So she gets to decide who the malicious actors are, but nobody else does, everyone else has to apologize first? Remarkably stupid.
I don’t see why the person who maybe made a racist statement should enjoy the presumption of innocence, while we’re supposed to assume that the person who was ostensibly offended is acting in bad faith or has no right to be offended.
I get it. For you, Fun > Safety. Especially some other person’s safety. Do I also detect an element of “keep your head down and be one of the good ones” in there?
Nope. (Temporarily) quiet Nazis are still Nazis. I mean, honestly, I’d prefer a (ground floor) defenestration from the party, an apology is a compromise on my part. It at least names and shames the sickness in our midst, and moves some of the fear of opprobrium from victim to perpetrator, where it rightly belongs.
You calling victims assholes is part of the social problem of racism, and is in no way helping. But then, helping, doing the hard work, that’s not Fun, is it?
No, we all get to say who the malicious actors are.
For instance, your post calling out one non-sexist word from a completely non-sexist post is clearly an unfounded accusation to anyone following along. Only a contrarian would disagree (I expect several will be along soon, though)
All she has to do is what she said, keep her head down. We’ll do the rest.
QFT - many of the arguments boil down to this
I’d challenge that, “the court of public opinion” is a fairly well established concept and the punishments meted out can be every bit as destructive as a law court judgement.
Accusations of racism are not trivial. They kill careers and end relationships without the need of ever reaching the courts. Someone sacked, forced out or socially ostracised on a false claim isn’t going to take any comfort in the fact that what has happened to them isn’t legally sanctioned.
Accusations that carry such weight need to be substantiated, not merely nodded through and assumed as fact.
Excluded middle. Why not avoid assuming that either of them is in the wrong? Where is the harm in doing so?
No, it was repeatedly said above that people accused of racism should just apologize first. But she doesn’t have to because she has some superpower? Stupidity.
I think I’ve had enough of this silly thread. Bye.
Is this you:
But it does not proceed according to the workings of the court system.
…and yet they get shaken off way more than they affect anyone. What consequences has, say, BoJo suffered for them?
Specific accusations do require specific evidence. But when it comes to establishing whether someone’s underlying character is racist or not, the initial presumption should be that yes, they are, a little. Because that’s the truth.
…when it’s not such an obvious trap even Wile E. Coyote wouldn’t fall into it. That was made quite clear.
Modnote: do not even jokingly insult others posters outside of the pit.
This is just a guidance, not a warning. Nothing on your permanent record.
The thread just got 28% less silly. Thank you!
As for the party example, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where an accusation of racism at a party is disruptive in an asshole way. Let’s say I’m at a party with Joe and Jennifer, and Joe is talking with me about his work in the Land Back movement. Jennifer overhears and recalls reading an article by an African Nationalist who virulently called the Land Back movement a racist, cultural-appropriation movement (in fact, such an article was my introduction to the land back movement).
Jennifer interrupts our conversation to start spouting half-remembered talking points from that article, and when Joe gets annoyed, Jennifer starts getting louder and louder. She starts using words like “cryptofascist” and “patriarchal” and “mansplain,” raising her voice at Joe. And she definitely tells him that he’s racist for participating in such an anti-black movement.
Jennifer isn’t acting in bad faith. She sincerely believes that Land Back is a racist movement. But she’s pretty ignorant on the issue, especially compared to Joe. Her only source is a conspiracy-ridden article by a dude whose own grasp of history is, uh, heavily influenced by mythology. And when she’s confronted, she pulls out a grab-bag of words to throw at Joe.
I’ve known folks who do this. They’re assholes. Assholery knows no political boundary.
It was me, what is your issue with what I’ve said?
It doesn’t seem like you’re presuming that the accuser is not wrong if they must substantiate their accusation, where the accused must do nothing of the sort.
This thread really should have been closed after @puzzlegal’s post #103. That’s the right way to address this in real life. @Left_Hand_of_Dorkness post #93 also handled it very well.
Of course i get to decide when i get accused of racism. Every person facing such an accusation needs to decide how to respond to it. Of course each person will decide whether the accusation is mere malice, or whether the accuser believes their own claim.
I don’t think I’ve been accused of racism. I’ve been accused of various other forms of bigotry. None were intentional on my part. Yet in almost every case i have chosen to apologize, and to mend my ways.
There you go again, putting up a post that may as well end the thread.
The person making the positive claim needs to substantiate it.
If someone says “that’s racist” then they need to substantiate it.
The accused isn’t making a claim, at the point they do (i.e. "no, you are making a malicious accusation) then they need to substantiate it too.
Sure, I’ve already allowed that it’s possible for someone to do that - although note that you example isn’t an aggrieved minority responding to actual racism directed at themselves, but rather a heated philosophical discussion about an outside issue.
What I strongly disagree with is Max_S’s characterization of demanding an apology automatically (and so, by implication, always) being an asshole thing to do.