Hmm… Okay, although I know that many forensic anthropologists consider both sex and race critical in determining, for example, the height of a person from a found tibia. And some say that such things as nose cavity shapes vary among races.
I’ll take your word about Templeton, but I think you should be informed that the site you linked to also covers extensively such topics as healing crystals and alien abductions.
The author then lists dozens of “possible signs” that you have been abducted, like
At any rate, if you’ve proved that race doesn’t exist, then you can’t really say that race based minority organizations are legitimate, can you? They’re not based in reality.
I suspect there is a difference between a clinical, analytical, scientifically supportable construction vs. human perceptions.
So, while a clinical construct may not be feasible (or more importantly may not follow humans percieved groupings, it does remain true that humans percieve these groupings and may align themselves along these lines.
Not based in science, but most definitely based in culture, as I said earlier. (And I apologize for the provenance of the cite from the site; it was the first thing I hit on Google. I’ll limit myself to Scientific American, Discover, Nature, and Science from now on.)
Strawman! Only you, Lib, and Sionnach have used the phrase “race does not exist.”
As I noted in the GD thread that continues this discussion, there are several meanings of the word race, some of them legitimate. The principal opposition is to the belief that there is a biological or genetic reality to the older concepts of race. Declaiming against people who state “Race does not exist” when only you have made the statement does not carry forward the discussion.
You can’t fool me Libertarian, this is an old reverse psychology ploy. You know very well that “those people” are their own worst enemy. If allowed to post their deceitful bunk, the exposure will cause anyone who reads more than a few lines to become so nauseated that the reader will establish a Pavlovian automatic avoidance response mechanism. In other words: the best way to discredit a charlatan is to use his own words to expose those deceptions. Clever. You propose that everyone has a right to say what ever they want knowing that a barking dog soon becomes
nothing more than an annoyance. You are one smart cookie, Libertarian.
Your point is valid. I stand corrected and apologize.
Abogan wrote:
Actually, I propose no such thing. In my opinion, all rights accrue to property, including the so-called “right” to free speech.
But yes, I was confident that, if we could eliminate the mud slingers and bullies, we could, by the sheer power of reasonable debate, expose any fallacy that a White Nationalist (or anyone else) might bring.
I’m so glad we have white supremacist(s) debating at our message board. Upon reading the Great Debates thread mentioned by tomndebb above, I see this little gem on page 6:
(what a shame that there isn’t some kind of [final] solution to separate the wheat from the chaff and the Jews from the rest!)
Yes, I think we’re reaching out to Sionnach and really making a difference! :rolleyes:
Nah. Of course not for Sionnach or Halogen. However, as with any other form of ignorance, it is better fought in the open than behind a curtain. And, as has been noted in numerous discussions of debating the demented (not that WN, specifically, are demented, but the demented are typically the subjects of such discussions), we have any number of lurkers, here. Allowing the hateful to express themselves demonstrates the poverty of their position in two ways:
they eventually demonstrate their unreasoning hatred for uncommitted lurkers to see;
we are able to expose the errors in their “facts” along with their skewed leaps from logic so that the lurkers are not taken in if they encounter one away from the SDMB.
Sionnach has gone from an almost rational sounding bigot to a shrill little bitch incapable of rebutting or even responding to anything substantive in, what, six pages? Her continued exposure as an idiot with no conception whatsoever is, IMHO, a shining example of the fight against ignorancem, and its ugly little stepchild, bigotry.
Actually, I think that turning over the rock and having creatures like Sionnach wriggle out into the daylight is an excellent idea. From The Rants, by Dennis Miller, pp. 102-103 (softcover)
I gotta go with Dennis there. Letting the WN’s vent their insanity, exposing their idiocy, their lies, and their hate, is a a sort of societal immunization against their racist garbage.
Exactly. I knew it was just a matter of time before the veneer of rationality slipped and the hatred came seeping out. She is starting to get less and less sane as the thread slowly wends along. And I suppose I agree that this is a good thing, for the sake of lurkers everywhere. Kudos to everybody who is making the effort.
But I must admit that just right now I personally am feeling way too selfish to waste my time pounding my head against that particular brick wall. I’ve written five posts for that thread at various points and deleted them all. Frankly I think I’d rather be picking my feet in poughkeepsie. Though I agree intellectually with tomndeband gobear, I have to admit that emotionally I lean towards Arnold Winklefried.
My reaction is in great part due to the NIMBY (not in my backyard) phenomenon - if people want to debate white supremacists, fine, as long as they don’t do it on my watch. I am one of those dreaded card-carrying members of the ACLU, but that doesn’t mean I’ll be happy when the Ku Klux Klan comes marching down Main Street, Costa Mesa.
Arguments for allowing debating the white supremacist at the SDMB:
[ul]
[li]We have the opportunity to point out the error of their ways.[/li][li]This is all part of the stated purpose of the board - the fight against ignorance.[/li][li]People will wander by and realize that the racist arguments do not hold up to closer examination.[/li][li]People will realize that many people holding racist beliefs have a deep-seated hatred under the veneer of civilization.[/li][li]Freedom of speech is a good thing.[/li][/ul]
I agree with some of those, but not 100% with all of them. Let me present the reverse of the coin.
Arguments for disallowing the white supremacist debates at the SDMB:
[ul]
[li]In the same way that some lurkers will walk away with a negative impression, some other people, despite the rational and well-founded arguments of our members, may start thinking “Sionnach makes some valid points” or “of course Sionnach is losing, everyone is ganging up on him/her” and be reinforced in their bigotry. In addition, we are helping publicize the MB that shall not be named and any confirmed racist will know of a new spot in which to communicate with like-minded people. Bad publicity is better than no publicity.[/li][li]What if Sionnach or others decide to stick around the message board and start a new thread every week saying “I just read in the paper this statistic about blacks” or “I just read this article about Israel”, twisting the facts in the article to suit the racist agenda? That would cause a never-ending series of Pit threads, heated arguments, and calls for banning. As an administrator I find these to be a real headache and we don’t need any more posters of that kind. I already see one Pit thread being started as a result of the white supremacist GD, and I would be surprised if it were the only one.[/li][/ul]
Of course, tomndebb, if a moderator at another internet message board were to extend, in the Great Debates thread, a public invitation to the white supremacists to go advocate their cause at this other message board so that they can be thoroughly debunked, I will be the first to applaud and say “have at them!”
P.S. The argument presented in this thread saying “why can’t we let white supremacists debate here, after all there are other people in favour of government taxation which is also offensive” is ludicrous. I think there is a difference between advocating the nuclear bombing of Israel and promoting social programs. (There, I feel better now I got that off my chest.)
With all due respect, Arnold (and I do respect you very much), I still do believe that a debate can be won on the merits of the arguments. If it looks bad to gang up on people, then the solution is not to gang up. Don’t join in just to bully and rant.
If Sionnach makes an occasional valid point, so what? Why would we want to suppress points that are valid? Those are usually out of context anyway. For example, she might point out that the prison population is 7 to 1 black to white. In that case, we can show that there is a not so surprisingly identical ratio of poor to rich.
I’m not sure that, in the end, ignoring those people is the wisest course of action. Remember that ignorance and ignore come from the same root.
But then again, you have a perspective that I don’t share. There might be adminstrative headaches involved that I couldn’t even imagine. And you make a good point about advertising for them.
So, based on that, and on the fact that I have never known you to be anything but completely genuine and fair, I rescind my position and will come on board with you. I suppose there are other things we can debate.
It was an interesting exercise, though. And cudos to you and all the administrators for having let us give it a try.
A debate can be won on the merits of the arguments, if the other person is willing to rationally debate and allow his or her mind to be changed by logic. For a lot of white nationalists/white supremicists, any opposing views are invalid, and any facts that don’t support their conclusions are “jewish lies” and not to be trusted.
I can agree with second reason you gave, but not this one. Essentially you are saying we consider these beliefs to be so wrong and so harmful that we must shield lesser people from exposure to them lest they be influenced. This is the standard rationale for censorship of all forms.
I am not convinced (as are the others above) that exposing WNs will lessen support for them. But you either allow free expression of ideas or you don’t.
Of course, the SDMB, as a private concern, does not have to stand for free speech. But as long as it purports to (if indeed it does) I don’t see any objective rationale for singling out these particular ideas from any others.
