Race, Racism and Such

About This Message Board
1

26,31,45 (mod note),54, 55

In post 26 of this thread I accused the OP of being racist. I repeated the assertion (less directly) in post 31. In post 45 I was modnoted for personal insults on the grounds that you can call an idea or action racist but you can not call a poster racist.

In post 54 I accepted that I had missed the line and agreed to step back. In the next post Asimovian provided a clarifying link. I appreciate that. Truly.

But this brings up the question, “where is the line?”

If a longtime member of the KKK-Nazi-Aryan Brotherhood Bake Club were to post here something like,

“We are doing a free cupcake giveaway (they even have sprinkles - white ones with little blue specks) but we won’t give any to niggers, spics, wops or gooks because they are unfit for our confections.”

I think it would be fair to call the person racist. They give every appearance of BEING racist, they act in a manner consistent with the behaviour of a racist and they espouse ideas that are inherently racist.

To me it is not an insult to call a racist a racist. If I see a duck on a pond and my kid asks what it is I’m not likely to say, “Well, it has feathers consistent with a duck, behaviours consistent with duckiness and it quacks in the nature of a duck. But I won’t say it is a duck.”

I know this is kinda strawmannish but it done to illustrate the point.

Racist is not an insult. It is a descriptor (that I readily admit is flung around far too liberally) and if a descriptor is apt then I see no bar to it’s application.

Another example would be “socialist.” It has, prior to the Reverend Mr. Sanders, been a grave insult since Reagan - except to socialists. If I espouse the views of a socialist then should I not be termed a socialist?

It just seems to me an arbitrary distinction with little to no value.

“While I would never call you a socialist Zeke I will say that you seem to fit the profile in every conceivable way.” Translates - to me - as, “I’m going to say you are a socialist with as many weasel words and linguistic conotortions as needed so as to avoid saying what I mean.”

Ymmv.

Zeke

2

Your link doesn’t work.

3

I’ve fixed your link, it didn’t work.

4

Oops. Sorry 'bout that.

Thank you very much!

5

OK, I’ll probably regret this, but…
[Actually, this is probably a waste of time since you know all this, anyway]

It seems to me the modnote was given for using personal insults.

I have two problems with this. First, it is not sufficient that someone considers a word to be an insult. What matters is if others consider its usage to be insulting. As an aside, I believe the OP was being disingenuous in saying this in the first place. If the OP was somehow misquoted by someone who used that quote to label him as racist, I suspect he would respond with claims that he was misquoted, that the accusations are untrue, that he is not a racist. Why? Because he would see it as an insult and want to clear his name.

Second, replace “racist” with

and you get an argument that has been used for decades (if not centuries) to justify the use of these words. The use of these words is frowned upon because their use is meant to demean, belittle, or otherwise keep those who they are used against down. Much the same way that the word “racist” is being used. If it walks like a duck…

I believe the mods have acted correctly in this case. While I do not like to see racist comments and opinions espoused on this board, I also do not like to see the spread of hate. And, using “racist” used in this manner (as an insult, intended to demean someone) is spreading hate. The opposite of what we should be trying to do.

6

Sure it’s a descriptor. So is asshole, jerkoff, bitch, prick…

7

I’ve argued this ad nauseum before, but it’s not in that category at all. “Racist” is an assessment of the nature of a person’s views. The pejorative aspect comes because racist views are socially unacceptable. “Asshole” etc. jump straight to the pejorative.

There is no other word that communicates the idea that “racist” communicates without the judgment attached, because the negative judgment is attached to the content of the views, not to the word itself.

8

But still a pejorative. As has been discussed often using a pejorative towards another poster, even one you feel really really fits, derails the conversation and makes the thread about the poster and not the ideas.

In this particular case the accusation of racism came about because the poster mentioned a couple was white in the title and nothing else. Sure it made me :dubious: but it certainly isn’t enough to conclude the poster is racist. Questioning why he felt the need to point out the race is fair game. Outright calling him a racist in IMHO is not and is not conducive to good communication.

9

Pretty simple really.

That attacks the person, not the person’s position.

10

If OP refers to the original post then it is an attack on the post, not the poster.

11

He destroyed that argument in the first sentence of his post in this thread…

In post 26 of this thread I accused the OP of being racist. I repeated the assertion (less directly) in post 31.

No warning was issued and Zeke dialed it back. Now he’s just looking for the foul line. Fair enough.

12

I think the problem the OP is referring to is bigotry, not racism.

13

But the problem is the same since it’s against the rules to call someone a bigot. The simple work around is to say “those are bigoted views” rather than “you are a bigot”. It may not satisfy those who simply have some need to call people bigots, but that’s the way this board operates.

14

Maybe. But all the Op did was post a few links- without commentary. How can you decide he was a “racist” from that? Perhaps he was being ironic.

In any case, you could say that the* post* 'sounds pretty damn racist" without calling the poster a racist.

15

The OP (of this thread) already acknowledged that in his OP. His question here regards the hypothetical where some poster spouts blatantly racist language. If you go back a read the OP (you quoted the all the relevant parts) it should be pretty clear.

16

The line is that you address the post and the ideas, not the person.

That person would be sanctioned for hate speech, and possibly instabanned.

Of course, if you feel compelled to call the person a racist, post it in the Pit. Insults are allowed there.

17

It’s no more a pejorative than “medium-rare” is a euphemism: rather, it’s a word with descriptive power, and a word that describes a trait about which people have strong feelings. There’s necessarily no other word that describes the same trait but without the strong feelings, since the feelings are about the trait, not about the word. Banning the word “racist” is banning the discussion of particular ideas.

I get why y’all are worried about its use, and certainly it can be used as an insult, and I’ve argued and will continue to argue that its use to describe a person should be limited, in the same way that the word “thief” should be limited. But if someone describes how they took a watch from a store without paying for it, and another poster says, “That makes you a thief,” I don’t think that should be modded.

18

Just the opposite the discussion of ideas is encouraged. Throwing accusations at posters is not.

ETA: or rather you can make those accusations in The Pit so it doesn’t detail the discussion of ideas.

19

I agree.

If I start saying how the minimum wage necessarily increases unemployment and free trade leads to the benefits of comparative advantage, you might correctly say, “hey, you’re a neoliberal!” Sure, instead you could say, “Your ideas seem to be based on some unstated assumptions arising from neoliberal economics.” But it means exactly the same thing. If that’s a bad or unpopular thing to be, then either description should be equally insulting. Similarly, instead of saying, “hey, you’re a racist,” you could instead say “Your ideas seem to be based on the unstated assumptions of white supremacy.” But it would mean the same thing.

Moderating one and not the other is pure semantic silliness. And moderating both would be pretty speech-censoring.

20

The reason I don’t like it is because it gives ammunition to the racists. It’s the shit they say–talking about how horrible it is to call someone a racist–as if it’s at the same level as actually saying racist shit. It feeds into their persecution fantasy.

Marley used to always say that calling someone racist wasn’t always an insult, and I thought he was crazy. But now that you guys do moderate that way, I see the wisdom in what he was saying.

There are times when it is used as nothing more than an insult, and I agree that should be moderated. But there are times where it is merely descriptive.

Plus, it’s been my perception that we get more racists coming in ever since we tightened up on this. Maybe I’m wrong, but it sure seems that way. And the last thing I want is for the board to become more accommodating for racists.

No matter how you argue, racist shit does not add to the board. The only way a racist can add value to the discussion is if they leave their racism behind.