# "Red Pill" warning in GD **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 14, 2018, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588 "2018-08-14T13:03:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Huey\_Freeman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/huey_freeman/32/251_2.png) [@Huey\_Freeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huey_Freeman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/81 "2018-08-16T19:55:08Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. Not sure which point you think isn’t valid, but each point made is valid objectively, independent of current or historical circumstance. Specifically, there are three points I made that you quoted: > [ol] > [li]The rule against name calling doesn’t have an exception for “racist”.[/li][li]If a poster makes an assertion based on reasons that are racist, those reasons can be rebutted.[/li][li]Calling a person racist does nothing to rebut the reasons offered.[/li][/ol] > Those three statements are true regardless of historic and current racism. > You may make reference to past work that refutes reasons offered - that’s great. Calling someone a racist does not do that. > > Certainly if a rebuttal contained more content than calling someone a racist it would have more merit. But when talking about rules to apply - there can’t be a rule that says you can call people racists if you also add additional content supporting the view. Because if we allow people to call other posters racists, then there can be no sanction if that is the whole of the rebuttal. 200 posters in a row could simply reply, “you are a racist” as the entirety of their posts and it would be allowable if we relax the rule against calling people racists. And more to the point, if there would be other tools of rebuttal presented, then what value does name calling add? It would be gratifying for sure. But that doesn’t advance debate. > > If someone advances a racist argument, you are free to call them on the poorness of the argument. That every premise is flawed, the conclusions are not sound, the facts are wrong or are based on lies. The science is fake, the biological analysis is poor, etc. You can call the entire post utter bullshit devoid of reason and worthless for meaningful discussion because it is premised on so much wrongness. That’s all fine, and I would encourage it. Name calling however, is not conducive to debate. Name calling is destructive to debate. > To be clear, that we allow certain topics doesn’t mean we respect them. Um, yeah, I think our frame of reference is just too far apart to bridge the gap. I understand what you’re saying but I don’t get the reasoning. Questioning the intelligence of people who have darker pigmentation is the very definition of racism and white supremacy. As an learned group of individuals, you shouldn’t even be seriously considering such topics. If someone said to me “Huey, you’re rude”. I might respond, “How was I rude?”. If you say “Huey, you’re racist”. Bizarrely, it never dawns on someone to ask “How was I racist?” Think about this for a moment. White folks are scared to death about being called a racist but when they receive feedback on how their behavior may have a racist impact, they dismiss the feedback as “playing the race card” or claim it’s a “name calling”. There is no openness about getting better. It’s deflect, deny, deflect. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/82 "2018-08-16T20:02:54Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > White folks are scared to death about being called a racist but when they receive feedback on how their behavior may have a racist impact, they dismiss the feedback as “playing the race card” or claim it’s a “name calling”. What’s that thing called when you generalize an entire group of people based on nothing but the color of their skin? It’s right on the tip of my tongue… ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/83 "2018-08-16T20:08:32Z")
Rather than continue the hijack, can we discuss the warning? It seems clear the the warning was in error due to not knowing what the Red Pill Movement is, and we can hardly blame him for not having that bit of rather obscure knowledge. Clearly then, it was not a _personal_ insult, but a insult of a political group. \*\*The warning should be rescinded. \*\* Does anyone disagree? Do we have consensus on this? ---
**Author:** ![Huey\_Freeman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/huey_freeman/32/251_2.png) [@Huey\_Freeman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huey_Freeman)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/84 "2018-08-16T20:17:09Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > What’s that thing called when you generalize an entire group of people based on nothing but the color of their skin? It’s right on the tip of my tongue… The word you’re looking for is white fragility. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/85 "2018-08-16T20:23:42Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > The word you’re looking for is white fragility. No, that’s not it. Must be something else. It’ll come to me. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/86 "2018-08-16T20:25:15Z")
> [@Huey\_Freeman](#): > > White folks are scared to death about being called a racist but when they receive feedback on how their behavior may have a racist impact, they dismiss the feedback as “playing the race card” or claim it’s a “name calling”. There is no openness about getting better. It’s deflect, deny, deflect. You think white folks are bad, you should see wypipo. They’re much much worse. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/87 "2018-08-16T20:27:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Rather than continue the hijack, can we discuss the warning? > > It seems clear the the warning was in error due to not knowing what the Red Pill Movement is, and we can hardly blame him for not having that bit of rather obscure knowledge. > > Clearly then, it was not a _personal_ insult, but a insult of a political group. > > \*\*The warning should be rescinded. \*\* > > Does anyone disagree? Do we have consensus on this? Of course I know what the Red Pill Movement is. Why are you assuming I don’t? I simply believe that BPC - given his history of insulting his debate opponents - meant it as an insult. He should learn to avoid such. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/88 "2018-08-16T20:33:30Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Of course I know what the Red Pill Movement is. Why are you assuming I don’t? > > I simply believe that BPC - given his history of insulting his debate opponents - meant it as an insult. He should learn to avoid such. I think you’re wrong about this, both in concluding he meant it as a personal insult, and also that he specifically needs a warning over this because of his personal past behavior. Anyway, if something isn’t in the actual form of a personal insult, I don’t think we should be looking into whether it deserves a warning because it was meant as an insult. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/89 "2018-08-16T20:44:58Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Of course I know what the Red Pill Movement is. Why are you assuming I don’t? > > I simply believe that BPC - given his history of insulting his debate opponents - meant it as an insult. He should learn to avoid such. You’re a Moderator, **JC** , not Thought Police. ---
**Author:** ![nelliebly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nelliebly/32/5422_2.png) [@nelliebly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nelliebly)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/90 "2018-08-16T21:05:50Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > What’s that thing called when you generalize an entire group of people based on nothing but the color of their skin? It’s right on the tip of my tongue… OK, maybe **Huey Freedman** should have said, “virtually all,” since it was argued in another thread that as long as you qualify a statement with “some” or “many” or “most,” you can’t be called on it. Nevertheless, **Huey Freeman** ’s post on white fragility is relevant. I’ve been planning to start a thread on white fragility\*, but I’m not sure I need to now. \*Ironically, so many white people get upset about the “fragility” part that I often replace it with the slightly inaccurate “white defensiveness” so the discussion can get past the term, itself. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/91 "2018-08-16T21:08:09Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You may make reference to past work that refutes reasons offered - that’s great. Calling someone a racist does not do that. Yes it does. Exactly the way if someone was calling Jews greedy, pointing out they’re an antisemite is all the argument needed. Or if they were calling gays degenerates, pointing out they’re a homophobe is all that really needs to be said. > [@](#): > > Because if we allow people to call other posters racists, then there can be no sanction if that is the whole of the rebuttal. Are you fucking kidding me? Of course there can. You’re the ones making the damn sanctions, you \*can \*make them whatever you like. > [@](#): > > 200 posters in a row could simply reply, “you are a racist” as the entirety of their posts and it would be allowable if we relax the rule against calling people racists I see exactly zero things wrong with that. > [@](#): > > . And more to the point, if there would be other tools of rebuttal presented, then what value does name calling add? Well, accuracy, for one thing. But what do I know, I apparently think that name calling is something else than you -since something like “your entire continent is intellectually inferior” _isn’t_ name-calling in your book. > [@](#): > > It would be gratifying for sure. But that doesn’t advance debate. Let’s get this clear - you think you can actually “advance debate” with racists? > [@](#): > > Name calling however, is not conducive to debate. But only the namecalling the GD mods have decided, on the behalf of posters of all backgrounds, counts as name calling, of course. Let’s just say that historically I’ve found that the mostly-White-American mod staff doesn’t exactly have a good handle on what may or may not be name calling. > [@](#): > > To be clear, that we allow certain topics doesn’t mean we respect them. A distinction without a difference. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/92 "2018-08-16T21:16:33Z")
Bone, and other mods opposed to a change, do you really see assertions that black people are fundamentally intellectually inferior, as more conducive to debate than “you are racist for saying black people are fundamentally intellectually inferior”? That really, truly seems absolutely nuts to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/93 "2018-08-16T21:26:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Bone, and other mods opposed to a change, do you really see assertions that black people are fundamentally intellectually inferior, as more conducive to debate than “you are racist for saying black people are fundamentally intellectually inferior”? > > That really, truly seems absolutely nuts to me. Yeah, I’ don’t think the “conducive to debate” argument makes a lot of sense in term of calling someone racist. The reason to not allow “you are a racist” is that it’s an insult, and insults are not allowed even if they are true. Just like any other insult is not allowed even if it’s true. Which, btw, is a lot harder to prove than you probably think when it comes to racism. I don’t think it’s a good idea to make the mods decide whether an insult is true or not. Some people seem to be stuck on the idea that it can’t be an insult if it’s true, but that is… not true. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/94 "2018-08-16T22:01:35Z")
The thing is, it wouldn’t even block any debates. There are tons of discussions about IQ test results and averages across populations, and not all of them include blanket assertions about black people. Why would it be so bad to either: a) Tell posters who say “black people are inherently intellectually inferior” that they cannot say that in GD b) allow other posters to say “you are racist for saying…” This would not prevent moderators from moderating frivolous or excess accusations of racism… make a rule that any accusation of racism must include a thoughtful explanation of why. Maybe this would lead to discussion of what is actually racist, which is a _great discussion that we should be having all the time_. It’s a myth that “you’re being racist” is necessarily a conversation ender – it can be a conversation starter. “Why am I being racist – let’s talk about this.” That’s a real and productive conversation. Maybe you need to watch it a bit closer than other discussions. But you’re probably already doing that. Wouldn’t this make the board better? ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/95 "2018-08-16T22:02:05Z")
> [@Jonathan\_Chance](#): > > Of course I know what the Red Pill Movement is. Why are you assuming I don’t? > > I simply believe that BPC - given his history of insulting his debate opponents - meant it as an insult. He should learn to avoid such. Because it’s the only explanation that doesn’t require us to assume bad things about your moderation. If you didn’t know, then you might think he was talking about the person. **You are ignoring English grammar** in order to say he was insulting him. His post only makes sense to be describing the ideology of Red Pill. Someone mentioned an ideology, and he said “the one that …” That clearly means he was describing the ideology. You choose to not take BPC’s post as it is written, and presume to read his mind to know what he actually meant. What you guys are doing right now is saying that attacking an ideology counts as attacking a poster. That is not good. It’s not that we need to be able to say “you’re a racist.” It’s that we need to be able to say “that idea is racist.” Or “garbage.” Or “hateful.” Or “misogynistic.” Or "bitter. He said the Red Pill was a horrible ideology. He attacked the post. It’s important that we continue to be able to do this. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/96 "2018-08-16T22:07:15Z")
Sorry, iiandyiiii. I don’t agree with you that we need to be able to say that someone is a racist. There is no reason you couldn’t instead attack the idea. Instead of “you are racist for saying,” say “what you say is racist.” You still communicate that the idea is racist, but you don’t attack the poster. Just the post. I also think asking for this in this thread actually gets in the way of the real problem, which is that **BPC did not attack a poster.** He attacked an ideology. I am also not saying things I want to say because I’m more interested in getting this problem fixed than anything else. I’m actually worried about the board if this is the new standard–that attacks on an ideology will be assumed to be attacks on a poster. Even a poster who didn’t even say they believe in that ideology. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/97 "2018-08-16T22:11:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The thing is, it wouldn’t even block any debates. There are tons of discussions about IQ test results and averages across populations, and not all of them include blanket assertions about black people. Why would it be so bad to either: > > a) Tell posters who say “black people are inherently intellectually inferior” that they cannot say that in GD > b) allow other posters to say “you are racist for saying…” > > This would not prevent moderators from moderating frivolous or excess accusations of racism… make a rule that any accusation of racism must include a thoughtful explanation of why. Maybe this would lead to discussion of what is actually racist, which is a _great discussion that we should be having all the time_. It’s a myth that “you’re being racist” is necessarily a conversation ender – it can be a conversation starter. “Why am I being racist – let’s talk about this.” That’s a real and productive conversation. Maybe you need to watch it a bit closer than other discussions. But you’re probably already doing that. Wouldn’t this make the board better? It think I was unclear in that last post. There is nothing unique about “you are racist” in terms of “conducive to debate” that isn’t true of every other insult out there. Why is it so important to allow that one insult, but no others? Insults are not conducive to good debates. And since you can say “that is an argument based on racism, not on science”, and you can call someone racist in the Pit, I don’t see what the big deal is. We don’t allow insults. “You are a racist” is an insult. Why not allow “You are an idiot” when someone posts something idiotic? However, “black people are innately intellectually inferior” is also an insult, and should not be allowed. I don’t think it is allowed, under the current rules. Is it? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/98 "2018-08-16T22:18:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > However, “black people are innately intellectually inferior” is also an insult, and should not be allowed. I don’t think it is allowed, under the current rules. Is it? I believe it is, but I welcome a mod to educate us if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/99 "2018-08-16T22:22:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > However, “black people are innately intellectually inferior” is also an insult, and should not be allowed. I don’t think it is allowed, under the current rules. Is it? > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I believe it is, but I welcome a mod to educate us if I’m wrong. Just to be clear, I would read that statement as “[all] black people are innately intellectually inferior [to all white people, or other races]”. That is distinct from what we often see, which is more like “the normal distribution of intelligence for black people has a mean that is lower than that of the normal distribution of white people”. I don’t consider those two statements to be the same, and I would not think the 2nd one is or should be against the rules. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2018, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588/100 "2018-08-16T22:25:02Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just to be clear, I would read that statement as “[all] black people are innately intellectually inferior [to all white people, or other races]”. > > That is distinct from what we often see, which is more like “the normal distribution of intelligence for black people has a mean that is lower than that of the normal distribution of white people”. I don’t think the distinction is particularly important. It’s white supremacist pseudo-science, either way. And it’s racist either way. It should be okay to say both of those things (and when describing the argument alone, I think it actually is). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/red-pill-warning-in-gd/819588.md?page=6)