No problem for the blind, but if the mods are ignoring that the SDMB are making pit thread after pit thread on a posters’ pet preaching topic, they deserve the heat from bad modding.
Again if they want to act as heat shields for the indulgence of racists, that’s their prerogative. And frankly they deserve it.
Also Shodan, if you, personally, hold yourself as a free speech fundie, moving shit racialists to the pit aint a problem either, but a win. More speech.
Yeah magellan you need to pause for a second. Stalinists are left, but not free speech advocates. European socialists are often in different parties than European liberals (the latter push for free speech). And iiandyiiii strikes me as somewhere between ultra-liberals like myself (who are centrists by European standards, far left by American ones) and Dibble.
What it boils down to is that if someone wants to make an early 20th century racist argument, iiandyiiii wants to be able to denounce them as racists. (Other posters just want to be able to refer to them as racists.) ACLU types who worry about chilling effects seem to be a minority on this board, albeit not a small minority. That said, I’d say most share the broad American support for free speech in general. There’s a rather bright line between content restrictions on a message board and legal restrictions.
No, less. Threads in GD and the Pit = more speech. Threads only in the Pit = less speech.
Regards,
Shodan
What possible debate is there to be had over “Blacks are teh dum 'cause…SCIENCE”? It’s not debatable the same way “Jews are greedy 'cause…SCIENCE!” isn’t.
Ah, but being allowed to call racists racist is more speech than not being allowed to.
Does not.
I didnt see anything that said your opinions werent *considered, * just that after consideration, no *changes *were to be made for a tiny minority.
Rushton and Jensen wrote an article “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” not “Thirty Years of Research on *What Continent People live on * Differences in Cognitive Ability”
If you dont know the difference, perhaps you shouldn’t actually get involved in a conversation about the use to which they’re put.
No offense, but this has to be one of the most pretentious arguments I’ve read here in a long time.
And, when did the “outside the Americas” Board members appoint you as their representative? Perhaps your opinion is just that- your opinion.
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.
It’s also more speech to call someone a liar or a cunt, but those are things that tend to quash actual debate. Which is why they are relegated to The Pit and disallowed in GD. Is this really that difficult to understand?
No – I think such discussions should go to the Pit, so that they can be accurately characterized and responded to.
Since they won’t (right now, at least), I’m fine with staying within GD rules – arguments can be characterized as racist, but not posters; no insults or name-calling, and the like. I feel very capable of refuting the “blacks are dumber” arguments without calling anyone racist – I just see no philosophical problem whatsoever with calling racists racist.
Say what? You can’t argue against a point without using the word “racist”. Why is that word so important. Ooohhhh, I remember, because you can claim to be using it in the clinical sense and deny that you intend it as the powerful insult it is. As has been pointed out to you more than once, if your intent really is to use it in the clinical sense, then “racial” answers your prayers. But you bristle at such a clean and logical suggestion because,…
On the other hand, if racial doesn’t suit you’re what you’re trying to say in GD—which, of course, is not to be an insult—one can conclude that the aspect of the word “racist” that you’re so fixated on is the insulation aspect.
So, which is it? You want clear communication, or insulting language that indirectly makes the position verboten?
I think you missed the next paragraph (from my edit) – I can definitely argue against a point without calling anyone or anything “racist” – in fact, the vast majority of my posts on the subject of genes and intelligent don’t contain any accusations of racism, whether against a post or poster.
I think your constant focus on “racial” is continually baffling, as it’s a nothing word that says nothing and adds no information. I’ll probably never get why you think this word would add anything at all useful to these conversations. If I choose to call something “racist” it’s because I disapprove of the argument – how does “racial” connote disapproval at all? How is “racial” useful in any way whatsoever? What’s the point of calling something “racial” if my point is “your assertion contains the implication that black people are inferior”? How does “racial” convey that information?
I definitely want clear language on that front – and “racist” is clear; “racial” says nothing. And it doesn’t make anything forbidden at all. Further, it’s within the rules – it’s perfectly acceptable, at least if I understand the rules of GD correctly, to say “this assertion about black people is a racist assertion”. And I’m unaware of any debates on this board that it’s stifled, unless someone is just so afraid of that word (on an anonymous internet board, LOL) that they flee in terror.
Orwellian paranoia with a dash of classicism?
Please:
“If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”
Rushton and Jensen were quacks laughed at by all but credulous fools.
Huh?
Why, the Pit is for insults, calling a Rushton groupie a racist is not an insult anymore than calling Mahmoud Ahmadinehad a Holocaust Denier is an insult.
Or do you think that term “Holocaust Denier” should be similarly banned in GD.
So? Why reply to me? It’s MrDibble who seems to value their work, not I.
I thought it was blacks had natural rhythm and that’s why they were so good at sports and Jews were successful because they were so good at math. Are my stereotypes out of date now?
We were told that calling someone a “racist” isn’t allowed outside the Pit, for some unknown reason. :rolleyes:
Does too
I see nothing indicating they were considered - rather, Colibri seem to imply they were rejected out of hand because … tiny minority, I guess?
It’s cute that you think Rushton just wrote one paper. And what about Lynn?
Didn’t say I was anybody’s “representative” But they are not just my opinions, just reading these threads will tell you that.
I didnt say that- but how many did they write together?
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?