I feel no reason to honor ALL requests. So don’t get grabby.
Which can happen because from the start the original side was set to reject to recognize any refutation and there was no argument to which they’d yield.
Then if the other side does not call names but politely points out “well, it seems like there is nothing that will change your mind”, that will still be used by the original side as an excuse to “declare victory”, no matter how wrong s/he continues to be.
Point of order–unless calling someone a Democrat, a pro-lifer, or a pacifist is “calling names,” calling someone a racist isn’t calling names. It’s a term that accurately describes the holders of certain positions.
Now, if it’s applies inaccurately, there might be a problem, and I genuinely don’t mind if it’s modded in that case. But when someone is explicitly checking off every box required for meeting the racist criteria, it’s simply the use of an accurate, useful word. It’s not a pejorative in that case.
While John and I respectfully disagree on this thread, I’d be more than happy to support such a notion, particularly if all such discussions could be kept strictly to that thread.
I would like to be able to say that somebody is a racist if they behave like a racist in GD, and I want my warning revoked.
If you want to do something about race/IQ threads then start a ATMB thread about it.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Are you saying that you thought my suggestion too pushy, or have I been whooshed?
That can happen on all sides, and does. What we are discussing is what should be done if and when your polite rejoinder does not shut down the discussion. Should name-calling be allowed as the next step (in GD)?
Regards,
Shodan
Who is going to decide if someone behaves like a racist? I think there is too much disagreement of what constitutes racism, and since the word is so emotionally charged, I agree with the mods that it should generally be avoided.
I’d say that’s a whoosh.
And yes, name calling will never be a recommended course of action in either GD or Elections.
There’s plenty of gray area. But the existence of gray area does not preclude exemplars. A grain of sand is not a mountain, nor is ten thousand grains of sand, and plenty of people would say that a 500’ hill isn’t a mountain, and calling it one is going to be a distraction. But Mount Everest? C’mon, we don’t need to pussyfoot around that one. It’s a freakin’ mountain. There’s no disagreement there.
I find I’m more troubled by the board administration’s disregard for the feelings and opinions of its south african posters than their mollycoddling of posters with, at best, distasteful opinions about race.
Why do you need to call people names? If someone is a blatant. “Mt Everest” type of racist, posting blatant racist stuff, report them for hate speech and they’ll get a warning. And if you just can’t contain yourself, open a pit thread and call them a racist there.
How many of these people do we have posting here, anyway? And you know that as soon as you open the door for Mt Everest, you’ll be on the slippery slope to every lesser mountain out there, until you’re right smack dab in the grey area.
Do you imagine the readers are all gobemouche? Far better a few mumpsimus than a monopoly of the mawworms, of which there is no dearth.
It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true. And it’s not calling names if it’s true. It’s accurately labeling someone/something. Royal, sky and navy are “shades of blue”. Humans categorize things. This shouldn’t be a surprise.
If you want to exterminate untermenshen for the glory of The Vaterland, you are a Nazi. Think the word is pejorative? Tough. It accurately describes those beliefs.
If you think that the Pope is God’s Representative on Earth (and other stuff), you are a Catholic. Don’t like it? Tough. It accurately describes those beliefs.
If you think that all rights originate with property rights and that the main (if not only) legitimate function of government is to protect those property rights, you are Libertarian. Don’t like it? Tough. It accurately describes those beliefs.
And if you think that Black people play basketball real good and are otherwise dumb because of science and genes, you are a racist. Don’t like the term? Tough. It accurately describes those beliefs.
To the Mods: David Duke said “White people don’t need a law against rape, but if you fill this room up with your normal black bucks, you would, because niggers are basically primitive animals.” There’s >< this much room between that and Chief Pedant’s oh-they’re-just-less-evolved-because-of-genes crap. Can we accurately label Duke a racist?
Again, this isn’t “calling people names,” any more than calling someone a Democrat or a pacifist or a Muslim is calling them names. Merely repeating that it’s namecalling doesn’t make it so.
Calling someone names refers to using a pejorative term for them, or a term with no basis. If I call a Christian a Jesus Crispy, that’s pejorative, because instead I could choose the more accurate term “Christian.” But there is no less offensive term to refer to a racist.
The reason is that it’s not the word that’s offensive: it’s the beliefs themselves that so offend. Calling someone racist when they’re not actually racist is offensive because it’s mislabeling them. But if someone explicitly meets the criteria for being a racist, it’s simply accurate discussion to use this term to describe them.
The question then becomes why do I prefer accurate, precise language in a debate? I believe this question contains its own answer.
Agreed. People keep asserting that using the term “racist” is “name calling” without explaining why it is considered “name calling” but say “Holocaust Denier” isn’t.
So why not provide a term that describes CP’s behavior pattern that is more accurate than “racist” and is not insulting. I mean, if you were to come up with a term for what he argues, then what is it?
Because we’re not calling people “names” anymore than I am when I call David Irving a Holocaust Denier.
Secondly, since you insist there’s nothing racist in claiming black people are, as a group, less intelligent than whites due to genetics, you’re not really in a position to talk about what is blatant racism and what isn’t.
Your definition of “racist”, which must include “ill feelings” is so absurdly narrow it would exclude the vast majority of American slave owners.
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.
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.
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.