I don’t think there’s a “the”, singular, objectionable phrase…
John Mace doesn’t have “Moderator” under his name.
yes, but there was a marked absence of people chiming in (or a Moderator clarifying John’s point), so it remains open whether one can assert that there are unnamed and unspecified posters who are “largely racist.” Seems pretty indisputable to me that there are, but maybe we’ve discussed this at length, in which case I’m asking for a link to the discussion.
If someone said, “All these atheists on SD…” I wouldn’t have a problem with that, other than saying something that follows which isn’t true of all us atheists here. If someone says “All you baseball fans on the SD…” I’ll identify with that group and read what they have to say about us baseball fans. IS the official position that there are no racists here? I find that difficult to defend.
Actually, I would like tomndebb to clarify further. Is he saying that the mod note came only because there as a string of insulting phrases used? That if only one phrase (or word) had been used, alone, it would have been OK? If so, how many insulting words or phrases does it take to get a mod note?
Point being, an insult is an insult, whether one word is used or 100. This is, afterall, a mod note and not a warning. One important function of a mod note is to keep things from getting to the warning level.
Ooh, let me try that one!
" all the Christianity-haters here recently, the unreasoning, largely atheist but wholly irrational and unhinged people . . . "
…no, still sounds kind of jerkish. (Sure, there are racists on the SDMB, as well as people who hate Obama and other people who hate Christianity. So?)
I’m just going to leave this here:
??? and which one, the group or the individual, does "all the Obama-haters here recently, the unreasoning, largely racist but wholly irrational and unhinged people . . . " seem to you to belong to?
It only takes one to catch a Mod’s attention. That there were several simply made the need for a Mod’s intervention more obvious.
And who was being insulted by one, or several, of those phrases? Can you tell me which poster or posters I was insulting?
I think the idea is that it’s OK to say “Christians are idiots”, which is a general insult to all Christians, although the mods reserve the right to ask you to stop if that’s all you’re adding to the debate. It’s really thread-shitting.
But you can’t say: “All Christian posters on this Message Board are idiots”.
Maybe that seems like a weird rule, but that’s the way I see it. The first is sort of an indirect insult because it’s sweeping and impersonal. The second version is directed at specific posters, even if no poster is actually named. If you’re a Christian poster, you just go called an idiot.
If it’s against the rules to say someone is racist, that’s idiotic. Someone who happily describes their use of racist epithets to disparage other people is inarguably racist, and we do no services in the fight against ignorance to sugarcoat that plain fact. It came up in a thread recently (since moved to the Pit). We should be calling out the racists more, not less.
That’s what the Pit is for.
It should also be acceptable in every other forum, if someone’s actually being racist.
Nah. That is just saying that the pet beliefs or causes of some people should take precedence over the causes of other people in permitting–actually, encouraging–feuds to destroy any and all discussions.
Name-calling leads to feuds and warfare, nothing else. One is permitted to point out that an idea is racist. Calling people names does nothing but encourage them to call you names. In case you have failed to notice, most advocates of racist positions have long since found arguments that they insist “prove” that those who oppose racism are the “real” racists. So allowing posters to be called racists simply lets everyone sit in a circle and hurl epithets at each other.
And, while you are convinced that racists must be fought and denigrated on every occasion, there is liable to be someone on the board who possibly considers the fight against racism to have been largely won, but who considers you to be a sexist or an ageist or a speciesist or some other holder of terrible and unjust opinions. If we allow “racist” to be used as an epithet, then we should let all the other epithets fly, as well.
Again: there is no prohibition against pointing out how a statement expresses racism; the prohibition is against name-calling.
A racist is a person who says or does racist things. Someone who says racist things is racist. Being able to say, “that’s a racist statement,” but not being able to say, “you’re being racist” is a distinction without a difference, as though I’m allowed to say, “that is a lie,” but not, “you are a liar,” or as though I’m allowed to say, “you have a US passport” but not “You are American.”
“You are a racist”----The Pit.
“What you are saying is racist because…”----every other forum.
There is a big distinction. In the Pit you don’t have to back up your accusation with reason. There is and should be a higher standard in the other forums.
Simply not accurate. It is a distinction with a difference. A person may, through ignorance or misunderstanding, hold a particular view that is racist without actually basing his or her entire attitude toward other people on racist ideas.
Regardless, even if the poster is a racist, telling another poster that he or she has stated a racist viewpoint, (preferably along with an explanation of why it is racist), will do far less to incite people to engage in name-calling and feuding. On a message board, particularly, name-calling and feuding is pretty much the death of any discussion. If one would like to hurl insults at other posters, we have provided a forum in which you can do just that. Allowing posters to start fights in other fora just so that they can vent their spleens serves no purpose except to allow the angry to dominate, and ultimately destroy, the message board.
Without matching your completely apocalyptic vision, let me direct you back to one of my original questions here: Whom did I direct the epithet “racist” toward? If I can’t assert outside of the Pit that there are unnamed and unspecified racists on the SD, may I assert that there MIGHT be racists on the SD? May I assert that there are posters on the SD who are racists if I specify that I believe that there are racists everywhere? How about if I assert that it’s impossible IMO for anyone on earth to be completely without racism, including you and me? Since you and I are Dopers, haven’t I just called two Dopers racists, thereby ignoring a Mod note and subject to all sorts of Modly hassles?
Where does this world-destroying nihilistic madness end, IOW?
Extension to Absurdity is not convincing argument. You DID say “all the Obama-haters here…” That specifies a specific group of posters. And, in addition to racist, you called them “unreasoning” “wholly irrational” and “unhinged.” Once you’ve identified a specific gorup of posters, you’ve crossed the line. And this is not a new line, it’s the guideline we’ve followed on “group” insults for years and years.
(I will not post to this thread again. Beating a dead horse is not a game I enjoy.)