Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have a question regarding online etiquette. A debate on another forum started on certain terms that may, or may not be considered racial slurs.

I've been called an "Uncle Tom". A mod on the forum decided the term wasn't a slur, and let it stand. I wasn't totally insulted by it, but at the same time letting it stand just doesn't sit well. It does have racial connotations, but is by far not the worst out there.

No, I won't call out the forum by name, as dakka mods have stated we shouldn't do that here.

Coming here to get unbiased opinions.

Pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context. Are you black? Were you acting like the White Man is going to save the black race?

Then they were probably right. If not then probably not.

 Olthannon wrote:
Are you black?

Is your position that it's fine to use racial slurs just as long as they're not explicitly directed to a verified member of the race in question then?

 Olthannon wrote:
Pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context. Are you black? Were you acting like the White Man is going to save the black race?

Then they were probably right. If not then probably not.

Mixed Hispanic. Technically I was called a Brown Uncle Tom. Accused of being a Potato (brown outside, white inside).

 Lord Damocles wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Are you black?

Is your position that it's fine to use racial slurs just as long as they're not explicitly directed to a verified member of the race in question then?

Because, to my understanding, use of the term "Uncle Tom" is pretty specific. Which is why I said right at the first part of my post there "pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context".

What Cuda is asking in his OP was basically "is the mod fair to decide the term wasn't a slur". I'd say by itself it's not, personally. But again it depends on context. It's certainly disparaging, but not very offensive.

Could you not have picked this up yourself rather than expecting the explicit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:
Pretty much impossible to fairly assess without context. Are you black? Were you acting like the White Man is going to save the black race?

Then they were probably right. If not then probably not.

Mixed Hispanic. Technically I was called a Brown Uncle Tom. Accused of being a Potato (brown outside, white inside).

Thanks for replying. My opinion, it's disparaging and it's definitely said to make you feel bad but I'm not sure it's a derogatory slur in the same way as other offensive racial terms. Potato/coconut I wouldn't say is a slur either. It's usually said between fellow members of a race. That's not to say you're wrong for how you feel about all of this either.

Again there might be plenty more behind this that we don't know about so I can't offer much. I would say the mod should be saying that personal attack should be better moderated. But I don't know anything about the forum so don't know their rules.

Hope that helps.

Mods are people and come from different backgrounds and experiences. Individual mods will make different judgement calls on different situations which is why any good moderation for a site runs with a varied team; the idea being that the different experiences (and timezones) helps to provide a more comprehensive covering where slurs that one might overlook might get picked up on by another.

There are a lot of insults out there and many of them can sound pretty innocent, especially when typed out and lacking any body language or other connections. Eg to me "uncle tom" means utterly nothing. It's not a phrase or insult I've come across in my life and thus its not something I'd ever pick up on as a "serious" insult.



If the insult concerns you the best thing is to privately contact a moderator (on that site of course) regarding the matter to discuss it with them.


Also remember most moderators are totally untrained in the role they play. So sometimes you get mods that are really good and some that are really just terrible in their role.

Hmm. I could see arguments either way.

Is it an insult? Yes
Does it have racial connotations? Also yes.
Is it a racial insult? Maybe?

The drive behind calling someone an “Uncle Tom” is not a slight against the color of their skin or their heritage. It implies that you are a traitor to your people, siding against them with the oppressors/The Man/etc. It’s an attack against how you act, not who you are.

It’s very defiantly a personal attack, and I’d assume a Rule 1 violation if used here. But while it racially-adjacent, I’d not classify it as a slur

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

 Olthannon wrote:


Thanks for replying. My opinion, it's disparaging and it's definitely said to make you feel bad but I'm not sure it's a derogatory slur in the same way as other offensive racial terms. Potato/coconut I wouldn't say is a slur either. It's usually said between fellow members of a race.

I don't see how calling someone a traitor to their people is not a racial slur. It's basically saying "you're not one of us," and the person using it is claiming ultimate and absolute authority over everyone else who happens to share their ethnicity.

Terms like "Uncle Tom" are designed to enforce thought conformity within a community rather than engage specific ideas.

Frankly, I cannot image a more bigoted notion than the idea that everyone with the same skin color or language has to think exactly the same.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Olthannon wrote:


Thanks for replying. My opinion, it's disparaging and it's definitely said to make you feel bad but I'm not sure it's a derogatory slur in the same way as other offensive racial terms. Potato/coconut I wouldn't say is a slur either. It's usually said between fellow members of a race.

I don't see how calling someone a traitor to their people is not a racial slur. It's basically saying "you're not one of us," and the person using it is claiming ultimate and absolute authority over everyone else who happens to share their ethnicity.

Terms like "Uncle Tom" are designed to enforce thought conformity within a community rather than engage specific ideas.

Frankly, I cannot image a more bigoted notion than the idea that everyone with the same skin color or language has to think exactly the same.

Thanks, that was my point when being called that. There are worse things to be called, but still. It's one of those "I'm not a "real" member of our culture" just because I disagree with certain stereotype political views and cultural norms. You'd be surprised how many people of Latin decent look down on non-Catholic Latinos.

Ah the good old Religion-culture-race combination. Colloqually known as a part of the Kulturkampf phenomenon.

don't worry doesn't even need race to be in working order for insulting intent, considering what we lot had with the "kulturkampf", it's anyways easy for low blows against an individual that disagrees with your way of life or (political or otherwise) oppinions. Basically it's adopt my view or be silent or else face repression.

Generally doesn't work out with or without race in it, because living realities are rather subjective and if there is one thing people dislike it's when they are told what to do and think especially on what they believe/ is their hometurf.

Alas, i believe you just got told that you think and speak wrong for your looks/ supposed ethno-cultural background, as if the former should solely depend on the later.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Alas, i believe you just got told that you think and speak wrong for your looks/ supposed ethno-cultural background, as if the former should solely depend on the later.

Yeah, and the argument that it doesn't count as racist so long as it's an internal discussion within a race entirely misses the point. Being shut down and coerced based on ethnicity is always wrong, regardless of who the enforcers are.

Getting back to moderation, I don't think sites should tolerate people who use personal insults (such as race or ethnicity) to stop a discussion. If you want to discredit someone's arguments, it should be specific to the topic, such as: "Yeah, but you never even played the game, so how can you tell us it's bad?"

It is absolutely a slur.

It may not be an outright racist slur, but it most certainly is an identity attack and bad form overall.

Yeah, is there any time when calling someone an "Uncle Tom" is actually complimentary or otherwise positive in meaning?

I'm fairly sure I know which forum you are referring to, and given the echo chamber and dogpiling that takes place there, it doesn't surprise me on their hypocrisy of how they act as badly as the ones they purport to condemn.

But yeah, within the context that was given, definitely an insult at the very least and a way to dismiss your argument by focusing on irrelevant details and implying you're a fake minority by not towing to the narrative of how you're supposed to act.

trexmeyer wrote:
It is absolutely a slur.

Agree.
You have every right to assess how it was applied to you and how much offense to take. It's incredibly cruel to enforce compliance and uniformity by questioning someone's racial identity and trustworthiness.

I'm about an white as they come and I work, Church, and for 14 years lived in an African American inner city neighborhood. If I was stupid enough to have called someone that, I could reasonably expect a response ranging from a stern rebuke to a face punch.

It was not a term lightly applied by my neighbors either.

I'd call that a racial slur based on the fact it's a slur that is dependent on your race and bundles you into a group in a derogatory way.

I can see why some people might disagree though, as it's not solely an insult based on your race, but has the added thing of a perceived behaviour + race.

All that said, I try to talk a philosophical approach to racist language... most people in most the world for most of history have been horribly racist, and most the world today still is horribly racist. The western world these days is probably the least racist it's ever been (not saying it can't still improve). So I try and not get too bent out of shape when someone calls me something. Obviously it's still an insult against me, but I try not to see it as any additional insult on top of anything else. They might as well be insulting my weight, or my intelligence, or something sexual, or my family, or whatever, it's all the same gak to me. I'm a half/half person, but I won't pretend that it's placed any specific burden on my life (other than infrequently being on the receiving end of racial slurs), I imagine if someone has had a rougher background caused by their race maybe they'd (rightly) feel different to me.

Hard to tell, but I'd err on the side of not trying to find extra things to be offended by. Would calling someone a Brutus or a Trojan Horse (similar metaphore) imply anti-roman or anti-hellenic sentiments and an attempt to attack someone's percieved Italian/Greek ancestry?

My take.

Uncle Tom is a racial slur. And as you’ve explained it, intended as such by the person in question.

And that’s enough. It’s not for others to tell you not to take offence. They’re not you.

Now. If that term, or another racial slur was used without the person really knowing what it meant? It’s still solely your right to determine if it was offensive. The only difference is whether you feel it’s a teachable moment for that person.

Example. Many many years ago on Dakka there was a discussion on the origin of such slurs. And it was pretty educational. I remember posting that I found a particular one (euphemistically, let’s use Arboreal Laporidae) amusing, because it just sounded ridiculous. Frazz then explained the origin, and that was that. I’ve never used or referred to that term until today.

But even if it is a teachable moment, it’s not a requirement for you to undertake that burden. If offence is caused, you are not obliged to explain that to the person causing the offence.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd call that a racial slur based on the fact it's a slur that is dependent on your race and bundles you into a group in a derogatory way.

I can see why some people might disagree though, as it's not solely an insult based on your race, but has the added thing of a perceived behaviour + race.

All that said, I try to talk a philosophical approach to racist language... most people in most the world for most of history have been horribly racist, and most the world today still is horribly racist. The western world these days is probably the least racist it's ever been (not saying it can't still improve). So I try and not get too bent out of shape when someone calls me something. Obviously it's still an insult against me, but I try not to see it as any additional insult on top of anything else. They might as well be insulting my weight, or my intelligence, or something sexual, or my family, or whatever, it's all the same gak to me. I'm a half/half person, but I won't pretend that it's placed any specific burden on my life (other than infrequently being on the receiving end of racial slurs), I imagine if someone has had a rougher background caused by their race maybe they'd (rightly) feel different to me.

I sometimes feel that slurs really depend on the intent of the user as well. Note to the mods, I am about to "technically" get around the language filter here, but it won't be used as a slur.

Some slurs are commonly used to describe other non-slurs. Big example is the slang British term for a cigarette. If I heard the term used in that context, it would never faze me, and I don't think anyone else should either. Another one is the R-word for mentally disabled people. In a car discussion here on dakka I found out that I couldn't say I ret arded my timing on the ignition without the language filter changing it to "Slowed". Not a slur in that context. Have I on occasion used it to describe a foolish person? Yes, and I'm trying to limit myself on that. It's a bit of a relic of an 80's upbringing. Would I ever call a disabled person that? Heck no.

I just googled "Uncle Tom", and every hit was describing it as a [generally race-related] slur, or links to the book.
Google searches are skewed to the user doing the search, but there were no links that did not suggest such. I have never heard the term used, and would not know to use it, so I cannot see how the mod could have suggested it was not a slur.

The mod was wrong.

There seems to be an agreement that's a slur, but there was an extra question if it was a racist one.

IMHO - There is no doubt that "Uncle Tom" used in any context is a racial slur. It *literally* is based on race - no matter how the term is used now. I dont think it matters who says it or what race its meant for.

Who ever posted that is using it as a deliberate trigger.

 Nevelon wrote:

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

IMHO, but take that with extra salt. I’m a middle aged straight white male. Being non-Christian is the only thing that keeps me from checking all the privilege boxes.

If you are paying attention you will realise Christian is not a privilege category in the current age.

Oh, if only : (

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Alas, i believe you just got told that you think and speak wrong for your looks/ supposed ethno-cultural background, as if the former should solely depend on the later.

Yeah, and the argument that it doesn't count as racist so long as it's an internal discussion within a race entirely misses the point. Being shut down and coerced based on ethnicity is always wrong, regardless of who the enforcers are.

This.
One of the litmus tests long failed that has been at the start of the slippery slope of cultural adversity, is the internal versus external application of the same lingo.
The best single example of this is the N-word, which is automatically either a sign of racial integrity or a hate speech slur based entirely on the ethnicity of the speaker and regardless of the context.
Stop for a moment and think deeply on what that means.
If your language divides you, society will never heal. This is why we have worse racial integration now than we did when we had genuine state barriers to integration.
State barrier can be overcome by civil rights, doctrinal barriers overcome civil rights.

The solution is awareness. I do not expect or ask for, to use the same example, a change of usage of the N-word, but an open acknowledgement on a societal level of the disparity is actually enough to repair the damage
That way you can talk around it, and have genuine mutual dialogue and respect, rather than constant egg shell walking and overreach.

What we can apply to this one word case can be applied to wokeness and diversity in general.
This goes far beyond one word and is a symptom of the effect on the dialectic as a whole, currently there is a doctrinal breach that works to undermine society on a personal level, national and increasingly global level.

The above quote hits on the problem squarely and frankly subconsciously. Focus on the italicised connection: There should not be 'enforcers' of speech in liberal society, the causal mention of the presence of enforcers in the quote says a lot frankly. It is a casual resignation of essential civil liberty, a sign that not only has such liberty passed away but its loss has been accepted.
Doctrinal enforcement is a self appointed powerbase reliant on fear based compliance and the power rush of accusation, it wont go away because the enforcers grow fat on it. It is a heady drug of power and leads only to further and more open abuse. It is proving to be de facto more powerful than the British Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States both.

To understand this you need to recognise that wokeness and associated doctrines are a lever enriching and empowering some at the expense of society as a whole. The solution is to have a level forum for dialogue to which cancel culture is strongly repelled. I will leave further specifics off the thread due to Dakka current policy on politics, but you should be able to see more clearly from here. Most of these problems are resolvable, but it is in the interests of some not only to fail to resolve them but to double down. That should be rooted out, and the time window to do that is fading quickly.

In times past on Dakka I was explaining this, and other things woke two decades before woke became a word, and accurately predicting the effects to come; including the existential threat it is to western democracy. I was largely laughed at, and sometimes censored, both here and elsewhere, but I was not wrong.

Removed for rule 1

Self edit.

 cuda1179 wrote:


I sometimes feel that slurs really depend on the intent of the user as well. Note to the mods, I am about to "technically" get around the language filter here, but it won't be used as a slur.

Some slurs are commonly used to describe other non-slurs. Big example is the slang British term for a cigarette. If I heard the term used in that context, it would never faze me, and I don't think anyone else should either. Another one is the R-word for mentally disabled people. In a car discussion here on dakka I found out that I couldn't say I ret arded my timing on the ignition without the language filter changing it to "Slowed". Not a slur in that context. Have I on occasion used it to describe a foolish person? Yes, and I'm trying to limit myself on that. It's a bit of a relic of an 80's upbringing. Would I ever call a disabled person that? Heck no.

Sometimes?
Language on a fundamental level, despite what some may claim, functions on intent and general understanding and that is dependant upon context.

F.e. People dicking around in a COD lobby whilest being toxic with each other may A be a case of cyber bullying, B: bunch of friends / close hobby group gak talking one another.

Its been a cultural bloodbath for the last 10 or so years now where if people dont like what you are saying, they can simply label you as <insert> Ist/ Phobe and then have their aligned people dogpile on you.

Now those words don't really mean what they are supposed to mean. We have dictionaries and legal definitions for a reason. And we have seen a reckless erosion of these things for years now meaning people are unable to communicate freely.

Say one thing to me today is ok... But as soon as you get on my bad side or or I can get leverage out of it I can accuse you of being XXX tomorrow.