Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #601  
Old 12-13-2019, 04:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,108
Yes, you were. You were clearly saying "mere bigotry" is something the "minority" posters should get over. Like peanut allergy sufferers. And your expanded argument is that it is not as bad as physical violence or calls to violence. That is you making the emotional argument that we shouldn't have rules about outright bigotry on this message board because it's not real world violence.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-13-2019 at 04:56 PM.
  #602  
Old 12-13-2019, 04:55 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't agree with that, which is a form of red herring. ...
Really bringing up violence as a comparison was the red herring.

But why is articulating bigotry a mere but an anti Semitic slur not?
  #603  
Old 12-13-2019, 05:02 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yes, you were. You were clearly saying "mere bigotry" is something the "minority" posters should get over. Like peanut allergy sufferers.
This is sort of not really the argument I was trying to convey. If I had to condense it to a sentence, minority posters should avoid bigoted threads like people with allergies avoid their allergies. 'Get over it' is not what I want you to take away from what I am saying, avoidance is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And your expanded argument is that it is not as bad as physical violence or calls to violence. That is you making the emotional argument that we shouldn't have rules about outright bigotry on this message board because it's not real world violence.
This is not accurate, and if I did make that argument, it is a red herring and I rescind it.

~Max
  #604  
Old 12-13-2019, 05:05 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Really bringing up violence as a comparison was the red herring.

But why is articulating bigotry a mere but an anti Semitic slur not?
They are both "mere", but using the fact that calls for violence and actual violence are more dangerous than bigoted language does not support the conclusion that bigoted language is okay. That is a fallacious argument.

~Max
  #605  
Old 12-13-2019, 05:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This is sort of not really the argument I was trying to convey. If I had to condense it to a sentence, minority posters should avoid bigoted threads like people with allergies avoid their allergies. 'Get over it' is not what I want you to take away from what I am saying, avoidance is.
In what other ways are peanuts like bigotry? Not many, is my guess.

We are trying to decide how offensive we are allowed to be on this message board. You don't want to change how bigoted we're allowed to be. Talking about violence is rather purposeful distraction from that conversation. Most pointedly so, when you seem to want to keep it up.
  #606  
Old 12-13-2019, 06:06 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
In what other ways are peanuts like bigotry? Not many, is my guess.
Probably not many. I made the analogy expressly to argue for avoidance, if people are offended because bigotry triggers them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
We are trying to decide how offensive we are allowed to be on this message board. You don't want to change how bigoted we're allowed to be. Talking about violence is rather purposeful distraction from that conversation. Most pointedly so, when you seem to want to keep it up.
Very well, let's drop it. The word "mere" is nonessential in my post #590, and I have disavowed the tu quoque that I didn't intend to make in the first place.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-13-2019 at 06:07 PM. Reason: added link
  #607  
Old 12-13-2019, 09:49 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,156
Here’s the thing though - if I am peanut allergic avoiding is an of course.

Expressions of bigotry though are bullying behaviors and bullying behaviors demand clear responses that they are disapproved of by the entire community, in the real world and in virtual environments.

If someone in my workplace says something racist my leaving the room and allowing it to be said unchallenged is wrong. As boss or manager if I know workers are saying racist or sexist things in the lunch room I have an obligation to police it so that we do not have a hostile work environment.

Which is this more like? A notice that peanuts may be served here or that?
  #608  
Old 12-13-2019, 10:52 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
We've had poll threads done before that indicate that liberals outnumber conservatives on this message board by a ratio of roughly 5 to 1. I don't think there is any danger of liberals ever getting driven off the Straight Dope by conservatives.
Which won't keep them from being driven off by other liberals who feel the need to punish people for not deferring to the Right. A common behavior here and elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
To explain my mindset, I'm thinking there's a range on just how harmful an individual act of bigotry can be. On one extreme you have a bigot killing another human being. Compared to that, articulation of ideas seems very much a mere act to me.
The "articulation of ideas" is exactly how on a forum or in a society calls for violence, and then violence itself become acceptable. This is a long-standing conscious tactic of the Right to normalize their beliefs and then make them dominant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
This is sort of not really the argument I was trying to convey. If I had to condense it to a sentence, minority posters should avoid bigoted threads like people with allergies avoid their allergies.
In other words, be driven away so the bigots can take full control of discourse and push their beliefs more openly. And avoiding the bigots won't work when the bigots kick down their doors and shoot them; which is the endpoint of that pattern.
  #609  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:07 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Expressions of bigotry though are bullying behaviors and bullying behaviors demand clear responses that they are disapproved of by the entire community, in the real world and in virtual environments.
Are all expressions of bigotry "bullying behaviors" that demand a clear response of disapproval from the entire community? What is your argument supporting that conclusion? I don't think someone can be an unintentional bully, but I do think someone can be an unintentional bigot, or a bigot who doesn't wish harm upon others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
If someone in my workplace says something racist my leaving the room and allowing it to be said unchallenged is wrong. As boss or manager if I know workers are saying racist or sexist things in the lunch room I have an obligation to police it so that we do not have a hostile work environment.
I think your workplace analogy fails just like my meeting-of-friends analogy fails. A workplace never wants racism, just like a friend does not serve another friend food they are allergic to. But trendy restaurants serve foods with allergens, and a board dedicated to fighting ignorance presumably will have a space to fight bigotry.

~Max
  #610  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:19 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
The "articulation of ideas" is exactly how on a forum or in a society calls for violence, and then violence itself become acceptable. This is a long-standing conscious tactic of the Right to normalize their beliefs and then make them dominant.

In other words, be driven away so the bigots can take full control of discourse and push their beliefs more openly. And avoiding the bigots won't work when the bigots kick down their doors and shoot them; which is the endpoint of that pattern.
I'm glad you responded to me, Der Trihs. If I had to choose a member that I understood the least, I think I might choose you. I am very interested in what you have to say.

The general argument that I get from you is that bigotry drives away normal posters, and if we continue to allow bigotry we will lose all of our sensible members and only the bigots will be left. If only the bigots are left, that means people will think bigotry is normal and then they will go and start putting bigoted ideas into action, which is harmful. That is obviously bad and counter to fighting ignorance, therefore we should censor bigotry.

Before I continue, please let me know if I have accurately described your opinion.

~Max
  #611  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:42 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post

The general argument that I get from you is that bigotry drives away normal posters, and if we continue to allow bigotry we will lose all of our sensible members and only the bigots will be left. If only the bigots are left, that means people will think bigotry is normal and then they will go and start putting bigoted ideas into action, which is harmful. That is obviously bad and counter to fighting ignorance, therefore we should censor bigotry.
This is seriously ridiculous. We are talking about the rules on this message board, making this message board a better place for conversation. There is no way we are talking about conversations here being directly culpable for "putting bigoted ideas into action". I seriously doubt DSeid was arguing that - in this thread he is stopping around "only the bigots will be left".

This is a very suspicious push in direction of the conversation you seem to keep up, even as we "drop" the one from four posts ago.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-14-2019 at 12:46 AM.
  #612  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:52 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,108
Uggh, I see you were responding to Der Trih. Regardless, even if that's what he meant, both of you would be being ridiculous in that case. We aren't changing the world. We're talking about changing the environment here.

Last edited by CarnalK; 12-14-2019 at 12:54 AM.
  #613  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:52 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
This is seriously ridiculous. We are talking about the rules on this message board, making this message board a better place for conversation. There is no way we are talking about conversations here being directly culpable for "putting bigoted ideas into action". I seriously doubt DSeid was arguing that - in this thread he is stopping around "only the bigots will be left".

This is a very suspicious push in direction of the conversation you seem to keep up, even as we "drop" the one from four posts ago.
I was quoting Der Trihs, not DSeid. Neither did I mention "conservatives", I explicitly left that out of my response.

~Max
  #614  
Old 12-14-2019, 02:03 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,215
Max S. - I'm not allergic to bigotry, I believe it is an evil we should do without. You're using the wrong analogy - bigotry isn't an allergy, it's a virus. Like measles.

Is your advice that the immunocompromised should just never ever go anywhere while the anti-vaxxers get to romp around willy-nilly? Because that just ends in lots more people dying. Or should the community protect its vulnerable members, vaccinate freely, and make the deliberate plague-enthusiasts the pariahs instead?
  #615  
Old 12-14-2019, 08:38 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Are all expressions of bigotry "bullying behaviors" that demand a clear response of disapproval from the entire community? What is your argument supporting that conclusion? I don't think someone can be an unintentional bully, but I do think someone can be an unintentional bigot, or a bigot who doesn't wish harm upon others.

I think your workplace analogy fails just like my meeting-of-friends analogy fails. A workplace never wants racism, just like a friend does not serve another friend food they are allergic to. But trendy restaurants serve foods with allergens, and a board dedicated to fighting ignorance presumably will have a space to fight bigotry.

~Max
Yes, all (at least public) expressions of bigotry are bullying behaviors and demand a clear response of disapproval from the community.

Like other bullies bigots often do not think of themselves as bullying. They see themselves as the enforcers of what they believe are the norms, punishing outliers for the good of the group and/or as performance art to elevate their status within the group.

As in all bullying situations a bystander is forced to make a choice. Object or reinforce the behavior either by action or by inaction. Let's make that absolutely clear: a bystander doing nothing is a choice, a choice that reinforces the bullying behavior.

Workplaces historically often DID not only allow but even want racism and sexism. And it took SCOTUS in 1986 (Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson) declaring that creating a hostile work environment against a class of workers (in that case specifically women) is NOT protected free speech and is not allowed.

Your last analogy is frankly specious.

The question is if this "trendy restaurant" is to serve bigotry as part of its menu at all, and if it is will minimally be very clear that the ingredients are are allowed only in very specific dishes and that strong guidelines are followed to prevent cross-contamination. Except we aint so trendy, so maybe better to say if this lunchroom will allow those eating there to bring in bigotry and jelly sandwiches from home, and if so do they need to stay at a specific clearly identified bigotry-allowed table or will the others be restricted to the labelled bigotry-free table.

Where that analogy fails is merely that there is great disagreement over whether any specific sandwich contains bigotry or not.


MrDibble,

Unfortunately your bigotry is a virus/anti-vaxxer analogy makes the exact opposite point you want it to. Given that our society has them, the most important things for us to accomplish are addressing the fears so that most are immunized, and to prevent them from clustering and reaching any local critical mass. The key always is herd immunity. As a pediatrician I engage with the more common vaccine hesitant parents. Any anti-vaxxer beliefs won't infect me and I do have a real number of parents who end up getting their kids immunized who would not have if I had not engaged. That is the way to prevent deaths, you aim to get enough immunized so you have herd immunity levels. By your virus/anti-vaxxer analogy the question is to which degree this place is as unto is a school in which are onus is on protecting a vulnerable population by prohibiting attendance by those not up to date on their vaccines, and to what degree we are more like my office where the onus is on administering the vaccines and on educating parents about their safety, efficacy, and need?
  #616  
Old 12-14-2019, 12:48 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,715
OK, so if I'm understanding this analogy with antivaxers correctly:

The Dope is like a virtual doctor's office, in which those infected with unpleasant or dangerous ideas can pass on their viruses to those whose mental armor is insufficient to resist them, resulting in intellectual impairment and/or emotional distress. Engaging with the infected (bigots) will immunize at least some against the harmful ideas, but allowing any of them in the virtual waiting room (i.e. as Dope members) poses an unacceptable risk to communal mental health.

Makes sense, I suppose. It's why I hardly ever read letters to the editor or comments sections anymore.
  #617  
Old 12-15-2019, 12:16 AM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I'm glad you responded to me, Der Trihs. If I had to choose a member that I understood the least, I think I might choose you. I am very interested in what you have to say.

The general argument that I get from you is that bigotry drives away normal posters, and if we continue to allow bigotry we will lose all of our sensible members and only the bigots will be left. If only the bigots are left, that means people will think bigotry is normal and then they will go and start putting bigoted ideas into action, which is harmful. That is obviously bad and counter to fighting ignorance, therefore we should censor bigotry.
Yes. It's not simply a Straight Dope issue, it's something happening across our entire society. With great success on the part of the bigots. The bigots have largely taken over public discourse as well as the government, and are making major inroads towards putting their bigotry into action.
  #618  
Old 12-15-2019, 12:58 AM
Charlie Wayne is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johanna View Post
I'm with Jenny!
Seems to me that it's nigh on impossible not to be with Jenny and likewise - not to be with Johanna.
  #619  
Old 12-15-2019, 01:30 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Max S. - I'm not allergic to bigotry, I believe it is an evil we should do without. You're using the wrong analogy - bigotry isn't an allergy, it's a virus. Like measles.

Is your advice that the immunocompromised should just never ever go anywhere while the anti-vaxxers get to romp around willy-nilly? Because that just ends in lots more people dying. Or should the community protect its vulnerable members, vaccinate freely, and make the deliberate plague-enthusiasts the pariahs instead?
If you are immunocompromised and there is a measles outbreak, my advice (and I am not a doctor) is to avoid unnecessary exposure to people who might have measles and see a doctor if you notice a rash. If you are on immunoglobulin replacement therapy, I don't think vaccination is as effective, but the IG therapy provides some protection. Also, people with immunodeficiencies might actually become infected from live-attenuated vaccines such as with MMR. That leaves avoidance (and IG therapy, if indicated).

If you must compare bigotry to a viral disease, what exactly does that make the Straight Dope? But I think DSeid answered that question very well.

~Max
  #620  
Old 12-15-2019, 03:01 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Yes, all (at least public) expressions of bigotry are bullying behaviors and demand a clear response of disapproval from the community.
So, for example let's say someone posted "It is immoral to marry a widow; widows ought not to remarry". Such a position reasonably leads to and demonstrably has resulted in widows committing suicide (cite: Neo-Confucianism). Do you think the post is bigoted (sexist)? I do. Do you think the post constitutes bullying? I do not necessarily think it is bullying.

My definition of bullying requires malice. An unintentional bully is very much an oxymoron to me. But someone who hasn't thought their position through may not realize that their way of thinking, if made commonplace or put in to action, would necessarily cause harm. Mix in a little ignorance, and a person can think widow chastity is moral while widow suicide is immoral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Like other bullies bigots often do not think of themselves as bullying. They see themselves as the enforcers of what they believe are the norms, punishing outliers for the good of the group and/or as performance art to elevate their status within the group.
Or perhaps, they think of themselves as using sound logic to reach the truth or achieve some moral good. Not only might a bigot see "punishing outliers" as a necessary evil, they might not see themselves as punishing anybody at all.

As another example, I don't think somebody who presents arguments for a racial theory of intelligence necessarily thinks they are enforcing any norms or punishing any outliers for the good of some group, or engaging in performance art. They could see themselves as telling an inconvenient truth. It's on the rest of us to shoot down those arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Your last analogy is frankly specious.

The question is if this "trendy restaurant" is to serve bigotry as part of its menu at all, and if it is will minimally be very clear that the ingredients are are allowed only in very specific dishes and that strong guidelines are followed to prevent cross-contamination. Except we aint so trendy, so maybe better to say if this lunchroom will allow those eating there to bring in bigotry and jelly sandwiches from home, and if so do they need to stay at a specific clearly identified bigotry-allowed table or will the others be restricted to the labelled bigotry-free table.

Where that analogy fails is merely that there is great disagreement over whether any specific sandwich contains bigotry or not.
That is an excellent criticism. Many of the great debates of our time, and lots of politics, and lots of mundane thoughts, and lots of humble opinions, and lots of art, are based on or influenced by bigotry.

So since we're rolling with the specious analogy of a restaurant that serves trendy foods, I think I'll make some of those customers allergic to eggs. The restaurant doesn't decide what foods are trendy - the population at large does. Many of the popular foods require eggs, so many that it is impractical to create an egg-free menu and still be serving trendy foods (an egg-free menu would scare away customers).

There are multiple ways to deal with this. One way is to split the restaurant in two, one side with eggs and one side without. This would be like designating certain forums for bigotry (alternatively, designating certain forums as safe spaces). The downside is that you have segregated your restaurant/message board.

Another way is to clearly mark the menu items that may contain eggs. Unfortunately lots of dishes may contain eggs. The customer can also ask the waiter/waitress whether a particular dish contains eggs. You can also let a customer with an allergy to ask for a dish to be made without the eggs (if possible).

I am not sure if that can or should be replicated on this message board. I am very much reminded of that scene from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life where the couple orders a conversation from the menu.

~Max
  #621  
Old 12-15-2019, 03:29 AM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Yes. It's not simply a Straight Dope issue, it's something happening across our entire society. With great success on the part of the bigots. The bigots have largely taken over public discourse as well as the government, and are making major inroads towards putting their bigotry into action.
Now, I am not an ends-justify-the-means sort of person. I first need to agree that it is reasonable for most normal posters to leave on account of bigotry. Reason would then demand my concession that bigotry should be censored.

Earlier in this thread, and in a previous thread, I introduced the possibility of a good-faith bigot: someone who sincerely holds a bigoted opinion, but is not malicious (does not want to cause harm). Not all bigots argue in good faith, but I am asserting that at least some of them do, possibly due to ignorance.

The opposite of this is bad-faith bigotry, which I agree should be disallowed. The initial presumption is of good-faith, but once it becomes clear that a member is posting in bad-faith (whether he or she is a bigot or not), that member deserves a warning.

We are left with presumptively good-faith bigotry. Does good-faith bigotry still drive away normal posters? What are the reasons that normal posters might be driven away by sincere and non-malicious bigotry?

~Max
  #622  
Old 12-15-2019, 09:34 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,156
Your basic mindset Max seems to come from a perspective that bigotry is a must have item, either to meet demand for it or for quality. It isn't. A ban on explicit bigotry would drive few away, neither would constraining discussions that might be reasonably read as bigotry, both by disallowing those discussions outside of specific threads so clearly labelled (no hijacking of other threads with those subjects) and by extra tight mod facilitation of those discussions. OTOH without those things as a minimum many normal posters find this a less attractive place to spend time and some significant number are feeling explicitly unwelcomed and driven away.

In any case, few bigots consider themselves bigots, "good faith" ones let alone of malicious intent. They all "think of themselves as using sound logic to reach the truth or achieve some moral good." All of us do. We just have very different ideas of what truth and good are.
  #623  
Old 12-15-2019, 02:35 PM
Larry Borgia's Avatar
Larry Borgia is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 10,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Now, I am not an ends-justify-the-means sort of person. I first need to agree that it is reasonable for most normal posters to leave on account of bigotry. Reason would then demand my concession that bigotry should be censored.

Earlier in this thread, and in a previous thread, I introduced the possibility of a good-faith bigot: someone who sincerely holds a bigoted opinion, but is not malicious (does not want to cause harm). Not all bigots argue in good faith, but I am asserting that at least some of them do, possibly due to ignorance.

The opposite of this is bad-faith bigotry, which I agree should be disallowed. The initial presumption is of good-faith, but once it becomes clear that a member is posting in bad-faith (whether he or she is a bigot or not), that member deserves a warning.

We are left with presumptively good-faith bigotry. Does good-faith bigotry still drive away normal posters? What are the reasons that normal posters might be driven away by sincere and non-malicious bigotry?

~Max
There is no such thing as non-malicious bigotry. All bigotry causes real harm to its targets.

As an anecdote, I've worked with black kids who thought they were too stupid to learn math. Not because they themselves were stupid, but because they were black, and math just wasn't something black people could do. I was so shocked that I was convinced they were fronting, trying to get out of doing their work. But it became very clear they were sincere. Where did they get this message?
  #624  
Old 12-15-2019, 03:53 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I think your workplace analogy fails just like my meeting-of-friends analogy fails. A workplace never wants racism, just like a friend does not serve another friend food they are allergic to. But trendy restaurants serve foods with allergens, and a board dedicated to fighting ignorance presumably will have a space to fight bigotry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
So since we're rolling with the specious analogy of a restaurant that serves trendy foods, I think I'll make some of those customers allergic to eggs. The restaurant doesn't decide what foods are trendy - the population at large does. Many of the popular foods require eggs, so many that it is impractical to create an egg-free menu and still be serving trendy foods (an egg-free menu would scare away customers).
I know I said that I was going to quit trying to argue with Max S on this subject. But this is absurd. Eggs, and other foods including allergens (whether served by "trendy" restaurants or not), are perfectly good food for most people. Bigotry is not perfectly good food for anybody, or for any society. Bigotry is poison to society as a whole. The equivalent would be encouraging restaurants to serve foods containing arsenic, because some people don't want to look at diners who have acne.
  #625  
Old 12-15-2019, 05:23 PM
Amara_ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
N

Earlier in this thread, and in a previous thread, I introduced the possibility of a good-faith bigot: someone who sincerely holds a bigoted opinion, but is not malicious (does not want to cause harm). Not all bigots argue in good faith, but I am asserting that at least some of them do, possibly due to ignorance.

~Max
Bigotry, especially when combined with societal power structures is always harmful; it just isn't always harmful to the bigot. That's the core of the issue here - are bigots more entitled to spew harmful rhetoric but get a pass because it's polite? If so, their targets will, and have, left the boards. Why on earth would someone stay in a place where their dehumanization is accepted?
  #626  
Old 12-15-2019, 05:58 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amara_ View Post
Bigotry, especially when combined with societal power structures is always harmful; it just isn't always harmful to the bigot.
It's very often also harmful to the bigot, though the bigot may not recognize that. Such people tend to believe that society will run beautifully well with Their Kind on top; recognizing neither the huge benefits to society (or often directly to themselves) from accepting members of the groups they're bigoted against as full members, nor the danger that those who've obtained power from bigotry are likely, sooner or later, to turn on them too. Let alone the danger that they actually will succeed in tearing their society apart through civil war, in which just about everybody winds up damaged, including those who instigated it.
  #627  
Old 12-16-2019, 06:20 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
"Liberals" are not a monolith. People - no, scratch that - Conservatives have done a pretty good job of driving off trans posters and many women.
I'm going to quibble here. While conservatives bear by far the largest amount of responsibility for making this board toxic to trans people, the misogyny has not been quite so one-sided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
There is no such thing as non-malicious bigotry.
Semantics. Not all bigotry is committed with malicious intent; however, bigotry conveys malice whether the perpetrator was doing it to be mean or simply out of ignorance.

As indeed pertains to my point about misogyny above; I imagine lots of men (myself sadly included) have posted comments that were intended to be trivial or lighthearted but which were not received as such by many female posters. We all know what sins have been buried under the phrase "It was just a joke", even when it really was just supposed to be a joke.
  #628  
Old 12-16-2019, 08:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
MrDibble,

Unfortunately your bigotry is a virus/anti-vaxxer analogy makes the exact opposite point you want it to. Given that our society has them, the most important things for us to accomplish are addressing the fears so that most are immunized, and to prevent them from clustering and reaching any local critical mass.
Prevent them from clustering is precisely my point.
Quote:
By your virus/anti-vaxxer analogy the question is to which degree this place is as unto is a school in which are onus is on protecting a vulnerable population by prohibiting attendance by those not up to date on their vaccines, and to what degree we are more like my office where the onus is on administering the vaccines and on educating parents about their safety, efficacy, and need?
We're the school, not the doctor's office.
  #629  
Old 12-16-2019, 08:37 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I'm going to quibble here. While conservatives bear by far the largest amount of responsibility for making this board toxic to trans people, the misogyny has not been quite so one-sided.
Fair enough. The specific posters I'm thinking of specifically mentioned posters I know to be conservative, but yeah, I see your point.
  #630  
Old 12-16-2019, 08:42 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
It's very often also harmful to the bigot, though the bigot may not recognize that. Such people tend to believe that society will run beautifully well with Their Kind on top; recognizing neither the huge benefits to society (or often directly to themselves) from accepting members of the groups they're bigoted against as full members, nor the danger that those who've obtained power from bigotry are likely, sooner or later, to turn on them too. Let alone the danger that they actually will succeed in tearing their society apart through civil war, in which just about everybody winds up damaged, including those who instigated it.
ISTM that this cuts both ways. It is not clear that the SDMB will run beautifully well once it gets rids of the conservatives, as seems to be the push.

If we want debate, but label everyone as bigoted who debates, we aren't going to get much debate.

Regards,
Shodan
  #631  
Old 12-16-2019, 08:51 AM
Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 24,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If we want debate, but label everyone as bigoted who debates, we aren't going to get much debate.
Good thing we don't do that then.
  #632  
Old 12-16-2019, 09:05 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
once it gets rids of the conservatives, as seems to be the push
Again this strawman.

Unless you're saying bigot and conservative are the same thing, which just isn't true. Most of the racists, transphobes, misogynists, homophobes and other bigots seem to also espouse conservative political views. But the reverse is not true. There seem to be quite a few non-bigoted conservatives here.

I'll happily cop to pushing to rid the Dope of bigots. But not your strawman.

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-16-2019 at 09:06 AM.
  #633  
Old 12-16-2019, 10:50 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,419
I don't think it is a strawman. Bone and manhattan were mods, and both left because of the way the SDMB treats conservatives. Bricker left - was he a bigot?

I get what you are saying, but it is a No True Scotsman argument. You don't want to ban conservatives, just those who argue against you on the hot-button issues. As the SDMB becomes more and more vehemently insistent on its hot buttons, the difference between the two becomes less and less.

Regards,
Shodan
  #634  
Old 12-16-2019, 11:33 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 27,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You don't want to ban conservatives, just those who argue against you on the hot-button issues.
No. I love posters who argue against me on hot-button issues. I had a great time arguing with Liberal, for instance.

It's the ones who think people like me are lesser human beings, or think trans people don't/shouldn't exist, or want women to just shut up and spread 'em, that I want banned.

Now, are you telling me those are conservative values? Or just "hot-button issues"? Or is this idea that I want people who oppose me to be banned just a strawman?

Hell, I don't agree with liberals on a lot of things, either, not being one myself.

Last edited by MrDibble; 12-16-2019 at 11:36 AM.
  #635  
Old 12-16-2019, 12:41 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,419
The issue being that there is a large and vocal element on the SDMB that makes no distinction between (for instance) 'based on the evidence, Christine Ford's (and Julie Swetnick's and Debbie Ramirez's) accusations against Bret Kavanaugh are probably false" and "women should just shut up and spread 'em". Or "there is lots of evidence apart from Zimmerman's account that Trayvon Martin got shot because he attacked George Zimmerman" vs. "blacks are inferior". Etc.

Regards,
Shodan
  #636  
Old 12-16-2019, 12:52 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
ISTM that this cuts both ways. It is not clear that the SDMB will run beautifully well once it gets rids of the conservatives, as seems to be the push.
I didn't say conservatives, I said bigots.

Are you seriously saying that you think all conservatives are bigots?

ETA: There's a distinct difference between 'I think accusations against Kavanaugh are probably false' and 'Accusations against Kavanaugh are provably false and all those making them are liars.' Objecting to the latter claim is not at all the same thing as saying that everyone who makes the first claim is a bigot.

Last edited by thorny locust; 12-16-2019 at 12:56 PM.
  #637  
Old 12-16-2019, 02:23 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Your basic mindset Max seems to come from a perspective that bigotry is a must have item, either to meet demand for it or for quality. It isn't.
I'm glad you pointed this out, because you and I disagree on this. I think bigotry underlies one half of many interesting and/or important philosophical and political debates. This may come down to how we identify bigotry.

You see, I identify a statement or opinion as bigotry when the consequence of that statement is discrimination against people because they have some protected trait (race, sex, religion, nationality, etcetera). I accord a speaker's motivation no weight when determining whether their opinion is bigoted or not.

Definitions having been established, I now disprove your assertion per reductio ad absurdium:

If a hiring manager refuses to interview women because his experience tells him that women generally aren't as qualified as men, I don't actually care whether his experience justifies that generalization or not. The consequence of refusing to interview women because they are women is bigotry: it is discrimination on the basis of sex. (It's also illegal in principle)

Is hiring women really one of those hot-button issues of our day and age? It definitely can be, for example when the hiring manager is an army recruiter. What about refusing to hire transgender or homosexual individuals as schoolteachers because, in the opinion of the hiring manager, such individuals are unfit as role models, because they tend to have noticeable mental disorders incident to gender dysphoria? I don't care whether the generalization is usually justified or not, or whether the argument can be refuted on other grounds, it is still bigotry.

I don't know how socially liberal Chicago is these days, but these are not resolved issues for people here in semirural Florida. Hiring a transgender schoolteacher would be very controversial here, and exactly one half of the controversy would be explicit bigotry.

Shodan mentioned George Zimmerman, and his trial is back in the news and in conversation 'round here. I would go so far to say that most people's opinions about that controversy (both sides) are explicitly bigoted - because by definition, making generalizations based on race is bigotry. In my opinion, if you take out the bigotry, there isn't really a debate to be had.

If you are familiar with philosophy, the entire notion of assigning people natures based on their nationality or lineage is a form of bigotry. Again, it doesn't really matter whether or not they are justified in making such generalizations. We would have to ban endorsement of Socrates and Platonism, at least from subjects that concern human nature and governance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
In any case, few bigots consider themselves bigots, "good faith" ones let alone of malicious intent. They all "think of themselves as using sound logic to reach the truth or achieve some moral good." All of us do. We just have very different ideas of what truth and good are.
I agree.

~Max
  #638  
Old 12-16-2019, 02:33 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Borgia View Post
There is no such thing as non-malicious bigotry. All bigotry causes real harm to its targets.
What Gyrate said. The point I was making (perhaps prematurely) was about intent: malice requires intent, bigotry does not.

~Max
  #639  
Old 12-16-2019, 02:44 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
I know I said that I was going to quit trying to argue with Max S on this subject. But this is absurd. Eggs, and other foods including allergens (whether served by "trendy" restaurants or not), are perfectly good food for most people. Bigotry is not perfectly good food for anybody, or for any society. Bigotry is poison to society as a whole. The equivalent would be encouraging restaurants to serve foods containing arsenic, because some people don't want to look at diners who have acne.
It's not difficult for me to imagine something non-kosher like shellfish consumption being bad for society as a whole. But I will drop the analogy.

~Max
  #640  
Old 12-16-2019, 03:00 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amara_ View Post
Bigotry, especially when combined with societal power structures is always harmful; it just isn't always harmful to the bigot. That's the core of the issue here - are bigots more entitled to spew harmful rhetoric but get a pass because it's polite? If so, their targets will, and have, left the boards. Why on earth would someone stay in a place where their dehumanization is accepted?
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that people would leave because, by allowing people to post bigoted opinions, the SDMB effectively accepts/endorses dehumanization?

If so, why would giving bigoted people a platform give you the impression that the SDMB accepts or endorses their views? Especially in a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance, I would think very much the opposite and look at it as an invitation to fight ignorance with reason.

ETA: Or are you saying (discussion of) bigotry should be censored because it is harmful? Or am I misunderstanding you entirely?

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-16-2019 at 03:03 PM.
  #641  
Old 12-16-2019, 03:13 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
If we want debate, but label everyone as bigoted who debates, we aren't going to get much debate.

Regards,
Shodan
As far as I can tell, nobody has labeled everybody who debates as bigoted.

That is, everybody except me with regard to Zimmerman. But I said there isn't a debate if you remove the bigots, I did not say that everybody who debates is bigoted. You can have a debate between bigots and non-bigots.

~Max
  #642  
Old 12-16-2019, 03:19 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Unless you're saying bigot and conservative are the same thing, which just isn't true.
Not entirely a strawman. I do think certain conservative values are rooted in bigotry, because history is full of bigotry, and tradition is based on history, and conservatism literally means sticking to tradition.

~Max
  #643  
Old 12-16-2019, 03:24 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The issue being that there is a large and vocal element on the SDMB that makes no distinction between (for instance) 'based on the evidence, Christine Ford's (and Julie Swetnick's and Debbie Ramirez's) accusations against Bret Kavanaugh are probably false" and "women should just shut up and spread 'em".
For what it's worth, if we are talking about bigotry I don't make the distinction. Unless you know something I don't, both of these statements are bigoted.

~Max
  #644  
Old 12-16-2019, 03:51 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
For what it's worth, if we are talking about bigotry I don't make the distinction. Unless you know something I don't, both of these statements are bigoted.

~Max
IIUC, you are saying that concluding, based on the evidence, that Ford's allegation was untrue, and "women should just shut up and spread 'em", are bigoted statements. If that's true, then I suspect many Dopers agree with you. They would then conclude that neither statement should be allowed.

I don't know anything you don't, but I have a different opinion. Namely that true statements should form the basis for debate, and should not be excluded.

Many years ago, there was a monster thread about Crystal Mangum and her accusations of the Duke lacrosse team. It turns out that her accusations were false. Therefore, it matters to me not at all if most accusations of the sort are true, or that she was black and they were white, or anything other than the fact that what she claimed was false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Shapiro
Facts don't care about your feelings.
We can argue about what the facts really are, and we always do. But "I don't care if it is true; I don't want to know" isn't fighting ignorance - it's promulgating it.

Regards,
Shodan
  #645  
Old 12-16-2019, 04:24 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
IIUC, you are saying that concluding, based on the evidence, that Ford's allegation was untrue, and "women should just shut up and spread 'em", are bigoted statements. If that's true, then I suspect many Dopers agree with you. They would then conclude that neither statement should be allowed.

I don't know anything you don't, but I have a different opinion. Namely that true statements should form the basis for debate, and should not be excluded.

Many years ago, there was a monster thread about Crystal Mangum and her accusations of the Duke lacrosse team. It turns out that her accusations were false. Therefore, it matters to me not at all if most accusations of the sort are true, or that she was black and they were white, or anything other than the fact that what she claimed was false. We can argue about what the facts really are, and we always do. But "I don't care if it is true; I don't want to know" isn't fighting ignorance - it's promulgating it.

Regards,
Shodan
Again, maybe there's something you know that I don't. I am not aware of any facts that disprove Dr. Ford's allegation of sexual assault. I am not aware of any facts proving it either. You appear to claim that her allegations are probably false, and as far as I know the only way to support such a claim is by relying on generalizations that trigger my definition of bigotry. Whether or not those generalizations are practical or moral or even ultimately true in this instance are irrelevant to my determination of bigotry.

~Max
  #646  
Old 12-16-2019, 05:15 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Now, I am not an ends-justify-the-means sort of person. I first need to agree that it is reasonable for most normal posters to leave on account of bigotry. Reason would then demand my concession that bigotry should be censored.

Earlier in this thread, and in a previous thread, I introduced the possibility of a good-faith bigot: someone who sincerely holds a bigoted opinion, but is not malicious (does not want to cause harm). Not all bigots argue in good faith, but I am asserting that at least some of them do, possibly due to ignorance.

The opposite of this is bad-faith bigotry, which I agree should be disallowed. The initial presumption is of good-faith, but once it becomes clear that a member is posting in bad-faith (whether he or she is a bigot or not), that member deserves a warning.

We are left with presumptively good-faith bigotry. Does good-faith bigotry still drive away normal posters? What are the reasons that normal posters might be driven away by sincere and non-malicious bigotry?
Because they don't like to be hated and threatened with imprisonment, torture or death. It doesn't matter to the victim whether the person hurting them is a true believer or an opportunistic liar.

Like the line goes, the term for somebody who doesn't really believe in Nazi ideology but goes along with it out of opportunism or indifference, is "Nazi". You are trying to draw an irrelevant distinction, as well as belittle people who fear for their lives and freedom.
  #647  
Old 12-16-2019, 05:58 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Again, maybe there's something you know that I don't. I am not aware of any facts that disprove Dr. Ford's allegation of sexual assault. I am not aware of any facts proving it either. You appear to claim that her allegations are probably false, and as far as I know the only way to support such a claim is by relying on generalizations that trigger my definition of bigotry.
This is a remarkable statement. But you're qualifying it with "as far as I know", which may be very significant.

How much do you know?
  #648  
Old 12-16-2019, 05:59 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Because they don't like to be hated and threatened with imprisonment, torture or death. It doesn't matter to the victim whether the person hurting them is a true believer or an opportunistic liar.

Like the line goes, the term for somebody who doesn't really believe in Nazi ideology but goes along with it out of opportunism or indifference, is "Nazi". You are trying to draw an irrelevant distinction, as well as belittle people who fear for their lives and freedom.
Okay, let me try to put this in my own words, and again you stop me where I misunderstand.

Most normal posters dislike/fear being hated or threatened with harm (eg: imprisonment, torture, or death). Bigoted opinions are inherently hateful and/or threaten some people with harm. Therefore, some normal posters dislike/fear discussions with bigoted opinions.

Most normal posters leave discussions they dislike/fear. Therefore, some normal posters leave discussions with bigoted opinions. [...] Therefore, bigotry should be censored.

If I read your opinion accurately, my next question is whether it is reasonable to leave a discussion when a person says something that you feel threatens you with harm, even though that person argues with sincerity and without malice. If so, why?

~Max
  #649  
Old 12-16-2019, 06:02 PM
Max S. is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps View Post
This is a remarkable statement. But you're qualifying it with "as far as I know", which may be very significant.

How much do you know?
I didn't follow the hearings in their entirety, but I've read a few articles and listened to other people from various sources tell me what the facts are. If you want to make a new thread, give me a link and I'll debate you there.

ETA: "as far as I know" was specifically because I cannot prove a negative (there are no arguments that support X without making bigoted generalizations)

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 12-16-2019 at 06:06 PM.
  #650  
Old 12-16-2019, 06:09 PM
Fotheringay-Phipps is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 12,020
Not in this forum, sorry.

Based on your numerous posts to this thread I was surprised to see you posting what I would consider an extremely close-minded viewpoint, but I considered that you might simply have not followed that story too closely. (It sounds from your response that this may indeed be the case.)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017