slur, but the accusation is false? Someone describing the plot of To Kill a Mockingbird would say that Tom was arrested for rape, but was innocent. They wouldn't say that he was "arrested for not raping someone".
I agree with you that Lowry probably doesn't use racial slurs, but this framing is completely unnecessary and distracts from your argument that the people hearing a slur are confused (or acting in bad faith).
Maybe he should not be judged for mis-speaking but I’ve reviewed the tape a dozen times now after reading this… and as far as I can tell, he clearly says the n-word.
How to say it and give yourself an out. Motte and Bailey?
I have seen the clip professionally slowed down and it seems clear to me that that he was saying the n word. To his credit, he did correct himself very quickly, but is that much to his credit? I’m not sure.
There's no snowflake like conservatives. They love to cry like toddlers that had their ice cream cone taken away.
Hypothesis on Cancelation Illustrated by Example:
1. A few of your readers, such as myself, likely consider your theories Bullshit on the grounds that A they are theories and B they tend to be based on such bogus social constructs as mathematics
2. We constitute a readily discernable minority Out-Group in terms of philosophical views that deviate from those of the dominant In-Group (who likely attach "objective truth" or similar voodoo incantations to mathematics)
3. Now suppose one day you make a "slip of the tongue" and label our Out-Group as "Re-Lyo-tards"
4. Your fellow In-Group members will likely initially approve of your "slip" and possibly even applaud the humor
5. But the ensuing outcry among the Out-Group will win sympathy among the broad In-Group, who, despite initial approval, will now see you unfavorably
6. And thus you become "canceled" by your own In-Group for a slip of the tongue that was nonetheless based on agreed In-Group principles
Within the context of this hypothesis,the parallels between you and Lowry are abundantly clear:
1. Lowry represents an In-Group where migrants are a minority vilified Out-Group, you represent an In-Group where Lyotardians are a minority vilified Out-Group
2. Lowry makes a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group, you make a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group (ie, suppose your slip arose from "Recject their Lyotard claims", which could be perceived as "Reject the Re-Lyo-tard clains")
3. Outcry ensues, outcry ensues
4. Cancelation ensues, cancelation ensues
Moral of the story: Marginalized vilified Out-Groups gain the good and wholesome power of influence through the potential of canceling In-Group members one-by-one via associations (accidental or otherwise) with more generally sympathetic Groups
Within the context of this hypothesis,the parallels between you and Lowry are abundantly clear:
1. Lowry represents an In-Group where migrants are a minority vilified Out-Group, you represent an In-Group where Lyotardians are a minority vilified Out-Group
2. Lowry makes a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group, you make a slip of the tongue that could be perceived as using a slur for a more generally sympathetic Group to slander the Out-Group (ie, suppose your slip arose from "Recject their Lyotard claims", which could be perceived as "Reject the Re-Lyo-tard clains")
3. Outcry ensues, outcry ensues
4. Cancelation ensues, cancelation ensues
Moral of the story: Marginalized vilified Out-Groups gain the good and wholesome power of influence through the potential of canceling In-Group members one-by-one via associations (accidental or otherwise) with more generally sympathetic Groups