By the way, look at the HH thread, a debate on the banning of a long-term member. Here’s what one person said:
Notice how useful the phrase “a Nazi” is here. A precise description is always useful.
Here’s what another poster said:
Now, the identifier “a jerk” is a lot more problematic, since it’s a value judgment and not really precise (however accurate it may be). You may wish to ask this poster why he* decided to use this term; first, though, you may wish to ask whether it’s a useful term in the debate. Is labelling helpful?
I’m pretty sure it’s “he”; the poster’s username is John Mace.
“Main obstacle” is putting it a bit strongly, but then, given the hyperbolic claims from Tom that it’s an accusation of “deliberate evil,” maybe hyperbole is the way to proceed :).
In any case, yeah, it definitely doesn’t help our society reduce racism to shy away from identifying it when it occurs. Treating it like an accusation of pedophilia or murder or something, saying (as others have) that it’s about the worst thing you can call someone, acting as though you can never identify anything short of genocide as racist, only provides cover to racism and prevents us from a clear, open, and precise discussion of racism.
It is, and now I’m not being hyperbolic at all, this board’s single biggest blind spot.
You’ve confused me here. The latter being the accusation re: lying? Are you saying that’ allowed anywhere but the pit? I think you might have accidentally twisted the words there.
Look at what Tom said above, about how I’m pretending to hold certain beliefs. That’s just an accusation of lying filtered through a thesaurus. He regularly makes such accusations to people he disagrees with, with impunity. I’m not clear on whether he gets away with it because the rules allow it, or because he’s a mod, but the fact is, he gets away with something far more deleterious to debate than the accurate and precise identification of a person’s belief structure.
If he’s warned for his accusation against me, I’ll be both astonished and contrite.
If I said “I am a racist” and then you posted : “Mace said he was a racist”, I would not expect you to be moderated since you were quoting my exact words and not calling me a racist, yourself. There’s an important distinction.
Did you notice which forum that thread under discussion was in?
I would not feel that I was adding to a debate if I called him a jerk in GD. In this case, we’re talking about why someone was banned. Yes, it’s useful to use the words that describe why he was banned since WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE BAN. In a debate, it adds nothing to call someone a name. Any name.
But if you said, “I am a racist,” and then I said, “You, as a racist, fall into these errors…” you’d think that was worth moderating? Am I understanding you correctly?
“Call someone a name” is a faulty-premise phrase. Why not use the value-neutral “use a label for someone’s beliefs” instead?
Because the reason it’s useful to call HH a Nazi is the same reason it’s useful to say someone is racist: it can be a precise and accurate shorthand for the beliefs they possess that you’re arguing for or against. (Of course most people would argue against them, but that has something to do with our general social attitudes toward racism).
The fact that you, and nearly everyone, uses labels all the time for other people makes me extremely skeptical of questions about, like, why do we have to label people, maaaan? We do it because it’s a useful aspect of our language that allows precision, accuracy, and conciseness.
I hope the mere use of the word racist doesn’t warrant a warning. Your example is one where it should be allowed. You’re pointing out that the person has chosen to self-identify with a group of people. It would depend on the rest of the sentence though.
As I said six months ago, I think the word should be acceptable sometimes. In this case, it’s unambiguously applicable. I think there are other cases in which it’s also unambiguously applicable–for example, if someone meets the straightforward dictionary definition of “racist,” by proclaiming that black people are genetically inferior to white people on a relevant axis. Much of the time, it should not be allowed–for example, while I believe there are serious racist implications to voter ID laws, I do not think it should be okay for me (or anyone) to call someone a racist for advocating such laws, because that doesn’t meet a straightforward definition, but is rather an ambiguous position.
Also as I said in the other thread, I don’t anticipate ever calling someone a racist in GD. My reasoning for this is much the same as my reasoning for not using the word “niggardly.” In both cases, we have perfectly cromulent, precise, accurate words; but there are those with, let’s call it an imperfect understanding of language, who would find themselves so distracted by their misunderstanding of the word’s penumbra that discussion would be hopelessly hijacked.
I don’t anticipate using “racist” as a label any more than I anticipate using “niggardly.” I think it’s a terrible idea to ban either word.
I don’t see how calling people who are racist “racists” detracts from the debate any less than posters calling other posters “apologists” which is allowed.
It’s a descriptor which certainly can be used as an insult however not every use of it is.
This’s being disingenuous. You know that the tactic of calling one’s opponent a racist or a sexist is not an attempt at honest debate. It’s an attempt to abuse the horn and halo effect by painting one’s opponent in a very bad light for the purpose of discrediting everything that person says.
Not only is the motivation dishonest, allowing people to engage in direct insults completely ruins any chance of productive discussion. You might not think a particular topic worthy of serious debate but it’s not your role here to ruin that for others. Calling someone a name that they are not is a dickheadish move. Would it be appropriate and acceptable to call you a dickhead in situations in which you inaccurately label someone? You see how discourse could rapidly escalate and become completely unproductive? Maybe that’s the goal in vapor inducing topics?
In my opinion, I don’t see how allowing that by not sanctioning that behavior would improve discourse.
It was not an accusation of dishonesty. I suspect that you actually want to believe this stuff, but it is not based on reality, therefore it is pretend.
This subject has been “discussed to exhaustion” by you repeatedly in the past. I am not sure what you feel you are accomplishing by discussing it to exhaustion yet again.
Say you have a question: why are men more likely to engage in mass shootings? Should I dismiss you by calling you sexist or look at statistics and see if your claim is true? If your claim is true should I call you sexist or delve into reasons why your claim is true? If my sensibilities as a man are so offended and triggered that I can’t help but to respond by calling you sexist isn’t the burden on me to avoid participation in that thread instead of ruining it for those who are less emotional?
Just the opposite. I’d like to see “Racist” in there with Nazi. I want racists to be reviled and hated, so they think long and hard about change their ways or at least stop spewing their brand of hatred.