And given that this board (and the forum in question specifically) was willing to ban term “gun grabber” (maybe. The mod in question was being coy about it–it was banned for a specific thread, and there were cutsie hints that it might or might not have been verboten elsewhere) but explicitly allowed “gun nut”, it’s not like there’s any sort of objective, gold-standard impartiality to preserve. There’s always bias, but “I feel sorry for darkies who can’t control their animal lusts” isn’t anywhere near as tough a call as “Gun grabbers”=bad, “gun nuts”=good. And mods make those kind of calls* daily.
*Usually correctly, in the “gun grabber” case, not so much
Again, if you’d only quit putting words in my mouth, the discussion would be more productive. Please respond to what I’ve actually said instead of trying to ferret out my nefarious master plan.
Except the rule doesn’t actually work that way in practice. I once got a mod-note for saying something like “Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner for the stupidest post ever made on this message board.”
There is zero ambiguity that I only addressed the post, by the letter of the rule. The problem is, in the real world (as the mod correctly noted) you can’t insult a post without insulting the person who made it.
I DO NOT think your post (above) was bad, but if I said “That post is so stupid, I lost actual brain-matter reading it. Clearly it was filled with drivel, racism and idiocy”, you’d assume (correctly) that I was insulting you*. The dumbass “Insult the post, not the poster” rule is a fiction that doesn’t hold up.
*And I stress, I’m not. Your post was neither stupid, drivel nor racist. Wrong, yes, but not those other things
Some of us are under the idea that good and bad ideas should fall or rise under the weight of their own merit alone… not, that everyone is going to agree with my own set of principles per se… I repeat, however… some of us are under the idea that good and bad ideas should fall or rise under the weight of their own merit alone… so if someone’s comments appear racist or insensitive or bigoted, the easiest assumption to make is that the reason why the ideas appear that way is because they are indeed, racist or bigoted.
However, to repeat myself again, not everyone will agree with my principles. There are some people who seem overly concerned with giving racists and bigots “the benefit of the doubt” or “well, let’s not shut down conversation”.
Well, being wrong is what XT’s do best. I have actually said that posts were stupid in GD before and, as yet, haven’t gotten a note or warning for it. I can see how it would or at least could be a fine line, however, so I wouldn’t be shocked to get such a note or warning…I’d know I was skating close to the edge. Just like I know that a Mod COULD note or warn me for calling someone a CTer or 9/11 Truther, even if they ARE those things. Even with something like attack the post not the poster, as you note, you COULD be called out for being a jerk…just like, sometimes, you can skate under the radar of the Mods if they just don’t notice something, or don’t think it rises to the level that they need to take action.
Labeling someone a racist covers a very broad spectrum of possible actions and beliefs. There is nothing accurate about that label (or most others for that matter).
It does. And there’s a big, huge, fuzzy grey area in the middle. I don’t think “We need better control over the borders and more careful scrutiny of immigrants” is racist. Others might disagree. There’s a number of legit opinions on that issue. The call of “racist” shouldn’t be allowed there.
On the other hand, Chief Pedant’s “Black people are better at basketball because they’re from the jungle” crap is something that is self-evidently racist. There is no legitimate support for that position and saying he’s racist for making it is a fact, not an opinion.
And mods make these decisions all the time. This “you can be an extremist racist, but you can’t be called one” case is just a weird rules glitch that should be fixed.
If someone suggests that Germany should invade the Sudatenland, attack Austria and then Poland whilst meanwhile rounding up Jews, Gypsies, gay people and other “undesirables” and sending them to camps, it would be factual to call them a Nazi, not an insult or Godwinizing the thread. Same with extreme racism.
Yes and people like David Irving and the late Joseph Sobran insist they’re to really “Holocaust Deniers”, that they’re actually just questioning if the numbers are accurate and that they’re hard-headed realists fighting against people who’ve fallen for propaganda.
They prefer terms like “Holocaust revisionist” or “Holocaust Skeptic”.
Based on your logic, whenever we have one of our occasional Holocaust threads, we could never use the term “Holocaust Denier” when referring to someone who claims “It’s silly to claim six million Jews were killed, the actual number was more like 10,000 and they mostly died due to diseases.”
Has CP actually objected to applying the word “racist” to him? I thought he considered it a ridiculous insult, in the same way that Bernie Sanders thinks it’s absurd to insult him by calling him a socialist.
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
Based on your logic, whenever we have one of our occasional Holocaust threads, we could never use the term “Holocaust Denier” when referring to someone who claims “It’s silly to claim six million Jews were killed, the actual number was more like 10,000 and they mostly died due to diseases.”
[/QUOTE]
Well, you could…you just might get a note or a warning. Or, you could attack the post with all the factual information that generally shoots down loopy CTs and then Pit the person in question and call them anything you like. Personally, I find it more satisfying to do the first, since generally it makes such folks look like the idiots they are. I didn’t look at the thread that prompted this one, but at a guess 'dopers were shooting down and making look silly all of the racist arguments presented…there was most likely no need to label anyone as a racist since the debate probably made that clear and left the person bruised and bloody, as they generally are after a good old fashioned 'doper shark fest.
We’re allowed to “address the poster” we’re just not allowed to “insult the poster” and it’s been a long established tradition that we’re allowed to use terms that characterize a poster’s beliefs(I.E., liberal, conservative, pacifist,) even terms that are clearly pejoratives(which “racist” isn’t) such as “gun-grabber” and “gun nut” and “tea bagger” have been used without recriminations.
Once again, people keep claiming the term “racist” is an insult but we’ve yet to hear any strong reasons why this is the case. We just keep hearing repeats about “baggage” or “history” with no reasons.
Can it be used as an insult? Yes.
Can one falsely be accused of being a racist? Sure. FWIW, on this site I have been accused of such so I can somewhat understand this concern.
However, no it isn’t always an insult, and it’s silly to declare this word is verboten, but comparable terms aren’t.
Whether you choose to take offense or choose to dismiss the comment, considering the soure, is your action.
If a poster made those comments a out you, personally, it would be that poster’s action. Placing the Mod’s in the position of deciding whether you should be offended means that we get to/must act as thought police.
Plenty of believers and atheists could choose to be offended by the expressions of atheists and believers. Riding herd on all the comments at which others could choose to take offense would be a pointless exercise that would irritate everyone and serve no purpose except to deprive us of sleep. We will stick to Moderating the specific, personal name calling, giving you the opportunity to demonstrate why the ideas that offend you are wrong.
*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. *
Even if your claim that I am ignorant was correct, I thought name calling did noting to promote a discussion and that it was insulting, even if accurate. So, does your advice and admonishment apply only to other people on this board, or, is it supposed to apply to yourself as well?
Just in case there is any confusion. I actually do like you and on the whole I think you are a pretty good sort. I view your comments stemming towards me generated from frustration and sarcasm (for lack of better terms) rather than malice or ill will. I really do not see you as any sort of bad person, at all. And that is the truth. But this view of objectivity you hold towards yourself I find to be, in regards to me, lacking. On the whole, I think you are objective. But in our exchanges… perhaps sometimes you are not.
While I, on the other hand, and admit it is a poor excuse, make no denials about my bias and attitude. So, perhaps next time you give another patronizing lecture, you could remember that from my side it looks a bit… lacking.
You know, coming from the guy who said:
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.
Because in the context of our modern culture "racist’ and “bigot” are stigmatic terms used to discredit one’s opinion outright. They imply a very particular and stigmatized view of the world. “Dunce” just means a lack in intellect and is not used in the same manner.
That being said, if you think my use of the word “dunce” is weak and you wish to call me one, go right ahead. I’m not afraid of words, only those who are so intellectually insecure they wish to censor them.
The dictionary doesn’t have the final word on these matters. But it’s not a bad place to start. Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed on racism: [INDENT]1. belief or doctrine asserting racial differences… yada yada … also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races.
2. any program or practice racial discrimination, segregation etc specif sucha a program or practice that upholds the political or economic domination of one race over another or others.
3. feelings or actions of hatred and bigotry toward a person or persons because of their race. [/INDENT] Numbers 2 and 3 are toxic accusations. This dictionary presents things in historical order, so to the extent that the first definition had a neutral patina, it is now outdated. Holocaust denier is merely descriptive though it can be rebutted by JAQing off. I suppose birther and truther are somewhat insulting, but they simply lack the kick of, say, cocksucker. They are closer in the vicinity of nicknames, though journalists would be advised to take care with those 2 phrases.
Horseshit. “Racist” can be used as an insult but it’s hardly an automatic insult.
It’s also not a “stigmatic term”, it’s an actual term that describes real people.
Amongst the people who are “racists” are people who insist that black people are less intelligent than whites due to “genetics”.
Do you disagree with this?
Er…it’s clearly used as an insult. In case you haven’t noticed this entire thread is about whether or not “racist” is an insult.
Er… I don’t. I was merely pointing out that based on your logic, then what you did was “weak”. Beyond that, I actually don’t think about you at all and if you think I would then you really don’t know me.
Really, because you appear to have been pricked at least slightly since you seem to have concluded that I meant that as an insult.
Beyond that, for all your claims about “I’m not afraid of words” I’m pretty sure if we were alone together and you had no choice but to listen to me that there are phrases, sentences, or words I could use that would provoke a rather extreme reaction.
To be honest, I wouldn’t be surprised if even the phrase “I don’t think about you” pissed you off though I doubt you’ll admit it.
Thank you for deciding that people who want posters warned for calling other posters “racists” are “intellectually insecure” and “weak”.
I disagree obviously and consider such an attitude incredibly childish and its comically obvious deflection, but still mildly amusing.
I have actually said that posts were stupid in GD before and, as yet, haven’t gotten a note or warning for it. I can see how it would or at least could be a fine line, however, so I wouldn’t be shocked to get such a note or warning…I’d know I was skating close to the edge. Just like I know that a Mod COULD note or warn me for calling someone a CTer or 9/11 Truther, even if they ARE those things. Even with something like attack the post not the poster, as you note, you COULD be called out for being a jerk…just like, sometimes, you can skate under the radar of the Mods if they just don’t notice something, or don’t think it rises to the level that they need to take action.