383 Comments

"Degenerate savages" could also be applied to white people acting in the same way. Consider white Antifa. They behave like degenerate savages. Its not saying all black people are degenerate or savages. Censoring doesn't help, but makes things worse. I will be honest here in saying that I have begun to guess that certain recent city crime events are being carried out by young black men. I'm nearly always right. Why is that?

Expand full comment

I'm perplexed as to why "degenerate" was problematic for Glenn (quoted in the post from Mark) "Savages" is more historically racially problematic, no? Anyway, Im white (well, olive, really) and we are censored. You can call white people who commit savage deeds "savages" or degenerate savages" without 5 alarm bells going off. You can call white kids little monkeys (affectionately!), but NOT black kids. "Animals." Same thing. You can talk about "my people" if you are a minority, certainly black, but if you do it as a white person - uh oh! You can have a BET but never a WET. You can have "black churches" but not "white churches." We are less free when it comes to free speech, how we name things, say things, and even, sometimes, do things. There are "black only" clubs at some colleges, I believe. Even dorms. But could you have a "whites only" club? Church? I haven't heard of one in present times. But just talking free speech - we have less of it. We may all have the same allowance, under the Constitution, but not in societal rules we live by.

I was just thinking of a quote from Jean Paul Sartre, from the scant bit Ive read from him (I was more of a de Beauvoir reader) He said, "Women have more freedom than men." It seemed odd on its face, especially since he said it decades back when women were more restricted, and since he WAS the boyfriend of the author of The SECOND Sex - Simone de Beauvoir. And there was precious little wokeness, for good or bad, inhibiting men back then. But over time, I got what he meant, or anyway, I found an interpretation that worked for me: Women were freer than men because women were free to wear the gamut of colors, patterns, fabrics, and styles, to wear dresses or pants, to make their faces look different with make up, to have long hair, to style it in a multitude of ways, to act silly, or show ignorance of a topic, or weakness, and not be judged harshly. They were free to show fear, and yes, sometimes hysteria. They were free to cry. Get it?

I find some linkage in that with the freedom of the "oppressed" black people in our culture, they who are supposed to be more restricted. They have more freedom of speech. They can rail about "the whites" this or that, but it sounds Archie Bunkerish if a white person says "the blacks". They can say the n-word in full bloom, with its 6 letters, and it's fine. We know a white person would be figuratively tarred, feathered, and run out of town (society) if they dared do so. I remember hearing a black colleague assert to me, "I call a spade, a spade!" which I wouldn't have used around her (especially since we worked with a lot of black kids and colleagues, and may have been referencing something to do with them) and then thinking, "Oh, so I guess I can use it with her." I felt I had to censor it until I got this unofficial 'permission', once she'd used it.

Anyway, just I thought I'd share. It's not something that keeps me up at night, but I find it is a thing, that white people's "freedom of speech" is not quite as free.

Expand full comment

I suggest a list of rules on content. Post the rules, so that users know the boundaries. The editor of course has discretion to add a new rule when encountering a problematic comment. That should result in less burden for the editor. A reason for comment deletion should include reference to rule X that was broken- in the mind of the editor.

Expand full comment

Nobody wants to be the gatekeeper, but unfortunately we have all become a bunch of children who require adult supervision. Hold your nose and continue doing it, hope I'm never one of the deleteds although I've been known to get out of hand too. I support what you're doing, it's necessary in these crazy times.

Expand full comment

I like to say degenerate behavior, because I think it is accurate. I don't tie it to race, but I do tie it to individual choices and culture.

Expand full comment

Since when does the word “degenerate” have anything to do with color or IQ? “an immoral or corrupt person” is the noun. If anyone reads color in his comment... seems to me it’s their own bias. Maybe read comments as if you have no knowledge of the storyline/details and then decide. I love reading all comments regardless if I agree or not. It’s a continuation of learning and I appreciate every one’s input.

Expand full comment

I'm reading this twice because I needed exactly this to navigate conversations. I find myself struggling to understand how change must be accepted and also not accepted depending on one's politics and level of discipline with regard to principled decisionmaking about people who activate cognitive dissonance, or something like that, in their minds

Expand full comment

What a breath of fresh air!

I will concede here, from the very beginning, that I am one of those people who find words, with the intention to degrade and demean, of little value. I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, what color your skin is, man or woman, what you drive or live in, where you live... you are a valuable and beloved human being, to God and many others.

Neither does imperfection (which all human beings suffer) or a different perspective allow for disparaging remarks, whether you know a person or not. If you don't have the discipline and self-control not to "call a spade a spade" out of respect for yourself, at the very least, please don't show your immaturity by labeling someone with whom you disagree, based solely on what you perceive about them as opposed to actual knowledge of WHO that person really is.

Growing up in a humble home of modest means, being taught right from wrong as well as the Golden Rule, lies and mistreatment of others were NOT tolerated.

The way we treat others says more about US than the one we might transgress against.

I am always amazed by those who seem blind to the disrespect they show, not only to the object of their derision, but to their own character. Gone, it seems, are the days when we were reminded that, each time we went into the world, we took with us our family name which easily identified from whom and where we hailed.

Parenting other human beings was considered a great responsibility to our children, as future adults, and others who would deal with them day-to-day.

Am I parent blaming? No. I, too, made my own mistakes with my children and there were even circumstances out of my control for which I could take neither blame or credit. But what I DID continue doing as a parent was to exemplify the behavior I wanted my children to emulate, apologize when I acted in a way that was beneath my dignity and continue to work for progress rather than perfection.

Being aware is the beginning of examining what I reflect to others and if that is who I want to be and for them to see. And when "doing onto others" I can, at the very least, expect no less than the treatment I give.

Count me as one of your grateful readers who considers your actions "Civic Courage" in drawing the line where disrespect for our fellow humans can go too far.

Expand full comment

Prompting thought and open dialog around difficult issues doesn’t come without a price. Neither does censorship. Did it work in this instance?

From a coaching perspective (focused on professional development), the questions below are useful. Your answers should reflect your values.

What did you hope to accomplish by deleting the comment? Were those goals achieved? Was your response proportional to the action that precipitated it? Could your objectives been achieved by confronting the comment openly versus from ‘behind the curtain?’ What were the unintended consequences of deleting the post? Most of all, did your action align with your values?

Expand full comment

You have a difficult job and I appreciate your effort and sincerity. Personally I would have left this one there and applied Hanlon's Razor. In context it seems likely to me that we are dealing with a person who was upset (perhaps rightfully so) and used that as a zinger at the end. It certainly seems plausible that the person didn't know that was a racial slur. Honestly, I didn't know that it was a racial slur. In the last few years I've learned that a lot of things are racial slurs, at least to some, that I somehow missed over the years. Growing up with US tv & movies, "savages" seemed like it was something that was most often directed at Native Americans in Cowboys & Indians old West genres. I'm not saying it was a wonderful thing to say but I would have left it in this forum due to the general stance on free speech. When I said I've learned a lot about racial slurs in the past few years, I didn't entirely mean that in a good way. We are living in a time where people are constantly being called out for racial slurs and microaggressions no matter what they say. Microaggression detection often seems to involve mind and soul reading and I've had to look up a few things that I've heard were racial slurs and can't find anything about them when I search.

You then get into a tough one. What do we do with terms we've always known to be extremely offensive but have now become normal? I remember the first time some random person called me a racist on FB. It was probably 7 years ago or so and I was shocked and very upset. No one had ever called me that before and those were fighting words. How things have changed and now I see the word racist used on social media & other media about every 5 minutes. Sadly it's becoming more and more meaningless like the worlds white nationalist. That certainly applies to words like groomer and Nazi. They've somewhat lost their meaning but what exactly are we to do with that? If I see someone on the right use groomer or someone on the left use Nazi, I know that these are now just common insults. I don't like it but when I see groomer I rarely think that the person seriously means that the other person is a pedophile and when I see Nazi I don't think the person seriously means that the other person follows the ideology of Hitler. For the most part they are just childish insults now. So what do we do with words that have lost their meanings and become common cliches? When words change like that it's unlikely that we will ever bring the original meanings back. On the one hand I don't want to condone it but I also don't want to automatically block or delete anyone who is using a trendy insult because I would miss conversations with partisans and I want to hear what they say and try to understand their thinking. To finish where I started, you have a difficult job.

Expand full comment

Yes. Take your points. Just trying to dind some way to avoid insults and ad hominems

Expand full comment

Wrestling with the question of what is and is not censorship...and what is and is not 'acceptable language' is a good thing. It indicates at least the possibility of an open mind. But the goal, ideally, should be no censorship whatsoever, if only to avoid the subjective judgement of what is and is not 'egregious'.

This is not a grade school classroom filled with 'fragile, eggshell minds' (as Jim Morrison might have put it). This is an adult comments forum. The people who are here want to be here. They welcome the insight Glenn Loury offers and they equally welcome the discussion. We are big boys & girls who can deal with language that would -- in other contexts -- strike the more sensitive among us as egregious / outrageous / obscene / racist / sexist/ whateverist.

But that's life in the real world. And that's what being a grown-up requires. None of us needs a Safe Space, PlayDoh, or Sugar Cookies to make it through a dubious or even deliberately unkind word.

To your initial question, re: the phrase, "Shutting down gas stations early because degenerate savages are killing people with impunity. Barbarous incompetentence" You tell us, 'degenerate savages' "treads very close to some very nasty racial stereotypes". No, actually it doesn't. It denotes only 'degenerate savages', as in 'degenerate' meaning 'morally bad or wrong'...and 'savages', meaning 'someone who is cruel or violent'. There is no racist connotation here at all.

The connection of the phrase 'degenerate savage' to any given race occurs only in the mind of the beholder who holds that preconception. If you, my friend, believe 'degenerate savage' to mean Black (as a for instance) that is your problem, not the problem of the writer.

Years ago I read a newspaper's apology to a reader, irate because a 'letter to the editor' described Congress as a Monkey House. This, to her mind, was a racist comment. In fact, describing Congress as a Monkey House is entirely reasonable, given the behavior exhibited by most Congressmen (making lots of noise while accomplishing nothing except the throwing of crap at each other and all passers-by). Again, the phrase, 'monkey house' was only racist in the mind of the irate reader who themselves made the association with race. Kurt Vonnegut, when he wrote the short story, "Welcome to the Monkey House" did not write a racist tale.

So yes, it's entirely appropriate and not in the least racist to refer to the indiscriminate killings in Chicago as the actions of degenerate savages, meaning the immorally wrong behavior of people who are violent and cruel. Even the normally clear-eyed Mr. Loury falls prey to the same associative mistake believing 'degenerate savage' somehow implies someone with an inherent racial defect. It doesn't.

Equally we can argue that the term 'groomer' meaning someone who "builds a relationship, trust and emotional connection with a child or young person so they can manipulate, exploit and abuse them" is not inappropriate as a descriptor of those who encourage grade-schoolers to attend Drag Queen performances at the "Queerest Free Halloween Bash for Youth & Families" sponsored by "Align Surgical Associates, a San Francisco gender reassignment surgery center, and Rich’s Nightclub, a popular gay nightclub." Indeed, it seems to fit the definition perfectly.

So again, given the goal of No Censorship, let us choose to err on the side of freedom.

When the call is close, choose NOT to restrict, constrain, or eliminate just because it 'could, possibly, maybe' be seen in a way which tweaks sensibilities. We are adults; a little tweaked sensibility here and there doesn't hurt anyone. It especially doesn't hurt anyone when the phrase in question actually is accurate.

Sometimes, Mr. Sussman, a degenerate savage is just a degenerate savage....sometimes the groomer IS a groomer....and sometimes, indeed, a cigar is just a cigar.

Expand full comment
Oct 18, 2022·edited Oct 18, 2022

As a consumer, I have to say that I truly appreciate Sussman's transparency in this matter.

I won't be renewing my paid subscription, however.

I didn't sign up for pearl clutching.

Expand full comment

While there may be some comments that are out of bounds, I believe you are wrong on the example that you chose to highlight. Mostly I'm concerned about class bias. Not everyone has an advanced graduate degree or college education. People who occupy the working class of society may not provide the sophisticated language that we've come to expect in erudite discussion. Frankly, I want to hear those harsh views and be given the opportunity to disagree with them. If there is too much effort to squash comments from vulgarians, then you are merely forcing them into the closet to stew in their own prejudices and inadequacies. Possibly, if given the opportunity to vent, they may benefit from contrary viewpoints.

Actually, I am not offended by the term “degenerate savages.” I understand that the word savages could be a dog whistle for black people, but the word savages adequately describes some of the videos I have seen of conduct that I find so unbelievably reprehensible that I can't believe people actually commit such acts. The videos of someone kicking someone in the head who is lying unconscious and unable to even minimally defend themselves comes to mind. The definition of savages is “a brutal or vicious person.” The definition of degenerate is “having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline.” Both of these words individually can appropriately be used for much of the behavior that can be seen on YouTube. Is it the case that they become more problematic when used in conjunction with each other? I would not have used the word “savages.” But I cannot say that the use of this term is inherently wrong.

Expand full comment

The reason "savage" is so offensive is that it harks back to the origins of racism: white "explorers" first encountering sub-Saharan Africans and deeming them uncivilized.

Expand full comment

This is very thoughtful. Now that I'm active on Twitter and to some degree on substacks, I've been more aware of ad-hominem comments. People who disagree with me sometimes write, "There's something wrong with you!" (sometimes more invective-filled versions of this). I can understand getting a little snarky sometimes but the trend toward personal insults seems very strange. I'd much rather engage by asking questions ("Why do you feel this way?") or providing a quotation or a link to a video that makes my point for me. I think hate speech (calling people "monkeys," for instance) should be censored, but I also think (as a teacher) censorship in the classroom should stop. A good teacher is aware of her audience: if I'm teaching Maya Angelou or Mark Twain to a group of students who have only heard certain words as slurs slung at them, I'd do a great deal more explaining than I might to a group of what might be considered "privileged" students. But to censor the language of writers is always, to me, to suppress history and to make critical thinking impossible.

Expand full comment