Ah we forget you need your Safe Space from the powerful critical Trigger Words, even if used in an ordinary way, because Insult. Ouchies.
absolutely no control except against the percieved left ouchy words.
it is DrDeth. no more understanding has to be made, likes Games
Oh shit, NOW you’ve done it. 
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.
[/QUOTE]
What he said.
Again, what magellan01 said. Calling someone a racist* is* an insult, and tends to shut down debate. That’s why it is not allowed in the forum for debates.
If you want to call someone a racist, knock yourself out, in the Pit. If you want to debate, knock yourself out, in GD. If you don’t want to debate, don’t. But “I don’t want to debate” does not establish “nobody else should debate either”.
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t believe it necessarily quashes debate – sometimes it sparks further debate. I doubt you’ll agree, which is fine. My affection for you remains strong despite our disagreements.
Not only I disagree but the mods do as well.
That’s nice of you to say. And that time I quoted another poster, you were out of town! I was drunk! It won’t happen again!
It’s not you - it’s me.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes, though they agree with me that it’s acceptable to call posts and assertions racist.
You are forgiven, because I can’t quit you.
MrDibble :“If you’re unfamiliar with the contents of the work of Rushton and Lynn…”
You didn’t answer my question.
How is calling a racist a “racist” anymore an insult than calling someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “Holocaust Denier”?
Having a “privileged” upbringing has nothing to do with “privilege” in these types of discussions. Your privilege is simply in not being discriminated against. Your privilege is simply in growing up in a first world country. I have the same privilege, relative to MrDibble. And no one would call my life “privileged.”
All he’s wanting you to do is pay attention to the fact that those who are not discriminated against in a certain area are not qualified to decide what is and is not offensive. He’s telling you that these “scientific racists” are just as offensive as someone coming up and shouting “nigger.”
Why? What about American liberalism would lead you to believe that we hold freedom of speech as a primary virtue? It’s merely a tool, a necessity for democracy. But it is a tool that needs to be checked, not an excuse to allow intolerance. Liberalism loathes intolerance, and is actually intolerant towards the intolerant.
And why would you think this board values freedom of speech as a primary virtue, either? It’s number one rule is “Don’t be a jerk.” The discussion here is about what crosses that line. And a lot of us don’t see how letting people say racist shit is any less jerkish than calling them racist. (Hell, Marley used to famously say that he would only “sometimes” moderate calling people racist. But Marley is gone, replaced by JC who said he would crack down but stopped after Der Trihs was suspended.)
Colleges are also about tolerance, which means not tolerating the intolerant. Yes, freedom of speech zones are stupid–because they further no goal but helping the establishment–the exact opposite of what liberalism is about. But being about tolerance does mean limiting the speech of the intolerant.
And, no, none of this is a contradiction. Being tolerant inevitably requires not tolerating intolerance. If people sat back and tolerated slavery, would that have been tolerant? If people sat back and tolerated male-only voting, would that have been tolerant? No, and neither is sitting back and tolerating bigoted speech.
Now, maybe a more libertarian style of liberalism would be contradicting itself. But American liberalism is not.
No, I don’t embrace using them. They just are the lesser evil to letting racism go unchecked.
It’s not about what I don’t like to see. (I have an ignore feature and I use it for bigots more than anything else) It’s about letting racists spread their racist ideas, and granting them legitimacy by arguing with them like there is anything to argue with.
You can ridicule a Creationist by calling them a Creationist. You can ridicule a climate change denialist by calling them a climate change denialist. You can ridicule a conspiracy theorist by calling them a conspiracy theorist. But you can’t ridicule a racist by calling them racist.
Bigots get a protection here that no one else does.
Because that’s how the word is used. ‘N*gger’ is an insult; ‘African-American’ isn’t. Why? Because that’s how the word is used.
Language acquires meaning thru consensus. You are correct that the process is mostly arbitrary, but that’s how it works.
Regards,
Shodan
Unless someone self-identifies as a racist, then it is a pejorative; an insult used by one who has lost the ability or patience to debate.
Pretending that the word racist can have some neutral attributive quality is like wondering why the blacks get mad when you call them “you people.”
Paranoid?
What ideas are they spreading?
Is “Holocaust denier” not a pejorative or insult?
It is. Neither term should be banned but let’s not live under the false pretense that they are simply benign descriptors.
I think they’re both descriptors, but I wouldn’t call them “benign”, and I doubt that others here would either.
So then you feel that calling people who don’t self-identify as Holocaust Deniers “Holocaust Deniers” you are using an insult and have proven yourself to have “lost the ability of patience to debate”?
I ask because that is the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
So if someone claims that the Holocaust never happened, what should we call them? :dubious:
Yes, and…? Is English not your first language? “The work of Rushton and Lynn” can mean “The work of Rushton and Lynn together” (though I’m unaware of why that means Jensen to you, did you confuse your racists?) or “The work of Rushton and the work of Lynn, collectively (i.e. Pioneer Fund racist Dreck)”. Plus, AFAIK, Rushton and Flynn never co-authored any papers.