If someone says, “That’s racist” and you say, “No it’s not”, then something is going on there. I don’t know if it’s white fragility or just regular stubbornness, but denying it is showing signs of refusing to learn anything new.
If you truly don’t think that what you said was racist, you can ask those who say that it is why they think it is. Maybe someone learns something new.
I’m curious as to whether this is an apocryphal story or if it is something that actually happened.
Yeah, that would be good. I don’t really see a widespread problem with completely groundless accusations of racism on this board. I think hyper-defensive overreactions to accusations of racism are far, far more common.
She wasn’t “accidently” diagnosed, she went out of her way to be diagnosed. I’ll also note that mental health science was pretty rudimentary (to put it kindly) at the time.
It would be like someone intentionally pretending to be a racist, then trying to claim that they aren’t after being called out on it. Not everyone is going to believe them.
It’s possible that that’s the story that @Fotheringay-Phipps was thinking of, but if so, it is not an example that at all supports his position.
Except you can’t, because that would be furthering a hijack.
Thus I stand by my original opinion on the matter, that accusations of racism (like other argumenta ad hominem) are usually irrelevant in Great Debates and should be reserved for a private message or the Pit. If the topic for debate itself is about racism or relies on an appeal to the good moral character of some individual, accusations of racism could be relevant.
There is no requirement to apologize for holding bona fide racist views.
I believe racism is allowed in Great Debates, provided you do not espouse a racial theory of intelligence and avoid use of racial slurs, pejoratives, and epithets. How else could we have topics like “Convince me not to be racist”?
2014 might as well be 1814 for this Board (and society) in terms of how open racism is tolerated.
We no longer have GD mods who outright admit to not doing part of their actual job, for one thing. And we have new GD rules overall that don’t allow for the favourite open racist debate topic of scientific racism (which is more than just intelligence - I would report a “Why Do Blacks Run So Fast” thread right sharpish).
That’s quite a lot of them, actually. See the magnet schools debates…
Not at all. It’s a debate over the merits of an argument.
I start a thread about whether walnuts belong in banana bread. At some point, I say, “The great Julia Child put walnuts in her banana bread, case closed.” Someone calls that an appeal to authority.
If I respond to this characterization of my argument (she is an authority, so that’s not a fallacy, or whatever), it’s not “furthering a hijack.” I’d made an argument about walnuts in banana bread, and now we’re debating the merits of that argument.
I start a thread about recruiting more Black teachers. I cite a study that says Black students do better in school if they have at least one Black teacher in elementary school. Someone tells me that my focus on the “color of their skin, not the content of their character” is racist.
If I respond to this characterization of my argument (as long as the social construct of race is influential in our society it’s not racist to acknowledge that power and its specific effects), it’s not “furthering a hijack.” I’d made an argument about recruiting Black teachers, and now we’re debating the merits of that argument.
Not a hijack. As I wrote above accusations of racism could be relevant if the topic or a main argument relies on an ethical appeal.
Defending your specific argument against accusations of racism is not relevant to whether Black students do better in school when they have at least one Black teacher. An accusation of racism could still be relevant to the topic if the implication is that recruiting more Black teachers is wrong because it is racist and racist is wrong. If the topic devolves into a debate over the definition of “racist” or whether recruiting more Black teachers is racist, well, that’s a hijack. “Is it racist to recruit Black teachers?” and “Is this kind of racism always wrong?” could be 50+ post topics on their own.
No, in this case I don’t think discussing whether or not recruiting black teachers is racist is a hijack, I think that is the topic. Or at least such a critical part of that topic that not talking about it is avoiding a critical part of the topic that neuters the conversation.
That’s understandable too, but in that case Left_Hand_of_Dorkness didn’t contradict what I had written. “If the topic for debate itself is about racism[…], accusations of racism could be relevant.”
The “gyp” example k9bfriender referred to is from RitterSport’s post #58. If “wow, that eBay seller really gypped you” is on-topic, I doubt it would be on-topic to debate whether that post was racist.
Yes, I think it’s situational. In that second example it is going on a major tangent. I guess that’s my point; no that those discussions can’t derail threads (they certainly can and do) but they don’t always. Sometimes those discussions are part of the topic and are even inevitable.
