It has long been allowed at SDMB rule in GD that we can call fascists and such morally repugnant, but we cannot call poster “so-and-so” morally repugnant in Great Debates. Has that rule changed? Or is this yet another example of your bending-over-backwards and over-protectiveness of conservative racist hatred? Why cannot the people who support slavery as a category be accused of moral turpitude? It is moral turpitude. It is beyond disgusting.
What has been outlawed in GD is “you” or “so-and-so” is a racist. Great debates is the place the denounce racism and support of slavery and revisionism of slavery for what it is: morally despicable. It is loathsome. And so is bending over backwards to try to look fair and protecting it from such denunciation. If we can call socialists morally repugnant in GD, can we not call Fitzhugh’s descendant’s the same?
If slavery apologists as a general category are too sensitive to be called morally deficient in general, then you really must remove any denunciation of any group from GD.
I generally like your posts as a member. But you are easily the shittiest moderator at any website I have ever visited because of your constant censorship of the denunciation of the immoral.
The incidents where you engage in this bending over backwards that I have seen always have been where you are protecting a point of view you seem to disagree with (usually conservative) and smack down a (usually liberal) poster who denounces in general a disgusting argument and in general those people who make it. Liberals should be entitled to just as much leeway in denouncing a group in general as conservatives. It seems you are over-compensating.
Confederacy revisionists and apologists are racist, pro-slavery and despicable and should be denounced as such. If someone objects to that premise, they should be required to come out and make the objection. Anybody who has read the secession statutes and articles who still argues that slavery was the central issue of the civil war is intellectually utterly dishonest. It is entirely fair to say that in general terms.
Stop being such a push-over for despicable causes.
I moved this thread to ATMB from the Pit. I don’t have time to read the whole thread right now, but it looks like tomndebb felt this comment was directed at other posters:
I’ll point out that you borrowed the phrase “moral turpitude” a previous post in which tomndebb told another poster the following:
Yep, I borrowed it because it was very nice turn of phrase. Slavery apologists are loathsome, and turpitude means dishonesty, so it hits the nail on the head. Thank you for moving it to the correct forum.
Though I am in general agreement with you, I don’t think that holding such views means that a person is per se racist, pro-slavery or despicable (note that the last may actually be the case when the person leveling the charge is a duck and the other is a rabbit).
Imagine for a moment James, born to Very Liberal Parents. His parents are unfortunately run over by an escaped rhinoceros and he’s sent to live with his aunts in Texas. They’re not all that introspective, so offer no guidance. He goes to school with the new Texas curriculum, which despite the recent brouhaha is implemented as neutrally as possible. He learns about blah blah blah …
The point being, that he–and vast swathes of others with less peachy backgrounds–could easily hold the honest belief that the Confederacy was something noble and that slavery was a small factor leading up to the Civil War. No racism. Not pro-slavery. Not desttththththpicable.
While there certainly are lots of people (perhaps even a majority) that hold such beliefs and are racist, etc., it’s unfair to say that holding such automatically makes you racist. That the post was quoting someone who acknowledged the plausibility of those views added to the perception that it was calling him/her a racist, etc.
Also note that it seemed to be Moderator direction more so than a warning. Though clearly on follow-up the personalization wasn’t there, mod direction to be aware of other reasonable interpretations and their impact on board interactions is a necessary aspect of maintaining the overall tenor of board interactions.
Seriously, it is clear that Tom is politically a moderate to liberal from his non-moderator posts. But this thing where he constantly pretends that you can’t call conservatives hard hearted per se in a general sense (as a paraphrased example) is something I haven’t seen him do to conservatives.
OT:
By the way, anyone else out there find it refreshing that though the OP has the trappings of a vitriolic diatribe (e.g., perceptions of mod bias, heavy-handedness, unwarranted intervention, etc.), it does not have the knee-jerk semi-shouting that often accompanies such posts? It’s almost as if the thread was intended to merely question and discuss modding actions instead of rant and shout and dance up to the Pit line with insults and surplus anger. (Er, I meant to use “almost” sardonically, not to suggest the OP wasn’t serious). It’s been about 24 hours and no one has yet jumped on the bandwagon with a “yeah, the mods here suck and so doz this board!” quasi-rant. Not that there shouldn’t be feedback, complaints, and whatnot; just that it’s nice that there’s no chip on the OP’s shoulder.
ETA: RABBIT SEASON!
I’ll defend Tomndebb. His comments about my post were based on it’s ‘over the top’ nature, which my post might be interpreted as by reasonable people. Also, I did use terms and phrases that might reasonably be interpretted as insults toward people, such as Southerners for example, who may not have had the attributes I described. Also, I greatly desired to fling insults at certain people who’s motives I cannot claim to know, and I accept the concept that this desire may have been apparent in my post, even if not explicit.
Well, the non-foaming-at-the-mouth nature of the OP is a result of editing that stuff out before posting it. It was there, trust me. The thing is, I like Tomndebb a lot as a poster, but good flying spaghetti monster, his modding is just bizarre.
How did this become a “liberal/conservative” issue?
Marley got it exactly right. ed malin’s post was a nice little diatribe that I would have ignored, except that his most hostile comments were directed to other posters in the thread. For that, I admonished him to leave those sort of comments for the BBQ Pit.
Immediately after my exchange with ed malin, you posted an attack on people with whom you disagreed, employing a key phrase from my comment, (ed malin did not use that phrase), and claimed that people with whom you were in philosophial disagreement were bad people.
If you really meant that some vaguely identified group of people with whom you disagreed–but not the posters in that thread–were guilty of being bad, then you should not have tied their “guilt” directly to a post in which a Moderator declared that insulting other posters was inappropriate behavior.
Still nonsense. Of course people in the thread who I disagree with fall into that category. That is unavoidable because they are in the despised category. The rule prohibits calling opposing counsel for the KKK racists, it does not prohibit calling actual racists, racists. If you choose to infer that opposing counsel are also closet members of the KKK, that is your right, but I did not do it either directly, I accused people who were racists of being racists, which is what is on trial in the thread, and that is moral turpitude per the premise of the thread. You are in essence prohibiting my accusation from being leveled directly and without adornment because you have concluded that by being so blunt and plain, that I am accusing all who defend racism of being racist and morally depraved. Which I am. But I am not doing it by name, or even saying dopers or people in this thread. You have suddenly made it against the rules to shove your own phrase in the face of generalized racists. Stop protecting the sensitivities of racists, do protect individual posters. Follow the rules. That means generalized groups of losers can be called just that.
