Racist is not an insult when a person is a racist.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@John_Mace

If you think those two are in the same category, then I don’t know what to say.

Ok, then it should be extremely easy for you to answer this question.

David Irving claims when people call him a “Holocaust Denier” they are both wrong and insulting him.

Please explain why I’m not engaging in insults when I call Irving a Holocaust Denier but if I call someone a racist I am engaging in insults?

[iiandyiiii]

@John_Mace

If you think those two are in the same category, then I don’t know what to say.
That is not really what I claimed, because you asked a different question upthread when I answered it. I don’t know why you need to keep shifting the phrasing around, other than to make things look worse than they actually are.

I said it wasn’t inherently racist. Which means that the statement might or might not be racist, depending on the context.

I think such claims are always racist. I can’t conceive of a context in which they are not… Can you?

[jimbuff314]

@Ramira

[…] in any case it may be that banning of the boring hijacking of any discussion of the population genetics by the inferior race intelligence idiocy could help stop the boring merry go round repition.

I support this suggestion 100%.

People occasionally laugh and poke fun at threads resurrected after significant periods of quiescence - zombie threads. Man, you want to read some zombie threads, go take a look at Great Debates. The living dead, trodding the same insane, well-worn ruts of lethargic loathesomeness over and over. Moderators, please consider Ramira’s suggestion. It would at least go a tiny ways toward eliminating one of the loops in which these poor bastards get themselves mired.

Note: I just had a wild thought. Can you imagine if Chief Pedant were to be topic-banned from this? The guy would be like Rumpelstiltskin, stamping his foot so hard he’d disappear into the ground.

[Saint_Cad]

The problem is that “racist” is an easy term to throw out there.
Some people assume any position that may negatively affect anyone of color is racist.

There were many Democrats that accused me of being a racist in 2008 because I didn’t think Obama would be a good President. They firmly believed believed that I didn’t like Obama because he was black despite me explaining why I didn’t think he would be a good president.

Or take Arizona for example. The whole birther nonsense did show one thing, that no where along the line does anyone (at least at the state level) check the eligibility* of the people running for President/Vice-President**. Arizona tries to pass a law that was “racist” cuz clearly it was made to prevent Obama from running for re-election. What if Illinois passed the same law? Still racist?

Now if someone posts something overtly racist like “niggers shouldn’t be college professors because of their smaller (monkey-sized) brains.” then yes call them out on it and I hope the mods would see this as “this just in … racist poster is racist”.

• Every year there is always a minor party ticket that runs someone who is not an NBC, they admit it and say they will not take office and the VP-elect will instead. No state AFAIK has a mechanism for keeping these self-declared ineligible candidates off the ballot.

** I know states elect electors BUT most states have laws requiring the electors to vote for the people on the ballot and because of that they have a state interest in ensuring the people on the ballot are Constitutionally eligible.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Ibn_Warraq

Ok, then it should be extremely easy for you to answer this question.

David Irving claims when people call him a “Holocaust Denier” they are both wrong and insulting him.

Please explain why I’m not engaging in insults when I call Irving a Holocaust Denier but if I call someone a racist I am engaging in insults?

Try this on for size:

1. David Irving posts that the (I hate typing crap like this) Jewish Lobby/Zionist Conspiracy has vastly oversold the Holocaust, that really it was like three, four hundred Jews tops who died during World War II, and most of them died due to disease, and that the state of Israel should be dissolved, and Hitler wasn’t such a bad dude. He offers a lot of links.

John says that David Irving is a Holocaust Denier pulling from FormStrut and
other Nazi websites, offering links, as a way to contextualize his posts for folks who aren’t familiar with the shape of these arguments.

IMO, this is totally appropriate behavior for a debate.

2. Irving Berlin posts that AIPAC has far too much pull in Congress, that too many legislators are intimidated by AIPAC, and that it’s distorted US foreign policy to weigh Israel’s interests disproportionately.

John says that Irving Berlin is a Holocaust Denier and that all his arguments should therefore be dismissed. His evidence that Irving is a Holocaust Denier is that people who dislike AIPAC are all Holocaust Deniers.

IMO, this is not appropriate behavior for a debate.

Notice the difference between the two examples. In the first, it’s not a stretch to call David a Holocaust Denier: David’s right there, denying the Holocaust. In the second, John is reading between the lines and imputing motives and beliefs to Irving that Irving never claimed, in order to suggest that Irving believes something deeply unpopular.

I believe it’s the imputation of beliefs that’s the problem. Above, somebody whose name I forget decided to impute beliefs to me (namely, a nefarious desire to get all racists off the board) that I had not claimed. That, I think, should risk a warning. But if I said that I wanted all racists off the board, it’d be perfectly appropriate to point that out.

Same thing here. If someone opposes affirmative action, calling them a racist should risk a warning. If someone claims that black people are intellectually inferior to white people, calling them a racist should be completely unremarkable.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

The key issue as I see it is that - contrary to what many people have asserted in this thread - the post which received the warning was not simply declaring that CP’s beliefs amounted to racism. The actual post was:What Inbred is saying here is that CP is not not just being incorrect in his interpretations of the evidence, but is doing this deliberately due to his “politics”, and on this rests the accusation of racism.

There’s a huge gulf between that and simply defining someone’s expressed beliefs as racism, and people who claim it’s all about the latter are misrepresenting the situation.

This, however, is a fair point. I’ve long held that accusing others of dishonesty in Great Debates should be on a much tighter leash. INMDomesticus (my apologies; I’m too lazy to look up the username, although apparently not too lazy to type a really long and pointless parenthetical comment) is engaging in a drawn-out accusation of dishonesty here and offering snarky advice on how CP can better deceive readers as to his true motives. I have no problem with a warning for that–as long as that policy is applied consistently, to members and moderators alike.

[jimbuff314]

Insofar as this addresses the OP, yes. The thread, however, has moved on a bit from there.

[VinylTurnip]

@Saint_Cad

Now if someone posts something overtly racist like “niggers shouldn’t be college professors because of their smaller (monkey-sized) brains.”

That’s just a myth anyway. Research has shown that a slim majority of college professors have normal-sized brains.

[Robert163]

@tomndebb

You should recognize that I am addressing the content of your posts and not calling you names. If you.cannot recognize that distinction, you are making my point.

Oh, so you want to hide behind the “rules”. You are missing the point. Hiding behind the rules is for hypocritical mean spirited people. Yet you think so highly of yourself. I’m surprised you can’t see the distinction.

ETA: Wow, seriously… what a sad and twisted double standard you have.

[Ramira]

@jimbuff314

. Moderators, please consider Ramira’s suggestion. .

It is Mace’s suggestion at origin.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

This, however, is a fair point. I’ve long held that accusing others of dishonesty in Great Debates should be on a much tighter leash. INMDomesticus (my apologies; I’m too lazy to look up the username, although apparently not too lazy to type a really long and pointless parenthetical comment) is engaging in a drawn-out accusation of dishonesty here and offering snarky advice on how CP can better deceive readers as to his true motives. I have no problem with a warning for that–as long as that policy is applied consistently, to members and moderators alike.

It’s not just that it’s an accusation of dishonesty. The point is that the racism is being imputed to the accused, and is not something that has been stated by the person being accused. Consider the following two accusation of racism:

Scenario 1:

[ol]
[li]You’ve said X[/li][li]X is a racist position[/li][li]Therefore you are a racist[/li][/ol]
Scenario 2:

[ol]
[li]You’ve said X[/li][li]I’ve determined from this that you must also believe/feel Y[/li][li]Y is a racist position/feeling[/li][li]Therefore you are a racist[/li][/ol]

These are not the same thing. People are justifying calling people racists in Scenario 1 but then applying that to Scenario 2 (which is the case in the OP, even absent any dishonesty issue).

[Which is not to say you can’t make a case for being allowed to call people racists in Scenario 2. Just that you can’t do it by claiming that it amounts to Scenario 1.]

[Robert163]

@John_Mace

Suspect of what, exactly?

Do you consider people with lower IQ than you to be inferior to you? Because that’s the implicit assumption you are making here. I don’t think that. But do you? And let’s face it… IQ is a measure of… a person’s ability to take an IQ test.

Let’s also keep in mind that when you say “black people are inferior to white people”, anyone reading that is going to assume you mean “all black people are inferior to all white people”. That’s an important distinction to be made when one is talking statistically.

I don’t know why it’s so hard to just quote what the guy actually says without twisting it to make it sound different. Just quote him. It’s as simple as that. Let the quote speak for itself.

My question to you was:

Why does it make you feel warm and fuzzy to defend racists from being misquoted? Please don’t say I’m being snarky because - you - are the one who said why do “you’ll” feel the need to call someone a racist, do you need to feel warm and fuzzy (approximation, not exact quote).

So, can you please answer your own question, why does it make you feel warm and fuzzy to defend a racist from being misquoted.

[Fenris]

@tomndebb

You should recognize that I am addressing the content of your posts and not calling you names. If you.cannot recognize that distinction, you are making my point.

Your posts are retarded, contemptible and disingenuous. They are repulsive in every respect and lower the intelligence and morals of anyone who reads them. Those posts are, in fact, so blatantly hypocritical that Janus, the two-faced god would sneer at them (with both sets of lips, yet). Goebbels would blanch at the level of propaganda your posts spew and a snake would put out less venom than your posts do.

Good heavens, your posts are so disgustingly repugnant that those posts have got me defending Robert163, who I dislike immensely. That’s how terrible your posts are.

I hope you can recognize that I am addressing the content of your posts and not calling you names. If you cannot recognize that distinction, you are making my point.

Gee…this is fun. I see why there are so many posts like this under your name.

[Shodan]

@Ramira

of course you do, it is almost mathematical given the perception of how it fits your ideology. it is even almost mathematical the timing and the phrasing of how the leftist you hate so much are suppressing an ideological speech.
Debate the change of the subject? the original subject that is the only thing I have interest in is the strange illogic of the inconsistent moderation of one noun. Debating the perceptions of bias by strong ideologues, it is boring.

But now it is interesting to see that the supposed logic is adjectives that cause a emotional reponse. It is enlightening to see how many ad hoc respones will come forward.

So there is a preset analysis brought out and repeated in each of these situations according to how it is seen to fit the favored ideological framework. It could be that there is only a lack of the ability to understand the refutation for whatever reasons from lack of desire to let go of archaic ideas. actual lack of the undermining arguments, that is not evident for the persons who do not lack the capacity or the willingingness to understand the science.

It is hard to respond to imagination.

but it is true that in all these threads inevitably the ideologues of both sides will call for the banning of the other and of biases. that is boring

in any case it may be that banning of the boring hijacking of any discussion of the population genetics by the inferior race intelligence idiocy could help stop the boring merry go round repition.

I’ll take this as a No.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s not just that it’s an accusation of dishonesty. The point is that the racism is being imputed to the accused, and is not something that has been stated by the person being accused. Consider the following two accusation of racism:

Scenario 1:

[ol]
[li]You’ve said X[/li][li]X is a racist position[/li][li]Therefore you are a racist[/li][/ol]
Scenario 2:

[ol]
[li]You’ve said X[/li][li]I’ve determined from this that you must also believe/feel Y[/li][li]Y is a racist position/feeling[/li][li]Therefore you are a racist[/li][/ol]

These are not the same thing. People are justifying calling people racists in Scenario 1 but then applying that to Scenario 2 (which is the case in the OP, even absent any dishonesty issue).

[Which is not to say you can’t make a case for being allowed to call people racists in Scenario 2. Just that you can’t do it by claiming that it amounts to Scenario 1.]

Okay, I think I see what you’re saying. But in this post, CP says:

The differences in outcomes for SAT scores for race group averages are certainly not due to parental schooling or family income.

SAT has published data showing that when you adjust by income, for example, poverty stricken whites score on par with wealthy blacks. Similar data is available when parental schooling is controlled for.

The idea that either income, opportunity or parental education is responsible for the black-white academic performance difference is based on the observation that, when nurturing is improved, black scores improve. This is true. It’s true for whites and asians as well.

But at any given opportunity tier, the same rank order in academics always remains, in the same general way it remains for success at certain sports such as power-sprinting related sports. In STEM fields, blacks are at the bottom; asians at the top, in a consistent pattern that does not change when income or opportunity is controlled for.

So I (for one) think the evidence is powerful that when groups self-identify by race, they self-identify into aggregates where the prevalence (the “biologic content”) of at least some genes which drive those kinds of outcomes is different.

I believe an accurate paraphrase of this post is that “black people are genetically stupider, according to standardized tests, than Asian people.” Do you disagree?

Assuming that the OP was responding to CP’s entire performance in the thread, he might have been standing on ground as firm as a thousand dictionaries when he made the claim that got him a warning. If he were only basing it off CP’s allegedly dishonest motives, I agree that he did not have as firm a basis; but CP’s words speak for themselves.

[Shodan]

Are you asking to be able to call people racist because it furthers the debate? If so, how?

Regards,
Shodan

[Ramira]

@Shodan

I’ll take this as a No.

Regards,
Shodan

of course you do, to respond with reflection would be to deviate from the template you follow mathematically

[Robert163]

@Shodan

Are you asking to be able to call people racist because it furthers the debate? If so, how?

Regards,
Shodan

There comes a point at which some people (I’m not talking about you… I’m not) are no longer worthy of having a “debate” with me. They are only worthy of contempt. At a certain point. That being, when pig headed racism or sexism or persists despite the inability to credibly defend such negative thought/attitude.

As I said to you before Shodan, you pick some odd topics to defend.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

Are you asking to be able to call people racist because it furthers the debate? If so, how?

There is a huge collection of words that describe the views people hold: Christian, pacifist, Democrat, communist, nationalist, pro-lifer, anarchist, aesthete, feminist, and so on and so on. These words are shorthand for a set of beliefs. Having access to these words in a conversation allows people to make accurate and precise reference to folks who hold those beliefs without having to retype the beliefs every time it’s relevant.

Now that I’ve answered your question of how it furthers debate, I’d like to turn the question back on you. Which other words from this list do you believe we should forbid from applying to other posters, and why? Keep in mind that I’m talking about applying them specifically to people who have unambiguously met the dictionary definition for them: for example, it would be inappropriate to call someone an anarchist unless they have called for the dissolution of all coercive government bodies, it would be inappropriate to call someone a pacifist unless they have repudiated all forms of violence, it would be inappropriate to call someone a pro-lifer unless they have explicitly advocated outlawing abortion, and so on.

Edit: FWIW, I’m not sure if I’ve ever called someone a racist in great debates. If the mods reverse their position, as I think they should, I’m not sure I’ll ever call someone a racist in great debates. Having access to the word is a matter of principle, not a matter of me wanting to run through the streets shouting at people.

[Shodan]

@Ramira

of course you do, to respond with reflection would be to deviate from the template you follow mathematically

My response here.

Regards,
Shodan