Can you quote where he said that? Specifically the “…because they’re from the jungle” part.
If he did say that, and I doubt he did, you could report the post and he’d get a warning. Why do you need the additional warm and fuzzier of being able to personally call him a racist?
Thank you for making an honest and original attempt to answer the question.
I’ll merely note that dictionaries don’t actually define words just give common understandings and any definition of the term “racist” that doesn’t include the idea that black people are less intelligent than whites is both obviously false and makes little sense due to the history of anti-black racism in the US and other countries.
“racist” is also “descriptive” and I’m not sure why it gets a “merely” while “racist” doesn’t get a “merely” before “descriptive.”
You also have yet to explain why the term “racist” is a “toxic accusation” while the term “Holocaust Denier” isn’t.
Frankly, IMHO a much stronger case could be made that it’s a “toxic accusation” than a simple accusation of “racism” is.
nm
You’ve made arguments like this before.
Let me ask you a sincere question that’s not intended as a gotcha or an insult.
Do you honestly think it’s not racist to claim that black people are less intelligent than white people due to genetics?
I ask because that’s clearly what CP believes and has repeatedly claimed for years.
As to your question, yes Fenris was engaging in hyperbole but it seems to me inarguable that CP’s arguments are clearly racist.
If however you believe something along the lines of “It’s not racist to claim black people are less intelligent than whites on the average due to genetics because it’s only racist to profess hatred of black people” or something similar, go ahead and say it.
Don’t worry, it’s obvious to everyone you were being hyperbolic and people(including Mace) are rather regularly hyperbolic when describing people or arguments they disagree with.
Oh, please. We’re talking about specific language that might or might not be labeled racist. If you’re going to exaggerate what a person said in order to justify calling him a racist, then you’re statement is meaningless.
Ok, would you not agree that it’s clearly racist to claim that blacks are less intelligent than whites due to genetics?
I don’t see how any reasonable person, particularly people familiar with the history of racism could not say “yes”.
Why do you need the warm and fuzzy of playing devils advocate to defend some other posters “questionable” level of racism?
ie- lack of the precise words “from the jungle” does not indicate lack of racsim, it merley indicates sense enough to use taciturn language
Well, a common understanding is actually a definition: that’s why dictionary editors set up usage panels. I stress though dictionaries don’t provide the final word on these matters: I see them as a starting point. For example, there was no mention of institutional racism in my dictionary.
That was part of definition 1 actually - I snipped it with yada, yada. Again, that dictionary lists definitions in historical order. FTR, I’ll provide it here: [INDENT]belief in or doctrine asserting racial differences in character, intelligence, etc and the superiority of one race over another or others; racist doctrine also, typically, seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or races. [/INDENT]
Because saying that someone is a bigot is an insult and is not merely descriptive. Calling someone a racist implies an accusation of bigotry.
I sort of see that now: you could contrast old gramma racist with somebody denying a documented case of genocide. It’s just that in practice if somebody is denying the holocaust existed, then they are a holocaust denier. But… ah forget it. In practice discussions of the Bell Curve et al on this message board have been highly suspect in my experience. So I’m not too keen in constructing an alternative Earth hypothetical, where psychometricians with a pure and true interest the human mind are unfairly labelled as bigots. Back in Earth-Prime, you get the occasional link to cranks and quacks by folks with little knowledge of and less interest in elementary statistics.
Carry on.
This was my mistake for which I apologize.
I didn’t mean to say.
What I meant to say was
I don’t see how “Holocaust Denier” isn’t at least as “toxic” an accusation as “racism” is
Ok, this isn’t meant as an insult or to sound condescending, but the “Bell Curve” types are hardly original. They’re no different from any of the “Scientific racists” or believers in “Eugenics” of the late 19th and early 20 Centuries and they’re just “old gramma racists” in sheep’s clothing.
The modern day “Bell Curve” types like to pretend they’re different but they’re not.
They’re not hard-headed realists who’ve been suppressed by “political correctness”.
In truth, historically they’ve dominated academia(to the point of including the President of every single Ivy League university in the early 20th Century but wound up being discarded as Eugenics wound up being discarded and they come to SDMB because we’re the only place that actually doesn’t either outright ban them or allow them to be flamed and instead allows them to pretend they’re legitimate intellectuals rather than merely bitter white losers who can’t deal with the 20th and 21st Centuries.
So then, based on the dictionary you were using as your source, referring to CP as a “racist” isn’t an “insult” or “name calling” but merely a statement of fact.
It’s not playing devil’s advocate to point out a factual error. If we’re going to discuss whether the guy is a racist, then quote the exact post that tells us that. Not everyone, including me, has read all of the various threads. Just quote the exact fucking post. That is all.
Mr.Dibble’s ancestors were enslaved, brutalized and persecuted with the idea that Black people were stupid and needed white people to tell them what to do to protect them as an excuse and that continued into his lifetime and he grew up in a country who’s government actively preached that with the additional claim that this was something mandated by God. For anyone not familiar with what I’m talking about look up the Day of the Vow or the Dutch Reformed Church.
Respectfully that’s not remotely comparable to the way Atheists have been treated in the US.
As for the suggestion as to how “believers” are treated, well for starters, there’s already a well documented policy that bigoted comments about Jews(who are obviously “believers”) will get modded for “hate speech” and dealt with.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15801144&postcount=542
This comment, which is par for the course in a number of threads regarding the propensity of blacks, Arabs, Middle Easterners, or Muslims to engage in violence, criminality, or terrorism,
Earned an immediate warning for hate speech which was almost immediately upgraded to an instaban.
I see no reason why similar accusations against Christians or other “believers” by atheists or atheists by “believers” would run afoul of board rules against hate speech.
You’re ignoring two things.
First of all, previously stated mod policy is that the use of the term “racist” was not automatically considered to be an insult. Marley23 and others have gone into detail on why while they feel the term applied to other posters was strongly discouraged it wasn’t automatically considered to be an insult an therefore a violation of board policy.
Similarly, while if I classified say Woodrow Wilson as “an asshole”, I’d be insulting him, but if I called him a “believer in Eugenics” or “a racist” I’d merely be “describing him”.
Second, you’ve yet to explain why the term “racist” when used to describe another poster, is to be automatically considered “name calling”, “an insult” and therefore a violation of board rules, but such phrases as “Holocaust Denier”, “Birther” and “Truther” which are at least as offensive to those targeted by such terms.
If you don’t mind my asking a question that genuinely isn’t meant as a gotcha is the reason you and JC have decided to change the policy regarding the term “racist” being considered usually but not always being considered an insult to always being classified as an insult but not a similar policy regarding such terms as “Holocaust Denier” etc. the fact that you felt that far more conservatives were afraid of being called a “racist” than people being afraid of being called a “Holocaust Denier” etc?
Ok, once again, is your position that someone who claims that black people are less intelligent than white people due to genetics is not making an inherently racist statement?
If not, then explain why such charges against CP are “name calling” rather than a statement of fact.
I honestly don’t remember doing this, but you’ve always struck me as brutally honest so at the very least I very poorly worded a criticism of a post you made(something that is not on you, but on me) so I sincerely apologize for giving you the impression that this is what I thought of you. Yes, I disagree with you on several issues, and think that you’re not always able to communicate your beliefs as well as you’d like in English, but I’ve never felt that about you and your English is vastly, vastly superior to my French, Arabic, or, yes, Farsi.
I’ve honestly never thought that of you and have genuinely felt some affection and kinship for you since we do share some similarities despite disagreeing with you on some issues.
This is a good point that I’ve been harping on.
Stop me if I’m wrong. But in your country, unless I’m wrong(Kobal can’t interject as well) you can actually face criminal sanctions for suggesting the Holocaust is a hoax or(to the use the language of the deniers) use language that wrongly labels you a “denier” and people are regularly fined or jailed for such reasons.
Nor is France alone in this. There are several European nations where this is true.
Stope me if I’m wrong, but while both ideas are loathsome, claiming “black Americans are less intelligent than white people due to genetics” is less likely to get you in trouble than claiming “six million Jews weren’t killed by the Nazis. Only 10,000 were and the numbers were exaggerated to justify the creation of Israel and hide crimes against the Germans by the allies”.
How then can people honestly claim that calling someone a “racist” is a more “toxic accusation” than calling someone a “Holocaust Denier”?
Well, first to all, that is not the claim that CP is making. But, no, I don’t think that’s inherently racist. I think the motivation of the person putting that out there is important, and if the person is just misinterpreting data, then they might not actually harbor ill feelings towards the race in question, and I think “ill feelings” is an important part of being a “racist”, as we use the term today.
You miss the point I think.
Your assertion was, why did we need to point out a racist, why not just report it and say nothing, the need to actually call them a racist, why do we have that need for a warm and fuzzy. (your words, warm and fuzz).
So, answer your own question, why do you need to defend a racists honor by protecting them from “factual error”. Why does this make you warm and fuzzy?
If a bank robber robbed 13 banks but the newspaper said it was 15, what is more important, the fact or the error? I submit to you, therefor, that your obsession with “factual error” is at least somewhat suspect.
I think you have some obsession with protecting the right (political sphere) from “factual error”. I could be wrong, there are people on “the right” that I misjudge from time to time on SDMB, you, Shodan, a few others possibly…
Oh, how wonderful… the benefit of the doubt. Warm. And Fuzzy.
But from what I understand CP has been posting the same conclusions for years on this forum and no matter how many times he is shown to be “factually incorrect” he persists. How is this not his fault due to “misinterpretation?”.
Your objections are becoming more and more suspect…
Horseshit.
That’s exactly what he is claiming to every serious person reading his posts.
In all seriousness thank you for your honesty. Most people wouldn’t have done so and I don’t consider your decision to do so a sign of moral or intellectual failure.
That said, people who claim that there’s nothing inherently racist in claiming that black people are less intelligent than white people due to genetics are simply ignoring both American history as well as the history of American racism.
Uh-huh.
And people who claim that Jews don’t care about other people or that Jews are “good with money” or that American Jews “care more about Israel than America” aren’t really anti-Semitic.
Beyond that, based on the logic you’re displaying here, none of the slave owners of the US were racist since most genuinely showed no “ill feelings” towards black people but very genuinely(as demonstrated by numerous historians) that they were stupid and needed white people to guide them and protect them.
You should read George Fitzhugh.
He was, even in the opinion of his strongest detractors, a brilliant intellectual, a staunch defender of slavery, who regularly defended slavery, and, by your logic, was not a racist.
As you read his explanations of how “nature” made the Negro “weak in mind” and by contrast “gifted the white man with intelligence and reason” and therefore “born to command” I’m reasonably sure you’ll recognize that your definition of “racism” is lacking because Fitzhugh, the slave owner, genuinely did not bear “ill feelings” towards his slaves. You have strongly held beliefs, but you’re not a fanatic and you’re capable of recognizing when you’re wrong.
Regardless of whether or not you bear “ill feelings” towards black people, if you think they’re inferior(and please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by suggesting that CP believes anything but), you are being a racist.
Ok, all I have is upthread. I assume holocaust denier isn’t in the dictionary and we can’t establish a usage panel.
FTR, I agree with all of that, but this is ATMB.
Definition 1: maybe but probably not unless we have someone who openly espouses racial purity. Admittedly we might have 1 or 2 posters like that, in which case you might be able to make a polite GD inquiry with copious apologies whether they would consider themselves racist. Very borderline though. Much better and more hilarious to make the polite inquiry in the Pit.
By definitions 2 and 3, it’s an insult. And those refer to more contemporary usage.
I confess that I am beginning to feel a faint sense of ridiculousness with my pearl clutching when discussing the word racist as applied to certain posters here. Some of them appear to match definition 1 fairly well. I’d argue this sort of term is highly inappropriate if someone is merely calling for cuts in welfare spending. But if someone is busy pulling squirrely academic citations, has little interest in discussing the science, and refers to himself as a racial separatist then the term “Early 20th century style racist” seems like a possible fit if framed as a question in GD for clarification purposes. I am not a mod though. Still sounds mod noteable somehow.
Then Jonathan Chance’s statement was just a meaningless pipe dream, with no real effect. Apparently, saying my entire continent is populated by retards isn’t something I legitimately should take offence at, I’m just being the offenderati. Word of Mod.