What’s incoherent is conflating not instabanning with no action.
LHOD, do you realize you’re literally saying “let’s debate whether this major development in British politics was a good or bad thing–but no one on the ‘pro’ side is allowed to give voice to the rationale that was ACTUALLY BEHIND the motivations of the majority of Britons in that vote”?!? (NB: I am personally against Brexit.) What did you have in mind, a “debate” that involved made-up fig-leaf type reasons that can be easily brushed aside by the anti-Brexit side? What would be the point of that?
Precisely. Dibble’s method would negate virtually every proposition ever advanced by any philosopher, ever–no matter how sound, or at least intriguing, the proposition might be if engaged on its own terms. (Although maybe Dibble doesn’t have any ad hominem dirt to spew on Robert Jackson, given his conspicuous silence on that front.)
Sigh. No, that’s not how appeal to authority works either. Seriously, guys? I really don’t think the Dope would have been this confused about fallacious reasoning ten years ago.
Appeal to authority would be if I had said “John Stuart Mill was for free speech absolutism, and he was a great man”. Extensively quoting Mill’s arguments is not, can not be, an appeal to authority. FFS :smack:
And I have yet to see anyone contest those arguments on the merits. :dubious:
Oh wait, here we go. Finally:
Ahem. I even highlighted this part the first time:
Either by themselves or by their government. Not just the government “at best”.
LOL, I love this! Nice one.
Missed the edit window:
And let’s keep in mind that Mill’s basic point is that none of us can be sure we are right about everything, or anything. Including him! So to cast aside his arguments about free speech because he was (allegedly) wrong about something else? That’s particularly absurd, and ironic.
You are wrong.
Once again, you are wrong. Unless you think that things like “immigrants breed like vermin” is a valid point to be refuted.
Of course, in this, your passive aggressive stance of “in the eyes of some”, you are possibly technically correct, at least not falsifiable, just as in the eyes of some, it would be a feature if this board were chock full of racism and misogyny.
Was it intentional that “rabbits” has now been repeatedly changed to “vermin”? Big difference IMO.
Well shit, y’know what they say - “Gosh, I love this discussion forum, but what it needs is more discussion of whether or not immigrants breed like rabbits and are responsible for all the evils of the world.”
Personally, I think anyone saying shit like that belongs in polite conversation the way a howler monkey with IBS belongs at a fancy dinner party, but your extreme charity for fashy bullshit is noted. 
Not…really. I’m not really on LHoD’s side of this debate, though I guess you can say I’m sympathetic towards it without agreeing with it.
But he is of course almost certainly correct about the poster in question and “breeding like rabbits” has basically same connotation as “breeding like vermin.” One’s a tiny bit more venomous in phrasing, but it is an identically ugly sentiment.
Glad you’re sympathetic. Maybe you’re more patient than I am.
It’s a weird expression, because it can be used in a couple of ways. Sometimes it’s used in an affectionate sense. When someone talks about their ancestors “breeding like rabbits,” there’s kind of this playfully lewd joking connotation to it.
But it can also be used in a threatening sense. When someone is complaining about immigrants changing their nation because immigrants breed like rabbits, they’re not being playfully affectionate: they’re alluding to rabbits as vermin that can destroy a farm through explosive population growth.
The fact that it’s used in two different senses doesn’t mean a careful reader cannot distinguish between the sense in which it’s used.
The fact that one can be used playfully and one cannot (and that rabbits are cute and appealing), is why I say there’s a big difference.
Eyeroll
No. This is bad logic. When discussing moderator priorities, all that matters is that both actions are moderator actions. Of course they will be different situations: you can’t compare priorities unless the things you are comparing are different.
The issue brought up here is the value of stopping racism vs. the value of stopping incivility. It’s not just this single post, but a general pattern of punishing incivility more severely than racism. The poster who gets out of line fighting racism gets punished while racist posters, who are by definition being a jerk, very often don’t.
This is yet another example of showing us that the SDMB moderators clearly prioritize fighting incivility over fighting racism. And a lot of us think that is messed up. It doesn’t even conform to the rules of this board, which say “don’t be a jerk.” Blatant racism is being a jerk.
And this issue is never going to go away. Every time we see a poster say something racist and then not be punished (which is what happened here–a Note is not a punishment), people are going to say something. We’re going to keep pushing the same way the women did to get many forms of sexism acknowledged as being a jerk.
I would think it would be simpler to just do what every other board that has civility rules does, and treat racism as being extra uncivil. It would even mean the anti-racists would be less uncivil, as they could just report racism rather than fight it. They wouldn’t feel like they’re there fighting without help.
And that last part is why I have a soft spot for BPC.* He can’t just report people for being racist. Nothing will happen, save maybe he gets publicly shamed for reporting posts too often. You guys say that we have to fight racism with our words, so he does. That he crosses the line is completely understandable with how frustrating it all is.
As far as I’m concerned, the SDMB is on the wrong side of history on this. There are three possible outcomes: the SDMB takes racism seriously, the SDMB gets overrun by racists, or the SDMB shuts down because there aren’t enough people who want to be here anymore. There is no option of the 20th century delusion that racists and anti-racists can coexist.
But, hey, it’s your board. I can’t choose which option you take.
*Also, in this specific instance, it’s unfair to tell someone that they will not be suspended, then have a conference and decide to suspend them. If there was the possibility that he would be suspended, you should have not said he wouldn’t be.
Not that I’m agreeing there’s anything ad hominem about highlighting Mill’s hypocrisy, but I won’t “spew” because AFAIK Jackson’s court record and opinions show he wasn’t a giant hypocrite in his thinking.
So what are your thoughts on the Jackson excerpts from Barnette? (My reaction when first encountering them was that they were the most inspiring thing I had ever read.)
I think it’s quaint, privileged liberal bollocks, quite frankly.But that’s my opinion of all couching of free speech as an issue of " occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes" rather than “hate speech and harmful lies”
But if people don’t get to put the case that you and everyone who looks like you are sub-human scum then either a) you might never come to the surprising realisation that they are right after all or b) (which is scarcely less valuable) your arguments that you are in fact a human being with equal rights to everyone else may collide insufficiently with error and thus make a less lively impression on you. I mean, you might think that your impression that you’re not sub-human scum is already pretty damn lively, but imagine what heights of liveliness it could reach if you would only spend hours of your life pleading the case for your basic personhood with chortling racist trolls. Why, they would be positively vivacious.
It’s always easier to shoot down extremism after setting it up so carefully to completely deny the humanity of your opponents. It would be a lot tougher to grapple with understanding the 68 year old lady who volunteers at the local grammar school and always puts a fiver in the Salvation Army kettle, but pines for the “proper English shops” in her neighborhood when she grew up, contrasted with the ones that replaced them: unfamiliar lettering on the windows, exotic music and aromas emanating from the doorways.
That sounds like an excellent idea for a thread.
It’s a little frustrating to see that people keep trying to dilute the question by coming up with irrelevancies (“What about little old white ladies who don’t like the smell of curry?” “When you’re considering whether to ban people from a private messageboard, what about this US court case on a totally different subject?” “When are rabbits cute and when are they vermin, setting aside the obvious point that in the quote we’re discussing they’re being used to represent vermin?”)
On the other hand, despite Bone’s throwing me a, well, bone, it’s pretty clear that mods are comfortable allowing new posters to spout racist venom, and are comfortable with the effect that has on both conversations and on the people who would otherwise want to frequent Great Debates.
They’ve made their decision, so I guess I gotta make mine.
Maybe I was wrong. I thought various Dopers didn’t want to refute - maybe they can’t. Maybe they are so triggered that they honestly forget what debate looks like, and thus we get drivel like the above post.
Or the SDMB can become even more closed-in, where any deviation from the approved positions is labeled as bigotry/racism/sexism and banned. Then we end up with the same twenty posters all virtue-signalling each other and agreeing that Those People, the ones not 100% pure and woke, are just too bad.
That’ll be cozy.
Regards,
Shodan
Funny, I thought it was the person comparing actual human beings to agricultural pests who were doing the dehumanising in this scenario,
Nope, not tough to grapple with at all. Has she done or said anything racist? Pining for a fading culture isn’t racist. It’s pointless, but not racist.
It’s not merely throwing a bone. I think your ideas, especially the presentation of the article about the history subReddit, have merit. I’m willing to take a more stricter look going forward. We may not agree on where that line may be drawn, but your points are not being ignored.
That being said, I don’t think it’s accurate to lump all forms of racism together. There’s a spectrum of what is acceptable and what is not. Using a euphemism that can have both positive and negative connotations (clearly negative in this instance), is a far cry from other examples that warrant more severe moderation. It’s true that I’d rather err on the side of allowing some undesirable speech than prohibiting wider swathes that may encompass bona fide discussion material (this is not that case).
You asked earlier and may have missed my response, about how does this make the board better?