The problem with that is “(less intelligent) blacks…” isn’t quite so broad brush as “blacks…”. I’d hate to think what this board would be like if we went down that road. I think you would, too, since broad brush statements about Republicans and conservatives far outweigh such statements about Democrats and liberals. By a LOT.
We’ve already discussed this, but I don’t see how you disagree that the parentheses mean that it applies to all black people – if he just wanted to specify the less intelligent ones, he wouldn’t need parentheses. If I’m saying something about Trump supporters and want to tar them all as misogynists, I’ll say something like “the (misogynistic) Trump supporters will never vote for a woman”… if I just want to specify the particular misogynistic ones among the larger group, I’d say “misogynistic Trump supporters won’t vote for a woman”.
I’ve criticized such broad brushing (of both sides) many times on this board. I don’t think it adds to GD conversations, and I think it’s easy to avoid. But I also don’t think it’s a particularly big deal – I’d just happily be willing to sacrifice it if that would also get rid of assertions about the supposed inferiority of black people, in the cause of making the board better.
I would be opposed to outlawing broadbrush statements about adherents of political ideologies, despite the imbalance that John Mace noted.
These are legitimate opinions, and can have a rational basis. They’re more likely to be heavily influenced by bias and emotion than more nuanced statements, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t be rational and legitimate positions.
I’m not into this whole “fighting ignorance” bit, but I do think that once you start outlawing the expression of rational positions based on the fact that some people find those positions offensive, you make the board a lesser place for those who enjoy it for the interchange of ideas.
Well, it’s nice you’re willing to sacrifice that but do you agree with the underlying principle? That discrimination based on political affiliation is equivalent in some way to discrimination based on race?
That they can have a rational basis is the point of disagreement between us – I don’t think they can.
If this is directed at me – no, I do not.
ISTM that much of the issue is the attempt to outlaw statements that are not broad-brush, when some Dopers insist that a specific assertion is meant to apply universally. Witness the attempt to characterize “some” as a weasel word.
Some X do Y.
“You are accusing all members of X* of doing Y!” See post #53 for an example.
Regards,
Shodan
*For certain values of X.
You don’t see or won’t see? I already explained why I disagree, since he also wrote:
“Again, I think it’s the less intelligent blacks who are the main problem.”
That is more consistent with my interpretation than yours. Note that “again” means it’s something that was already said.
When I first read this, I thought it was a parody. Comparing racism to political ideology especially in today’s environment where the President of the US supports racism, hate crimes (where people are attacked and killed for the color of their skin and perceived religion) are on the rise and white supremacists openly march and celebrate the Presidency is a false equivalency and not a good look for this message board. Frankly, it’s openly insulting to me and I suspect other folks on this board. But then again since most of those offended aren’t white then who cares.
Racism isn’t a logical decision and trying to counter it with rational arguments generally doesn’t work. It’s a hateful viewpoint and “debating” the intelligence and basic humanity of those who aren’t white isn’t a political disagreement or grounds for a debate. It’s openly agreeing that hateful speech is accepted so long as the targets are minorities. Similar viewpoints expressed against white people are, IMHO, more modded partially because more people get upset. This isn’t even-handed. There simply isn’t a comparison between an attack on something a person because of their skin color and because of their political identification.
The entire justification of not providing a warning here (long time poster! low post count! Bending over backwards to provide an alternate explanation!)provides an appearance that racism is coddled and excused. This chases people away as it should.
Okay, fair enough. I think the fact that he used the parentheses first, along with the context and the rest of his post, makes his views on the intelligence of black people clear, but I understand you disagree.
IMO it logically follows once you accept the notion that factors other than pure reason can influence political ideology.
Because once you accept that, then it’s just a matter of assessing what factors might be in play and how prevalent they might be, in a given instance.
“Some” is a weasel word.
An example of what, exactly?
Then I think we disagree on what qualifies as a rational basis, because I don’t have a problem with that notion.
Cool. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but at least you can now “see” why I disagree with you. I will admit it’s not crystal clear, but generally I think it’s best practice to default to the more favorable interpretation if you are unable or unwilling to ask for clarification. That’s all.
Very well put.
Not when used as I have described.
An example of the insistence that “some” and “all” are synonyms.
Regards,
Shodan
Do I care how you, of all people, have described it? No, I do not care a fig. I care how the person quoted in the OP used it, which was as a weasel word.
's funny, I thought *all *it was, was a plain refusal to be drawn into a pointless side debate with you. In fact, I don’t see any of the words “some”, “all” or “synonyms” in post #53 at all. It’s so short, here, let me quote it in full:
Nope. Maybe I need better glasses.
Funny the extent people go to in order to undermine language. Some isn’t always a weasel word. Sometimes, oh no a weasel, it is evasive and sometimes it is exactly appropriate. You realize when discussing fuzzy sets such as groups of people nuance and adjectives can be very useful.
I don’t see what is weasely or misandrist about a statement such as “some men are dangerous” or “many catholic priests are perverts.” That’s not so-called hate speech. And if it is so-called hate speech it is so broad as to be meaningless.
It’s close to discrimination based on religion.
Too bad we aren’t playing horseshoes or hand grenades.
If that’s the standard then no so called “analogies” are ever relevant. But you know that’s not actually the standard.