Mediaboss Marketing

When the University of Waterloo, where I teach and research, issued a statement to the media saying that the university unequivocally believes that there is no place for the use of the N-word in class, on campus or in our community, I felt as we say in Black culture some type of way. By this I mean I was stunned, confused, misunderstood and scared. I immediately stopped teaching. No, I didnt quit my job. I stopped doing my job because I wanted to keep it. Ironic, I know. The statement placed me in a veritable Catch-22.

That very week, I was preparing my lecture on Sharon Bridgforths novel love conjure/blues. This Black cultural performance text features a character named Nigga-Red a queer, masculine, Black woman. Further, the white sheriff in the text uses the N-word once in a derogatory way.

The universitys pronouncement that there is no place for the word in class, chilled me. I froze when I reviewed my assignment: Bridgforth describes her text as a performance literature/a novel that is constructed for breath, which means students must read the book out loud. How could I continue to teach?

My dilemma doesnt end here, as it might for a white professor. After all, I am a Black man, born in the United States, living in Canada. I belong to multiple Black communities, where we use the N-word in six or seven culturally rich ways, as beautifully explained by novelist Gloria Naylor in a 1986 essay published in the New York Times: Whats in a Name? I cant help but bring my Black body, Black voice, Black speech and Black soul to work.

After the university released its statement, however, I struggled with a hurtful and completely preventable question am I even welcome?

Professionally, I am a scholar of speech communication. My research squarely theorizes the N-word. For example, my first book is titled Your Average Nigga. A full half of the books six chapters deal with the N-word. Part of the book is used in my departments public speaking curriculum.

If the university finds no place on campus and community for the N-word, then the statement censors my language, and constructively banishes me, not only as a Black man, but also as a Black studies scholar. I refuse to accept that the problem is my research or me; nor do I believe that if I stop using the word in my personal life, teaching and research that white supremacy and anti-Blackness will end. The problem is just the opposite.

To forbid the N-word actually serves the purposes of white supremacy and resuscitates racism rather than defeat it. I say this because we know our society oppresses Black people. But do you know that we are also culturally suppressed in predominantly white spaces? Barring the N-word functions as a too-easy way to quash the six or seven insightful ways the word functions in Black culture.

The universitys proscription, to be blunt, is a form of cultivated ignorance about Black lingo. The university is a microcosm of society, and neither seems eager to do the interesting and important work to understand Black peoples, Black communities and Black rhetoric. Anthony Stewart calls Canadians out in this regard in his book Visitor: My Life in Canada.

Stewart, a Black Canadian, says he has always felt like a visitor, although he had never lived anywhere else. That is a conversation Canadians have avoided having in public and need to begin having if Canada, he says, is going to live up to its claims of diversity and tolerance.

If society were interested in Black culture then prohibiting the N-word would never be the first thing that comes to mind. I direct this specifically to my university community. If the university were truly interested, it would have consulted scholars of Black language before issuing its uninformed and consequentially harmful statement. Kofi Campbell, a University of Waterloo vice-president and dean who is Black, penned a letter to the university president, calling for such a consultation.

I am one of five or six tenured Black faulty on a campus that employs hundreds of educators. I think I am the only African American. The absence of and lack of conference with what amounts to a mere handful of Black people does not occur by chance. My friend and scholar Joni L. Jones explains more about how this power dynamic works in her speech and essay Six Rules for Allies. This lack of consultation says unequivocally that Black voices and our presence do not matter.

Forbidding the N-word is like trying to squash unequivocal racists, which is unproductive because racism is now a neoliberal problem that we all traffic in daily. Racisms are part of our policies and everyday even liberal seeming behaviour. This is what institutional and systemic racism means. Please, dont get this twisted.

Everyday seemingly innocent policies and procedures that negatively and disproportionately affect Blacks is what the #BlackLivesMatter protests around the globe are about.

I believe we should leave the Black cultural uses of the N-word relatively alone. I personally do not say the word when I teach unless it is a direct quote from a text. I know words can abuse.

From a rhetorical perspective, I refer to the Greek term apophasis, a device wherein the speaker brings up a subject by either denying it, or denying that it should be used. In other words, a white teacher could use the word in a lecture, saying it should not be casually uttered, while fully intending to spread its derogatory shame.

Because of this, and also knowing there are multiple sensitivities, misunderstandings, and intentional illiteracy about the word, I stick to my notes and refer to the word as the N-word. I think that is respectful in mixed company.

When I assign literature that uses the word, I do not censor students reading the word aloud. Many decline. Thats their academic choice. My Black students may use the word in discussion if they, like me, belong to cultures that embrace the multifarious positive cultural meanings of the word. Non-blacks, and whites especially, may not casually use the word. I agree with linguist John McWhorter that whites who ask, Why cant we use it if they do? are simply disingenuous.

I understand that the university thought that it was being an ally when it took its abrupt step to bar a word. But true allies treat Blacks as partners, not patrons. They do not demand that Blacks abandon our culture, and certainly do not suppress our language. Allies consult! They dont just take over.

Go here to see the original:
Banning the N-word on campus ain't the answer it censors Black professors like me - The Conversation CA

The now infamous sex scene in The Last of Us Part II, which graphically depicts the first few moments of intercourse between newcomers Abby and Owen, has been censored in the Japanese release of the game.

As documented by Censored Gaming, an account run across several social media platforms dedicated to cataloging various instances of censorship across the entirety of video game history, the awkward imitation of sexual relations in The Last of Us Part II was censored in Japan due to the Japanese console rating system (CERO) and its rules forbidding certain explicit content.

Related: The Last Of Us Part IIs Sex Scene Featuring Abby, Promoted as Tasteful, Leaks Ahead of Official Release

To abide by these regulations, the game fades to black not long after the characters begin kissing, cutting out the nudity and other explicit content that follows.

When the existence of the in-game sex scene was first revealed, Naughty Dog VP and The Last of Us Part II director Neil Druckmann promoted the scene as tasteful.

Related: Sony Confirms Existence of Strict Content Censorship Policy Regarding PlayStation 4 Releases

This particular instance of censorship is, sadly, quite ironic, considering Sony has made a company policy of censoring even the slightest of risqu content in Japanese games, only to have a pretentiously lauded scene of their own production censored upon its release in Japan.

(Visited 1,837 times, 307 visits today)

censorshipNaughty DogNeil DruckmannSonyThe Last of Us Part II

Read more:
Japanese Release of The Last of Us Part II Censors Abby Sex Scene - Bounding Into Comics

David Frenchs recent commentary on the conservative response to social medias, in particular Twitters, escalating suppression of political speech challenged me to fully understand my own position. A few years ago, when Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from the platform, and various purges began to occur, I argued firmly that Twitter was a private company and we were using it freely. If they wanted to remove certain commentary that offended other users, it was their right to do so. I no longer hold this view.

French wrote, in six tweets: "When you hear increasing right-wing... calls for government oversight of social media speech policies, it's vitally important to understand some of the career/economic context. Many of the people most alarmed made a gamble.

"They invested enormous time, energy, and effort into a platform they didn't create, don't control, and use for free. They've built impressive followings here, sometimes through edge-lord behavior, skating at the outer margins of Twitter's policies.

"As progressive speech values shift (after all, this is a site created by progressives and run by progressives) some of that on-the-line tweeting is going to cross newly-created lines, thus jeopardizing all that effort and risking extinguishing their primary public presence.

"That's why the debate often takes on a slightly-crazed tone. It's not merely an abstract debate over constitutional principles and corporate values. Lots of folks went all-in on creating an edgy presence on arguably the most progressive social media site.

"They don't want to start over on Facebook. They don't want to flee to Gab. Nor do they want to start from scratch on TikTok... or Snapchat or YouTube or Reddit. And they're certainly not content to 'only' write on the platforms they own.

"So here we are, in the grips of an incredibly self-interested effort to pull more and more of the government into social media regulation, even to the point of potentially overriding long-cherished First Amendment freedoms. It's important to understand one reason why."

Over time, my position changed as I saw the power and influence that Twitter, in particular, held in the political conversation. While the focus was on the more extreme styles of political commentary coming from the right, Milo was, after all a strong proponent of free expression, similar in nature to leftwing heroes like Madonna and Lady Gaga, a larger picture came into focus. Just like the removal of Confederate-era statues today, the left was not simply going to stop once the more abrasive elements were removed.

In 2015 and prior, President Obamas official account tweeted, certainly. But it was the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump that demonstrated the power of this platform for political speech. Ever since then, the primary outlet for direct speech from elected leaders, across the spectrum, is via Twitter. We have watched establishment leaders to brand new voices all shake the political ground from coast to coast with mere tweets, 280 characters. The honest and directness of this communication is unlike anything we have seen before.

The news in its form from just a few years ago has dramatically shifted to this platform. Journalists live-tweet and share video of current events directly rather than through the filter of a news broadcast. The method of communicating political ideas in long form such as this essay are shared across many platforms, but it is Twitter where they receive direct and immediate commentary. An article on Facebook may receive thousands of comments, but the author of a tweet sees every response directly.

While French is correct that Twitter is a progressive platform created by progressives, he does not yet recognize that the medium has grown exponentially beyond being just another platform to express ideas. All major social media platforms are progressive platforms. It is an ideological monopoly, and despite dismissal from many who grew up without such concepts, represents not only a record of modern life, but access to it as well.

Frenchs argument is based largely on an older idea of social media stating, evidenced by his statement that They invested enormous time, energy, and effort into a platform they didn't create, don't control, and use for free. They've built impressive followings here, sometimes through edge-lord behavior, skating at the outer margins of Twitter's policies.

While he is accurate in his assessment of many voices in politics, he does not recognize that Twitter is made up of all of our voices and it functions as a live conversation of the human experience.

Many who agree with Frenchs assessment of Twitter, and social media in general, see only the origin and the purpose, but do not understand the impact. Twitter is powerful because the media came to it and chose to use it as a primary method of communication. Politicians did the same. World leaders, national and world organizations, public health officials, the police and so on have come to rely on the platform for widespread, instantaneous mass communication. The world chose Twitter for its technological ability, just as the world chose radio, television and telephones in prior eras, not its ideological purpose.

Twitter is a method of communication, not just a private company offering a free service. It is how the nation and the world engages in political speech and participation in this conversation is vital for said speech. While alternatives like Parler offer a space to express ideas much more freely, they simply cannot duplicate what Twitter is, functionally. Twitter is not just a platform to express personal ideas, it is very literally access to the public square and political conversation.

Twitter only works because of its universal usage by all media, advocacy and political voices. Segregating ourselves away from it will be like creating our own shortwave radio station. Sure we can speak without concern of suppression, but who will hear us? The point of political speech is to be able to hold our politicians accountable and increasingly, hold our media accountable. Today that requires the ability to respond directly to the media and to politicians. Not simply commenting on them in our own space.

What French and others on the right who mock or dismiss or even denounce the argument in favor of some form of regulation or government oversight into social media do not recognize is that the ability to participate in the political conversation is moving exclusively to this medium.

Whereas in the past a conservative could publish a scathing opinion, expose a political lie or correct a media story in a weekly column or monthly magazine, or in a book a year later, today relevance in the political world requires instantaneous and direct response. If we leave or are forced off of Twitter, we lose the ability to participate at all.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was necessary not only because powerful political authorities denied black Americans access to their civil rights at the local and state level, but because they were also prevented from participating in common life necessary for individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Many on the right argued the private property aspects were outside of the Federal governments authority, and they were correct. But the nation required unique action to address a reality created by a small population of bigots that held the power to prevent Americans from participating in common life based solely on who they were.

I believe we are in a similar scenario today. It is not only the fact we are actively marginalized as individuals based on who we are, but the very nature of our speech and our worldview has been labeled unacceptable to be heard at all. In this national and global conversation, a small, powerful group has decided that not only should we not be allowed to participate in what has become the common public conversation, but our very ideas must be erased from it.

And for me, that is the breaking point of this issue. We talk about Twitter in the same way we do Walmart or Amazon. But in reality Twitter is much more like the highway system, national phone lines, television or the electric and water company. We could survive without them, but we would simply not be participating in common life if we did.

More to the point, we deserve a voice in the political conversation and we should be strong enough to demand it. What Frenchs commentary assumes is a life beyond the internet and social media. What he simply does not yet recognize is that era has passed. If conservatives want to have a voice in politics today and certainly in the future, our only option is to fight for our right to participate in it equally, even if we must go against our normal instincts to do so once again.

Continued here:
Conservatives must fight Twitter censorship or risk losing their voice - The Post Millennial

Earlier this month, the Russian authorities lifted their ban on the Telegram messaging app, citing the companys willingness to help with its counterterrorism efforts. However, despite the official ban being in effect for over two years, Telegram has reportedly remained accessible in the country for much of that time. In a new feature, The Washington Post has written how Telegrams founder Pavel Durov, humiliated and outmaneuvered Russias state telecommunications regulator, in preventing the app from being successfully banned. Unsurprisingly, its well worth a read in full.

Telegram initially gained the attention of the Russian authorities because it had reportedly become one of the apps of choice for the countrys opposition groups. The authorities wanted access to the encrypted messages of Telegram users but Durov wasnt in a hurry to give this up.

Two years ago, Pavel Durov refused to grant Russian security services access to users encrypted messages on his popular Telegram messaging app, then a favorite of Russian opposition groups. The reply from authorities was either submit or become wiped off the countrys digital map.

Neither happened.

The reason was that Telegram found ways around the regulators firewalls. It routed its traffic through US cloud services from the likes of Amazon and Google, hiding it from view. In combination with its changing IP addresses, this meant that when Roskomnadzor, Russias internet censor, tried to block Telegram, other sites and services got caught in the crossfire, according to Andrei Soldatov, a Russian investigative journalist and security services expert. But this tactic proved controversial with some companies:

Telegram effectively made big platforms with lots of users companies were hosted on them hostages, Soldatov said, adding that the digital disturbance raised the awareness of ordinary users who may not have even been on Telegram.

Opinions were divided over the ethics of these tactics, Soldatov said. While digital activists praised it it made the Telegram issue a national and even international one the Russian companies hosted on Amazon got blocked due to incompetence of Roskomnadzor. And they blamed Telegram, not the Russian authorities.

These tactics would reportedly not have worked in countries like Iran or China where internet censorship efforts are more sophisticated, but they were enough to get the Russian authorities to give up on their attempts to ban Telegram. Instead, in a strange twist, government officials appeared to embrace it.

Moscows attempts to ban Telegram had a very ironic twist they were repeatedly undermined by government officials who continued using it. The app eventually morphed into another dissemination tool for state-sponsored news and propaganda.

The Washington Posts piece is a great look at what a relatively small service was able to achieve when it was determined to stay online, and its well worth reading.

The rest is here:
Go read this story about how Telegram evaded its Russian ban - The Verge

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

Read the original here:
Letter to the editor: Censorship and respect - TribLIVE