First, accusing an argument of being bigoted is NOT a demonizing tactic. If anything, it’s a humanizing tactic. Bigotry is part and parcel of the human condition. “Bigotry” is one flaw that beliefs can have, along with “superstition,” “illogic,” and “absurdity.” It’s a specific flaw, just as the others are specific flaws. It’s not the same as calling an argument a Satanic argument, or even calling it a Nazi argument; indeed, relegating it to such categories does nothing but protect bigots.
Which is the second point: if moderation is going to forbid people from pointing out bigoted arguments, but allow bigoted arguments, that’s foolishness. It privileges bigots above people who want to end bigotry, which is the opposite of the purpose of the board.
Accusations of bigotry are right up there with comparisons to Hitler. If you can’t refute something without dropping to that level, let someone else do it. If no one can, well, then guess it wasn’t refutable.
The OP needs to demonstrate why discussions of bigotry can’t be addressed in the pit. I trust such a case could be made first as a hypothetical, then perhaps via example. The strength of such a case isn’t as yet necessarily clear though.
Of course, all right thinking people totally agree on those topics that might evoke charges of bigotry and this forum should permit, perhaps even encourage, posters to fling insults in order to ensure that those who hold “bad” opinions should be driven from our midst.*
This argument, or variations on it, are trotted out for all sorts of discussions and it is simply not persuasive. It presumes that not only is the topic easily discernible as a binary situation, but that the “correct” position has been ordained by Og (requiring all of Og’s followers to chivvy the unbelievers into the wilderness), but that every subsidiary and ancillary discussion must follow the same binary rules, thus allowing the TRUE followers of Og to even hurl charges of bigotry at those wretches who only agree with 99.5% of the message.
:smack:
The point is that in a debate forum, one should be able to use facts and logic, (with, perhaps, a hint of rhetoric and humor), to make one’s point and to persuade one’s audience, (and even, perhaps, one’s opponent), of the utter correctness of one’s position.
Name-calling and demonization only demonstrates that one personally dislikes opinions with which one disagrees and it is not persuasive in a debate.
Further, the use of such tactics is generally intended to simply silence one’s opposition, which means that one has failed to persuade anyone of one’s position. In the thread in question, that was clearly the intention of the majority of posters invoking that word and I declared a moratorium on its use in order to prevent the suppression of ideas.
*I will note that the poster who was Warned had not specifically used the word bigot to insult a specific poster. However, the charges of bigotry had begun flying around the thread simply to demonize and silence other opinions. I instructed the participants to abstain from such accusations unless they were referring to a specific non-SDMB person who had displayed bigotry. The poster in question chose to challenge my instructions by throwing out a one-line disparaging comment that brought nothing to the discussion but rancor.
What, so Great Debates is heretofore limited to topics that everyone totally agrees on? How does that even make sense?
Of COURSE people don’t agree on what’s bigoted. Nor do people agree on what’s illogical, superstitious, or absurd–yet these terms are not forbidden from great debates. All of them are specific words to describe the wrongness of the other poster’s arguments.
Pointing out that people disagree on what’s bigoted is, unless the forum is changing names to Great Agreements, totally irrelevant. Calling the term “demonizing” is ridiculous: really what it is is that people get extra-sensitive about having their bigoted arguments pointed out, but that’s on them.
I understand a proscription against calling a poster a bigot. But setting up a special protection for arguments that, while you can call them illogical, foolish, nonsense, superstitious, appalling, or juvenile, but you mustn’t EVER call them bigoted lest feelings be hurt–that’s just silly, and it shouldn’t happen.
Why should they be? If someone comes in and makes the argument that evolution is equal to YEC because it’s just a theory, we don’t hesitate to call that an ignorant argument, even though we could address that ignorance in the pit. If someone comes in and makes the argument that 9/11 was a conspiracy between Bush and Teh Jews, we feel free to call that tinfoil-hat nonsense, even though we could call them nutjobs in the pit. If some TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL person were to come onto the board and make some TOTALLY HYPOTHETICAL bigoted argument, why should we treat that any differently?
In the past three and a half months, two people had used the word “bigot” or some variation thereof in a total of five posts. Only one of those occurrences was in 2015. Derailed? Really?
Indeed, if you want to look for a post that’s leading to the thread going off the rails, I recommend examining your own warning, which has led to a lot more off-topic conversation in the thread than any of the five posts that mentioned bigotry ever did. When your moderation to prevent thread derail ends up derailing the thread more than the post it targeted, it’s time to regroup.
While I addressed the silly “flying around” aspect of this comment (one flap does not make a flight), there’s also the idea that Inner Stickler’s comment brought nothing to the discussion but rancor. His specific argument was that Argument by Tradition is a great way to justify bigotry. Given that bigotry often has an element of obstinance, and “it’s always been this way, so that’s the way it should be” is the heart of Argument By Tradition, it’s totally relevant to imply a link between these two traits of arguments. We were, at that point, discussing when argument by tradition was valid; IS suggested a way that AbT could have pernicious effects. Whether or not IS’s argument was a good one, it was relevant and did add to the discussion.
Granted, IS’s argument could have been fleshed out more; granted, it was in violation of an instruction. But the instruction itself was not necessary, and the best way to get the argument to be fleshed out more isn’t to warn him, but instead to challenge what he’s saying.
Instead, the thread since then has consisted almost entirely of your issuing warnings and people arguing with the warnings. NOW things are off the rails.
The instruction should be rescinded, and the warning should be reversed, so that the discussion can get back on the rails.
Your use of the word in this thread alone is enough for me to tend to side with tomndebb. But I did go back and read the thread and can understand why tomndebb made the call. I agree with the call.
It’s a really lazy argument to lean back on a loaded word like that. When people on the same side are arguing with each other about how poorly the side is being defended, that’s not a good sign. The continuing use of that word in that thread could possibly make the thread less credible. Especially on that topic, the use of that word is not necessary or wholly justified. Surely you have better arguments that don’t use that word to justify your side for that one thread.
When someone is being bigoted what the hell are we supposed to call them? Seriously.
My dear sir (or madam), your argument seems to be predicated on a basic, unsupportable belief that the referenced persons are somehow inferior to yourself. I would humbly beg that you consider this possibility when posting in the future as such a characterization, in contradiction of polite and acceptable behavior, might lead one to believe that you have a prejudice against the aforementioned persons. Knowing you to be a paragon of virtue, I would, personally, be horrified if someone were to mistake your intentions.
Yr humble obedient servant, etc. etc.
Or you can simply note that it’s a bigoted argument and move the fuck on.
I’d like to know precisely how you can even refute “I don’t like X people.” Bigoted statements are not arguments. Bigoted statements cannot be refuted. Bigoted statements are simply bigoted statements.
What definition of ‘bigotry’ are you using? From google I see: “intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.”. From Wiki I see: “Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.”
Calling an argument bigoted begs the question. The point of contention is whether or not what is being espoused is either intolerant, or in the second definition unfair. To conclude these things and label something bigoted assumes these things. If they were true, than an argument along those lines should be able to demonstrate that this is so. Taking the shortcut to label things as simply bigotry to be dismissed is lazy and does nothing to demonstrate the why of the matter.
You may as well just call the argument “bad” and refuse to elaborate. That would have as much persuasive value.
Response 1. “Accusations of bigotry are more intense and more pit worthy than the others.” I’m not too happy with this actually, but I’m listing it for completeness. Firstly, there are a range of bigots from the KKK grand Wizard to somebody’s grandma. Secondly, I’m wary of special protections. h/t Ibn and LHoD.
Response 2. Well, arguments are characterized as above, but such characterizations aren’t especially persuasive. Set that aside.
Response 3. If somebody calls my argument ignorant, then I can respond with facts and questions about what they believe I’m not addressing. If somebody calls my argument conspiracy theorizing, I could concede, point to historical analogies or show how it’s different from other conspiracy theories. If somebody calls my argument bigoted, I can protest that it’s not motivated by racial animus but that response is both personal (and therefore doesn’t belong in GD) and frankly unpersuasive. It’s like claiming that you’re not a crook. This is well poisoning stuff.
Seriously, LHoD, consider the following hypothetical dialog.
A: "Indeed, if you want to look for a post that’s leading to the thread going off the rails, I recommend examining your own warning, which has led to a lot more off-topic conversation in the thread… When your moderation to prevent thread derail ends up derailing the thread more than the post it targeted, it’s time to regroup. "
B: “Sounds like a great way to justify bigotry, A.”
A: …
When the totality of the post is “Sounds like a great way to justify bigotry,” it’s very hard for a constructive poster to respond to. That’s the sort of thing that should be shunted over to the pit. [In case it wasn’t obvious, I just grabbed a random argument of LHoD’s: I hope I demonstrated the wide applicability and poisonousness of B’s post.]
All that said, tomndebb noted that his injunction was for a particular thread only, which remains relevant. Because there’s a special protection problem.
There was a somewhat interesting discussion about the status of the courts on SSM and speculation about what the Supreme Court may or may not be thinking. In post 223, hajario described the people who will appeal in Kansas with respect to the 10th circuit court. So far, should be okay. It was disrespectful and slanted and inflammatory, but hadn’t broken any rules.
Then Mr. Blue asked the question what the government gains by blocking SSM. Arguably this could have been a new thread as it really doesn’t relate to the Supreme Court and the ongoing status. hajario answers him, and in the process states that all the opponents’ arguments boil down to bigotry. Again, that’s an assertion, but seems fair, unless perhaps one wishes to separate the argument of position statements from the courts’ ongoing saga.
hajario follows up in post 282 referring to the opponents of SSM as bigots. It is getting a bit unnecessary and potentially inflammatory. Post 284 he repeats the use.
In post 302, t-bonham states that jtgain is using the terminology of bigots of a previous era, and states that bigotry doesn’t change. This begins to cross the line into a personal attack against jtgain.
jtgain replied to that, and then tomndebb gave his moderator instruction.
Maybe Tom’s action was a little strong, but there really was no need for the use of that word in the thread. The discussion was not on the merits of SSM or SSM opposition, it was about the status of the different districts and the Supreme Court response to the situation. All use of the words “bigot” and variations were being done to shame the opposition and poison the well.
Subsequently to that, Bricker posted an argument that the “appeal to tradition” fallacy wasn’t necessarily appropriate. Inner Stickler posted that it all sounded like a justification for bigotry. That’s a bit tricky. Technically, that is a fair argument to propose and one to be hashed out in discussion, but it came after a Moderator Instruction to not post that content. Tom took moderator action against disobeying mod instructions. This prompted Trepa Mayfield to kick the hornets nest to see what would happen.
I thought this was settled when it was decided by TPTB that we couldn’t call the “race realists” racist outright in GD. They have that power, the rest of us have to settle for taking it to the Pit.
Fair enough. Just pit those you see as using bigoted arguments. Have a standard boilerplate “The only way I can reply to that argument is in this Pit Thread” then post there.
What jumps out to me are the words I bolded. It seems to you that the person’s argument is based on [the rest of your assertion.]
I’m fairly confident that anyone in that thread would argue that they don’t feel that that’s what their argument is based on.
Your longer “definition” has the embedded assumptions you are making and is really your argument. Posting the longer version gives someone something to argue back against. Making an accusation of bigotry, without more, doesn’t make much of an argument.