I think this should be adequate to moderate referring to illegal aliens and refugees as “invaders”. It is almost always a veiled racist cheap shot. I also don’t think that “invader” is dehumanizing. While we sometimes talk about, say, the zebra mussel invading the great lakes, that’s a word that’s usually used for people. So I feel like the OP is neither necessary nor sufficient to address the issue that prompted it.
I would suggest that if a post makes you too angry to respond politely, you should probably report it, and not try to respond directly. For a lot of reasons.
The pertinent part of what you said that I was responding to was “That thread’s moderation had the effect of protecting racism and xenophobia and punishing folks who called it out”. I don’t know what mod action you would think would be appropriate when you were perceived to be insulting another poster. “Racism” and “xenophobia" are not prohibited words and you weren’t being modded for language, you were being modded for attacking another poster. Again, having the moral high ground isn’t an excuse. FWIW, I thought the thread ban was rather extreme for whatever you may have said in that one post, but perhaps a mod note would have been appropriate to curtail the personal attacks.
Yes, I’m aware that’s how you read it. That’s the first part of what I wrote. As far as I can tell, you took it as insulting when I said that the term’s use was rooted in racism and xenophobia. Is this incorrect?
If it’s incorrect, I really don’t understand what you took as insulting. If it’s correct, then your solution to Great Replacement Theory adherents (or those who coopt its terminology) is unworkable, because when we explain why they’re wrong, it’s treated as “insulting the other poster.”
Again: the problem is that you’ve proposed a solution in this thread that in practice you moderate against. I at least am “relitigating” because one of us is misunderstanding the situation. It may be me, but without clarification on what you found insulting, I’ll be walking on eggshells trying to figure out what exactly you see as the problem. Is it okay, when someone spouts racist rhetoric, to point out that their rhetoric is racist? Do we need to tiptoe around that word?
Thanks for digging that up. I had a vague sense there had in fact been clarification in hate speech before, but couldn’t find it to support an argument in the recent ATMB thread.
Maybe the mods could pin that thread? Or else update the rules to include that expanded definition (I have flagged the thread making essentially the same request).
I did flag the post. Nothing happened. The lack of further clarification is a strange choice, but I guess I’ll keep walking on eggshells lest the mods rap my knuckles.
If it ever came across that I was suggesting I flagged before the modnote, I apologize: that’s not at all what I meant to suggest.
I flagged the post after the modnote about me, not about TOWP.
Nothing happened.
As for what you quote me saying in that thread, my only concern at this point is that I believe I was doing what you suggested–angrily, but “saying why it is wrong”. I think you’re proposing an unworkable solution for GD, when the workable solution is to moderate against “racist cheap shots.”
But I’m also convinced at this point that you’re going to hear this better from other people than from me, given the timber of your responses to me in this thread.
Uh, About the Zebra Mussel, you do realize that environmentalists do use the word “invasion” in the proper way to point out that the local mussel population is wiped out when the Zebras invade?
Native mussels dying out
Freshwater mussels throughout the nation are already struggling, and it isn’t helping the situation when zebra mussels come in and take over their food and spawning grounds.
In many smaller inland lakes but also some areas of the Great Lakes where the invasive mussels have come in, native mussel species have been wiped out.
IMHO this is a dog whistle that is used to dehumanize others, and that is ignored by many moderates… and moderators.
Yes. It was also the only example I could think of for “invader” being used for a non-human. “Invader” is often used as a dog whistle, and I think its use with respect to immigration is inflammatory and usually racist. But I don’t think it’s “dehumanizing”. I think that’s the wrong criticism.
The point stands, the use against immigrants (as many intolerants out there use it) is to dehumanize the immigrants as just beings that are coming to wipe out the local population. That is why they talk a lot about “white genocide” or “White replacement.”
I agree that, technically, “dehumanizing” isn’t the very best word for what’s happening here. Remove a syllable, and you get “demonizing,” which is a lot closer. Or if you prefer a term that’s awkward but even more accurate and less metaphorically evocative, there’s “othering.” It’s a small point, and only really worth addressing so that we don’t get sidetracked into pedantry instead of addressing the core problem.
Violent racist/xenophobic terminology takes a variety of forms, but what they share in common is an effort to make another group seem like dangerous or contemptible outsiders, not worthy of respect and dignity. Dehumanizing, demonizing, othering language should not be allowed.
Although, as I’m just saying, going for an example that uses the word in the correct way, in the animal world, does not really help in this case when attempting to declare that this is not “dehumanizing.”
My takeaway from Ed’s post, since apparently we’re allowed to mention it here:
It’s basically a vague noise that means nothing.
It boils down to effectively saying (not a direct quote):
‘Maybe it’s racist, uncivil, or otherwise objectionable to call undocumented immigrants “invaders”. And maybe it isn’t. And if it gets reported, maybe we’ll do something about it and maybe we won’t.’
I don’t see any way in which that post is helpful.
And I don’t see any way in which the earlier discussion was about the word “invaders” in all applications. I don’t think anybody was saying that it should be forbidden on this board to call armies crossing borders by use of force invaders; let alone zebra mussels. The whole discussion was about the word “invaders” in the specific context of undocumented workers, undocumented asylum seekers, and their families. About which we got no guidance whatsoever.
Yeah, I like “demonizing” a lot better for the idea that I believe is intended. And I think words matter, because this board (and the moderation thereof) tends towards pedantry.
I’ll ask for clarification on this, not in the interest of relitigating the past, but to make sure I understand when a post becomes “attacking the poster.” Breaking LHoD’s quote into three parts:
I don’t give a shit what you say about giving a shit. → this is certainly angry and I could see a “tone it down” note. But it doesn’t seem like an insult or attack to me.
It’s xenophobia informed by racism to call them invaders, and it’s dangerous propaganda that encourages violence against immigrants → this seems to me like he’s doing what you are advocating, explaining what is wrong with the language used.
…and it’s deeply shameful that you persist in such characterization of people trying to make a better life for their families. → I don’t see any instructions to the poster, or an insult to them personally. It’s describing what is wrong with what they said.
I fully accept that I might not be reading these right, or I’m missing some aspect of this that you want to keep out of conversations. But I don’t know what it is. Apologies for continuing to harp on something that I know you want to move past, but I think it’s important for us to get clarity on this going forward.