It is like tell Trump he is a Republican or Barack Obama he is a Democrat, or Jeffrey Dahmer he is a serial killer. These are just descriptive terms used to summarize some of a person’s beliefs and actions. Sometimes these descriptive terms can be perceived to be negative, but that does not make them insults.
If Trump does not want to be referred to as a Republican then he shouldn’t be in the Republican party. The same for President Obama and his membership in the Democratic party. If Jeffrey is hurt by a person’s statement of the obvious, that he is a serial killer, then maybe he shouldn’t have killed all those people like a serial killer would. If a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race versus another doesn’t want to be labelled as a racist then they need to re-think their beliefs.
What if I call a gay male poster a cocksucker? Can I get away with saying that isn’t an insult because, presumably, he performs oral sex on other men?
Your position is merely a tautology. Its like saying that I can call Poster A an asshole because he really and truly is an asshole.
The point is that calling someone a racist does not further legitimate discussion in GD. I haven’t clicked on the link, but I’ll bet the next several posts became “Yes, you are” “No, I’m not” comments which derailed the thread. There is no need for inflammatory personal attacks like that.
Remember that the purpose of these boards is discussion and the exchange of (sometimes vile) ideas. Anything that interfers with this is moderated. Sometimes its just better to accept the warning, learn the lesson and move on.
No, actually, people who are so racist or xenophobic to the point that everyone rolls their eyes whenever they post… not being able to call such a person a racist or a troll or whatever actually impedes conversation. Because you have to bend over backwards to register your complaint in some way that will not be moderated/gather a warning.
I just read Imbred Domestics response to Chief Pendant. There is no way to address the points he made without mention racist or racism.
If, for example, Fred Phelps came on here and started to post, there would be no way to talk to him and avoid calling him a homophobe. You could try a few times to avoid it… but eventually the point is going to come up, no way around it.
Yeah… but that’s just honest. Calling Fred Phelps a homophobe is honest. Calling him hateful is honest. You are sacrificing honesty for the sake of civility. How can civility be worth anything if it means we can’t speak honestly?
The point that I see being made in the comment was that it is acceptable to state that you see a particular position taken as being racist, just not to state that that is what the poster is. So your post may had been on this side of the line up until its end when you went beyond commenting on the POV and the behavior and into labelling the poster.
It seems to be a general principle held by moderation here (of course outside of the Pit): attacking the post and the ideas expressed within it is usually okay; attacking the poster is not. “Your post expresses an idiotic idea.” versus “You are an idiot.” No matter if the poster is in fact an idiot. Mind you it is not 100% and does not seem to apply with some things (like the labelling a behavior as lying or coming very close to it) … but it does seem to usually hold.
Here is the problem. The moderation around here is not consistent. I’ve seen way worse things slip by that did not receive either a warning or even a comment.
*What makes your point of view racist is that…
What makes your behavior a facet of racism is…
This leaves people like me assured with the idea that you’re a racist…*
The third comment went over the line, a little, but it wasn’t that far over the line. It is really the inconsistent moderation here that I find a problem with. Lot’s of other times that type of comment would engender “if you say that again it will be a warning”.
If we are going to have standards they ought to be more consistent. The ambiguity leads to a lot of confusion and hurt feelings or frustration because… “hey just last week I heard Fred say something twice as worse and he totally got away with it… the week before that Tom said more or less exactly what I just said and he got a say it again and you will get a warning… so why did I get a warning on the “first strike”…?”
PS- I realize it is difficult being a moderator. I know you can’t keep everyone happy. I know it is not a paid position. But still… constituency should be the goal.
I have no problem with not being able to call people racists. But that should come with some assurances that blatant racism will be moderated under the “Don’t be a jerk” rule, and not treated like a legitimate exchange of ideas.
The problem with this argument is that while Trump is factually a Republican and Obama is factually a Democrat, allegations of racism are usually a judgement call or matter of opinion, and therefore open to debate as to their factual merit. IOW, to you CP is a racist, to someone else he might not be. Therefore your argument that you’re merely calling CP what he factually is lacks merit.
Looking at Pendants comments, it is not clear they are a racist. I think perhaps they are not.
My point: if you call someone a racist who is not racist, that is a problem, but the very mention of the word racist… we should have no such rule. Because some people clearly are racist. Or homophobic. Or sexist.
I tend to agree with the OP’s overall view of Chief Pedant. I was unaware we were witnessing yet another unfortunate rebirth of the genetics of race thread.
Why exactly are we not allowed to state that someone is a racist when they make, over a period of years now, arguments with no demonstrated scientific validity about the relative intelligence of blacks, whites, etc? Have they not demonstrated that they fit the definition of the term?
Second, why is “rascist” accorded special status? Isn’t this equivalent to the claims of misandry and misogyny that are flying around the feminism threads? With, often, far less evidence.
In any case, I wasn’t aware of the rule. Good to know. Perhaps widen the lens or remove the restriction.
To the OP, I think, overall, your commentary would be more than welcome in the Pit. Morgenstern has been exhorting us to try harder. This seems a worthy time and a worthy target, if it can be discussed nowhere else.
Can one race be superior to others in particular fields? Chief Pedant argues this all the time - black athletes are superior to others in distance and sprint races and in basketball prowess due to genetic underpinnings, fast-twitch muscle fibers, etc.
Does this make his point of view in these areas racist? Bear in mind, this has been an on-going obsession of his for years on this board. What conclusion can we legitimately draw?
Is it because the (scientific) jury is still out to some extent on the areas with which he is obsessed that we cannot attribute his point of view to racism? Is it because accusations of racism are solely deemed to be insults? I can certainly see where the moderators would not want to have charges of racism being flung around all over the board. Does this in fact lead one to conclude that there are no racists?
This topic is of some interest to me. The first thread I started in ATMB was my inquiring into whether something said to me in a thread was hate speech, by which I meant racist. I was roundly told that it was not.
I see that I am posting a similar viewpoint to Robert163, ddsun and others. What I bring to the discussion is that I still have this sensation of heat that travels up and down my back and the back of my neck when I think of what was said to me and the casual, off-hand manner in which it was proffered and in particular when I was told by moderators who were not in my moccasins with my history and my ancestry that what was said was not racist.
Can I live with this? Of course, and have. Was it vile, like something you might see in a /subreddit? No. My last question is, who gets to determine whether something is racist? Indeed, given what this thread has brought up, is there anyone who can?
I am not sure why a number of posters continue to make this argument.
As noted, and confirmed by Miller, the accuracy of a claim is separate from its insulting nature. Referring to a 5’0", 350 lb. person as “fat” may be accurate, but it is still insulting. Name-calling does nothing to promote discussion. It is a way to invoke emotions to stifle discussion. One may feel that stifling certain opinions is a valid method of discussion, but that is not board policy. Further, if we open the board to allowing that sort of suppression of ideas, as enforced by the Moderators, we hand the Mods the authority to decide which ideas may be suppressed in that manner.
The rule against name-calling is based on the intent to avoid derailing threads with personal feuds. That is not going to change just because any specific poster decides that he or she finds a remark personally intolerable.