If someone provides evidence that “Holocaust denier” is being used as an insult in the way that “racist” is used as an insult, it will be Modded the same way. I do not recall seeing angry crowds holding signs accusing a person oh being a " Holocaust denier." If that usage is common as an insult, it may not be directed at a poster in Great Debates.7
And that means it doesn’t happen?
So my take-away from this whole thing is that the mods overwhelmingly privilege their own personal experience and values over those of ordinary posters. If a mod’s never experienced it, it doesn’t matter.
Do you also feel that “racist” is never used in the same way as “Holocaust denier”? Do you think it’s always just an insult or pejorative to call someone a racist?
To me, calling someone who asserts that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence, on average, due to genetics (in whatever flowery language they choose) a “racist” is pretty much identical to calling someone who asserts that the gas chambers are a myth a “Holocaust denier”.
Great! Here’s some extra napkins and ketchup packets. Thanks for griping at ATMB, and hope to see you again soon!
The distinction that folks continually miss is that the social opprobrium isn’t attached to the word. It’s attached to the referenced beliefs. A racist by any other name would smell as unsweet.
A pejorative tends to be a word that’s unnecessarily harsh in its connotations. There is no other well-known word that means the same thing as “racist,” despite magellan’s fantasies otherwise. “Racist” might be a word that brings a lot of condemnation with it, but that’s because racist beliefs bring a lot of condemnation, not because of anything inherent to the word itself.
In some circles, “communist” carries similar condemnation. That doesn’t mean the word ought to be banned when talking about self-avowed Marxists.
And it=f it is used to describe a person or language that we could all agree is racist, there would be no problem. Instead, the game is to use the word when the word “racial” would serve just as well. Except that is doesn’t double as an insult. And since that’s the only difference, when you insist on using it in GD, you’re insisting on being able to insult.
No, it’s because “racial” doesn’t include the connotation of the belief that one race is inherently better or worse than another, and “racist” does. “Racial” doesn’t serve if the intention is to say “you are saying that one race is inherently better, and that is wrong” – “racist” does. And when applied to posts and not posters, “racist” is allowed in the rules.
First, it’s not a game, it’s a debate. Do you understand the difference?
Second, “racial” doesn’t work as well, for a couple of reasons. It’s not well-known; the meaning you ascribe to it is idiosyncratic (it normally means “related to race,” not “the belief that one race is superior to another,” which is the meaning of racist that’s generally used). And if you ever did succeed in altering the meaning of “racist” to make it synonymous with “racial,” the euphemism treadmill would kick in: because disapproval is attached to the concept, not to the word itself, as soon as you succeeded, “racial” would become an insult.
Well, if you used it describe people s=who believe that one race is inherently better or worse than another race, that would be fine. Or statements along those lines. But what you are evident incapable of digesting is that saying that Race A might be inferior to Race B on one metric, does NOT mean that are saying that Race A is superior to Race B generally.
Just like saying that Football Team A has an inferior quarterback to Football Team B doesn’t mean Football Team A is inferior to Football Team B.
But that’s the way I mean it. That’s WHY t’s a better choice. Going beyond that is where the insult starts. It also goes into Begging the Question territory.
I agree. And that’s exactly the problem. The added part of the definition that you correctly identify is what makes it insulting.
What I am suggesting is that we reserve the condemning power of the word “racist” to for people or statements that are unambiguously racist. And use “racial” to describe what is being discussed without the baggage of it being insulting.
The game comes into play because some (you?) feel it necessary to insult as you debate, while you can claim to not be insulting because of the more obscure clinical meaning of “racist”.
Tell me, would you agree that for those who claim to use it and intend zero insult by it, that they in those cases would be better served by using “racial”?
Intelligence isn’t just some arbitrary “metric”. It’s the only metric that matters.
Hell, it isn’t even any “one metric”, but that doesn’t stop the racists from using it like one.
It is arbitrary in that its one of countless things to measure. It’s not arbitrary if one is trying to figure out why one group genetically linked does so poorly, on average, compared to other groups. Especially when other factors are taken into consideration.
I understand that it is a touchy subject, and it may even be best to not ask the question, but Chief Pendant does offer evidence to support his theory. There is evidence opposing his theory, as well. But I don’t see why no one should be allowed to have the discussion. Maybe you should just avoid it? Seriously.
As far as racists or anyone else using one metric and thinking it says more than it does, that’s a battle in the world that will take a long time to wage. If you want to wage that battle, I’m with you.
So…you know how you’re always going on about how us libruls want to shut down discussion?
Note what you’re doing: you’re saying that the definition I’m using for “racist” describes an idea that is so insulting that we shouldn’t be allowed to discuss it.
Again, the condemnation doesn’t adhere to the term itself, it adheres to the concept of racial superiority. If I’m reading you correctly, you want to forbid posters in Great Debates from describing other posters as adherents to a philosophy of racial superiority–is this correct?
I agree with the first half (I’m not convinced at all that “racial” is going to be as useful as you think it’ll be). But when someone argues that black people are genetically intellectually inferior to white people, that’s unambiguously racist, and we should be able to apply the word precisely and accurately to such a person without having to hop onto a euphemism treadmill to stay one step ahead of social opprobrium of their beliefs.
No. If you want to have a thread on “Is X racist?”, I’m all for it. But when that is not the actual subject of the thread, and statements in support of a position are described as racist, that I’m against. It dismisses the point rather than argue against it. As I said earlier, it’s begging the question. “Well, that point should be simply ignored because it is racist.” But you cannot just deem a point racist in a discussion. It’s too easy. And unfair. You should be able to—no, you should have to—argue against the point on its merits.
I do not hold that it is unambiguously or necessarily racist. Nature cannot be racist. And if nature made one group smarter, or taller, or quicker, or stronger than another, simply describing that cannot be racist. No if you insist that the person or statement is, in fact, racist, I’m all for you starting a GD thread to exploring the veracity of your claim. Otherwise, the fact is that it shuts down open debate. And I do not see that as a good thing.
I know we disagree on what is racist – but until you offer a term that similarly conveys moral disapproval – that “what you just said is morally bad” in addition to having to do with race – then I will continue to call assertions that I feel are racist “racist”. You can disagree, and you can even condemn my calling these things racist (with whatever words within the rules you like).
What if nature made Jews greedier and less trustworthy, or thirsty for the blood of non-Jews?
The reason I bring this up is that nearly all people who make racist assertions believe and assert that “nature made them that way”, or something equivalent. You reasoning, if I get it, means that they all shouldn’t be called racists as long as they honestly believe that nature made black people inferior in intelligence, or Jews inferior in morality.
I don’t accept that.
As other have demonstrated it clearly is regularly used as an insult. Go to any rally against David Irving or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Beyond that, you’re ignoring the fact that the term “Holocaust Denier” is a much, much harsher term.
In many western countries it is quite literally a crime to be such with very severe consequences.
In contrast, Scientific racists are not, to the best of my knowledge, jailed merely for being convicted of claiming that scientific tests proved that black people were on average less intelligent than whites. Standards for “hate speech” are usually much higher.
Anyway, this decision that word “racist” is now to be considered verboten and never used in GD is a recent one.
When I first came here, the rule was that using the term was “discouraged because of it’s personal nature” but “not always considered an insult depending on the context.”
Similarly, Marley always made it clear that he though using the term “racist” was discouraged, but didn’t feel it was automatically, always going to be considered an insult.
That’s why I pretty rarely used the term racist and when I did I always made it clear that it wasn’t being used as an insult and made a point of using an academic term “scientific racist” which is regularly used in discussions of the genesis and evolution of the concept of eugenics in such books as That Noble Dream by Peter Novick.
Now personally, I don’t see why the need to change the standard. The post accusing Chen that started this whole kerfuffle pretty clearly did cross the line into insulting him.
I see no reason to decide that academic terms have to automatically be considered insults.
Respectfully, you allowed for years NewdealDemocrat to use the term “Negroid” as an insult which is a term that most black people would react to negatively and consider an insult on the basis that it was an “academic term” and “not always” considered an insult.
Now perhaps you think that it’s perfectly consistent to allow posters to use the term “Negroid” but not “racist” but most will find that completely inconsistent.
Beyond that, if you’re going to insist that the old rule that “racist is usually an insult but not always depending on the context” to “it’s always an insult no matter what the context” then be consistent and make it clear that the same happens to anyone who uses the term “Holocaust Denier”.
“Prof. J. Philippe Rushton with Prof. Richard Lynn: “I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations” and “In Search of the African I.Q.” In a “two-fer” presentation Lynn and Rushton detail their latest findings. Lynn sums up highlights of his new work “I.Q. and the Wealth of Nations,” while Rushton shows why I.Q. tests are not culturally biased.”
However, this has gone on long enough. For some reason, you seem to want to endlessly quibble about tiny pedantic points, and try to make those molehills into a mountain. You can’t stand behind what your actual post was, so you go off on some quibble.
Why do you support and promote their writings and opinions so much? I find them lacking in academic value and rather biased in tone.
Indeed, in at least one case, you stepped in and asked us not to use that term, since the poster had not yet made it obvious they were a denier. (which of course, they were).
But you see, if you 'deny" the “holocaust” you are a “Holocaust denier”- sure, some are simply questioning some details or estimates (you’re not a denier if you think the number of deaths is more like 500MM instead of 6MM, even tho people will call you that), but others deny. Once you say “no Jews were killed in Gas Chambers” you* are* a Denier.
If you support the works of “scientists” who posit that Blacks are lower in intelligence- you may or may not be a racist (altho the odds are that you are one), so bringing out that term is insulting and rather preemptive. Then the debate will shift to the use of that term, rather than the matter at hand.
Like I said: "
*So,thus, the SDMB has a long history of ignoring and deriding the input of members (except for a “select special few”) on how this Board should be run. Sure, if a LOT of members ask for something, sometimes it happens- or a 'technical" excuse is made. (Usually “Jerry doesn’t want to do that”). But one or two? Suggestions are nearly always ignored or derided, or worse. The fact that you’re posting from outside the Americas doesnt mean they ignore or deride your idea- the fact that you’re just one member does.
The Staff here (being for the most part unpaid volunteers, so it’s somewhat understandable) has not caught on to the concept that we are ‘customers’.
“Customer Service” thus does not seem to be reason to do anything, they cater more to the wishes of the unpaid staff than the paying members.
And, honestly, many orgs that rely upon unpaid volunteers do the same. The SDMB is hardly unique in that."
*
But you seem to want the entire board to change based simply on your opinion. Really?