It’s been answered, in a pretty poor way. Answers can change.
If you don’t have anything to add, I don’t feel the need for your entering into the discussion either.
You’re still straw-manning. There’s an enormous difference between “DemonRats want to kill Christians” and describing immigrants using the dehumanizing language quoted in the OP.
At least you’ve made it clear that you feel no shame about straw-manning, though.
The dude isn’t enabling Nazis. Rather than responding defensively, take a moment and step back and try to understand the rationale being employed. What you characterize as a strawman I see as a higher level take on general behaviors.
In any event, I saw the report (a bit later since it was the weekend), and for some reason I didn’t see that the other mods had already weighed in. Typically in those situations it’s a first come first served kind of deal. But reviewing between weekend activities on my phone, I missed it.
In any event, I thought about it for a bit. Usually I read the report, read the post, then wait a bit to do a mental evaluation. Then I come back after whatever amount of time that takes to make a determination. In this case, had that offering been written by someone who was certainly familiar with the rules of the board, it would have earned a warning. But The person had less than 25 posts and had joined the board for less than 5 days. As we’ve done over many years, we typically give newer posters more slack. For me, that’s exactly what happened here and in my note I was very clear about how the statements were received.
The argument is that, specifically, racist dehumanizing language that closely mirrors language used by literal Nazis and other perpetrators of genocide deserves to be treated categorically different from other insulting language. To paraphrase this request as “advocat[ing] for instant bannings for speech with which they disagree” is a contemptible misrepresentation, an attempt to make it look like I’m asking for debate to be silenced.
I know that’s the normal approach. Again, however, racist dehumanizing language can and should be treated as a different category from other rules violations. If Malaclypse had just called me a dickhead in Great Debates, I wouldn’t have asked for his banning. Rules violations that promote dehumanizing groups on racist grounds don’t need to be treated like other rules violations, and shouldn’t be.
Edit: When you say “The dude isn’t enabling Nazis,” this seems clearly false to me. Do you really think that this sort of dehumanizing language doesn’t create an environment in which racist violence flourishes?
Perhaps. But I’ve seen this type of rationale from the other side of the coin used quite often - that demographics favor X group, or some other iteration that basically hinges on birth rates and immigration rates of various demographics and whatever policy implications that may lead to. If I interpreted in the most favorable way possible, I could see the sentiment expressed in the post in question as a very inartful way of describing similar ideas.
I just have this personal thing - unless you’re talking about the genocide of 6 million Jews and millions of others, invoking Nazis is not helpful.
If it gets that bad, I have a feeling a lot of us won’t be around to make such invocations…and the rest will be afraid to.
Spot on
Looking at his other posts, do you really think that’s what’s going on?
As I asked in the OP: does this sort of bending-over-backwards to not recognize racist arguments really make our messageboard better? How?
This is glib. What if we’re just talking about a single protester being murdered by being run over in Charlottesville? Is it still unhelpful to talk about Nazis? If we’re talking about someone who writes an anti-immigrant screed and then shoots up a mosque, is it unhelpful to talk about parallels to Nazis? Must we ignore the late days of the Weimar Republic when we’re looking at rising hate crimes in the United Kingdom, linked to anti-immigrant rhetoric?
We don’t live in 1941 Germany, and the way we talk about the real live racists who are promoting Nazi-like ideology today is necessarily going to not involve Dachau. But talking about your “personal thing” is an inappropriate response to what’s happening.
Some days I question why I stay here.
To be clear, pulling one post:
Apply some Occam’s Razor here: is this really a dude who’s making a dispassionate argument about the policy implications of demographics in one post, and then TOTALLY SEPARATELY in the same thread talking about how his race’s way of life is best but incompatible with the way of life of another race?
If I had to bet, I’d say no. But I don’t know for certain, and expressing nationalistic sentiment is not forbidden. If a person expresses the idea that they want to limit immigration because the changing demographics encourages other changes they don’t like, that is an idea that can be debated. The principle is that more debate is better than less, even when some specific ideas by themselves could be a net negative, the general principle of more debate rather than less makes the board better.
It’s not meant to be glib. I’m saying, analogizing to Nazis is almost always hyperbole. All of your points can be made without doing so and they would be more effective. I can let it go.
Ultimately I think it comes down to this - for a new poster, is there way the statements in question can lead to a productive discussion? I do take your point about not giving a platform to racists and to take a stronger stand, especially at the margins. I’m willing to evaluate on a case by case basis and see what can be done. I do continue to hold the position that more debate is better than less, but there’s room for improvement.
When you mod, you don’t have to bet whether the person is a racist. But you should, because when you forego the judgment, we get more racist posters and more good posters leaving.
Comparing actual white supremacists to Nazis isn’t hyperbolic. But if you’ll let that go, appreciated.
If you’ll see what can be done about not giving a platform to out-and-out racists like this, that’s what I’m asking for. Appreciated.
This is a long-standing stance the board has taken. It can and should change.
Your own quote of them says different.
Nazis did a lot more than just kill Jews (and others, as you take great pains to point out).
They also mastered the art of propaganda and swaying people to their way of thinking, way before they opened the first oven door. Sometimes, that’s what the Nazi comparisons are about.
I’m sorry to hear that.
I agree with LHoD on this one, JC. This is way too blatantly racist to let go by without an official warning, even in the case of a noob.
One of my favorite sayings is, “This isn’t 1942 Germany, but 1933 Germany wasn’t 1942 Germany, either.” It’s considered basically uncontroversial in historical and antifascist circles that it’s better to stop fascism early, because the longer you wait the harder it gets to stop. “A little courage now removes the need for a great deal of courage later” and whatnot.
The idea that parallels to nazis are “not helpful” is just… No. Fuck that shit. Even the guy behind Godwin’s Law thinks these fuckwits are nazis.
As for this new member… He talks about immigrants “breeding like rabbits”, he says that “foreigners” are “ruining life for the indigenous British population”, refers to Obama as “Barack Hussein”, and blames immigrants for all of Britain’s ills. He’s a nazi. This statement:
Shows more charity to a racist, fascist shitbag than the membership of GivingWhatWeCan shows to malaria-ridden countries. It is not “hard to distinguish”. Just call it what it is - it’s racist, dehumanizing bullshit from a far-right nativist racist and the only reason to tolerate it is because you suffer from the bizarre delusion that debating racist trolls on internet forums makes them stop being racist trolls.
This person’s ideas ideas belong in the public square only to the degree that we can point to his friends and neighbors and employers and say, “Look guys, this person is a fucking nazi” and throw a milkshake at him. And since we have no access to his friends, family, employer, or dry cleaner via the internet, the degree to which this person’s ideas belong on discussion forums is fucking zilch.
What, did he borrow HurricaneDitka’s warning-proof troll shield?
Eh, I’m pissing in the wind. The moderators here are fundamentally incapable of handling bad faith, particularly from the right.
In a recent thread I started, I discuss the views of Brits retired in upcountry Thailand. I forgot to mention their common view that “England (or London) isn’t even English anymore.” When they walk around in London, they want to see other … Englishmen!
On the topic of not waiting for a Blitzkrieg or Holocaust to oppose Nazism. recall that Kristallnacht in 1938 was perpetrated by civilians and and a non-governmental militia. The Nazi leadership wasn’t involved except in the way we’re already sad to see in the U.S.A. — a racist demagogue appearing on TV or radio offering to pay legal fees, and helping foment racial hatreds.
The notion that the moderating in this case equals providing a platform for racists is too ridiculous for words. I applaud restraint with new posters, and the mod notes were pretty clear. Had the poster stayed around, they would have either adjusted their language - or been banned if clearly racist points were made. As is appropriate.
Also, while I think I know the mindset of that particular poster, and find it repugnant, the statement was not actually racist. For it to be racist it assumes immigrants to be of a different ethnic group from the speaker, and not all immigrants are. In fact, from my visits to London, most immigrants appeared Eastern European (and I assume the poster is some shade of white- from his posting- though I cannot of course be sure). The statement is bigoted, xenophobic, biased and jingoistic - but not by definition racist.
(It was also wrong - as an immigrant myself I can share that some of us breed sorta like whales.)
Is this ATMB or the Pit?
Not to derail the thread, but want to ask: Was the issue with what the poster said, or how he said it?
If he had said, “Muslims who come to the UK generally have 2-4x the number of children that non-Muslim Britons do; as a result, they are rapidly outpacing the population in births. This is a very intentional plan on their part,” would that have been non-warnable despite being, essentially, the same intent and message as “Those immigrants are breeding like rabbits?” It would be nothing but a more polite way of expressing the exact same sentiment.
Assuming that’s an inclusive “or”, the answer is, “yes.” He made a racist statement using racist language, and neither should be given a pass. When they’re combined, the board would be better if it were an instant ban.
Jonathan wrote:
And yeah, that’s true. But he may show back up and continue this sort of racist venom. You know what would stop it?
A ban.
And note, we still haven’t heard how the board is improved by allowing this sort of racist venom.
Utter fucking bullshit. As any “Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites” thread shows, you can say any fucking screamingly obviously racist thing about Blacks you like, as long as you say it politely.