"Lynching"

This is a fair point of discussion. MS and MU retired and banned the lynch word years ago. Our site meta is unique and never changed.

to be clear I’ll never ban or warn someone because they used the L word in a game as this has been our meta for decades.

I never liked the word's use here. What would it be replaced with if it was changed?

Most places use the word eliminate.

Yeah that works. Why didn't this group change to that? Just an inconveniently longer word?

Yeah that works. Why didn't this group change to that? Just an inconveniently longer word?

Meta and tradition.

Most sites use Vote: Playername to eliminate someone. We shorten it to VTL

Lynch has a strongly negative connotation, partially because it implies that the person was killed without due process

I mean, not to say that your overall point is bad, but executing someone by majority vote is literally killing them without due process. People often just get voted out on a hunch or even randomly. Not really a game that depicts its characters as morally upstanding on either team.

I still don't like it

I mean, fair enough. If enough people prefer a different word, I guess that's a reason to change it. Maybe put it to a vote. "Execute" and "hang" seem like decent alternatives if we want to go that route.

I'm not sure whether being so used to it that we overlook the racist connotation makes it less problematic or more insidious

Well, it cuts both ways. The racist connotation is largely because it's usually used to refer to racist killings (even if it doesn't only mean that). Everyone who was lynched was hanged and killed, but those words don't carry the same connotation because we choose to continue using them in other contexts. I'd say the racist connotation behind the word "lynch" depends on intent, but again, the game is supposed to be fun, so if using a different term makes it more so for most people, then we should do that.

Most sites use Vote: Playername to eliminate someone. We shorten it to VTL

I'm fine with eliminate, and my only complaint is that I think new players would naturally assume it means all kills, like with my other group, where 'eliminate' includes ly... being voted out during the day, guns (one-use kills during the day), night-kills, et cetera.

'Lynch' isn't in the rules there. It doesn't need to be. They are much more left-leaning than Debatecraft. None of them would dare use the L-word. I remember Lunatic calling something "fvcking retarded" in Ranger's Apprentice. He probably would have gotten banned for that. At least a stern warning.

Well, it cuts both ways. The racist connotation is largely because it's usually used to refer to racist killings (even if it doesn't only mean that). Everyone who was lynched was hanged and killed, but those words don't carry the same connotation because we choose to continue using them in other contexts. I'd say the racist connotation behind the word "lynch" depends on intent, but again, the game is supposed to be fun, so if using a different term makes it more so for most people, then we should do that.

I don't think it's worth getting excessively worked up about, but it also would not be excessively difficult to change.

Someone might call the term lynch harmless because, for instance: lynching is not necessarily racial; many white people were lynched; lynching victims had often been convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to death, and capital punishment was normal in those days. None of these facts change that lynching was a means by which white people terrified black people into subjugation, and therefore that the word lynch could, especially for black people, bring to mind unpleasant thoughts. That's why it needs to go.

MS and MU retired and banned the lynch word years ago.

I take it you mean MafiaScum and MafiaUniverse?

I take it you mean MafiaScum and MafiaUniverse?

Yes

Hang seems better than eliminate. Distinguishes what town does from what scum does a bit better.

Hang seems better than eliminate. Distinguishes what town does from what scum does a bit better.

Hang is better than lynch, but still carries some racist connotation. If only there were a verb meaning, "stabbed to death with a pitchfork".

Nah imma call it lynch. Scum deserve to be lynched. That’s why they’re scum

Hang is better than lynch, but still carries some racist connotation

Criminals have been hanged for millennia (they still are in some countries), and the term is mostly used in contexts not referring to racial killings.

Opposition to the use of the word is, imo, moronic, and a reflection of the shambolic state of American education. The word 'lynching' was specifically coined to describe a specific type of execution which was extrajudicial. It was coined around the time of the Revolutionary War, likely when a man by the name of Charles Lynch was performing such extrajudicial executions on people who were suspected British loyalists - mostly white. The word entered the American lexicon to describe this process, which was messy, often inaccurate, and which undermined the protections of due process on which the country was at least partially founded. The practice continued to pervade American life for several centuries, with some instances having a racial element while others were much more muddled. It expanded with the frontier, into areas where judicial institutions were embryonic at best, and was often employed to punish horse thieves and other such crimes which were incredibly disruptive to frontier life.

In this sense, it acted as a sort of ersatz justice system in areas which were still 'wild' and untamed, and I believe the overall estimated 'accuracy' of such trials hovered around 66%. At its best the practice erased the privileges granted by wealth and political connections and acted as a 'mob's veto' on the unbiased ruling of a corrupt judge or of the abuse of pardon powers - to excuse those with power who had behaved in a way which would have seen a normal citizen executed. At its worst, it fueled witch hunts or represented an escalation of factional opprobrium, racial or religious or otherwise, to a deadly pitch.

Yeah, lynchings can be an ugly thing. Yes, lynchings have a complicated history in the US. But lynchings in mafia are also ugly. We often kill the wrong person, persecuting the innocent while the guilty go free. It's an often inaccurate, emotionally charged, and driven by paranoia, or personal animus, or by results which have been tampered with. I loathe the pattern of neutering language in a way which makes it inaccurate. Calling it an 'elimination' is sterile and less accurate. The problem is that any word that accurately reflects what is being done - eliminating someone by mob rule often in the absence of hard facts - will have ugly real-world connotations because any such process will be ugly and prone to historical abuses.

Using the word lynch is good because it impresses into players' minds both the fact that they are engaging in an inexact process that is easily manipulated by both high emotional tides and nefarious actors. At the same time, when you leave the game and go into the real world, the word 'lynch' will be accurately tinged with an aura of unreliability, injustice, doubt, and finality that is far more visceral than any connotations imparted by the dry historical record. You will also understand why lynching happened and why it is historically a tempting process because you would have engaged in a simulacrum of the process yourself. You will remember being absolutely convinced that someone was guilty, gathering up a mob, pushing their lynch, only to sheepishly see the flip and realize how wrong you were. A word like 'eliminate' feels better because it gives the process a feel of objectivity, impartiality, or wisdom, but the process is not objective, impartial, or wise. The eventual elimination of the lynchings was driven by making people aware that it was none of those things, which is why it's considered an ugly word today. Conducting simulated lynchings and calling them 'eliminations' is far uglier and more dangerous than calling them what they are, imo.

Opposition to the use of the word is, imo, moronic, and a reflection of the shambolic state of American education. The word 'lynching' was specifically coined to describe a specific type of execution which was extrajudicial. It was coined around the time of the Revolutionary War, likely when a man by the name of Charles Lynch was performing such extrajudicial executions on people who were suspected British loyalists - mostly white.

Not to deny that the American public education system is shambolic, but the problem with lynching is the connotation it has incurred, not its etymology. The infamous N-word, the one that the Boondocks version of Martin Luther King Jr. rightly called the ugliest word in the English language, comes from the Latin niger, which means black. If I called a black person the slur that starts with N and explained that, if he had paid attention in Latin class, he would have known that I was only calling him black, do you think that black people would crown me King of the Black People a la Peter Griffin? The slur for homosexuals that starts with F can also mean a cigarette or a bundle of sticks.

In this sense, it acted as a sort of ersatz justice system in areas which were still 'wild' and untamed, and I believe the overall estimated 'accuracy' of such trials hovered around 66%. At its best the practice erased the privileges granted by wealth and political connections and acted as a 'mob's veto' on the unbiased ruling of a corrupt judge or of the abuse of pardon powers - to excuse those with power who had behaved in a way which would have seen a normal citizen executed. At its worst, it fueled witch hunts or represented an escalation of factional opprobrium, racial or religious or otherwise, to a deadly pitch.

I can't say that any of this is wrong, but it does not change the fact that people associate lynching with racism because, within memory much more recent than the American Revolution or even the Wild West, lynching was largely a method by which white people terrorized black people and maintained white supremacy. Slavery has been almost co-extensive with civilization throughout history, many non-black people have been enslaved, and black slaves were often sold to white traders after having been enslaved by other black Africans, yet, when most Americans think of slavery, they immediately think of black people picking cotton for white masters. Whether or not the word slavery should make people think of that is irrelevant because it conjures thoughts of racism and oppression still relevant to our society, which, if you ask me, is undesirable.

Yeah, lynchings can be an ugly thing. Yes, lynchings have a complicated history in the US. But lynchings in mafia are also ugly. We often kill the wrong person, persecuting the innocent while the guilty go free. It's an often inaccurate, emotionally charged, and driven by paranoia, or personal animus, or by results which have been tampered with. I loathe the pattern of neutering language in a way which makes it inaccurate. Calling it an 'elimination' is sterile and less accurate. The problem is that any word that accurately reflects what is being done - eliminating someone by mob rule often in the absence of hard facts - will have ugly real-world connotations because any such process will be ugly and prone to historical abuses.

There is no escaping that the flavor is voting someone out is killing them, which inherently has ugly real-world connotations and can bring nasty thoughts to mind, but 'lynch' sprinkles racism on top of murder.

I agree that a better alternative than 'elimination' is wanted, but not that elimination is less accurate, although it is perhaps less precise, using the scientific definitions of accurate and precise. Voting someone out eliminates them from the pool of living players. If whatever word we use to mean, "vote a player out during the day", becomes accepted vernacular, then implications like potentially killing the wrong person, voting based on unverifiable gut feelings, and relying on falsified evidence will transfer to the new word unaccompanied by the racist connotation of 'lynch'.

Using the word lynch is good because it impresses into players' minds both the fact that they are engaging in an inexact process that is easily manipulated by both high emotional tides and nefarious actors.

Players should understand that anyway, no?

At the same time, when you leave the game and go into the real world, the word 'lynch' will be accurately tinged with an aura of unreliability, injustice, doubt, and finality that is far more visceral than any connotations imparted by the dry historical record. You will also understand why lynching happened and why it is historically a tempting process because you would have engaged in a simulacrum of the process yourself. You will remember being absolutely convinced that someone was guilty, gathering up a mob, pushing their lynch, only to sheepishly see the flip and realize how wrong you were.

As enlightening of a classroom exercise as this could be, whatever lesson in herd mentality 'lynch' imparts is outweighed many times over by its potential to instigate thoughts of racist violence, almost like a trauma trigger. Should we start every post in the day thread with Heil Hitler and flavor getting voted out as being put on a train to the gas chamber so that games will double as reminders that we can be susceptible to fascist propaganda?

Not to deny that the American public education system is shambolic, but the problem with lynching is the connotation it has incurred, not its etymology. The infamous N-word, the one that the Boondocks version of Martin Luther King Jr. rightly called the ugliest word in the English language, comes from the Latin niger, which means black. If I called a black person the slur that starts with N and explained that, if he had paid attention in Latin class, he would have known that I was only calling him black, do you think that black people would crown me King of the Black People a la Peter Griffin? The slur for homosexuals that starts with F can also mean a cigarette or a bundle of sticks.

I feel as if the distinction does not make sense. Nigger is not a word with utility or meaning outside its use as a contentless slur. It is more or less a linguistic arrow hurled at an opponent to wound them. It's not a word typically bandied about to discuss any objective idea. Lynch is such a word - moreover, it is the only such word, it is a word without effective synonyms, hence the impotent scramble to hunt for an effective replacement.

I can't say that any of this is wrong, but it does not change the fact that people associate lynching with racism because, within memory much more recent than the American Revolution or even the Wild West, lynching was largely a method by which white people terrorized black people and maintained white supremacy. Slavery has been almost co-extensive with civilization throughout history, many non-black people have been enslaved, and black slaves were often sold to white traders after having been enslaved by other black Africans, yet, when most Americans think of slavery, they immediately think of black people picking cotton for white masters. Whether or not the word slavery should make people think of that is irrelevant because it conjures thoughts of racism and oppression still relevant to our society, which, if you ask me, is undesirable.

It was not 'largely' such a method. There was a specific period in which lynching targets among blacks spiked over that of whites and it coincided with a sharp overall drop in lynchings.

So, you are looking at a localized phenomenon in a specific region which spans 35 years before numbers drop to negligible levels and which looms very large in the public consciousness despite the fact that it constitutes a sliver of overall lynchings. In Gunnar Myrdal's massive tome 'An American Dilemma', one of the seminal works on racism in American and a book which was intensely disliked by opponents of the Civil Rights movement, the following is said about lynchings:

"Lynching is spectacular and has attracted a good deal of popular and scientific attention. It is one Southern pattern which has continued to arouse disgust and reaction in the North and has, therefore, been made much of by Negro publicists. It should not be forgotten, however, that lynching is just one type of extra-legal violence in a whole range of types that exist in the South. The other types, which were considered earlier in this chapter are much more common than lynching and their bad effects on white morals and Negro security are greater. Lynchings were becoming common in the South in the 'thirties, 'forties and 'fifties of the nineteenth century. Most of the victims in this early period were white men. The pattern of lynching Negroes became set during Reconstruction. No reliable statistics before 1889 are available. Between 1889 and 1940, according to Tuskegee Institute figures, 3,833 people were lynched, about four-fifths of whom were Negroes. The South states account for nine-tenths of the lynchings. More than two-thirds of the remaining one-tenth occurred in the six states which immediately border the South: Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Kansas. Since the early 1890's, the trend has been toward fewer and fewer lynchings. The annual average in the 'nineties was near 200; in the 'thirties it dropped to slightly over 10. In 1941 it was down to 4, but there are already more than this in 1942 (July). The decrease has been faster outside the South, and the lynching of whites has dropped much more than that of Negroes. Lynching has become, therefore, more and more a Southern phenomenon and a racial one. Against the decrease in number of victims there has been a marked trend toward greatly aggravated brutality, extending to torture, mutilation and other sadistic excesses.

Lynching is a rural and small town custom and occurs most commonly in poor districts. There are some indications that lynchings go in waves and tend to recur in the same districts. The accusations against persons lynched during the period for which there are records were: in 38 per cent of the cases for homicide, 6 per cent for felonious assault, in 6 per cent for rape, 7 per cent for attempted rape, 7 per cent for theft, 2 per cent for insult to white persons and 24 per cent for miscellaneous offenses or no offense at all. In the last category are all sorts of irritations: testifying at court against a white man or bringing suit against him, refusal to pay a note, seeking employment out of place, offensive language or boastful remarks. Regarding the accusations for crime, Raper testifies: "Case studies of nearly one hundred lynchings since 1929 convince the writer that around a third of the victims were falsely accused."

A couple things to mention here. Despite the dramatization of and large public preoccupation with lynchings, they were very minor when it came to abuses suffered by blacks in the south. Most of these abuses took place outside even the rudimentary structure of the lynch mob, and the brutalization of blacks was an everyday, normalized occurrence. When lynch mobs did take place, even sympathetic sources hold that the victims were innocent in only a third of the cases, meaning that about 2/3rds of them were not the brutalization of innocent people but justice aimed at actual criminals, most of which were guilty of violent crimes like murder and rape. Now you could argue that these lynchings disproportionately targeted blacks at the time, but if you crunch the numbers (64% actual crimes, 33% of which were innocent, and 36% 'not real crimes') you end up with a little over 50% being innocent victims being persecuted and a little under 50% being legitimate criminals being pursued extrajudicially. And these are going by numbers sourced from authors and institutions which were incredibly hostile to the South in general and sympathetic to the black plight, and sources which were largely seen as unreliable by the supporters of such practices.

So if there is this perception that lynching was some unique horror visited on blacks in the south it is flat-out wrong. Violence against and persecution of blacks in the south was ubiquitous, and lynch mobs were a very minor part of that overall and almost a 50-50 mixed bag. Random beatings and murders were much, much more common than organized lynches. While it's true the Hollywood sensationalism often colors our view of the past, I think it's important to seek to rise above tawdry passion plays and melodrama and to look at the hard facts and base our feelings and reactions on those.

There is no escaping that the flavor is voting someone out is killing them, which inherently has ugly real-world connotations and can bring nasty thoughts to mind, but 'lynch' sprinkles racism on top of murder.

I agree that a better alternative than 'elimination' is wanted, but not that elimination is less accurate, although it is perhaps less precise, using the scientific definitions of accurate and precise. Voting someone out eliminates them from the pool of living players. If whatever word we use to mean, "vote a player out during the day", becomes accepted vernacular, then implications like potentially killing the wrong person, voting based on unverifiable gut feelings, and relying on falsified evidence will transfer to the new word unaccompanied by the racist connotation of 'lynch'.

Players should understand that anyway, no?

But it shouldn't transfer to the new word. It should remain attached to the word which it ought to be properly associated with - the one which specifically refers to an extrajudicial execution.

As enlightening of a classroom exercise as this could be, whatever lesson in herd mentality 'lynch' imparts is outweighed many times over by its potential to instigate thoughts of racist violence, almost like a trauma trigger. Should we start every post in the day thread with Heil Hitler and flavor getting voted out as being put on a train to the gas chamber so that games will double as reminders that we can be susceptible to fascist propaganda?

Mafia has nothing to do with Hitler, the holocaust, or gas chambers. It does have to do with lynchings. Is it a bit uncomfortable? Sure. Chesterton once said of misanthropy that it was the most pardonable of vices and the most unpardonable of virtues; that if you tire of crowds or humanity in general it is a very sympathetic weakness or flaw which is completely understandable and excusable. However, if you attempted to frame it as a virtue or a strength rather than a flaw or weakness, that was completely inexcusable, farcical, and worthy of ridicule. I think that the exact same argument can be applied to choosing comfort over confronting the truth. If it's framed a weakness or a frailty, as a failure to live up to an ideal we all should strive to, sure I can have sympathy for that. But the second it's framed as a righteous cause or a form of bravery and is used to dilute language and to alter collective behavior to cater to this weakness in others it must be opposed. Choosing comfort over truth is a failure. It is not admirable or empathetic or brave or noble. It is a weakness, a form of stumbling that makes society poorer when we succumb to it but which can be understood and forgiven as an aspect of human frailty. But it should never be made the default, and people who choose the more admirable, harder path should never be shamed for doing so.

I know this discussion is long over, but I wanna drop the DART thread here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/4513-replacing-the-word-lynch-in-mafia-games

People hear 'lynch' and think of a white mob surrounding a black man hanging from a tree.

I literally never thought that once. This is a case of white people trying to be offended for other people. Classic liberalism

Pretty common knowledge that in the States the word is highly associated with mob murder of black people. And while white liberals can often be more sensitive than the minorities they purport to defend, in this case I don't think it's any secret black people aren't huge fans of the word either.

Our community is small and friendly so I don't think it's a huge concern here. But if we ever do replace it, I don't want "eliminate." My mom suggested "pitchfork" in its place for "torch and pitchfork." I like that better. (I live with my mom and grandmother and I've had to explain how much of my time and attention this game takes up.)

Pretty common knowledge that in the States the word is highly associated with mob murder of black people. And while white liberals can often be more sensitive than the minorities they purport to defend, in this case I don't think it's any secret black people aren't huge fans of the word either.

Our community is small and friendly so I don't think it's a huge concern here. But if we ever do replace it, I don't want "eliminate." My mom suggested "pitchfork" in its place for "torch and pitchfork." I like that better. (I live with my mom and grandmother and I've had to explain how much of my time and attention this game takes up.)

Words only have power if you give it to them. You make lynch a bad word then it suddenly means things it never had to. And I don't think of black people when I use the word "lynch" and I would venture to say I doubt most people actually do, it's a pretty outdated thing. It doesn't hold anywhere close to the same power the N word has had. In a shit talk online game lobby you might hear the N word thrown out because that word has been given power and meaning, but I've never heard anyone say "Im gonna lynch you you bastard" after dying in a game lol. Most of that stuff is veiled in reality anyway, does anyone ever call someone the N word to their face? Let alone use the word lynch? You propagate more racism by being sensitive to things like this.

I suggest we replace lynch with guillotine.

Also good

I suggest we replace lynch with guillotine.

While we're at it, replace scum with French

If you are offended by a word, because of a way that word was used in *an entirely different context* that is not everyone else’s problem. Just your skill issue.

You don’t see white people getting offended by the term “animal crackers,” do you?

Bro how could you slander my race like that wtf !!!

To be clear , don’t mind the discussion as opinions and freedom of speech and shit. Not offensive or whatever.

but from an admin level, we aren’t enforcing this.

I think removing lynch as a term is a positive.

What it really means and why? Who gives a fuck? Point is if people are butthurt hearing it no harm in trying to be considerate.

I would push a separate issue I see as far as community management in the way that is enforced. I will publicly say that I think some sites have utterly lost the plot with moderation weaponizing victimization. People are allowed to force their will on others voicing that they are offended in a toxic and harmful way to communities. I would simply voice that the way such a policy is implemented should be controlled.

Without saying what a place is there is a major mafia community that has a secret list of naughty words they police to the extreme while refusing to release what they consider not ok to say. They smite people for slipping up and saying commonly used words such as lynch. They attack users for having a different culture and punish them based upon unspoken standards. Should we move in that direction? I do not think so. And I do not think such policy even remotely creates cleaner Mafia games.

I think a middle ground exists strongly encouraging users to not use the term "Lynch" and punishing only if they are using it with intent to offend or chronically ignoring said policy without becoming one of the places that virtue signals and causes harm to the community in the name of standing on a soap box. Thats my two cents.