What does SIRE mean in this context? Google unhelpful.
It can be a reasonable topic of discussion, but usually it is not - it is typically used to shift the conversation from whether a claim is true or not to trying to shame the claimant. “That’s racist!” “Your claim is bigoted, as always.” Etc.
Shodan is clearly talking about the majority of racial argument discussions, which quickly turn into “Oh no, here goes the racist again” instead of “Oh no, here go the falsehoods again”.
Take a look at the escalating sequence of “bigotry” calls noted by Irishman’s post. Unless you are using the word as a personal insult or unless the thread is following the same escalation of heat without any corresponding increase in light, I doubt that you are going to have any problems.
I am certainly not going to go poring over old threads looking for reasons to issue Mod Notes or Warnings.
To forestall parallel questions: I regard calling another poster “bigot” or “racist” to be a direct insult. Don’t do it in Great Debates or Elections.
In this case, I saw a specific series of posts that I perceived to be escalating toward personal attacks–worse because they were needless.
As I have already noted, above, I am in total disagreement with the premise put forth in the title of this thread. Aside from rants in The BBQ Pit, accusations of racism, bigotry, homophobia, and a number of other views with which I am in complete disagreement are not legitimate just because I agree with the sentiment. They are destructive to discussion and I am going to rule against them in the discussion/debate fora. A thread discussing whether J. Philippe Rushton or Fred Phelps or like-minded people are bigots/racists/homophobes/whatever is not going to attract Moderator attention, as long as the discussion does not become one in which other SDMB posters become the targets of those accusations.
Okay, thanks for the response. It sounds like it’s different, then, (and acceptable) to call out a certain assertion/claim in a post as “bigoted”, in general, while it would be unacceptable, in general, to refer to a poster as a bigot or bigoted.
So… anyone who agrees with Fred Phelps (or anyone) can shut down ongoing criticism of his views by posting agreement.
They don’t even have to truly be bigoted, to receive mod protection here. They just have to say something that sounds a lot like bigotry–conceivably (if unlikely) out of innocence, ignorance, muddy thinking, poor communication–and it becomes verboten to point that out.
Yep.
If the only possible response to prejudice and bigotry that you can think of is to resort to name calling, then head to The BBQ Pit and have a blast.
And if it’s anything else, apparently it has no place on this board at all?
“That sounds like bigotry” is no more an insult than “that argument doesn’t make sense.” Either requires some support, and could possibly
be refuted by explanation the other way–but that discussion can’t happen at all under your standard.
It’s no more “name-calling” than is “ignorant” or superstitious or any of the other myriad words second-cousin to “wrong” that are allowed, and to which you resort copiously in your role as a poster in the forum. Your special protection for a particular variety of “wrong” is wrong.
tomndebb, you didn’t answer, but am I correct in thinking that iiandyiiii is seeing more freedom than you actually wish to permit, in the bolded bit?
Conversely, if that interpretation is correct, then how was,
different?
Do you see that as an insult? This is something that could be supported as a point of fact–and jtgain pretty much conceded it was so anyway.
Or did you object only to the implication you saw in,
If the latter, then your ruling was merely overbroad and overblown.
If the former, then you are indeed providing special protection for racist and racist-sounding posts.
I want to back Tom up here in that I agree with him. Using the word at another poster is a quick path to warning town, population you.
We have a seam in the rules that some ride too fine sometimes wherein a poster may express an opinion and another may say that ‘all x are y’ in some negative context. I’ve long considered this a form of back-door insult (if you’ll pardon the expression) and know that some use it this way (others may not). I’ve mod-noted and warned on it in the past and will likely do so again.
FWIW, I understand the distinction between calling a poster a bigot and calling an argument bigoted. I think there’s unnecessary and unhelpful creep into forbidding the latter, and it leads to less clarity of language, inasmuch as bigoted arguments are a specific subset of wrong arguments, and it’s worth being able to point out such arguments when they appear, including pointing out the telltale language they use to elicit negative emotions about the despised group.
Nope.
I am providing a civil environment for actual discussion where lynch mobs are not permitted to run off people with whom they disagree by simply throwing insults at them. If you are unable to debate (and “defeat”) posters with “bad” ideas without resorting to name-calling, then you are probably not up to the task of actually debating them.
For myself - and not speaking for Tom - I’d be very leery of allowing the labeling of an argument as ‘bigoted’ due to the emotional freighting of the word and its potential use as a back door insult. Such things are a fuzzy line, I know, but that’s where I stand. Better, by far, to find another way to express such thoughts without exposing oneself to accusations of insulting if unintended.
[emphasis added]
Surely–surely–you meant to post this ironically.
Given Tom’s apparent unwillingness to explain why calling an argument “bigoted” is substantively different from calling it superstitious, ignorant, backwards, foolish, illogical, or tinfoil-hat, would you mind explaining the difference you see?
I am not unwilling to explain. I simply find your intense desire to resort to name-calling–with no sufficient explanation on your part why it is necessary–to resemble a merry-go-round debate that I am reluctant to join for the next many cycles.
For your chosen examples, bigoted is the one insult you have chosen to defend that actually declares that a poster (or the poster’s argument), is driven by a defect of character while the others imply a defect of information or an inability to grasp a concept. The other characterizations suggest that the person has a flawed understanding. The charge of bigotry expressly claims that the person is morally or ethically bad.
So a while back some one I know posted a list on Facebook "If you use these terms you are a racist ". Number four on the list were the words inner city and ghetto. I commented and asked how a valid geographic identifier like inner city could be racist? Furthermore how am I supposed to refer to that part of the city that is not a suburb and is near the center part of the city? What is the currently acceptable term?
Upshot? I got called a racist and I was unfriended by that person. They had demonized me for asking a couple valid questions.
They didn’t try to refute me, or correct me, or argue with me, all they did was demonize me and call me a racist.
So LHoD, I can’t buy your argument.
Would you feel the same if someone called an argument being made “assholish”?
It’s about the same thing that you’re trying to defend.
When you call posters in great debates “lynch mobs,” your concern over name-calling is a little less than convincing.
I disagree: a bigoted argument is based on the assumption that another group is inferior in some way. While there’s obviously a moral element to holding bigoted beliefs, it also represents a flawed understanding, assuming that the other group isn’t actually inferior.
No it’s not. Merely asserting that it’s the same thing is a foolish thing to do.
I can’t help you with your Facebook acquaintance. I don’t know whether they’re just ridiculous, or whether you’re leaving out salient details of the story. But the idea that since this one interaction went south, therefore we should never call racist or bigoted arguments racist or bigoted, suffers from a failure of logic.