if you say so, our dearest reader of many printed works, but of course I said in the context of the racist discussion. Hors context, well let me not spoil anything with a context.
yes if we only ignored the racists. this worked very well for the jews at one point.
this would require extensive study and perhaps the comparison between books and documentaries and specialized broadcasts.
That actually pretty well describes your own approach to such discussions. I have not said that my personal beliefs or impressions are the final arbiters of Moderating. However, it is unrealistic to presume that I can know everything that every poster decides to find offensive. In the case of “racist,” I have 50 years of watching the word hurled about American society with the reactions that it evokes. “Holocaust denier,” not so much. (Probably because “Holocaust denier” has been used less frequently than “racist” and has usually been directed at actual people who were denying the Holocaust, while “racist” has been hurled at all sorts of people who both were and were not actually engaged in racist activities, such as the gentleman unfortunate enough to have used the word “niggardly” correctly in a discussion of budget.)
Regularly used?
I have seen one photo, so far.
How many rallies do you think there have been against Irving or Ahmedinejad? Such rallies are not exactly common.
Besides which, I never said that I would not consider “Holocaust denier” to be an insult. I said that I had not encountered it thrown as a slur and that if I was presented with evidence that it is routinely used in that manner, I would begin to Mod it the way I Mod “racist.”
Instead of posters going out and collecting evidence that it is a frequent slur, I find a single photograph and a bunch of hand-wringing that I have not already gone out and done research to discover their contention, myself.
“hand wringing” :rolleyes:- yes, tom, this tells me all I need to know about whether you’re approaching our opinions with any modicum of respect or actual consideration before deciding, as opposed to pat dismissal and evident annoyance.
And what makes you think any of the posters who use that term are using it in the capacity of forensic or physical anthropologists or is an ENT like Prof. Ijaduola? You know, “negroid” is what they use in those HBD circles to get around what they really want to call us, right? This post is obtuse at best.
So our resident expert on genes and intelligence starts a thread and doesn’t hesitate to spout his racist views. Soon afterwards, tomndebb states quite clearly that there will be no discussion of his racist views in the thread. Seems pretty hypocritical. You are really going out of your way to allow this guy to say whatever he wants, no matter how it denigrates people. Saddest piece of moderating I’ve seen.
Given that we already have a thread on this general issue, your comments should go in that one. I’m closing this one.
This was started as a separate thread, but since we already have a thread on the subject I’ve moved it here.
I didn’t see any mention of genes or intelligence in that thread, nor anything that appears at first blush to be racist.
Regards,
Shodan
The disclaimer is thoroughly racist. Look up scientific racism.
So it’s racist. Then demolish it by reasoned argument and facts. It’s just possible, though unlikely I grant you, that some racist somewhere will see what unscientific nonsense forms the basis of racism and see the error of his or her ways.
We shouldn’t be frightened of seeing this stuff and it needs to be refuted wherever it appears.
The OP had a clearly racist disclaimer in it. The moderator made it a rule that nobody could post on that disclaimer. The racist concept was presented and then those participating were told not to challenge it.
and then the OP asked a very specific question or thing to debate - can you address that without talking about the OPs racisim?
And this is what TommDebb was ‘directing’ people to do - debate the question itself.
This.
And it’s a perfect example as to why claims of racism are not helpful to the debate. You want the word to do your work for you. Oh, it’s racist, so no one need pay it any mind. Tom’s admonition was excellent modding. If you must, you can always open a Pit thread and call the OP names.
I sit corrected, actually. I blush to confess that I didn’t read the disclaimer.
That having been said, what magellan01 and simster said. Assuming that the disclaimer is 100% false - debate the OP based on that assumption. Do we need AA anyway?
And I should also add that AFAIAC tomndebb’s moderation was appropriate and well-directed in that thread.
Because
Regards,
Shodan
indeed it would be terrible to let a ouchie word get in the way, any more than a hispanic culture
He respects your opinions as much as he does American posters(which is more or less zero, unless there are a bunch of people). And, stop saying “our”- you’re not a editor or a King, and you dont represent anyone but yourself.
Pat dismissal and evident annoyance is how the staff here views most requests for change from the Hoi polloi. Dont feel singled out.
So you are saying I shouldn’t discuss how racist ideology leads people to have mistaken beliefs about the purpose of affirmative action and that is why the OP is completely mistaken in questioning affirmative action’s role in sports?
How many posters here use "cisgender’ in the capacity of anthropologists, etc? But those who have asked us not to use certain terms to apply to them continue to openly and loudly refuse to stop using “cisgender”.
I did say “the term is loosing credence”. What term would you prefer?
I mean, here in the USA, we usually use “Black” but some dont like that term either.
Now, dont get me wrong, if a member of a group says “Please dont use that term, I find it offensive”- I used to say that was the right thing to do.
There have been dozens of posters on this board who’ve been banned for allowing their pet topics into every single post or series of posts they make. This guy’s scientific racist point of view finds its way into every topic he involves himself with.
For the most ridiculous example: I was actually impressed not to see any of it for quite a few posts in his earlier thread on affirmative action, but then some poster asked a question and there he went making the same tired, racist claims he always does. In other words he hijacked his own thread.
Now he starts a thread, posts his views, but we’re told to ignore the racist insult right in front of our faces and somehow discuss his idea about affirmative action without reference to his overtly racist ideology.
That’s over the top. If you’re the moderator and you don’t want a thread hijacked, then don’t blame the people who respond to the content in the OP. Don’t make me responsible for the smooth sailing of his thread by having me ignore what the OP posts. Have the OP take down the thread and rewrite it, or just edit it.
I think you should explain what the role of affirmative action is in sports, and why we need it. Or don’t need it, as the case may be.
Regards,
Shodan