… if all the White (and half-White) people in town decide, you mean.
Since we harbour several not-so-secret racists who would never agree that any post is racist, that would be “never”, then.
That seems like a weirdly arbitrary place to draw that line. You’re declaring, in effect, that discrimination against a minoritized group in loan or hiring policies actually hurts people, but making racist statements about members of that group doesn’t. So it’s okay to tolerate the latter (as long as you can muster some people to vocally disagree with it) but not the former.
I think they both definitely count as tolerating racism. And I think that if the same sort of statements were being made on this board about, say, Jews, we Dopers who identify as Jewish and/or of Jewish descent would get a much more sympathetic hearing for our outrage.
(That’s not to say that there are no other groups against whom animosity and bigotry can be expressed around here with little restraint; I think the occasional complaints of, e.g., conservatives and Catholics among others about general SDMB hostility are sometimes justified. But at least one can make an argument for an ideological basis for that sort of antagonism rather than plain old racist bigotry.)
You do remember the KKK email thread, right?
And let me also say : called it, it’s the “really racist” game.
And yet people of color would obviously avoid said town if there are other towns where such would be punished. Why should they have to hang out in the town who only things racism is kinda bad? Why should they feel welcome here?
What’s more, in this town analogy, the town has rules about not being mean or rude to each other. Those things get the police (moderators) involved. So, by saying that racism doesn’t deserve that, they are saying racism is not as bad as being uncivil. Heckling is clearly a lesser punishment that an authority telling you to knock it off.
And, even worse, even though this town has a “don’t be a jerk” rule, and regularly hands out official pronouncements (Mod Notes) and even moderates the most severe jerkishness, one of the police put up a public notice saying that there is nothing wrong with saying racist stuff, even though they admit it is racist. And then they told the people who were heckling the person that they had to stop.
And, again, the heckling had happened before, and it hasn’t worked to stop a particular person. It hasn’t had the desired effect. In fact, they now have moderatorpolice support to continue saying the same sorts of things. Even thought said person admits they were trying to evade the police.
Princester and I are not talking cross purposes. He is directly advocating against my course of action, saying that racism should not be punished, but that posters should be free to ridicule them. Problem is, the latter isn’t true. Not unless you do it in the Pit, where the person can just ignore everything and get out of any consequences.
@What_Exit’s note officially said that the SDMB will not moderate even the most blatant racism unless it rises to the level of hate speech. That action actively encourages such actions. That is a bad thing for this board.
He should have at least given a Mod Note, like he would on far lesser issues without needing to find a specific rule that allows him to do so. And, frankly, with the part about where the poster admitted they would not be allowed to say what they said, it is clear that the poster intended to break a rule, and thus should have gotten a Warning. The mods have that leeway, as you yourself noted.
I will finally note I’ve not actually said any of these actions are racist. So arguing that the town messageboard isn’t racist doesn’t matter. I said before that I am taking it as given that everyone here believes racism is wrong. The argument is that (1) deliberate(ly offensive) racism is being a jerk (2) this can and should be modded under the rules as (3) it makes the board unwelcoming—the same reason we decided to institute the anti-misogyny rule and the rules we have on trans stuff.
And (4) that someone who admits they believed their actions were against the rules and did it anyways should be modded. Just like someone who said “Well, it would be against the rules for me to say what I think of you.” The mods normally don’t look too kindly on those who try to find a loophole like this.
There’s nothing “mere” about it.
I was taught a rhyme in grade school: “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Maybe you were too. It’s bullshit. Words can do, and often actually do, one hell of a lot of damage.
Particularly after sundown.
I want to go back to this post again, because it bears repeating:
This is a key element that often gets overlooked (deliberately or otherwise) by people making the argument that bad ideas should merely be countered by good ideas rather than by moderator action. It ignores the material point that the proposition “Let’s debate whether you are human or not” is not purely academic for the participants on one side of it, and even posing the question is a rather obvious microaggression.
My opinion is that a community which addresses racist statements with vocal disagreement rather than official sanctions or expulsion is not racist simply for doing so; this is despite my opinion that a community would be racist for tolerating discriminatory practices.
You should not construe my opinion as saying it’s okay to say racist things. For example threats of violence are not tolerable, whether racist or not.
~Max
So we’re clear - you’re saying that a community that privileges allowing racist speech over the mental well-being of the most vulnerable and already-traumatized minority of its own citizens is not racist?
Because vocal disagreement doesn’t stop racist utterances, the way exile would.
And you can drop the “threats of violence” red herring, we’re clearly talking about just racist speech here.
Not my position.
Clearly my point didn’t get across. Does @Princhester think the purpose of ridiculing a racist is for the racist to face some kind of social consequence?
~Max
So you’re saying the post discussed in the OP should have drawn a warning?
Yes, I do.
~Max
Just so we’re more clear - a community that allows racists to attack minorities is not racist?
Yes! I even cited the rule
~Max
That post was unclear that you agreed that the OP’s specific example was, in fact, this deliberate racism you would agree needs modding.
FTR: I would be perfectly happy with a rule change, but there was no good basis for a warning in this case and I’ve been smacked* down plenty of times for going to far. Without a rule change I don’t expect to see posts like the one that started this thread modded. The Staff Note was about as far as was reasonable to go.
- This is a gross exaggeration on my part. But I have been generally gently told I went too far fairly often.
Not necessarily. If you have one person who makes racist remarks, and everybody else ridicules that person rather than kicking them out, that doesn’t make the community racist.
The United States for example has not banned Nazi ideology. The fact that Nazi ideology is “allowed” does not, on its own, make the community of the United States antisemetic.
~Max
I disagree. It doesn’t make the individuals racist, but the community as a whole is still one that tolerates the presence of racists, and hence racist. Or, see my sig…
I would disagree.
Yes, I know how you stand on the issue.
~Max
FWIW, I’m in a state where free speech is being restricted pretty heavily by the government. Folks in my profession are facing termination or lawsuits if they teach about our nation’s racial history. While I recognize the harm that racist speech causes, I’m very leery of giving the government more power to restrict speech, because our government demonstrably uses that power to restrict anti-racist speech.
But communities like states are different from private communities. 'Round here, I’m all in favor of restricting racist speech.
Why on earth only in Café Society?
But they keep inviting him to dinner, despite knowing that he’s going to make racist comments?
Why should I, or anybody else who doesn’t want that crap, keep showing up at those dinners?
The legal issue of free speech under the Constitution, and the arguments therefore, have nothing to do with a private dinner, or with an individual messageboard.
Other people have a legal right to praise the Nazis, yes. That’s got nothing to do with whether I want to have dinner with people who do so – let alone to allow them to continue to do so at a dinner at which I’m one of the hosts.