203
X accused of giving racists ‘impunity’ after refusing to bar N- and P-word posts
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2026
203 points (96.8% liked)
News
38069 readers
1786 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is why it's stupid to use "n-word" and, in this case "p-word", in a news article reporting what was said. The words, in the context of quoting another, should be spelled out, to present the full impact of the slur. The words are not offensive, they're just words, it's the context that gives them weight and meaning. I don't know what the "p-word" is, and I've learned nothing from this article about it. I can't avoid using a slur, or even recognizing a word as a slur, if I don't know what it is.
I've learned, however, in social media sites, I can't spell out the word, lest I be auto-banned from entire communities simply for stringing together those letters in that order, regardless of context. Bots don't understand context, they just swing the ban hammer if they see the word.
Those who use slurs in hateful ways should NOT be given the consideration of sanitizing a word they said, in news reports quoting them. They should be quoted in full.
I've never had an issue with reading the n-word, listening to NWA or watching Django Unchained. I do take issue with being told I "should go back to Jamaica", but that doesn't need sanitizing
And on the flip side, you could use only fancy words and yet, still attack and hate people.
You... pernicious nostril!
Pretarded
Yeah it's giving off You-know-who vibes from Harry Potter.
Not spelling out the word isn't about protecting the people who used it, it's about sparing the people targeted by the slur from having to read it.
Referring to a word vs using it is the context.
If you don't discuss these things openly you're helping hide them. I assure you people from Pakistan know the word, and aren't fragile. Better to openly discuss racism if you want a culture to deal with it, rather than preserve it.
Once the slur is discussed people can discuss how things got this way, rather than sneaking around on egg shells using hushed tones.
It's not targeted at people from Pakistan particularly, it's applied to anyone of vaguely South Asian appearance.
True.
Do either of these slurs apply to you?
Oh, are we going to go down the "Jews can't be antisemitic" slide now?
A cultural problem needs multiple cultural influences to fix it. You can't balkanize or ghettoize it, then walk away and say "well, that's a problem for just those people, and their community to discuss". All of a culture has to be against racism to make an antiracist culture.
Also, you're not the gestapo of standpoint epistemology... And races themselves aren't unified in opinions. Sometimes there's a general unity, but because opinions do vary between individuals and from race to race... And because people of ANY race can be racist to ANY race (including their own) - we have to operate as a whole culture.
"What race are you to be talking about this?" whilst perhaps well meaning, may also be a kind of defensive use of racialization (standpoint epistemology).
When I say things like Pakistanis aren't fragile to reading a word that's not being said with offensive intentions (they do already know these slurs) I say that because I don't believe anyone is so fragile that explaining the usage of a slur they already know is harmful.
...and if it is, they should take time away from such discussions to deal with that trauma, because like I say, ultimately you need a whole society to have healthy and mature attitudes towards being and becoming anti-racist.
May actually be:
Which I understand, but we have to move past these individual fears and problems if we're going to solve the systemic cultural whole. Part of which is having and spreading THIS type of discussion to other people from an antiracist perspective, so thank you for helping and participating in that.
What in tarnation
(Eta: origin of tarnation. Just in case someone takes this troll seriously.)
Tarnation, and tar baby. I wouldn't use them, not after that discussion.
In historical context they can be read as not racist, but I wouldn't use them personally unless I'd already established an old timey southern character/context (which isn't what we were up to just then).