# Disputation and The Straight Dope Message Board **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 25, 2019, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977 "2019-11-25T18:20:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/521 "2019-12-10T00:41:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I disagree with the former sentence on principle. In my opinion it is not the wish or want that causes harm, it is the act (overt or otherwise). > > ~Max You’re entitled to your opinion, or course, but I wholeheartedly disagree. A society in which a segment is not wanted, that is a harmful act. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/522 "2019-12-10T01:02:14Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > The only bigotry without harm is completely unexpressed bigotry. Right, bigotry is harmful in the sense that a bigoted statement can cause a reader to either harm themselves or harm others. I can stipulate to that. I think you (and others) may misunderstand my argument, which is that people can express bigoted opinions without wishing harm upon others. This was in response to **thorny locust** , who said she is offended when she reads bigoted arguments because she assumes the bigot wishes harm upon her and her loved ones. My counterargument is that this is not necessarily the case. I am not trying to argue that bigotry isn’t harmful. Please don’t misinterpret me like that. I am not here to defend bigotry itself. How would I sleep at night? I’m trying to formulate an argument by which I would want to ban bigoted opinions from these message boards as other participants of this thread seem to want. The argument, as I understand it, is that targets of bigotry are offended when they read bigoted threads or even titles, which causes stress, which drives them away or causes harm (or both). I am not usually persuaded by appeals to consequence, but at least I might understand the argument. If it is an existential issue for the board I might even subscribe to that argument. What I cannot yet understand is specifically why you and others are offended when you see a bigoted thread, where the bigot is neither malicious nor insincere, and the thread is left open. It seems that maybe you don’t think a person can be bigoted without being malicious or insincere. If you can convince me of that alone, I’ll be all for banning bigoted threads. _If you are interested in convincing me_. Presumably nobody [DEL]“with real power here”[/DEL] wants to die on this hill with me, or they would say so. > [@MrDibble](#): > > Like I said, it’s an utterance a human can make, but its inherent self-contradictory nature makes it meaningless. We don’t need to consider wishing for magic beans as meaningful. I don’t think self-contradictory beliefs are meaningless. I think people make decisions based on self-contradictory beliefs all the time, often without even knowing it. For example I might meet a person who is for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, increased defense spending, and maintaining current welfare spending. They might vote based on those contradictory beliefs, for a candidate who claims to share them all. Are their beliefs meaningless? Does not the act of voting impart meaning upon those beliefs? There are entire philosophies based on the idea that reality is a contradiction. But if those philosophies inform how people act, are they meaningless to you? I hope these are rhetorical questions, but if you think they are meaningless I would like to hear why. My personal opinion is that much of the racism in my country today is not overt, malicious racism, but “benign” racism. Benign doesn’t actually mean the racism is good or without harm. It only means that people don’t realize it’s wrong, or are in denial. I think it’s been like that for most people for a long, long time. Racism born out of ignorance more than sadism, and this goes for other forms of discrimination too. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/523 "2019-12-10T01:04:49Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > You’re entitled to your opinion, or course, but I wholeheartedly disagree. A society in which a segment is not wanted, that is a harmful act. Expressing things that cause offense can indeed be harmful. The problem is almost anything that is in dispute can be labeled offensive. ---
**Author:** ![IvoryTowerDenizen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ivorytowerdenizen/32/17937_2.png) [@IvoryTowerDenizen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IvoryTowerDenizen)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/524 "2019-12-10T01:10:06Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Expressing things that cause offense can indeed be harmful. The problem is almost anything that is in dispute can be labeled offensive. I was responding to a specific comment. Do not globalize my comment for your purposes. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/525 "2019-12-10T01:10:10Z")
> [@Chingon](#): > > You’re a creative apologist, l’ll give you that. This indicates to me that I am miscommunicating. If you explain what you think I am arguing, I can try and sort things out. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/526 "2019-12-10T01:16:01Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > Comparing immigrants/religious denominations to animals is not offensive? I don’t think comparing a person to an animal is necessarily an insult. Animals have lots of traits, and I don’t think it’s fair to assume that when I compare someone to an animal I am saying they are anything less than human. Context and body language would make this clear in person. Having lots of children isn’t necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessarily a shot at promiscuity or responsibility. If someone were to use “breed like rabbits” in a negative sense, it’s an insult just like any other. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/527 "2019-12-10T01:21:29Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Doubling back to this. > > First we have to accept that a post being racist or misogynistic is not usually a matter of objective fact but of perception. It is like Yanni vs Laurel. Some things that you see or hear someone else honestly sees or hears as something else even though you cannot imagine how. > > With that as a basis my sense is that many posters of traditionally disempowered groups recognize that being at the table, or part of the loop, does not mean that their perception will always carry the day, but it does mean that others hear that Yanni is also heard. Being part of a diverse group in the loop is a clear good for all. Even if your view is not always the consensus you have a better chance to have a more informed consensus. Some hopefully are interested in that. As much as I would like to say, “yes, it is possible!” this is a question that I am unqualified to answer. Unless I were actually a woman or person from a disempowered group who wants to be a moderator here, or knew someone who does, I would be uncomfortable answering the question in the positive. Unless I knew the opinions of all members from disempowered groups, I would be uncomfortable answering in the negative. And that is how the issue stands. ~Max ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/528 "2019-12-10T02:10:18Z")
> [@str8cashhomie](#): > > It’s an example, you could also substitute it for a woman reading “this alleged rape victim is a liar” or a trans person reading “there’s no such thing as transgender.” The point is once someone reads this type of comment on this message board and that comment is sanctioned, for a lot of people it’s going to color their view of the board as a whole and make the entire thing seem unwelcome to them, even if they try to compartmentalize and just focus on topics where they don’t think this kind of stuff is going to come up. Pretend some alleged rapist is pronounced not guilty. A woman makes a thread about it in IMHO. In her humble opinion, the ruling is complete and utter bullshit. **Max S.** appears and posts, “I agree with the opinion, this alleged rape victim is a liar”. OP becomes offended. Why does she become offended? Perhaps she was a rape victim herself, or a loved one was a rape victim, and she is all too familiar with victim-blaming _a la **Max S.** _. Reading a fellow doper express victim-blaming triggers all of those feelings from the past, which stresses her out. She reports the post, and a week later leaves the board by accusing the moderation of being too lax on people like **Max S.** Now, here’s my approach to the hypothetical ATMB thread. My initial impression from this hypothetical is from the OP’s point of view. **Max S.**'s behavior is unacceptable. Victim-blaming has no place in civilized debate. It stresses people out, causes people to leave the board, and is nasty overall. If the moderators are fine with this, they are enablers and I shouldn’t grace the board with my continued presence. It’s unhealthy for me and for them. Bye! Second pass. I put myself in the shoes of **Max S.** Why does he think the victim is lying? In the first pass I had assumed the victim was not lying. In the second pass I look at the merit of the argument, if there is one. If there isn’t, I look for a pattern of bad-faith behavior. If **Max S.** appears to be a good-faith poster, but doesn’t have a solid argument, I might make a post laying out why his post is victim blaming and why victim blaming is bad. If he relents, I exit the thread thinking, _lesson learned, ignorance fought, don’t punish the kid too hard_. That would be nice if the apology was the last reply. Otherwise, if he has a solid argument, which I agree with, I take his side overall. For example, if the only witness (the victim) was impeached for fabricating critical elements of her story, that might be a good reason to think the victim lied about being raped. Considering that **Max S.** is me, I probably have what I think is a good reason. Third pass. This is where I try to be a detached, neutral commentator. I look at my conclusions from the first and second pass to decide whether the moderators should reconsider their actions, then I post my opinion if the thread is still alive. I ask other posters if they disagree and try to understand why. Out of all of this, you will notice that I do not consider the feelings of the female member to be more important than a good faith argument. What do you think of my approach? > [@str8cashhomie](#): > > Even in the context of friends/family, if someone made a comment like that and someone who heard said they found it offensive, I really hope you would discourage your friends from offending that person in the future. Yes, if I could understand why they might be offended, or I had some other relatively convenient way of communicating the same idea (“have large families/lots of children”), or else if I don’t feel a duty to express that idea and I know and respect the person well enough to trust that they have good reasons to stifle that conversation. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/529 "2019-12-10T03:21:13Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I agree that we all need to work at being our best selves here. Christ knows I don’t manage it, and can work at it. > > Something I’d like to ask my fellow leftists to do: please allow space for reasonable opposition. > > [snip] > > There’s plenty of conservative thought that denies the humanity/right to exist of oppressed groups, sure. I’m not going to list them here out of fear that someone will come along and hijack the thread to squabble over specific examples. > > [snip] > > I think I see people in disagreements trying to change the arena from “we disagree on the best methods” to "we disagree because you’re denying humanity. The middle bit is a poor way to start. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/530 "2019-12-10T03:34:27Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > … What do you think of my approach? … That you left out the most reasonable choice: knowing that victim blaming is likely to be heard like that, you consider if there was a way to make the point, assuming you conclude that the point is reasonable, in a more carefully worded manner. If it is clear that you are at least trying your honest best to make the point, for any given subject that is known to be a tricky one to discuss without causing offense, respectfully, then that effort should be respected, unless the point you are trying to make is one of the few that are far beyond the pale. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/531 "2019-12-10T03:43:38Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > The middle bit is a poor way to start. No, it’s the simple truth. And demonstrates why being “fair” and treating all sides as equal is in reality just a prettied up way of _taking_ the side of the far right and silencing their victims. In the long run a board or other meeting place can have the right wing\* or\* everyone else but not both, because the Right will drive everyone else away. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/532 "2019-12-10T04:27:38Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Let me ask you a question. Is there _any_ context where you think it would be appropriate for any person to tell a black teenager about a theory of racial or hereditary intelligence? Yes. There is precisely one such context. That context is a parental figure informing them of the existence of the phenomenon, in a warning fashion. It is \*not \*a public debate where the theory is given any resemblance of credence to. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/533 "2019-12-10T04:40:14Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > It seems that maybe you don’t think a person can be bigoted without being malicious or insincere That is correct. Only a complete child can be a naif bigot. Functioning adults have to either intend the harm, or lie to themselves about the harm. That is precisely correct. > [@](#): > > Does not the act of voting impart meaning upon those beliefs? I don’t see how. People act based on an absolutely incoherent idea called God, all the time. That doesn’t render the idea of God meaningful. It just means people don’t need meaningful motivations in order to act. > [@](#): > > My personal opinion is that much of the racism in my country today is not overt, malicious racism, but “benign” racism. By my observation, your personal opinion is just flat-out wrong. > [@](#): > > Benign doesn’t actually mean the racism is good or without harm. It only means that people don’t realize it’s wrong, or are in denial. I wouldn’t class being in denial as benign. At all. > [@](#): > > I think it’s been like that for most people for a long, long time. Racism born out of ignorance more than sadism, and this goes for other forms of discrimination too. The way brown people are treated in the USA isn’t from ignorance. It’s very active. ---
**Author:** ![str8cashhomie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7cd45c/32.png) [@str8cashhomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/str8cashhomie)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/534 "2019-12-10T04:41:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Pretend some alleged rapist is pronounced not guilty. A woman makes a thread about it in IMHO. In her humble opinion, the ruling is complete and utter bullshit. **Max S.** appears and posts, “I agree with the opinion, this alleged rape victim is a liar”. OP becomes offended. Why does she become offended? Perhaps she was a rape victim herself, or a loved one was a rape victim, and she is all too familiar with victim-blaming _a la **Max S.** _. Reading a fellow doper express victim-blaming triggers all of those feelings from the past, which stresses her out. She reports the post, and a week later leaves the board by accusing the moderation of being too lax on people like **Max S.** > > Now, here’s my approach to the hypothetical ATMB thread. > > My initial impression from this hypothetical is from the OP’s point of view. **Max S.**'s behavior is unacceptable. Victim-blaming has no place in civilized debate. It stresses people out, causes people to leave the board, and is nasty overall. If the moderators are fine with this, they are enablers and I shouldn’t grace the board with my continued presence. It’s unhealthy for me and for them. Bye! > > Second pass. I put myself in the shoes of **Max S.** Why does he think the victim is lying? In the first pass I had assumed the victim was not lying. In the second pass I look at the merit of the argument, if there is one. If there isn’t, I look for a pattern of bad-faith behavior. If **Max S.** appears to be a good-faith poster, but doesn’t have a solid argument, I might make a post laying out why his post is victim blaming and why victim blaming is bad. If he relents, I exit the thread thinking, _lesson learned, ignorance fought, don’t punish the kid too hard_. That would be nice if the apology was the last reply. Otherwise, if he has a solid argument, which I agree with, I take his side overall. For example, if the only witness (the victim) was impeached for fabricating critical elements of her story, that might be a good reason to think the victim lied about being raped. Considering that **Max S.** is me, I probably have what I think is a good reason. > > Third pass. This is where I try to be a detached, neutral commentator. I look at my conclusions from the first and second pass to decide whether the moderators should reconsider their actions, then I post my opinion if the thread is still alive. I ask other posters if they disagree and try to understand why. > > Out of all of this, you will notice that I do not consider the feelings of the female member to be more important than a good faith argument. What do you think of my approach? So, first of all, it’s not possible to be truly objective or neutral, and being detached might not help you be the arbiter of how valid a debate topic is. I think if this hypothetical is actually one where the alleged victim was actually caught with hard evidence that she falsely accused, then it would be reasonable, but in the overwhelming majority where that is not the case I don’t think it’s possible to have a reasonable conversation with someone who says she’s lying. If someone says “she’s lying” and then points out some kind of inconsistency with her testimony or some other fact of the case, that may be relevant to a guilty verdict, but aren’t in the realm of claiming that a rape victim was lying. Arguing with that has the problem that you either actually debate the details of the case which gives tacit approval to the victim-blaming framing of the argument, or you discuss the victim-blaming aspect which gives tacit approval to the supporting arguments. And there’s really no way to know if the poster is actually trying to argue in good faith but just started with an overly emotional take, or if they know exactly what they’re doing (and I think it’s more likely it’s actually neither and that people often frame debates for psychological reasons they don’t fully understand). It might not be worth it at all to try to walk the tightrope of debating the arguments without falling into the trap and helping make the “rape victims are lying” premise seem more acceptable to other people reading the thread. Even if it is, it might be disheartening for anyone to try to engage given how emotionally charged the topic is for anyone. And I would still return to the original point, which is that for someone with a personal connection to this to just ignore threads where this might come up and expect them not to have their overall opinion of the board affected is unreasonable. ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/535 "2019-12-10T04:43:35Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No, it’s the simple truth. And demonstrates why being “fair” and treating all sides as equal is in reality just a prettied up way of _taking_ the side of the far right and silencing their victims. > > In the long run a board or other meeting place can have the right wing\* or\* everyone else but not both, because the Right will drive everyone else away. How is anyone being silenced if they can type their thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/536 "2019-12-10T05:47:21Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > How is anyone being silenced if they can type their thoughts? _Can_ we, though? Without getting a warning for it, that is? ---
**Author:** ![octopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/octopus/32/3716_2.png) [@octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/octopus)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/537 "2019-12-10T06:34:43Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > _Can_ we, though? Without getting a warning for it, that is? Of course you can. Just in the appropriate forum. The problem is, many want to use ad-hominem attacks with a majority of the posters in certain threads to discredit people and by extension their ideas. If every thread and every forum had no properly enforced rules it would be useless anarchy. What’s so challenging about putting ideas and conversations in the appropriate thread and the appropriate forum? Actually we all know that it isn’t actually challenging to do so. What the real issue is that some want to deplatform others and engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of ad hominem attacks is precisely the tactic being used. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/538 "2019-12-10T06:42:15Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > _Can_ we, though? Without getting a warning for it, that is? **octopus** is exactly right. Feel free to share your thoughts in the appropriate forum (and in adherence with various other board rules) and you should be just fine. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/539 "2019-12-10T07:35:58Z")
> [@octopus](#): > > Of course you can. Just in the appropriate forum. So that’s a “yes, you are being silenced”, then. Telling someone to take their thoughts to a different forum _is_ silencing them in that discussion. Which is appropriate for some thoughts, and not for others. > [@](#): > > What the real issue is that some want to deplatform others I freely own to wanting to deplatform bigots. It’s not something to be ashamed of. > [@](#): > > and engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of ad hominem attacks is precisely the tactic being used. [/QUOTE] Like I said, I’m not actually _allowed_ to make those supposed _ad hominem_ attacks, so it’s hardly a viable tactic, is it? ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [December 10, 2019, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977/540 "2019-12-10T18:17:29Z")
> [@DirkHardly](#): > > An emotional response should be the result of, and justified by, logic. To the extent that it is not in such situations, then it is bad and counterproductive. They are not completely distinct or unrelated. Being angry or desiring remedial change in response to racism or some other injustice is a perfectly logical response and the moral outrage should be informed and defined in turn by that logic. > > But if someone forgoes logic and operating on pure emotion makes accusations of such behavior without a logical or factual basis then they are not only acting illogically but causing harm to others by doing so. Likewise if they advocate for a disproportionate, ineffective, or otherwise problematic response to actual instances of racism or other unjust treatment then that is also beyond what logic and morality would justify. The other side of that, blinding onself to such issues or worse, deliberately ignoring or minimizing them, carries the same types of logical and moral failings. That is, as has been noted, not how human minds work. Emotions aren’t the result of logic. Emotions are primary, and then people bring logic (or ought to) to bear upon them. I doubt there’s any significant number of people who sit down and work out logically what they think the effects of some particular bit of bigotry will be, and then say ‘why yes! I conclude logically that I ought to get angry about that!’ – does anybody first think consciously ‘there’s a bear in my path, snarling and heading in my direction. What’s the evidence that bears can harm people? Exactly how big is that bear? How sure am I that it’s a bear, and not a joker in a bear suit? Is there clear evidence that a bear can cross this 2’ high single rail fence that’s inbetween us?’ and then only when all those questions are logically answered conclude ‘I ought to be scared now!’ If human minds worked that way, none of us would be here, because all our ancestors would have been eaten by lions and tigers and bears. But they weren’t, because emotion fed adrenalin which got them, say, up into a tree; from which position they could pause and consider whether that actually was a bear, whether it actually was after them, and what to do about it if so. In this thread we are up in that figurative tree. (At least, I hope we are. I hope we’re not still arguing about whether bigotry is a figurative bear, or whether bears are dangerous; though I’m not sure that Max isn’t.) We’re trying to figure out which of those things in the path are actually bears, how to tell which ones are bears, and what to do about them when they are. And for figuring that out, yes, logic is necessary both for sorting out whether there’s a “factual basis” for concluding that a particular statement in a thread is a bear or can reasonably be taken for one or is unreasonably encouraging to bears; and for sorting out whether a particular response or proposed response is “disproportionate, ineffective, or otherwise problematic”. But what’s going on isn’t that the emotional response has to wait for a logical defense. What’s going on is that logic needs to be brought into the discussion to consider what to do about the pre-existing emotional response. And this needs to be done without denigrating that emotional response for being emotional. Emotions save our lives, and give meaning to them. Without emotion, none of us has any reason to be alive in the first place; or to object to bigotry; or to do anything at all. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Let me ask you a question. Is there _any_ context where you think it would be appropriate for any person to tell a black teenager about a theory of racial or hereditary intelligence? > > This is not a rhetorical question. I would answer with a qualified yes, the condition being whether such a theory has some traction among the public at large, and/or among those in power. The context would be that of a discussion between friends, or of a formal debate; I do not think it is appropriate to tell teenagers that their race is inferior in most other contexts. Two things: For one, are you really under the delusion that black teenagers in this society are unaware that some people think black people are less intelligent than white people? For two: you appear to be confusing the information that some people think this is true with the information that “their race is inferior”. I very much hope that this is some accident of the way you phrased your post. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I disagree with the former sentence on principle. In my opinion it is not the wish or want that causes harm, it is the act (overt or otherwise). Expressing the wish or want is an overt act. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Right, bigotry is harmful in the sense that a bigoted statement can cause a reader to either harm themselves or harm others. I can stipulate to that. I think you (and others) may misunderstand my argument, which is that people can express bigoted opinions without wishing harm upon others. > > This was in response to **thorny locust** , who said she is offended when she reads bigoted arguments because she assumes the bigot wishes harm upon her and her loved ones. My counterargument is that this is not necessarily the case. That’s not what I said; or, at any rate, not what I meant to say. Let me try rephrasing. I said that I’m angry, an anger based upon fear, when I read such arguments because the result of such arguments is, as has been clearly shown historically and in current events, serious harm up to and including death of large numbers of people including innocents. And I said that the fact that people making such arguments are deliberately deluding themselves into claiming that isn’t so is an act of willful ignorance. And I said that wishing something to happen that will in its essence cause harm is also to be responsible for the harm; even if the harm isn’t the initial impetus for wishing the thing to happen. Suppose I decide to drive myself home, even though I’m staggering drunk. I have no wish to kill anybody; I just want to get home, without having to pay for a cab or deal with the hassle of getting my car back the next day. But, because I’m driving drunk, I smash into somebody else’s car, send it off a cliff I knew perfectly well was there, and kill three people. I shouldn’t be charged with premeditated murder; I didn’t intend to kill anybody. But I should be, and probably will be, charged with vehicular manslaughter, and sent to jail. Because even if I tell others, and even if I told myself, that I meant no harm: my actions could be easily foreseen to potentially cause serious damage to others, up to and including killing them. > [@Max\_S](#): > > What I cannot yet understand is specifically why you and others are offended when you see a bigoted thread, where the bigot is neither malicious nor insincere, and the thread is left open. This has been explained to you over and over. I don’t understand why you can’t understand it. For one more time: leaving such arguments to be considered as a normal and proper attitude is fucking dangerous. Because when they’re considered normal attitudes, more and more people act upon them as such. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t think self-contradictory beliefs are meaningless. I think people make decisions based on self-contradictory beliefs all the time, often without even knowing it. For example I might meet a person who is for fiscal responsibility, lower taxes, increased defense spending, and maintaining current welfare spending. They might vote based on those contradictory beliefs, for a candidate who claims to share them all. Are their beliefs meaningless? Does not the act of voting impart meaning upon those beliefs? And that is exactly an example of one of the reasons (not the only one) why bigotry is dangerous: because people vote based upon bigotry, for those who will do something about the things they’ve been daydreaming about while claiming that their daydreams are harmless. How can you see that, and not see how these “harmless” expressions of belief are doing harm? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t think comparing a person to an animal is necessarily an insult. Animals have lots of traits, and I don’t think it’s fair to assume that when I compare someone to an animal I am saying they are anything less than human. > > Context Yes, exactly, context. Of course we are all animals. But the history of the USA specifically, and of the human world in general, means that comparing specific groups of people to specific types and/or specific traits of animals is anywhere from mildly offensive to immediately dangerous. Words have meanings; and the meanings they have include the connotations they’ve built up over time. > [@octopus](#): > > some want to deplatform others and engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of ad hominem attacks is precisely the tactic being used. What do you suggest should be done if a poster is engaging in a multi-pronged and long lasting series of attacks? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/disputation-and-the-straight-dope-message-board/843977.md?page=28)