The thread about using language like “invaders” to describe immigrants was derailed, imo, by the strawman that we’re not in the business of creating a banned words list.
Attacking groups you don’t like by abstracting them to things like “invaders” or “insects” is a well worn tactic on the road to violence.
We don’t need a list of proscribed terms but we should absolutely have a rule against that type of language.
Edit: changed “people” to “groups” for clarity.
I get how abstracting them to “insects” would be dehumanizing. I don’t get how “invaders” would be.
I fuly agree with the Cartoon Cartoon guy.
This isn’t a thread about debating specific terms. It’s a thread about the concept of dehumanizing language.
Well, let’s ask what the Cheeto-Faced Shit Gibbon has to say on the matter.
I didn’t mean it as an insult. Johnny Bravo gets his name from a Cartoon Network original animated series. The network and its fans refer to those shows as Cartoon Cartoons.
Again, I agree with him on this.
I made an edit for clarity: there’s a difference between calling a person something naughty and doing the same to entire groups of.
Modhat on: @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper: We will not resume the invaders debate in this thread. If you continue I will request you receive a suspension of 3 days or more. You are a significant reason the last thread was shut down.
I didn’t mean to imply you were. I was just pointing out that some dehumanizing language is not only allowed, but common here.
Sure, you can make a distinction between an individual and a group, but that would be Deplorable.
Again: the SDMB should strive to be better than Donald Trump.
My take away from the conversation had in the Modloop and Ed’s post:
(in all cases assume I mean Outside of the Pit)
It gets tricky when we’re talking about groups that are, in some certain sense, defined by the wrongness of what they are doing. A good example would be members of the Russian armed forces being called “orcs.” I can see both sides of the argument for cases like that.
I can share how I hear “invader.”
As per its dictionary definition, “invade” explicitly suggests a hostile and violent intent on the part of the person who is relocating.
Whether we intend it or not, the language we use frames a discussion. Many words have implicated subtext just beneath the anodyne “definition.”
My view is if we want to view a subject free of as much bias as possible, we would want to use neutral terms to refer to things. And if we find that we need to resort to inflammatory language to support our point, we may not have a very strong point.
In the thread that spawned this one, I quoted the following thread/rule:
To which, EZ says two sequences that seem to be in conflict with each other. First, which almost exactly echoes the closing line of the prior thread.
- Not all pejorative comments about minorities rise to the level of hate speech or, in our judgment, are clearly racist. We recognize there are differences of opinion on what constitutes racist speech. We leave it to the SDMB community to debate such questions. If you believe a post is racist, you are free to say so, provided you abide by our rule against insults – see point #6 below. Others are free to disagree with you. The belief that the truth will emerge from the clash of views in open debate is a cardinal principle of this board.
But almost immediately after:
No slurs or racist cheap shots. Do not post slurs or other cheap shots against minorities, including but not limited to groups characterized by race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or gender orientation. Example: In a discussion of Henry Ford ordering his engineers to examine a foreign aircraft so they could copy it, poster A commented, “What the h*ll–did Ford think he was Chinese or something?” This gratuitous remark in a thread having nothing to do with China plays to the stereotype that Chinese people as a class are ripoff artists. This is a racist cheap shot. Remarks of this type will be modded.
The last of the three terms from the prior thread IMOH felt it would very clearly run afoul of the latter point. And this was not addressed by EZ or any mod. I can understand intellectually at least the desire to avoid bright lines, but this and other dehumanizing language is being ignored despite the existing guidelines.
Certainly, interpretation -may- play a part of this, and we love to be rules lawyers here. But I don’t think an honest, good-faith interpretation of the language used especially in a modern context leads to any other interpretation.
Indeed, and as I pointed in the Pit thread, it is even worse when there is double willful ignorance shown in the way of insulting a group when someone dehumanizes the group by ignoring also the meaning of the words that they use.
I don’t see the distinction. You seem to be saying “we don’t need a list of proscribed terms but we should absolutely prohibit certain kinds of language in a more general way”. It amounts to the same thing. As I said in the other thread, “This should be a venue where intelligent adults can freely discuss controversial issues without feeling like they’re walking on eggshells and might have the teacher rap their knuckles at any moment for using bad words.” I agree with Ed’s decision which basically says that mods already have adequate discretion to deal with hateful and otherwise disruptive posts and we don’t need any more rules.
As far as hate speech goes, we’re all familiar with the well-entrenched terms of hate speech and they don’t need to be spelled out. To have an explicit new rule about some abstract thing called “dehumanizing language” serves no purpose, and it opens up a can of worms where some mod will feel obliged to sanction someone for (for example) calling a despised politician a bad name. Which we do here all the time without (as far as I know) ever inciting any violence. The pertinent issue here is not about language, “dehumanizing” or otherwise, it’s about attitudes and ideas, and that’s how posters should be judged and how their posts should be moderated.
So here’s the problem: I got banned from a thread for reasons I’m still not clear on, but it boiled down to “attacking another poster.” I told the other poster their behavior was shameful, and suggested it was tied to racism and xenophobia.* If we’re supposed to “say why it is wrong,” but saying why it is wrong is moderated as “attacking the poster,” and if the wrong behavior isn’t moderated when flagged, it comes across as pretty fucked up.
*The thread is cornfielded, so I can’t go back and check the exact text of the post that got me banned; this is my good-faith effort to describe it accurate.
Except I am walking on eggshells, because I’m afraid the teacher might rap my knuckles at any moment for using bad words like “racism” and “xenophobia.” That thread’s moderation had the effect of protecting racism and xenophobia and punishing folks who called it out.
I thought our board had gotten past that sort of moderation. If we haven’t, that’s deeply disappointing.
Also, this comment by @Ed_Zotti:
is incredibly condescending and patronizing. Cmon, Ed. At best, it’s stating the blatantly obvious that doesn’t need to be said and isn’t especially relevant to the discussion at hand. At worst, it’s "good people on both sides"ing Great Replacement Theory followers–literally the same thing Trump did with his “good people on both sides” remarks.
Of course on most issues there’s a lot of room for commonality. If you’re suggesting I should consider the possibility that the Great Replacement Theory people “may not be entirely wrong,” that’s super messed up.
Here’s an idea: maybe you can write your next column on the Great Replacement Theory?
As I recall, you were modded for insulting another poster. That whole thread has now been cornfielded so I can’t check on the merits of that particular call, but that was the basis of the moderation. Holding the moral high ground (or believing that one does) doesn’t change that. I don’t see anything new here or anything wrong with the moderation, or indeed anything that is relevant to this conversation. I simply want us to be free to have adult conversations without artificial restrictions on the words we use, subject only to reasonable rules about blatant hate speech and insulting other posters.
…yes. That’s what I said.