No, but of course I have not done that. I have only come to conclusions different than those automatically driven by a political tribalism through a tribalistic lens.
But I suppose you are comfortable in the game of the oppressed political tendency and just asking questions…
Going back to something commented earlier, when in time did “racis(m/t)” become the “20 Megaton accusation”, as opposed to one more expression of censure or disapproval?
Really? You really don’t see that one of the words—racist—is an insult? And that “egalitarian” is not?
Yeesh.
The difference isn’t between “racist” and “egalitarian.” The difference is between their referents: the ideology referred to by the former word is one that’s generally considered repugnant, whereas the ideology referred to by the latter word is one that’s generally considered admirable.
If someone has already admitted to the former ideology, the insult lies not in the application of the correct label, but rather in their own admission.
If one reads Dibble for ordinary understanding and not as part of the political tribalism reading seeking to misunderstand and misdirect, it is clear Dibble is saying that CP uses egalitarian as name calling, and to cast aspersion on the other side.
That in fact iiandyii has complained about.
You can agree or disagree with Dibble’s analysis - but that when one steps out of political algorythm reading it is clear enough.
in any case given the repeated corrections and the non response of CP to them, it is fairly obvious that he indeed does use the phrase as a set straw man and it is hard to avoid a sensation of the name calling that seems to so deeply concern you when it invovles a view sympathetic.
there is no standard political tendency in the usa i think that will defend even the indirect or the plausible-deniable anti-semitism, so that form of the bigotry is attacked on all sides here.
it would not be surprising then that no “debate” arises and it becomes only attacks. So the move is in some way logical. and as IW and others note, the label of the anti-semite has not been moderated.
there remain however elements of a political tendency here who see it as politically correct for their politics to ‘debate’ if not there is a genetical inferiority in intelligence of certain inconvenient minorities.
so we have these boring discussions…
It is very much being used as an insult by CP, given that people have repeatedly asked him to stop using it to apply to them, yet he persists.
Oh, wait, or is it because he thinks it’s one word that perfectly encapsulates his opponents’ arguments and attitudes so he’ll continue using it over their objections?
Pity we anti-racists don’t have a word like that for our opponents. One accurate word … aah, what a pipe dream…
FWIW, I fully support his use of the word, as long as he can back it up with evidence that his opponents have professed views that match the standard definition of the word. If you don’t want a word applied to you, you should have to demonstrate one of the following three things:
Well, there’s the problem - no-one believes his strawman version of genetic egalitarianism.
True, just as only the willfully blind believes CP’s claim that just because he believes black people are stupid doesn’t mean he thinks they’re inferior.
It is not being used as an insult. We know this because “egalitarian” is not insulting. Now, you and others might feel that it mischaracterizes your position, or that it is a strawman. Fine, argue that, if you find him unyielding, then either try another way to convince him or just say the hell with him and bow out of the talk.
So you think “egalitarian” is not insulting but racist is?
Ok, please explain why calling someone who claims blacks people are inferior is an insult, or is your position that it’s only sometimes an insult?
Also, have I insulted Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when I call him a Holocaust Denier?
No, the question is, IF one agree that genes are not distributed in, as he says, in an egalitarian manner, and we can see that intelligence very likely has some genetic component, then why the :eek: at his proposition that the genes that are tied to genetics might be distributed in a way that a particular race has an advantage?
Correct.
Here’s the problem. People are conflating “less intelligent” with “inferior”. They’re confusing something empirical, measurable (theoretically) with a value judgement.
He probably doesn’t think so. I’m not sure of his exact position, but I think that he proudly and squarely denies the holocaust.
Because we’re not stupid, we find racism stupid, and we find racists to be offensive.
For generations scientific racist ruled the universities and there was near unanimous support, but that was long ago and the purveyors of such pseudo-scientific claptrap are now either scorned as fools or laughed at for being losers.
If you are unable to have the discussion because “they’re is no such thing is race”, then I don’t know why anyone should listen to your point in a discussion that assumes the SIRE groups are valid. If it helps you, maybe substitute “populations” for races. Otherwise, just shake your head in disbelief as the idiots have a discussion you don’t think is possible.
No, he has repeatedly claimed he’s never denied the Holocaust merely that far, far fewer than six million Jews were killed and that the numbers were grossly exaggerated by evil Zionists to justify the creation of Israel.
He insists this is not the same as denying the Holocaust and finds the term “Holocaust Denier” offensive.
Based on you logic were any posters on SDMB to use the term “Holocaust Denier” to refer to someone like him then we should be modded for “insulting” another poster.
If you disagree then please explain why calling a racist “a racist” is an insult, but calling someone like Ahmadinejad “a Holocaust Denier” isn’t?
Thanks
CP has used the word “inferior” to describe the intelligence of black people (as well as falsely imputing the belief on me). Though IIRC I have not called him a racist, nor do I plan to.
This is hard to answer in the abstract, but it seems that it’s fairly easy to see if someone is denying historical fact. That said, I do think there is room for people to look at particular claims about the holocaust and not take everyone as gospel. The reason I bring that up is that I think I just saw something on TV, or maybe something I read, where well-respected people who were not holocaust deniers trying to make sure the record is correct as to which camps gassed Jews. (Maybe it was even here on SDMB?)
More generally, if I were to encounter a Holocaust Denier, I’d rather spend my time debating the actual evidence than call him a Denier. I don’t see much gained by that. Once you try to label an opponent, I think that it becomes much more difficult to have a discussion. It kind of ensures that he, nor you, will alter your position one iota.
My guess is that if he did that, it was to describe them as inferior on one metric. That doesn’t equate to them being inferior as people. If one race is “inferior” on the metric of height, or another race is “inferior” on the metric of “speed”, that doesn’t mean that the race, itself, is inferior.