There’s a typo in there – But I am neither praising nor complaining about his moderation. I was stating that I believe he DOES moderate racial slurs. You can take that as praise if you will. I meant it as a simple statement of fact.
To anyone who might think that your statement is not true of Miller (and I guarantee you there are some, however small their number might be), it’s praise. It’s a comment on moderation even if it’s neutral. Which I thought wasn’t allowed here.
I’m not sure that is a fair question. I don’t know why they wouldn’t be given an opportunity to apologize, or even how, on these boards, they could be prevented from doing so.
Are you saying that you think a genuine apology – ‘you’re right, I shouldn’t have said that, I won’t do it again’ – would not have been accepted? And if so, can you cite a case of that happening on these boards?
I think the rules of the Pit forbid me from responding to that question as completely as I’d like. But sure, some posters get more leeway than others.
Just for the record, because I want to stay out of trouble, I didn’t introduce the subject of moderation into this thread. Another poster did, as a poster, not a mod, who is also a mod.
Both. [DemonTree already linked these, but I already had them linked so I’ll post them.]
So in places where the conservative is just posting an opinion like everyone else and someone says, but yeah, you’d think that because you’re a conservative. That would be a slur, yes? And you’d think less of a person who posted that?
I’m wondering if other groups are held to this standard where they’re talking about their lives, like someone talking about how they behave as a, for example, person of color, that someone is allowed to then insult them on their “position”.
I’m honestly mystified by your comment. But perhaps it’s best to just drop the subject.
Okay.
Surely there’s no ban on linking to whatever incident you’re referencing? You’ve got me really curious now.
Have they ever tried, or do they just maintain that there’s nothing to apologize for?
I think he’s talking about me
That wasn’t what I meant, but never mind.
You don’t mean from ordinary posters? That’s how I took your question.
A general tendency, maybe. But specific beliefs – including ones considered “conservative” in one election cycle when they weren’t a cycle or two previously?
And people do change their politics over time. Sometimes as adults; sometimes even as older adults.
I really have to work on making it clear when I’m commenting sardonically. I honestly thought that ‘exiting through the emergency escape exit mid-flight’ conveyed that clearly. I’ll try harder next time. 
Of course. Which is why I said that conformity is how we avoid trying to come across as being smarter than everyone else. I was praising it. I then jokingly referred to therapy, a relatively solitary process, as the place for insight/introspection.
Agreed.
It’s not a slur to call a conservative a conservative.
If the only argument someone can bring against a conservative’s statement is ‘yeah, you’d think that because you’re a conservative’, I would at least think less of their argument; because that’s not much, if anything, of a counter. If they said ‘I understand that’s the conservative position, but here are three arguments against it’, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. If they said ‘All conservatives are stupid fat-assed hayseeds’ they still wouldn’t be using the word “conservative” as a slur, but they’d have used several slurs as insults against conservatives, and I would think less of them, yes.
It’s clear there is a range of opinion here - on this subject the board is certainly not a hive mind.
A more neutral way of putting this would be to say that there is disagreement on whether a given policy is bigoted.
Some religions support overthrowing the electoral system of a country, in order to institute a religious government. Some bar their members from vaccination. So I don’t think the distinction is particularly clear cut. There are plenty of less egregious examples of political beliefs. For example, the oft-referenced belief in trickle-down economics. How much evidence should be enough to convince someone that it doesn’t work? What about communism? Should the many disastrous examples be sufficient to convince everyone not to support it? If the morality of a belief depends on whether it is true or not, who decides?
I have done both too. Even so, I am convinced intelligence is a privilege, and in modern society one of the biggest there is. Would you rather be born rich and dumb, or poor and smart?
It’s unfortunate that the balance has swung much too far towards conformity.
Yes, there is certainly a tedious uniformity to the insults here.
Of course not specific beliefs. But beliefs, priorities etc - say towards how much of a safety net the government should provide vs people being responsible for themselves and their families - are influenced by this general tendency.
What if they said something along the lines of “that’s a conservative belief, I bet you also believe in QAnon/that the election was stolen/Covid is a myth”. Or “you’re a conservative and therefore racist/bigoted/etc”. Or, of course, started a thread with the title ‘Conservatives believe they have the right to kill everyone else’. I hope you’ll agree that that is insulting to a whole group of people.
Yup. But it’s still not the word “conservative” that’s a slur.
(I stayed out of that thread. I note that it got closed. I’m not surprised; though I’m mildly surprised that it took as long as it did. But I also note, taking a fast look at it now, that once one got past the title it was attacking specific policies.)
You didn’t reply to my post, but I’ve been thinking more about the connection between beliefs and morality. Many if not most progressives seem to believe that a (probably Christian) person who believes that eg sex between two men is wrong, even if they never act on this belief, is a bigot and therefore a bad person, deserving of abuse. And on the other side, the Christian likely believes that anyone who does not believe in their god and the tenets of their religion is a bad person and going to hell.
How should we deal with the existence of competing systems of morality in society? We used to be told that we should tolerate people with different beliefs, but more and more it seems each of the sides above wishes to enforce their beliefs on the rest of society, by social pressure or with laws. Minority views get short shift. Is a tolerant society with no dominant religion or other system of morality inherently unstable?
I do have other things to do in my life.
Any system for getting significant numbers of people to live together is going to have tensions. All such systems are potentially unstable. If tomorrow morning there were entire agreement that a Christian theocracy was the way to go, there would immediately be arguments about exactly which Christian sect’s rules were to be followed.
Depending on the definition of “unstable”, they ought to be unstable – an entirely stable society couldn’t change, not in response to different circumstances, not in response to new information, not in response to the realization that something it’s been doing is screwing up a lot of its members.
If we’re going to have a functioning society at all, however – and if we don’t, a whole lot of people are going to die and just about all the survivors will be worse off than they are now – we do need “stability” not only in the sense that we don’t start killing each other, but also in the sense that we need common structures of how to accomplish things, ranging from agreeing about what side of the road to drive on to the entire structure of trade, including monetary systems, systems of ownership/who has the right to use what – including agreements as to who has the right to use that structure of trade and in what fashion.
But we are always going to have people who think X is evil, and people who think X is, to pick an equivalent word for it, holy. So how are these people to live together?
– And at that point I found myself in danger of writing a book. And I haven’t time to do that now. But I will say two things:
one is that there’s nothing new about this problem, there are only people who thought there was no problem when it was others being restricted to keep them happy and who therefore think it’s a new problem when those restrictions are lifted;
and the other is that nobody significant is saying that anyone must enter into a same sex marriage, or that any church/synagogue/temple/etc/etc congregation must celebrate one. What the society is now saying is that those who think it’s evil can’t prevent those who think it’s holy from entering into and/or celebrating; and can’t prevent them from then using the ordinary secular structures of trade. And it’s not solely or even primarily a matter of religious versus secular: there are plenty of religious people and of congregations who do think it’s holy, as well as some non-religious people who would be happier with a world in which people only did things that they themselves want to do, or need to have done.