Do you have a link to the thread you’re reading? It sounds ever so much more interesting than this one.
The people I referred to? Reexamine what you quoted: I was discussing the people who thought there was something valuable to be learned from racists, not the racists themselves. It’s clearly more than a few ‘dipsticks’ who think that virulent racists deserve a home here.
Well then let me put this one together for you.
So let’s break this down.
“Isn’t it funny how often (group) (do x)”
If we substitute “black people” or “Jews” for (group), does the bias become more obvious? And bias is hate, regardless of the target group.
Then EM responds to me with;
Which I turned into;
Which isn’t far off. Personally I find his attitude offensive on the whole. Only people claiming to have been oppressed have anything to say? (and their own biases are excused?) People they believe have not been oppressed need to shut up?
Just who exactly are the thin skinned whiners upset over having their bias shown?
Skin so thin. Thank goodness thin skin doesn’t interfere anatomically with the ability to whine.
You actually referred to two groups. The group about which you were complaining were those who were not aghast that we did not ban everyone whom you personally choose to dislike. However, my point was that the other group to whom you referred, the one you abhor, does provide useful content and context by demonstrating the sort of blatant ignorance or misconceptions against which we struggle. That you are unable to recognize the intelligence of those who struggle against ignorance, just because you also dislike the ignorant, is not our problem.
Isn’t it funny how often Jews answer questions with questions?
Isn’t it funny how often black people are emotionally expressive?
Nope. Not seeing it.
Perhaps in the chimera idiolect, but not in the real world. Bias, (which as I have demonstrated, is not the only possible source of the sentence construction you presented), can be negative or positive, but it is hardly always “hate.”
Nego majore.
Yes, I understand that, in the SDMB context, it’s a weird and inexplicable personal issue that someone would “choose to dislike” racists. As you essentially acknowledge, it’s not the norm in the SDMB to have a problem with explicit racists. Hence how so many racists get to post for such a very long time. After all, it’s not as though New Deal Democrat is the only one who espouses such views here at the SDMB.
Its not like there are very many others man. And most of them get banned in relatively short order. Why you think this place is some kind of breeding ground or harboring area for people that espouse racist views is beyond me. What most people ostensibly are “arguing in favor of the presence of racists” on your non-pristine messageboard is a vote for non-censorship of content.
Whether or not anything is to be gleaned from them is pretty irrelevant. They deserve to exist if they do not break the rules just as much as I or you do.
We could close down the site in a big hurry if we started banning everyone who said things we don’t like.
Well, that sort of depends on whether you want to have discussions about things without having to accommodate racists. As has been previously mentioned in this thread, these racists interfere with discussions about other topics, which means there is, if you think about it, a broad swath of things that can’t be discussed seriously. (Because, obviously, if you have to explain for the hundredth time that there’s no evidence-based reason to think black people are inferior, you obviously haven’t had productive conversations during that time. And from what I’ve seen, that sort of thing is the norm here at the SDMB.)
If you’re happy to let racists circumscribe the permissible topics of conversation, then, excellent, enjoy the SDMB. If you want to have discussions about international development, well, fuck, you can’t, because you’re going to have the same argument about black people’s IQs (cited from imaginary sources, of course, rather than real sources), and you can’t have the actual grown-up conversation you sought out. As racist as the standard of conversation you might be used to, the SDMB is at least two decades behind the norm for discussing supposed racial differences in IQ. You will certainly be exposed to antiquated beliefs here, in part because you’re being exposed to elderly people who have no familiarity with any modern research, and in part because you’re listening to people who have no familiarity with any research at all.
No, I really can’t say that it does.
Then EM responds to me with;
Which I turned into;
Where did he say you were an oppressor?
When I was a kid, about eight or so, my dad let me play with a hot glue gun. I was using it to glue together some scrap wood to make playsets for my GI Joes. My dad warned me to be careful, because the glue was very hot. Naturally, I managed to burn myself. Being a little kid, I set up a stupendous caterwauling. My mom took me to the ER, then out to McDonald’s as a reward for being a brave little trouper.
When we got home, my dad was waiting sheepishly at the door, with his hand wrapped in a cold rag. He’d seen how I’d been carrying on, and had thought to himself, “Christ, it’s just a little glue. It can’t hurt that much,” and squirted a dollop of glue into his hand. Turned out it did, indeed, hurt that much, and my mom had to make a second run to the ER.
Dad did not get McDonald’s as a reward.
Anyway, the moral of the story is, don’t tell other people how much it hurts until you’ve got a handful of glue yourself.
You draw the oddest conclusions from from statements that do not say what you attribute to them. It is hardly an “inexplicable personal issue” to find racism offensive and nothing I have posted could reasonably be construed to have that meaning. I find racists’ views offensive. I find the views of several other beliefs offensive, as well. I choose to find those views offensive. However, rather than setting myself up as the arbiter of topics to discuss or views to express, I choose to engage posters expressing those views to demonstrate their errors so that people who might otherwise be persuaded by their arguments are shown those errors.
There are innumerable topics and views that any number of posters find offensive. Refusing to discuss those topics and banning posters who express those views serves no purpose other than to make opponents of those views comfortable. I strongly suspect that if we reviewed every topic on which you have expressed an opinion, (or that you will express an opinion), we could find some number of posters who would find your views abhorrent, making you ban-worhy.
In order to promote discussion and participation, we have chosen to limit to only a tiny number the topics or views that are forbidden with the belief that exposing truly offensive ideas for what they are does a better job of opposing those ideas than censoring them. In that context, it is true that a poster holding offensive views may, by otherwise following the rules of the board, stick around for quite a while. Since I see no reason to include popularity in the guidelines for who should be permitted to post, I will accept that result.
Your statements inidcate that you would prefer to censor statements (or posters) that you find offensive. In that context you really are aghast that we do not ban everyone whom you personally choose to dislike.
You have made no argument to persuade us that our view of whom to permit to post is in error, simply expressing outrage, (OUTRAGE I SAY), that certain vews that offend you are permitted. I do not see our policy changing, nor have I seen any reason why it should.
Even that I do not like the bannings in general, this statement has many gross errors
Yes, and that factual answer is that the archaic ideas of the 19th century of the races is falsified by the genetics.
It would seem to be that the people who like to talk of race despite the lack of scientific basis have great trouble with that.
[quote]
It’s akin to arguing the race plays a role in one race generally being taller or having darker skin.
[QUOTE]
But of course neither of these things are statements that match any genetic realities, but it is an example of things that get repeated by only assertion and this of course makes for frustration.
It is more common that the persons making the argument that there is race keep repeating assertions and ad hoc standards that have no good basis in confirmed genetics, and this makes for great frustration.
But I do agree that the calls for the banning on just the disagreement with his views contra the action taken on his trolling of Mr Dibble about rape, this sort of call is too common here. This I agree with, although NDD did nothing very much more than just repeat his assertions and ignore all the evidences presented. But I think you see a difference between the reaction to NDD and the reaction to the others like Chen and others. There was a difference in the behaviours.
Well, are you assuming that since I am in fact a straight white male, I couldn’t possibly know anything about oppression and injustice? That none of that could have possibly ever happened to me?
And are you saying that it’s not ok for people to be racists on this board unless their issue is with a certain class of people (straight white males), in which case you think that they (the straight white males) don’t really have any basis for complaint?
Just trying to nail down the obtuse responses from our moderators here and understand where you’re going with this.
Oh sure, you and TnD can claim you never said that, but that’s why I’m asking.
Exapno’s comment that started this go-round addressed your comment without ascribing any personal characterisitics to you. In his second sentence, he used the generic “you” with a conditional that only said that people outside an oppressed group could not comment on that group’s feelings of oppression.
Any number of people have legitimate complaints about their treatment. In the 21st century U.S., straight white males have no basis to complain about oppression as straight white males. (They might have a case in limited specific situations such as nursing school or child care, but as a class in society any claims of oppression are whiny nonsense with no basis in reality.) Straight white males are not legitimate targets of racism, but then, they are not being oppressed, so it is merely a nonsense hypothetical.
There is nothing obtuse in our response. You took insult at a post that contained no insult and then made a really odd analogy that has been pointed out to fail. No big deal.
We never said something, but you are asking about it anyway?
Since neither of us have said anything to indicate that straight white males are legitimate targets of discrimination or oppression, there does not seem to be any point to the question.
James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA and author of The Double Helix, has made a number of ill-considered statements in recent years (and the guy is closing in on 90) that are widely described as “racist.” I think I have a thing or two I could learn from him.
Not that NDD has made any comparable contributions to the culture, though.
Actually, he’s 84. I misread his birth date in Wikipedia.
No. It was a wise man who once said (and I paraphrase here): “It’s not bigoted to hate bigots”
I thought the “…about racism” was implied. And no, I have nothing to learn from Watson about racism. Or even genetics, anymore. Hell, he nor Crick didn’t even make the critical discovery they got the Nobel for. Watson “discovered” jackshit.
As mentioned before, you are under no obligation to explain it even once.
Why do you participate in discussions if you feel they are not productive?
Regards,
Shodan