Now, I am not an ends-justify-the-means sort of person. I first need to agree that it is reasonable for most normal posters to leave on account of bigotry. Reason would then demand my concession that bigotry should be censored.
Earlier in this thread, and in a previous thread, I introduced the possibility of a good-faith bigot: someone who sincerely holds a bigoted opinion, but is not malicious (does not want to cause harm). Not all bigots argue in good faith, but I am asserting that at least some of them do, possibly due to ignorance.
The opposite of this is bad-faith bigotry, which I agree should be disallowed. The initial presumption is of good-faith, but once it becomes clear that a member is posting in bad-faith (whether he or she is a bigot or not), that member deserves a warning.
We are left with presumptively good-faith bigotry. Does good-faith bigotry still drive away normal posters? What are the reasons that normal posters might be driven away by sincere and non-malicious bigotry?
Your basic mindset Max seems to come from a perspective that bigotry is a must have item, either to meet demand for it or for quality. It isn’t. A ban on explicit bigotry would drive few away, neither would constraining discussions that might be reasonably read as bigotry, both by disallowing those discussions outside of specific threads so clearly labelled (no hijacking of other threads with those subjects) and by extra tight mod facilitation of those discussions. OTOH without those things as a minimum many normal posters find this a less attractive place to spend time and some significant number are feeling explicitly unwelcomed and driven away.
In any case, few bigots consider themselves bigots, “good faith” ones let alone of malicious intent. They all “think of themselves as using sound logic to reach the truth or achieve some moral good.” All of us do. We just have very different ideas of what truth and good are.
There is no such thing as non-malicious bigotry. All bigotry causes real harm to its targets.
As an anecdote, I’ve worked with black kids who thought they were too stupid to learn math. Not because they themselves were stupid, but because they were black, and math just wasn’t something black people could do. I was so shocked that I was convinced they were fronting, trying to get out of doing their work. But it became very clear they were sincere. Where did they get this message?
I know I said that I was going to quit trying to argue with Max S on this subject. But this is absurd. Eggs, and other foods including allergens (whether served by “trendy” restaurants or not), are perfectly good food for most people. Bigotry is not perfectly good food for anybody, or for any society. Bigotry is poison to society as a whole. The equivalent would be encouraging restaurants to serve foods containing arsenic, because some people don’t want to look at diners who have acne.
Bigotry, especially when combined with societal power structures is always harmful; it just isn’t always harmful to the bigot. That’s the core of the issue here - are bigots more entitled to spew harmful rhetoric but get a pass because it’s polite? If so, their targets will, and have, left the boards. Why on earth would someone stay in a place where their dehumanization is accepted?
It’s very often also harmful to the bigot, though the bigot may not recognize that. Such people tend to believe that society will run beautifully well with Their Kind on top; recognizing neither the huge benefits to society (or often directly to themselves) from accepting members of the groups they’re bigoted against as full members, nor the danger that those who’ve obtained power from bigotry are likely, sooner or later, to turn on them too. Let alone the danger that they actually will succeed in tearing their society apart through civil war, in which just about everybody winds up damaged, including those who instigated it.
I’m going to quibble here. While conservatives bear by far the largest amount of responsibility for making this board toxic to trans people, the misogyny has not been quite so one-sided.
Semantics. Not all bigotry is committed with malicious intent; however, bigotry conveys malice whether the perpetrator was doing it to be mean or simply out of ignorance.
As indeed pertains to my point about misogyny above; I imagine lots of men (myself sadly included) have posted comments that were intended to be trivial or lighthearted but which were not received as such by many female posters. We all know what sins have been buried under the phrase “It was just a joke”, even when it really was just supposed to be a joke.
ISTM that this cuts both ways. It is not clear that the SDMB will run beautifully well once it gets rids of the conservatives, as seems to be the push.
If we want debate, but label everyone as bigoted who debates, we aren’t going to get much debate.
Unless you’re saying bigot and conservative are the same thing, which just isn’t true. Most of the racists, transphobes, misogynists, homophobes and other bigots seem to also espouse conservative political views. But the reverse is not true. There seem to be quite a few non-bigoted conservatives here.
I’ll happily cop to pushing to rid the Dope of bigots. But not your strawman.
I don’t think it is a strawman. Bone and manhattan were mods, and both left because of the way the SDMB treats conservatives. Bricker left - was he a bigot?
I get what you are saying, but it is a No True Scotsman argument. You don’t want to ban conservatives, just those who argue against you on the hot-button issues. As the SDMB becomes more and more vehemently insistent on its hot buttons, the difference between the two becomes less and less.
No. I love posters who argue against me on hot-button issues. I had a great time arguing with Liberal, for instance.
It’s the ones who think people like me are lesser human beings, or think trans people don’t/shouldn’t exist, or want women to just shut up and spread 'em, that I want banned.
Now, are you telling me *those *are conservative values? Or just “hot-button issues”? Or is this idea that I want people who oppose me to be banned just a strawman?
Hell, I don’t agree with liberals on a lot of things, either, not being one myself.
The issue being that there is a large and vocal element on the SDMB that makes no distinction between (for instance) 'based on the evidence, Christine Ford’s (and Julie Swetnick’s and Debbie Ramirez’s) accusations against Bret Kavanaugh are probably false" and “women should just shut up and spread 'em”. Or “there is lots of evidence apart from Zimmerman’s account that Trayvon Martin got shot because he attacked George Zimmerman” vs. “blacks are inferior”. Etc.
Are you seriously saying that you think all conservatives are bigots?
ETA: There’s a distinct difference between ‘I think accusations against Kavanaugh are probably false’ and ‘Accusations against Kavanaugh are provably false and all those making them are liars.’ Objecting to the latter claim is not at all the same thing as saying that everyone who makes the first claim is a bigot.
I’m glad you pointed this out, because you and I disagree on this. I think bigotry underlies one half of many interesting and/or important philosophical and political debates. This may come down to how we identify bigotry.
You see, I identify a statement or opinion as bigotry when the consequence of that statement is discrimination against people because they have some protected trait (race, sex, religion, nationality, etcetera). I accord a speaker’s motivation no weight when determining whether their opinion is bigoted or not.
Definitions having been established, I now disprove your assertion per reductio ad absurdium:
If a hiring manager refuses to interview women because his experience tells him that women generally aren’t as qualified as men, I don’t actually care whether his experience justifies that generalization or not. The consequence of refusing to interview women because they are women is bigotry: it is discrimination on the basis of sex. (It’s also illegal in principle)
Is hiring women really one of those hot-button issues of our day and age? It definitely can be, for example when the hiring manager is an army recruiter. What about refusing to hire transgender or homosexual individuals as schoolteachers because, in the opinion of the hiring manager, such individuals are unfit as role models, because they tend to have noticeable mental disorders incident to gender dysphoria? I don’t care whether the generalization is usually justified or not, or whether the argument can be refuted on other grounds, it is still bigotry.
I don’t know how socially liberal Chicago is these days, but these are not resolved issues for people here in semirural Florida. Hiring a transgender schoolteacher would be very controversial here, and exactly one half of the controversy would be explicit bigotry.
Shodan mentioned George Zimmerman, and his trial is back in the news and in conversation 'round here. I would go so far to say that most people’s opinions about that controversy (both sides) are explicitly bigoted - because by definition, making generalizations based on race is bigotry. In my opinion, if you take out the bigotry, there isn’t really a debate to be had.
If you are familiar with philosophy, the entire notion of assigning people natures based on their nationality or lineage is a form of bigotry. Again, it doesn’t really matter whether or not they are justified in making such generalizations. We would have to ban endorsement of Socrates and Platonism, at least from subjects that concern human nature and governance.
I’m not sure if I understand you correctly. Are you saying that people would leave because, by allowing people to post bigoted opinions, the SDMB effectively accepts/endorses dehumanization?
If so, why would giving bigoted people a platform give you the impression that the SDMB accepts or endorses their views? Especially in a forum dedicated to fighting ignorance, I would think very much the opposite and look at it as an invitation to fight ignorance with reason.
ETA: Or are you saying (discussion of) bigotry should be censored because it is harmful? Or am I misunderstanding you entirely?