That’s not an accurate quote and it makes a difference. If we’re going to start moderating based on what I think people wanted to say, then I’m going to have to start banning a whole hell of a lot of people. My mind reading powers are pretty good and infallible.
Why? In fact he may have meant that as a warning, it is unclear. My WAG is that Tom was in such shock he forgot.
They have changed warnings to notes. It’s rare, but they have done so. Why not the other way?
I dont think this should be done often, mind you. There shouldn’t be or need to be- a rule or procedure for it.
Seriously? In the first paragraph: “Any area with a large percentage of (less-intelligent) blacks will have high crime rates”
That sentence is poorly written, so it’s hard to tell if the poster is talking about a subset of blacks who happen to be less intelligent or if he’s saying that blacks, in general, are less intelligent. The last sentence in his post clarifies that it was more likely the latter:
“Again, I think it’s the less intelligent blacks who are the main problem.”
Now, I think that post is dripping with racism ("It’s a huge mistake to assume blacks are good people merely because some have been victims of racism. They’ve historically done plenty of damage to each other. Maybe it’s a sort of self-loathing. An example in their native lands was the 1994 Rwandan genocide where over 800,000 black-on-black murders happened. ") but the paraphrase was not an accurate one.
This board has been racist-friendly for the entire time I’ve been here, resulting in a persistent population of “race realists” and so forth. Going easy on this guy is just more of the same.
Not remotely accurate.
If you stridently insist on one standard for views you like, and another for views you don’t like, AND are permitted to avoid comparing the two by piously repeating that discussion of one precludes discussion of the other . . . why, then, you’ll be able to continue enforcing that double standard.
So I can certainly understand your desire to rule the topic out of order.
But I won’t obey your preemptory command.
Instaban 3: Any post that promote inferiority on the part of any race, NOT just Stormfront-style racism.
Or are you the only one who gets to make the rules?
I don’t think that’s what you’re doing. You’re trying to keep the runway open for racist posts that you favor, and shut down racist posts that you don’t favor, by arguing that this post crosses the line, and never mind those other posts there behind the curtain.
Have you ever seen a warning that didn’t clearly say “Moderator Warning”? I haven’t.
[quote=“octopus, post:27, topic:819511”]
Some ___ are ___ is likely to be true and potentially offensive for many statements. The adjective “some” is powerful like that. /QUOTE]
“Some” isn’t powerful. It’s a weasel word. Example:
*
Some women who claim they’ve been raped are lying.* How many is “some”? Two percent? Twenty percent? Ninety percent? If I want to make it sound like a lot of women lie when actually only 8% do, “some” is a nice, weasel-y way to do it.
Look at some good writers’ handbooks or just do a Google search: “some” is often on the list of weasel words, and it’s used as a weasel word in the post the OP refers to.
:smack::smack::smack: More likely the former.
If this is a direction to only discuss this one post, then I disagree that that limitation is fair. And since we’re in ATMB, I’ll level that objection here.
One defense against insta-banning this poster is that similar sentiments are leveled against white people without any serious consideration that the poster deserves banning. I argue that we cannot meaningfully limit the discussion to this one post because the general rule being applied should be the subject of discussion.
Now, I suppose the “general rule,” might look something like, “Racist posts against white people are given wider latitude than racist posts against racial minorities,” but if indeed that is to be the rule, I feel it should be explicitly stated.
Is that the rule?
As per the Moderators instruction, I am keeping this to the single post under discussion.
“Whataboutism” doesn’t become you, and saying there are racist posts I favor is close to calling me a racist.
Good grief.
Racists have agendas and use weasel words like “some” to cover their asses. People like this don’t see reason. They’re here to disrupt and it makes the board a sucky place. It would be great to discuss the relationships between poverty, lack of access to education and/or jobs, etc. in an enlightening way, but a thread like that would blow up very quickly. What a shame.
I think the parentheses around less intelligent make it clearly the latter.
I think the parentheses are a big part of what makes it unclear. In general, though, I think this would be a better place if, when there are two ways to read something, we take the more forgiving approach and assume the least offensive or least controversial interpretation. Or better yet, simply ask for a clarification. And I’ll confess that I have not always lived up to that ideal myself.
Reading the totality of that post makes that option foolish in this particular case, IMO.
As noted, reading the totality of the post is what made me think it more likely that the paraphrase was a poor one. YMOV, so I won’t continue arguing. I’ll stick by my statement, though, about what would make this place better. In cases like the one under discussion here, it probably would not have been answered anyway. At least not until the next 17 year cicada hatching.
Well, no. Not when the poster is posting to make people angry. And the mods have already at least agreed with that aspect. They did moderate it and say that any more such talk would be grounds for an instaban.
Also, it’s not like racism is particularly rational. As the old saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Sure, we can have debates over what exactly counts as racism and such, which can be based on rationality. But we all have to agree that racism is wrong for that to work.
And then there’s the cost. When women rightfully complained about the male-centered aspects of the board, a lot of it involved people that I had just written off as “no one bothers listening to them.” But, no, they do. And it makes people feel unwelcome. ’
While fighting ignorance is our purpose, do we really want to keep on fighting racism, sexism, etc, or have a diverse group of people and fight more varied topics? Can we not limit talks about racism to the type where we all agree it’s wrong but disagree about the specifics?
Do we really think there’s this huge audience of avowed racists reading here who we can convince to not be racist? It seems highly unlikely.
As it does that this person with a couple letters and bunch of numbers for a name will be convinced. I mean, come on. That’s not a real attempt at a name.
I’m not JC or a moderator, but I don’t think he was making a general rule. I think he was saying, if you want to discuss whether another quote should have been moderated, open another thread. This thread would be about whether this post crossed a line and that other thread would be about whether some other posts (presumably about white people) crossed a line. All I see JC saying is, let’s keep this thread about this post and poster.
As to the post in question, I think lines can be murky and flexible, but that post crossed whatever line you’d make and deserved a warning.
I will try and post in another hypothetical thread about other posts if you let me know when one is created.