I would respectfully request that you reconsider a ruling in the Pit.
In this post, you admonished Rand Rover for skating pretty close to “hate speech” because he insulted someone for being from France.
And now, it seems that QED has done the same thing in this post, except using Texas instead of France.
Rand Rover reported QED’s post, which is understandable given the ruling as it was applied to him.
Is it really the case that geography is off-limits in the Pit?
Of course not. Texans aren’t an ethnicity, and the remark was clearly meant in jest. The French are, and my impression was that RR meant it. (Several people reported the post in question, evidently having come to the same conclusion.) In any case it was just a mod note; he didn’t get a warning. I told Rand Rover to relax.
So, is “white trash” now hate speech? Since it’s based on ethnicity and all. Please say it is.
I don’t want to get into hypotheticals. Was there a particular post to which you objected?
With all due respect and humility, I don’t think they are. I think the only group that claims the existence of a French ethnicity is the far right-leaning France National political party. But Dominique Schnapper (daughter of philosopher Raymond Aron) voiced what I believe is both the historical and majority view.
“The classical conception of the nation is that of an entity which, opposed to the ethnic group, affirms itself as an open community, the will to live together expressing itself by the acceptation of the rules of a unified public domain which transcends all particularisms”
Cahiers Francais, May-June 1997Another French philosopher, Ernest Ranan expressed similar sentiments in the 19th century. I think you’d have to go all the way back to the Gauls before some claim to ethnicity really makes sense.
So another mod action based on perceived intent. Shocking.
“White trash” in the cited thread doesn’t single out an ethnic group. Well over 225 million people in the U.S. are categorized as white; “white trash” refers to a small subset, which in this case appears to be “white people who live in trailers.” This isn’t an ethnic group. To put it in terms of an earlier post, if I say, “the French are constitutionally incapable of understanding concepts such as personal responsibility,” I’m roping in an entire nationality. If I say, “French intellectuals are constitutionally incapable of understanding concepts such as personal responsibility,” I’m referring to a small group characterized by certain pursuits, not all French people.
Point taken. Substitute “nationality.”
So a phrase is only offensive if it refers to the entire group? If that’s an official ruling, I’ll of course accept it, but it really doesn’t make any sense. I seriously doubt that I’d be allowed to talk about “good Polacks” and “bad Polacks.”
Come now. “Polack” in itself is a derogatory term. No one would object to a discussion of good Polish people vs. bad ones.
This is Ed’s call, but my assumption has always been that “hate speech” is based pretty much on U.S. antidiscrimination rules. Thus, verbal assaults based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender (or gender orientation), and disability would be looked at very carefully.
Verbal assaults based on a profession, height or weight, conomic status, food-preferences, etc etc, are not considered “hate speech.”
As is “white trash.”
Please. “White” is not, in itself, a derogatory term. “White trash” refers to a small subset, not all white people. We’ve been over this.
So if I refer to someone as “black trash” that’s perfectly OK? or “Jew trash?” “Polish trash?”
Substitute nationality? Respectfully, it seems to me, then, that Americans would be included in this protected class. As far as the subset rule is concerned, that seems awfully sticky as well. One could argue that it is okay to cite the English since they are only a subset of the British. Won’t you please take some time to think this through, and at least consider that there is a vast difference between insulting someone on the basis of where they live and insulting someone on the basis of their ancestry — especially in this day and age when people move all over the world from practically everywhere?
I hope I haven’t angered you with this line of questioning. I am well cognizant of the fact that it is your board and that our usage of it profits you very little. Still, life would be a little easier if there weren’t so much to have to fret over when real problems, real hatred, and real bigotry exist.
The mods make “rulings” now? This isn’t the Supreme Court.
Is the Supreme Court the only body that makes rulings? Not even other courts? Let alone sporting umpires, school teachers/administrators, arbitrators, etc.
That’s an interesting point, because those phrases do seem offensive to me. I think the reason is that white trash is an established usage, the listener automatically understands it to mean a subset of whites. The other terms are not stock phrases and would be understood as referring to all blacks, all Poles, etc.
That’s my take anyway.
I’ve always maintained that “White Trash” is actually a slur against NON-whites.
The implication is that if I just said “trash” one would automatically assume I couldn’t possibly be talking about a white person. Using the modifying adjective makes it into an exception.