I don’t understand how you think one can have a reasonable debate about the term Uncle Tom devoid of the concept of conservatism. I cannot think of one instance today in which the term is hurled against anyone is not a Black conservative—Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, etc. Even when Blacks like Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, or Whoopi Goldberg tread outside the doctrine that the Black majority view as acceptable, they become targets for the insult.
As far as your claim that only Black conservatives are called Uncle Toms, can you give an example? I agree they exist, but it is always because the Black person is espousing some principle that other blacks feel is too “white”.
I think if you want to argue about the use of the term itself, you should start a thread in GD or IMHO or the Pit. As far as the board policy question goes - whether or not it runs afoul of our hate speech rules - I think the question has been answered and there’s no reason to re-open the thread.
That’s the opposite of what I said. A couple of other posters asserted that it was only applied to black conservatives, and I said that’s not the case. A google search of the president’s name and the phrase “Uncle Tom” ought to prove that. Since I’m not overly interested in this particular debate topic, that’s all I’m going to say about it.
My apologies. I badly misstated what I was trying to say. My point was that I think the term is only used against Black conservatives. Or against Black non-conservatives when—and only when—they espouse views that are viewed to be conservative, i.e., not part of the liberal Black doctrine.
If so, it seems that any conversation of “Uncle Tom” would reasonably include mentions of “conservatism”. I’m just trying to understand why you disagree with that, as a basis for Moderation.
Again, you’re welcome to your opinion on the term, but I don’t see this as an ATMB topic. There are criticisms of all ideologies that are unique to those ideologies - “bleeding heart liberal” comes to mind. Those criticisms may be dumb or not, and they may be inaccurate or not, but their uniqueness does not make them hate speech.
You undermine your own argument. Accepting that the first group (Rice, et al) are conservatives, surely you cannot be suggesting that the second group (Cosby, et al) are also conservatives. And yet, according to you, they “become targets for the [uncle Tom] insult”.
If anything, you have demonstrated that the use of “uncle Tom” cuts across political philosophies, not the reverse.
Except if you look at when they’re on the receiving end of the insult. It’s always when they’ve put forth what is considered to be a conservative position. I’d say the proves the point rather than negates it.
Marley, I would still like to know, from a Moderation standpoint, how can lay down a law that discussing the term “Uncle Tom” can and should be done without discussing conservatism. I just don’t see how or why it’s out of bounds.
Just to be clear, Marley. I’m less interested in whether or not it rises to the level of “hate speech” than I am in understanding how it can be discussed without a mention of conservatism. The targets are always 1) Black and 2) conservative or espousing conservative views at the time. There is no necessary racial component when it comes to your “bleeding heart liberal” example.
Because the conservatism issue is not related to the term’s status as hate speech. That’s a topic for a debate forum. It has no bearing on the status of the term as it relates to the site rules.