Deliberate (and deliberately offensive) racism should be moderatable. It is Being a Jerk

[Sunny_Daze]

A smaller set of gross stuff is permitted. It’s taking longer than we want.

[Ann_Hedonia]

When I read Cartooniverse’s post, I googled Packer.
I read a short bio, and sought out a longer one.

I was sure I was missing something, maybe a long term business affiliation or personal feud with either Smith or Rock - or a series of bad decisions, or something.

Then I was OMG, he isn’t suggesting that Packer is incapable of making an impartial decision just because of his race, is he?

If I were king of the SDMB, there would probably be somewhat looser moderation then there is now. I certainly do not think discussion of racial issues should be prohibited.

If he had posted:

Do you think Packer would’ve reacted differently if the altercation had taken place between two white men? As a black man with career geared towards producing content for African American audiences, he is probably very sensitive to the imagery of a black man being arrested and led away in handcuffs. Do you think that affected his decision to let Smith stay?

(I believe we now know that it really wasn’t Packer’s decision at all, but indulge my hypothetical)

I would not find that post objectionable, even though it’s about race. There is actually something to discuss.

What I found offense about the post under discussion is the assumption that Packer could not be objective because of, and only because of, his race. That’s very offensive.

[Guinastasia]

You forgot to tell us about how some of your best friends happen to be black.

[thorny_locust]

@Ann_Hedonia

If he had posted:

Do you think Packer would’ve reacted differently if the altercation had taken place between two white men? As a black man with career geared towards producing content for African American audiences, he is probably very sensitive to the imagery of a black man being arrested and led away in handcuffs. Do you think that affected his decision to let Smith stay?

(I believe we now know that it really wasn’t Packer’s decision at all, but indulge my hypothetical)

I would not find that post objectionable, even though it’s about race. There is actually something to discuss.

What I found offense about the post under discussion is the assumption that Packer could not be objective because of, and only because of, his race. That’s very offensive.

Agreed. Your suggestion would have been an acceptable discussion question in a non-insulting form.

And it wouldn’t have left people groping to try to figure out what was meant, and/or either suspecting or jumping to even worse meanings than the intended one. Nor would it have been phrased as being an explicit attempt to evade expected moderation.

[Little_Nemo]

@Chingon

JFC, it was sarcasm. LOL I capitalized “because” .

Okay, I was wrong. I mistook your ironic satire of a racist post for an actual racist post. Poe’s Law.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I’d just as soon you not send me PMs.

[D_Anconia]

Shouldn’t that response have been a PM, as well?

[MrDibble]

Where is the rule that says you can’t discuss PMs out in the open? You can certainly be modded for stuff you say in PMs, they’re hardly privileged communication.

[needscoffee]

@Larry_Borgia

@Cartooniverse

The reason that the person who assaulted another person wasn’t escorted from the room is because the Producer of record is also an Africa-American. The optics in the control room truck, in the building, in the industry, would have been atrocious.

I can’t believe you don’t see how racist you’re being here. If Ben Affleck had slapped John Mullaney and the producer had been white, would you have said,“Well look at a picture of the producer, no wonder he wasn’t kicked out?” No, of course not.

Black bouncers kick unruly black patrons out of clubs all the time. No bad optics there at all.

Plus, his post makes no sense because the optics of a white producer having a black man escorted out would have been even worse (if any optics were on display at all.) He’s just making shit up now to pretend he didn’t really make a racist accusation.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

If I wanted to exchange private messages, sure.

[DrDeth]

And you can just block people from sending Pms. No need to make a public announcement.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Sure I could have. I chose not to. Cope.

[What_Exit]

Modding: Please drop the PM side issue. It does not pertain to this thread.

[Max_S]

@BigT

Being deliberately racist is Being a Jerk, which is against the rules.

Hmm. I agree. Specifically, to be deliberately offensive is a violation of good manners and common courtesy. As such it is prohibited by Café Society rules:

@C_K_Dexter_Haven

Personal insults are not permitted in this forum. You can insult an artistic work, you can say what you’d like about an awful movie or poem or TV show or concert. Within reasonable limits, you can insult the artist/creator/writer. But you may not insult the posters.

This forum is about entertainment and arts, and there’s rarely a “correct” answer. Multiple viewpoints about entertainment and art are to be expected. It should be possible to share your views, understand someone else’s views, and disagree with someone else’s views, without the need for personal insults.

Note that “insult” includes making guesses about the other poster’s background, education, state of mind, etc. The personality of the other poster is not relevant to the discussion.

Violations of good manners and common courtesy constitute jerkhood, and are a bannable offense. If you must flame, go the forum called BBQ Pit and insult as you please.

Note, from the Rules for Posting on the Straight Dope Message Board, Post #10: There is a difference between an insult directed against a person and an insult against a large group. However, there’s a fine line here, depending on timing, the nature of the group, and which comment came first.

LIKELY ACCEPTABLE: “Anyone who likes the music of Enema is soulless and lacks taste in music.”
NOT ACCEPTABLE: “You like Enema’s music? Then you’re soulless and have no taste in music.”
Special Case: If a member posts their own poem, for instance, or a link to a song they wrote, then the rule about “Not Insulting Posters” takes precedence over the permission to insult the writer. “Reasonable limits” for insulting the artist mean that if the artist is also the poster, no personal insults permitted. Again, it should be possible to be critical of a work without insulting the author personally.

~Max

[UltraVires]

@Princhester

Personally one of the reasons I became a habitue of this place was because it had an interesting free thought vibe, in which you could say what you liked but if it was stupid or counterfactual or horrid you would get your ass kicked from here to Mars by the community. I think it was a good system. If you said something controversial you weren’t sanctioned by The Authorities or shut down, you instead had the opportunity to defend your view - successfully or otherwise. But being unable to do so would result in you feeling the community’s scorn or wrath, typically in a highly effective fashion.

Agreed, and the change has not been for the better. People are still allowed to say bad things, just not bad things that upset the left.

When I complained about this, a mod told me that I was incorrect, that on this board we could discuss anything we wanted. It was also the rule that even outright racism was a permissible topic of conversation as long as ethnic slurs were not used in a pejorative fashion. I just don’t see what is wrong with what was posted as being against board rules. If you think the poster is wrong, then have at him. Don’t define everything you disagree with as “jerkish” or “trollish.”

[iiandyiiii]

It’s a trade-off. Which is more important – making sure people feel welcome, including people of color and women, many of whom are just sick and tired of communities (online or IRL) which allow them to be denigrated and dehumanized en masse in the name of ‘free speech’, or making sure people who routinely make dehumanizing and denigrating comments about women or people of color (or gay people, or trans people, etc.) feel totally welcome? I think the former is more important. Some people are just tired of it. “Are black people intrinsically inferior?” (and the variations which try to make it sound nicer) is just not a serious topic of debate, and I think the community is better if that crap is disallowed.

[Sunny_Daze]

Hear, hear!

[carrps]

Hear three.

[UltraVires]

@iiandyiiii

“Are black people intrinsically inferior?” (and the variations which try to make it sound nicer) is just not a serious topic of debate, and I think the community is better if that crap is disallowed.

I take your point, but wouldn’t these people you describe see that thread and the unanimity of posts criticizing the very idea to see that the board is a welcoming place to them?

[iiandyiiii]

Maybe some of them. Others might just move on as soon as they see that it’s allowed. I don’t think there’s any benefit to allowing that kind of topic, and there’s plenty of downside.