Isn’t this what the pit is for? If you can’t use any other terminology to make your point, then maybe GQ isn’t the place for you!
I agree it added nothing to the discussion, for participants or readers, and was unnecessarily inflammatory. I think it was a good call.
Either step up with some better language skills, to make your points, or just take it to the pit when, for whatever reason, you cant!
Seems pretty easy, to me.
I’m not absolutely sure, but I believe I’ve called out certain assertions outside of the Pit as “racist” or “bigoted” assertions. Does this rule means I’m not allowed to say (in GD) something to the effect of “assertions that black people are inherently intellectually inferior on average due to their genetics are racist and bigoted assertions”, or call out a specific post as containing a racist/bigoted assertion?
WADR this misses the point. The debate is whether the statement is true or false. Simply labelling it “racist” or “biogtry” does nothing to further that debate.
These things are taking on a definite pattern.
[ul][li]There’s no such thing as race. [/li]In the US in particular, SIRE correlates with average genetic background rather strongly - 80% or so in the case of blacks. That’s what we are talking about when we say “race”, and it is a real thing.
[li]What about other groups with black skin?[/li]Who gives a shit? We are talking about averages - the average of all peple with black skin in the US, including whatever obscure group you have found in Tasmania, correlates on genetic background about 80%.
[li]All humans have the same DNA.[/li]No we don’t, or else we would all be clones of each other, and we aren’t.
[li]Bigotry! Racism![/ul]Lather, rinse, repeat.[/li]
Regards,
Shodan
<inaccurate and incomplete representation of the anti-‘blacks-are-dumber’ POV snipped>
There are (and have been) multiple debates, including whether these assertions is true, whether they are bigoted, whether their acceptance would help or hurt black people, etc.
Read the end of post #17 and your question is answered.
Thank you. I’d also like to hear from a moderator, if possible.
You must have missed Post #9.
Thank you. You’re being very helpful and I applaud your efforts. I’d also like to hear a moderator answer my question about my posts.
No, that pretty much sums up the arguments.
Accusations of bigotry are there to change the debate from “is it true” to “is it bigoted”, and whether their acceptance would help or hurt is an argument from consequence, which also does nothing to establish the truth or otherwise of a proposition.
Regards,
Shodan
Here is your question:
Here is your answer:
Are you really having trouble grokking this?
This is laughably false, but we should take it to another thread. Or PM me, and I’ll tell you about the many, many points (which I’ve re-iterated many, many times in those threads) that you’re missing.
No they’re not. Whether or not the assertions are bigoted is an actual topic of discussion (in addition to things like “would acceptance of these assertions help or hurt black people”) that we (we Dopers – I’m not sure if you were involved) have had before. Whether or not the assertions are true is not the only thing that has been discussed.
I’m having trouble grokking why my curiosity about what moderators think about my question regarding my posts, which might be different from how they answered other questions (similar but not identical) about other posts, is so difficult for you to accept.
Yes, the moderators answered a similar question about other bigotry-related posts. But it wasn’t my question about my posts – I’m curious what they have to say about that.
No big deal.
See post #9.
I did, and it’s an obvious fake.
Drat, fooled again. :smack:
I’m gonna address MfM because I think he’s raised the strongest arguments in the thread; and I’m gonna cut&paste respond, even though I don’t normally like taht approach, because he raises several completely distinct points.
If accusations of bigotry are more intense, it’s only because it’s generally recognized as a worse flaw in thinking. I agree that the charge should not be thrown around nonsensically, but used accurately, if folks find it stings, maybe it’s something they should examine in their own claims and beliefs.
If I understand you, you’re saying that some folks don’t find themselves persuaded away from an argument by charges that the argument is bigoted. Is that what you mean? Because if so, that’s totally fine: different people find different arguments persuasive.
I disagree. A bigoted argument will have some aspect that depends on an obstinate and illogical contempt for a group. That might consist of a belief that all white people are warmongerers, that all women are schemers, that gay people don’t take relationships seriously, and so on. One can defend against a charge of bigotry in two ways: either say that the argument has no predication on contempt for a group (“Nothing in my argument about restricting the rights of CEOs requires contempt for white men”), or say that the contempt is logical (“Thing is, white men statistically ARE more likely to commit mass murder than any other group, and here’s my evidence.”)
Well, sure–that’s a non sequitur. If I were A, I’d say, “WTF? How do you see that justifying bigotry, B?” in the same way I’d do if B had said it was a great way to prop up superstition or promulgate ignorance or any other irrelevant charge.
At first I was against the call but upon reflection I think that it is reasonable. It looks like I was the one who started the potential hijack and I apologize for that. I am very passionate about this issue and I overstepped.
Sure they are. My point is that discussions of whether or not they are true almost invariably get side-tracked by discussions of whether or not they are bigotry. Which is besides the point - if they are true, they are true.
Which is why the accusation is made. Once all the standard arguments are put out there (there is no such thing as race/what about Adaman Islanders/meaningless nitpicks such as the one MrDibble is currently attempting about saying “genes” instead of “alleles”), we get the almost inevitable complaints in ATMB “why can’t we call other posters bigots”. Or even “anyone who asserts that there may be significant genetic differences among SIRE groups should be banned”.
The endless repetition of “is not is not is not” doesn’t work. Therefore the default is the other answer - “bigot bigot racist”.
For heaven’s sake - tomndebb himself put the prohibition in place in the thread to prevent the thread from being derailed.
Regards,
Shodan
Kreskin you ain’t, and indeed this sort of behavior on your part–in which you try to airmchair-psychologist the reasons people have for making arguments, instead of addressing flaws in the arguments themselves–is ironically what people are suggesting, incorrectly, is the problem with calling arguments bigoted.
“Bigoted” is a specific sort of weakness an argument can have, just like “superstitious” or “ignorant” or “tinfoil-hat conspiracy.” “Made because people don’t like the shining strength of my rebuttal” is not a specific weakness an argument can have.
So he says. I have some speculation about his actual reasons, related to his previous posts about the applicability of the term “bigot” to those who oppose SSM, but that speculation is irrelevant. Really, though, the proof is in the pudding. As I said before, over three and a half months, the word came up five times. One time was in the past month. There was no prevention necessary; the thread was not in danger of derailment due either to rampant use of the word, or to the frail sensibilities of those against whom it might be directed. However, once the prohibition was put in place, derailment occurred.
There are other discussions, in those threads and in other threads. It can be reasonable to discuss, in those threads or others, whether certain claims (not posters – claims) are bigoted. This doesn’t have to be a “side-track” – sometimes it’s the main discussion (or one of the main discussions) in the thread.
You’re missing many, many of the “standard arguments”; most notably the ones that are regularly ignored or hand-waved away by the “blacks are dumber” folks. If you really want to know about them, PM me, or start another thread.
This is an inaccurate and incomplete representation of the “blacks aren’t dumber” arguments.