People should be able to express their thoughts. Period. If someone is of the mind that “black people are inferior”, let them let everyone know the racist mind, judge them accordingly, respond if they see fit or just put them on Ignore.
“No backsies!”
So others should also be free to call them racists in as strongly-worded terms as they like, I presume?
Fortunately, people are able to express their thoughts, period. You’re apparently wanting to add in some nuances and riders and qualifiers, something like, “People should be able to express their thoughts ON THIS MESSAGEBOARD WITHOUT SANCTION.” And I disagree with those riders.
If all you want is for people to be able to express their thoughts, you’re in luck! Folks who are alive, not gagged with an old gym sock, and not suffering from nonverbal autism or a similar condition already have the capability you want them to have.
If you want riders instead of period, you’ll have to defend those.
How about if half the people laugh? 25%? 10%? 1%?
One big totally unrestricted BBQ Pit?
No, thank you.
Look on the positive side–you will have more time to try to help sex offenders get away with it.
I’d like to try to explain the difference. When you use the suggestion that someone is transgender AS AN INSULT you are implicitly insulting all transgender people. Not just Michelle Obama. And that’s why it isn’t allowed.
To give a very minor example – on another board I frequent, a poster used to insult people by calling them “mouth breathers”. I actually DO often breath through my mouth, much more than most adults. That insult always bothered me a little. But “mouth breather” is not really a group that faces any significant discrimination, so I decided I could put up with it and never complained. Trans people face discrimination all the time, and being assaulted at random by that sort of insult adds to already considerable stress.
Well, insulting someone by calling him a Nazi is also insulting to actual Nazis, but I hope the conservatives here think that’s okay.
Again, I think we can agree that it’s okay to insult people for incest. It’s the innocent bystanders, not the politician, who are being protected by this moderation.
Which is why these are much stronger examples. Because yes, those are insulting to members of this board. I’ll let the actual mods unpack that.
“Mouth breather” is just a roundabout way of calling someone mentally handicapped, because it’s quite strongly associated with Downs and cerebral palsy. So not *that *different, actually.
This is nuts. The fact is that some women appear to be more masculine than others, regardless of race or color. If someone says—either seriously or jokingly—that Michele Obama looks like she may be a man, how do you know that race plays any role in that at all? Especially since it makes much more sense to assume that her tallness and musculature (male-associated traits) is what led to the comment and not color or race, which are not male-associated traits.
If I say that I think Leslie Jones might be a man, is that race-based? Hate based? Hate based toward a group? How about I say that I think the odds are MUCH greater than Leslie Jones is a man than, say, Kerry Washington? How about if I say that I think the odds that Michelle Obama has a penis is much greater than the odds that Kerry Washington has one? How does that fit into your calculus?
I wasn’t talking about name-calling. But as the example I gave would almost be the definition of “racist” I think it would be correct. That’s easy. The problem arises when people try to use it as a cudgel in discussion that are accurately and more appropriately defined as being “racial”. It doesn’t mean that someone cannot one of the mind that a poster or an even is racist, it acknowledges a grey area. Much like with the accusation of lying, and referring to a poster as a liar.
Good rule of thumb: Write the post, read the post aloud, then decide whether or not it is a good idea to post it.
Hateful speech exists. “Hate Speech” as a category is a contrivance to restrict speech that some on the left find offensive and don’t think should enter anyone’s ears.
“you’re inferior” isn’t namecalling to you?
Not touching the “racial isn’t racist” stupidity in this thread, it’s been thoroughly addressed before.
No, it’s a position.
Yep, the mods on this board are so famously leftist…
I take it that you object to something I wrote. Why don’t you point to those parts and explain yourself. Granted it would be more work for you, but if you’re trying to communicate something, it is more helpful.
This “racial” thing again? You’ve complained about it for years but never adequately explained it. I still don’t know what the hell it means.
No, “missionary” is a position.
“You’re inferior” isn’t *just *namecalling, it’s the very fucking Platonic ideal of namecalling, the dark thought buried at the heart of nearly every other pejorative out there.
Racish?