Respectfully disagree that it’s outright misogyny. However, I was unaware that “misogyny” is now banned in the Pit. Does that mean no one can post “women drivers”, “typical woman; can’t make up her mind” or similar in the Pit?
Not saying I plan to post those things in The Pit, but I’d be surprised if that was now considered against the rules.
I would think that would get a Note, at least- anywhere but the Pit. So, nothing there, but of course everyone can tell him exactly how very wrong he is, using their favorite obscenities.
“whataboutism” - a perfect example.:rolleyes:
You realize that unpopular opinions or non “politically correct” opinions can always be labeled some form of bigotry right? Take immigration. Outside of advocating open borders and a voucher for travel one can be labeled a racist and then banned. Discuss wage disparity as a function of life choices? Misogynist! Discuss differences in sports performances between men and women? Bigot. Ask why there are different rates in differing forms of behavior between different ideologies or religions? Racist!
Weaponized language in order to demonize and silence different points of view is a very troubling tool.
“Drunk women deserve to be raped” isn’t outright misogyny? Then nothing is.
I don’t know, but I *do *know I’d certainly report any such posts I saw, given the recent threads about misogyny, pit or no.
Maybe we can get back to the OP?
That probably is, but that’s not quite what he said in the post I quoted. I would call that an exaggerated paraphrase.
But that’s not the case here. You’re free to respond to someone that their post, everything they’ve written, every argument they’ve made, is utter bullshit. The idea is that people can be wrong, they can be spectacularly wrong in terrible ways. And we create an environment where that wrongness can be rebutted.
The warning for Budget Player Cadet exemplifies the kind of moderation that, in my opinion, sucks the life out of this site. It’s a warning over something that, if you squint and look at it from the right angle, might sorta be a personal insult. Instead of letting two grown people have a conversation (perhaps a heated one), we’re treated like children and the board gets yet another ATMB thread where every syllable of the potentially offensive comment is debated endlessly.
If it’s not a clear-cut, no-doubt-about-it violation of the rules, don’t issue a warning.
No, you really don’t.
And if the only appropriate response is “Stop trolling”? Or, more appropriately, “All right, time to stop engaging with this person because they are obviously a troll”? Because lemme tell you, the moderators sure as hell ain’t gonna make that call, even when it is painfully obvious.
If you get to the point where you simply can’t or don’t want to engage in further debate, but want to call the poster out for trolling, why not just take it to the Pit? You can pretty much go all out there, as long as you don’t wish harm on the poster or engage in what is considered hate speech.
You just rebutted an apparent wrongness with no sanction. I think you proved Bone’s point.
Bone wasn’t being racist. We don’t have an “atmosphere” where one can rebut racists without sanction. Because we’re not allowed to call them what they are in the same threads where they are being racists.
You mean you are not allowed to read their mind and call them what you find within. You are, however, perfectly free to rebut any point of view they have with your own facts, correct?
What does calling someone a racist do to rebut their statements? Do you find calling someone a racist different than other insults that it should be immune from that rule?
X race is smarter than Y race because reasons.
That can be rebutted by showing the reasons to be false, or misleading, or not accurate in whatever ways, etc. Or, the poster can be called a racist. Then what? That’s not an argument, that’s name calling.
The Pit is honestly a really bad idea in practice. Most boards, even boards with pretty lively, intelligent debates, just let people get heated and insult each other. Mods will break it up if it gets too slapfighty, but just letting people insult each other removes all the rules lawyering and up-to-the-line sniping.
Hell, even here, the Pit is almost a better GD, just with less thread diversity due to both the presence of GD, the volume of “fuck this poster” threads, and omnibus threads.
It handily references a whole corpus of work that’s already been done to refute racist arguments. Just like there’s really no need to do more rebuttal with a Flat Earther than point out they’re a Flat Earther, same-same with racists.
And you seem to have made the mistake of taking what I said (not being able to name racists as racists means the “atmosphere” isn’t really conducive to rebuttal) as me saying calling them racists would be the whole of the rebuttal. That would be wrong. All the other tools of rebuttal would still be there, but dancing around naming their actual malfunction doesn’t create a conducive “atmosphere” at all.
“Racist” isn’t necessarily an insult the way “shithead” or “cunt” are, it’s a descriptor with baggage, like “misogynist”, or “Democrat”, or “feminist”. You just have to look at a poster who’shappy to call themselves a racist to see that.
Why the hell should it be? That’s you (the mods) giving their arguments a veneer of respectability. Something I’ve noted seems to be handled very differently for the particular case of anti-black racism than other forms of prejudice. There are no persistent threads here on why Jews are greedy, gays are degenerates or women are bitches. But “blacks are dumb” is the perennial subject you choose to be all “both sides” on.
NO, that’s accurate naming.
:eek:
Your point would be valid if there wasn’t a long history of people of color portrayed as unintelligent in media, literature, and academia.
Kuchiyose No Jutsu
Take it from here, Lewis, 1916-style.
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.