Bigotry allowed, pointing it out forbidden

I’d like to be 100% honest and say that I thought the original warning was bullshit: another “doesn’t address the problem, just a single symptom” and that your post above was just…fluff…good sounding noise.

Then I saw you (as a team, I don’t mean you did it unilaterally) supended Der Trihs a little bit ago. As he is one of the posterboys (IMO) for the specific back-door type insult you described, I gotta say I retract my earlier thoughts and give you a kudos for showing that this time the change seems to have some teeth and is substantive.

Seriously–good job Tom and Jonathan.

Name-calling and demonization only demonstrates that one personally dislikes opinions with which one disagrees and it is not persuasive in a debate.

In the year 2015, calling someone a racist or a bigot is a terrible insult to anyone who pretends to have a community presence. Calling their arguments racist or bigoted is an implication that the poster is likewise a racist or a bigot. The poster (in this case me) will want to defend himself against those scurrilous accusations. So at the outset it poisons the well, and turns the thread away from what was really being debated into a “yes, this is bigoted. no, it’s not” debate.

Clearly, I participate in SSM threads because I am a lawyer and I am particularly interested in constitutional law. A decision mandating that states must recognize SSM would be a decision that strongly goes against what my idea of the role of the judiciary is and what qualifies as a fundamental right. So, it interests me for that reason; not for any animus towards anyone.

When things slow down, I think I will start an omnibus thread about the upcoming SSM decision to specifically discuss 3 issues: 1) Is SSM a constitutional right? 2) Assuming the answer to #1 is no, should states legalize SSM?, and 3) Is opposition to SSM bigoted in the same way that opposition to miscegenation or segregation is bigoted?

But more to the point of this thread, I think it is important to say that just because one believes that opposition to SSM is bigotry does not mean it is logically wrong. I would hope that on this board if someone propose the ridiculous idea that slavery should be reinstituted, we could shoot down that argument with reasoned debate instead of being dismissive and hurling insults. If I am wrong about SSM, educate me.

In the year 2015, being a bigot or a racist is considered unacceptable, sometimes. But other times, it’s considered dandy, as long as it’s covert. I think it’s entirely helpful to point out that some beliefs that have mainstream acceptance are actually predicated on bigotry. Again, it comes down to the idea that if it’s acceptable to voice opinions predicated on bigotry on this board, it ought also to be acceptable for others to identify those opinions as predicated on bigotry.

Whatever insult adheres to the charge of bigotry is a consequence of the social unacceptability of holding bigoted beliefs. People holding such beliefs should not be artificially protected from social censure: they should own the consequences of holding such beliefs.

Accusations of bigotry are not necessarily scurrilous: they, like all charges of making poor arguments, only scurrilous if they’re deliberately false. Calling someone “disingenuous” or part of a “lynch mob”–THAT is scurrilous, shameful behavior that should be moderated. But if someone calls your position bigoted, you have clear avenues of defense against that charge, avenues that you’ve taken. And the charge is indeed central to the debate, since if the position is bigoted (that is, relies on an unwarranted assumption of the inferiority of a certain group), it’s necessarily a flawed position. If you successfully defend your position against the charge of bigotry, you’ve mounted an excellent defense of the position.

If someone posted “supporting slavery is bigoted”, I seriously doubt it would be moderated (mods, please correct me if I’m wrong). The difference seems to be whether everyone (or close enough) agrees that the opinion is bigoted (such as supporting slavery, the Holocaust, etc.) or not (SSM is wrong/should be illegal; black people are inherently inferior in intelligence due to genetics, on average).

Once upon a time I got called bigoted/homophobic because my position was essentially that we should support SSM instead of a different proposed policy. It happened to be when I would not sign a partner benefits ballot proposal petition. Because I would not support the cause of the day in the gay activist community (who at that time dismissed SSM as a pipedream, at least according to the angry lesbian with the clipboard doing the labeling) I got labeled. They made the leap from my position to assigning my motivations and values that “must be” behind my position. I didn’t agree with them on a specific proposal related to a minority group so I must be a bigot.

That leap is where the danger is. Assuming bigotry and attaching a label is going to have a high false positive rate. Some will respond to false accusations calmly despite the well being poisoned. Some who aren’t bigots will not respond so effectively. The real bigots are unlikely to have their position altered by a simple label and scorn anyway. The most likely effect is the debate gets more heated and tends to be less productive IMO. It is quite possible to get to the motivations behind a position, which may in fact be bigoted, without simply labeling it and heaping scorn. Leading the conversation to explore those things may actually be more productive for those who’s position is based on subconscious bigotry.

In the end, it comes down to the first word there. ‘Accusations’. Great Debates is not about accusing others, nor denouncing them. By your very words here you indicate that you’re not really going to debate.

Now, I realize you’re disagreeing with me on this. That’s fine. But so long as Tom and I are in agreement that insults, accusations and such are forbidden in Great Debates you should realize that this is a losing argument.

The exact opposite is true.

If your claim - that your pointing out the supposed bigotry of your debate opponents was about their flawed logic - then there’s no reason to use a loaded term, and you could just as easily focus on the flaws in their logic.

By contrast, your disingenuousness is fundamental to the objections to what you’re doing. IOW the contrasting claim is that you’re not all about flaws in logic as you pretend, but are deliberately choosing to use terms that you know are loaded with all sorts of PC baggage in an attempt to intimidate and denigrate your opponents, and your attempts to claim otherwise via alternative definitions of the term “bigot” and the like are attempts to pretend you’re not doing something that you’re doing, in an attempt to skirt the rules. Since you yourself brought up the issue of you being allowed to use the term, there’s no way around this objection to it. Either one uses the term “disingenuous” or some other description that means the same thing.

I’m not sure where you get that from. The accusation is made against the argument, and absolutely accusations are made against arguments all the time. Your conclusion that I’m not going to debate is clearly contradicted by my behavior in that thread, and I’d appreciate it if you’d not make such accusations against me if you’ve not paid attention to how I actually act in the thread.

F-P, I’ve come to the conclusion that further discussion with you is going to be all about my motives; your beliefs about my motives don’t especially interest me, so let’s call it a day.

I don’t know what put the idea in your head that I’m attempting to have a discussion with you - I thought I’ve clarified this in prior threads.

I made a point that IMO is worth made in this discussion - that your being disingeuous about your use of the term bigot is at the core of objections to it and therefore can’t be avoided in a discussion of the matter. You can either respond or not respond to this point, fine with me either way.

My mistake.

By that same logic then the mods shouldn’t allow someone to classify an argument as “idiotic” because the poster is implying(by your logic) that his opponent is an idiot. The opponent will then want to defend himself against the “scurrilous accusations” and so “the well is poisoned”.

Is your position really that the mods should start dinging people for calling arguments “idiotic”?

If not, why not?

I ask because based on the above logic in your post if calling an argument “bigoted” is an insult than so is calling an argument “stupid” or “idiotic”.

If classifying arguments as “bigoted” is wrong and considered an insult and an attempt at shutting down debates then shouldn’t the same be true of the phrase “PC”.

After all doesn’t have plenty of negative connotations since at least the 1980s when a lot of people were claiming their arguments were being squelched and they were victims of a “New McCarthyism”.

I don’t know about specific examples and I’m not that interested in searching for them myself. I do think that your definition is non-standard. Here is google:

Dictionary.com:

The Free Dictionary:

Merriam-Webster: (this one was for the word “bigot” not “bigoted” because they didn’t have a separate definition for the adjective vs. the noun)

Here is yours:

All of the above definitions don’t speak to the correctness of anything. They are about obstinance, intolerance. A fanatic who dismisses others could also be correctly described as having bigoted views, no matter the subject. The one from M-W is close but that’s more about the noun I think. In any case, even that doesn’t speak about something being wrong. When you use the term in the way you are, it’s misleading to me personally since that’s not how I understand the word. This is why I failed to see you define it earlier. I really think your usage is wrong here.

In that sense, if your intent is to highlight how an argument falls without an unsupportable assumption, why not simply focus on that? Highlight the flaw in the argument, show how it is unsound or attack the premises. All of that can be done. The labeling is superfluous to that and in this case I think it’s both misleading, and an unnecessary shortcut that does not add persuasive value.

What consequences do think there should be with respect to this board? That you would want to use a particular label that you know is charged appears punitive, rather than informative.

I get where you’re coming from, and this is probably the weakest part of what I’m saying. You’re right that dictionaries are defining the word differently from how I do, and it’d be the height of arrogance for me to say that I’m right and the dictionaries are all wrong.

But here’s the thing: I’m right, and the dictionaries are all wrong :).

I play D&D, and there are people with very strong opinions about the particular edition they play, to the point that they’re utterly intolerant of people who prefer a different edition. But if someone called one of these people’s beliefs bigoted, the term would grate on my ears, and I suspect it’d grate on the ears of other people as well.

Contrast that against someone who listens to others, and admits others might have valid points, but slings racial epithets around all the time and tells homophobic jokes and supports laws against foreigners because they’re smelly and disease-ridden. If that person’s beliefs or behavior got called bigoted, I don’t think it’d grate on anyone’s ears.

Every time I’ve heard someone use the word “bigoted,” they’re using it in the way I describe. I have not heard people use it in the far more generalized sense that dictionaries are quoting. That’s why I asked you to find examples in GD or elsewhere that don’t match the definition I use.

Again, I get that I’m going up against dictionaries, and this is no small hill to climb. The dictionary definition perplexes me, because it absolutely does no match my experience in how everyone uses the word.

If you’re right, that my definition is not widely understood, then your broader point is correct. But I’m genuinely unconvinced that, in usage, most people see the word “bigoted” as meaning the dictionary definition, rather than meaning a view about the inferiority of another group of people. And if I’m correct about how the word is generally used, then it’s a “shortcut” only in the sense that every word is a shortcut for its longer definition. It’s perfectly appropriate to use one word instead of two dozen words when the one word conveys the same meaning.

Please don’t mistake my lack of sympathy for those whose arguments are called “bigoted” for a belief that they should be punished. I recognize that holding bigoted views carries a social stigma, but I think the stigma is with the holding of the beliefs, not with the labeling of the beliefs. I’m interested in allowing the word to be used because I believes it improves the accuracy of the board, and because I think protecting folks with bigoted views from having their feelings be hurt is not in the best interests of the board, and because I think it’s profoundly hypocritical for words like “disingenuous” and “lynch mob” to be bandied about by the same mods that frown on the word “bigoted.”

Here’s how Wikipedia defines it:

This is also how it’s generally used.

Now having a strong dislike to other people, ideas etc. is going to highly correlated with thinking those people are inferior, so you’ll find some use of the term when the “inferior” issue is being discussed (the intent in such cases being “you/he think/thinks such people are inferior because you/he dislike them”). But the “inferior” definition is not the primary connotation of the word, and I don’t think I’ve ever encountered it in that technical narrow sense. It does serve LHOD’s purpose in this discussion to insist on that meaning, of course.

Spoken like a true Doper.

Regards,
Shodan

My 2¢
I would seriously question the OP that outright bigotry is allowed here. Pull up a few threads about Obama and invariably some people will be accused of being a bigot or racist simply because they do not like him as President.

Furthermore if someone does write “The only reason Obama was smart enough to be elected is because blacks will vote for any nigger in a suit.” and someone (rightfully) calls them out on it outside of The Pit, isn’t that a form of junior modding?

This is exactly why I disagreed with Jonathan Chance’s reasoning to me during a GD thread. I think its pretty plain to see that the board and its moderators have an idealized version of debate that they’d like to uphold, but real life often gets in the way of that. You might as well replace the motto of attempting to fight ignorance with “Fair and balanced”. Because sometimes, reality is pretty clear that there is only one correct side to a debate.

People are too afraid that others get to decide what’s fair and what’s not. I’d say that’s a wonderful discussion to have and coming to a conclusion that certain views are simply stupid and wrong is still fair and still balanced

As long as you agree to always defer to my view of which side is correct in any given debate, I agree.