Which opinion are you referring to? My opinion on the definition of socialism? Or my opinion about statistical indicators that show disproportionate harm? Because if those are the “opinions” you are referring to, you might need to review the definition of that world.
Claiming that “disproportionate harm is always quantifiable and always evidence of racism” is a “factual statement” is obviously ridiculous. Not only is this a widely debatable opinion, it’s not even something you could possibly really believe as written, without further qualifiers. This is exactly the sort of thing that happens in every thread in GD/Politics, does it need to happen here too?
Folks, we’re getting intense here, so back to the topic at hand. It sure looks like we cannot find a consensus on facts, which is part and parcel of the current national state, and therefore reflected on the board. At some level, I think this is a good reason to increase the numbers of people on the board, in that we have a chance to get more people involved who have not already (and often for good reasons!) developed an axe to grind with other posters.
My takeaway from what we’ve discussed so far is that it doesn’t need the Pit to ‘bleed over’ into other forums. Justified or not, the anger is real on both sides, and it is driving quite a few confrontations. The Pit gives the mods a place to direct posters who aren’t able to keep it civil in other threads, which I think is where this one is heading. And even for the people who hate the Pit, there is @UltraVires point that it’s easy to mute or ignore. I am very glad that the mods fixed the Pit Title/Link issue that was tainting other threads, and think there are other potential options to tweak it (perhaps Muted as default), but I think we’re too human to get rid of it for the moment.
Yeah, I’m going to junior mod out of my forum, and carefully restrain myself from responding to some of the recent posts, and instead point out that this is ATMB, and is a fine place to talk about whether the pit is useful, or even how it gets used, but is not a good place to argue the details of any particular politically tinged opinions.
And I apologize for my part in veering this discussion off-track.
I agree with this.
But ‘your position is a racist one because it disproportionately harms Asian people’, which is a factual statement you can prove with evidence. That doesn’t make you a racist because it’s a left-wing position. 
It’s obvious the accusation has nothing to do with facts, it’s all about tribalism.
It’s nearly always like this. ‘Racist’ doesn’t mean being prejudiced against a group, it means you disagree with some piece of left-wing dogma.
There are plenty of non-rw transphobes, racists, climate denialists, sexists, islamophobes. Most TERFs, for instance, are pretty LW. Some LW posters here have said some damn misogynist things - have even been pitted for it. Not many, but that may be the calibre of lefties we attract.
For some reason, not a lot of LW pro-insurrectionists though … 
And there are RW people here who are, as far as I’m aware, none of those things. Of course, they rarely get pitted, or if they do it’s for something unrelated to their politics, so that’s OK.
It’s an observation, not an argument. And how is it circular, anyway, unless you’re saying "racist, sexist, transphobic, islamophobic, climate change denialist, pro-insurrection, etc " arguments are all exclusively RW opinions (which I don’t agree with)?
Unless your point was you have no real clue why people are pitted, I doubt it.
Look, it’s clearly not true that people are pitted just for being conservative. plenty of conservative posters are never pitted. And I’ve been pitted more than once for expressing “leftist” opinions like anti-racism or anti-imperialism.
No, racism is when one indicates that the opinion of most Black people on the subject is irrelevant and subject to one’s White approval
No, racism is when one spreads makde-up bullshit about “CRT being taught in grade school” in order to discredit it.
etc, etc.
It’s not expressing a counter-opinion, it’s making clear by what you post - by lying, by standing by cites that lie, by belittling minority opinions - that the rationale for your counter-opinion is racist.
This doesn’t happen here.
Black runners do seem to dominate, and not just at the Olympics. That is not a racist opinion, and has never been called that here. I notice you don’t post the rest of that argument, that used to be so common here, that is racist. Why is that?
More like dated. Where has this been expressed on this board?
Nobody gets called a denialist just for using “global warming” rather than “climate change”. They do when they mockingly point at the term during a killer snowstorm to deny climate change is responsible. And the “there are benefits” crew are denialists because they’re denying the overwhelming negative effects of CC that the scientists are predicting. It’s like how you can still be a Holocaust denier even while admitting millions of Jews died.
If those are the best made-up examples you can come up with, completely unrelated to real pittings (or you’d have posted examples to go with your strawmen), I don’t think you’re refuting the OP, more like reinforcing it…
Thank you for continuing to prove my point. You are taking opinions and magically transforming them through semantic sleight of hand in order to be able to claim “racism” in order to “win” your argument. You create a heretofore unheard of definition of racism—a disagreement with some group of black people—and turn it into racism.
And if that is racist, and the KKK is racist, then anyone who disagrees with a group of black people over the proper date of a holiday celebrating the liberation of black people, is just like the KKK. That is a completely unfair debate tactic, not designed to educate or inform or discuss, but to stifle dissent and paint anyone who disagrees with you as a societal outcast, unfit to be part of decent society.
And you got an accusation of “lying” in there as well. A two for one deal.
No. It’s amazing how you can transform “indicates that the opinion of most Black people on the subject is irrelevant and subject to one’s White approval” into “a disagreement with some group of black people” and think no-one would notice.
My, my, what a lot of straw you’ve gathered here. Needs more work to look like even an effigy of a real man, though.
That was a general “you”.
Edited because I realize “real boy” is just going to be twisted into another accusation of an accusation of lying.
Could you illustrate the difference between these two opinions please?
I have no idea what you mean by “illustrate the difference” - if you can’t see how they are different on the content alone, no trite analogy is going to help you.
I want to know if there is a real difference, or if those are just two different ways of describing the same statement.
Like I said, if you can’t directly see the “real difference” between “disagreement with some Black people about X” and “most Black people’s opinion on X is irrelevant and subject to White approval”, I can’t help you. It’s like I’m holding up an apple and a sea squirt, and you’re asking “what’s the ‘real’ difference?”.
Okay, let me phrase this differently. Can a white American express the opinion that ‘a holiday to celebrate the end of slavery should be on a different day’ without “indicat[ing] that the opinion of most Black people on the subject is irrelevant and subject to one’s White approval”?
If so, what did @UltraVires say that turned it from the former into the latter?
Sure, if they do so respectfully.
That’s not really ATMB-appropriate, and there’s a GD thread and an active Pit thread where you can read all about my opinions on it.
It would be, if anybody were using it. But that equivalence is all in your own head. If I say somebody who runs a stoplight is breaking the law, am I saying they’re exactly the same as a gang of muggers who injure and sometimes kill their victims in order to steal their stuff?
You seriously can’t tell the difference between arguing against somebody’s opinion and treating their opinion as irrelevant?
But of course, no one said that. You are simply taking other persons posts,taking them out of context, twisting them, and putting the absolute worst interpretation possible.
Then pitting them, saying “Look at the horrible racist I discovered”. And since many people don’t care to wade int he cesspool, and the Pit has not rules about lying, namecalling etc, it can be gotten away with.
For example, I do not like the term “cultural genocide”, it weakens the horrors of genocide where people are killed. The UN has decided not to use that term. Some experts in the field prefer Ethnocide or cultural cleansing.
The term is problematic, as wiki- The term has since acquired rhetorical value as a phrase that is used to actions that destroy cultural heritage and tradition. It is also often misused as a catchphrase to condemn any form of destruction that the speaker disapproves of, without regard for the criterion of intent to destroy an affected culture as such.
So, I do not use the term, I deny that “cultural genocide” exists . Based on that- you called me a “denier” since I deny the use of that term. I do not deny what occurred, just the term. I do not deny that Ethnocide or cultural cleansing has occurred.
For example, some Jewish people do not like the term “The Holocaust” , they prefer the original term, the Ḥurban (“Destruction”). Does that make them deniers?
But that is how you twist things. Frankly, when you condemn a poster as racist, I do not believe it.
As demonstrated by the turn this thread has taken, there’s a kind of twisted symbiotic relationship where board arguments fuel the Pit which fuels board arguments ad nauseam. It’s hard to say what would happen without the Pit, but I doubt it would be any worse.
The posts are right there for anyone to judge.
Are you under the impression that people reading a Pit thread are incapable of following links, or something?
The rest of your post, I’m certainly not going to address here, since this is not the Pit, despite your recent efforts to make it a carbon copy.
What else should we think, when you choose to use the same word for both, and frequently announce your hatred for all the criminal scum?
It’s actually kinda funny how much more forgiving today’s progressives are towards criminals than the people they label as bigots.