Sorry. I looked for racist rather than racism.
And I think I see Jonathan’s point: the people insulted were not insulted on the basis of race, although I guess “racism” has lost much of its definition in recent years and now means “insulting to any group.”
However, groups have always been targets of vitriol on the SDMB. So far, no one has made a cogent argument that has persuaded the majority of the TM to change that rule.
You are welcome to begin a petition to make that change.
Tom, that’s unworthy. Nobody says it’s racist when someone insults gamers, or women, or Republicans, or microwave repair workers, or Christians as a group. But when someone refers to a geographically located and culturally distinct group of people of color as primitive savages and is called “racist,” that’s hardly an example in which “‘racism’ has lost much of its definition.” Surely you’re aware of both points?
What does that even mean?
On the contrary. The comment was made in regard to a conflict that is dominated by religious groups, specifically groups associated with a religion that has been characterized by multiple people on this board as uncivilized and barbaric.
You are the one who has now brought “people of color” into the discussion. There are probably people who regard Iraqis as “people of color” or, at least “not white,” but there is no standard view that they are not white and they are certainly not part of some other “race,” as they have always been regarded as Caucasian.
This is an example of the word “racism” losing its definition. It now means a lot of things that have nothing to do with race. I am not going to strive to keep the old definition in place, but it is disingenuous to act as though the definition has not been broadened.
As to the suggested petition. It was clear enough. In the context of posters arguing that the rules be tightened to make any uncomplimentary reference to an ethnic, religious, or social group a violation for which one may be Warned, one may certainly open a thread to petition for that rule change.
It has always been acceptable on this forum to display a level of scorn towards some groups that would never be deemed acceptable for some others. You can write stuff about Arabs that would have all the board, moderators included, in arms, if they were told about American Blacks, for instance. Nothing new.
Uh, tom? The comment in question was in response to a story about a bunch of infants being blown up. While callousness towards religious fundamentalism is, certainly, different from racism, casually assuming that someone will become a religious fundamentalist based entirely in where they were born and who their parents are sure sounds a heckuva lot like racism to me.
As a member of the group ‘people of color’, I would like to petition that the only acceptable, non-discriminatory descriptor for those people (“persons”) born on this continent before the year 1492 (and their descendants ;)) be the term “[del]redmen[/del]”, er “[del]noble savages[/del]”, um “[del]indians[/del]”. Damn. I’ll have to get back to you.
It should be noted that the same poster who raged against the Iraqi “savages” decided to give his own fervent hope on what would happen in Syria on another thread.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17720433&postcount=71
What makes you assume that his comments were directed at “Muslims” as opposed to Arabs?
Were the Iraqi pilots Islamic radicals or the children who were blown up Islamic radicals.
Beyond that, even if one assumes that he has no problems with Arabs only Muslims, “Jews” are also a religious group and people claiming Jews have a tendency to engage in terrorism have been banned for “hate speech”.
For the love of Pete, are you really insinuating that I’m the one who brought up race here? Is that where you’re going to take this?
I’m sure if you think about it some, you can think of how the word “sand” is sometimes followed by a racial epithet. While of course there are some people who regard Iraqis as white, American racists of the past few decades have decidedly not done so.
Tom, you’re in no position to accuse me of disingenuity. There’s a difference between “losing” a definition and broadening a definition–or even, as has happened here, using the same definition but broadening its application as folks pay attention to racism in a broader set of circumstances.
Arabs and S Asians are not white, except when its a convenient shield to hide behind. Like when defending allegations of racism.
“Sure sirs, them… wogs err sorry people are’nt coloured, I saw some with blond hair and blue eyes me self. White as KKK sheets”
MODERATOR SPEAKETH:
Can we all take a deep breath or two for a moment?
First, the general tone of this thread is moving towards the very impolite. Can we please dial back the rhetoric and finger-pointing and accusations, and stick to the issue at hand (whatever it is)?
Second, I believe the initial complaint has been asked and answered: when one poster accuses another poster of racism, instead of REPORTING the supposed offense, the mod is right to slap BOTH posters involved. The proper response is to report the post, rather than to respond with personal insult. The definition of what makes a statement racist may be fuzzy, but the definition of personal insult is much less so.
Third, the mods considered “primitive band of savages” in this situation to be NOT a racist statement, however one defines racism. A stupid statement, no doubt, but there’s a fuzzy line somewhere. And please remember that our rules recognize that statements about groups of people may be less polite in discussions about war, for one example.
Finally, the definition of racism, or the changing definition, seems to me that requires a different thread. I think there are people who would like to have input and discuss that topic, who have given up reading this thread (I was one of those.)
IF the Iraqi pilots were deliberately targeting the hospital, then I think the term “primitive savages” is apt. And this is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, we’ve seen Sunnis do such to Shi’a populations, for one example, and vice versa.
In terms of your comparison of Muslims to Jews: there is no question that the lines can be fuzzy when it comes to persecuted minorities. Thus, things can be said about whites that could not be said about blacks, about men that could not be said about women, and about Christians/Muslims that could not be said about Jews. Having made that statement, however, I have to add:
(1) I believe that the mods here try to be unbiased and even-handed about all such racist remarks, IF they’re reported.
(2) Whether a statement is a rules violation here depends on context. An accusation that Catholics are “primitive savages” may be acceptable when applied to, say, the Spanish Inquisition* but not when applied to a question about belief in the Trinity. A phrase alone doth not (necessarily) racism make. Again, in the situation of war, calling both sides “primitive savages” for fighting at all is not necessarily racist.
Wait–am I reading you right, that accusing someone of making a racist argument is considered a personal insult? Please tell me I’m misreading you.
No, no, no, I’m sorry if I implied that. Clearly, accusing someone of making a racist statement is usually NOT (of itsefl) a rules violation, neither is accusing someone of making a stupid statement. Those are different from saying a poster is themselves stupid, or racist, which normally would be insults.
Mind you, whenever speaking in general, there are certainly exceptions based on context. And forum. And specific word choice.
My point was supposed to be that when one poster says something snarky/insulting that you think is a rules violation, DO NOT respond in kind, DO NOT “junior mod,” but report the post. When the teacher comes out to the playground and finds two kids fighting, “who started it” is less important than stopping both of them.
BTW, on re-thinking: Ibn Warraq, I am dubious about your accusation that
Can you give me an example? I can believe that someone who engaged in other hate speech might also have said Jews are terrorists, but I’m taken aback at the notion that that one statement would have resulted in a banning. Do you have an example? And, please, send it to me in PM so we don’t get this thread any further afield than it already is.
Racism is involved in statements about “all X’s” or “almost all X’s” – a qualified statement that “some X’s” is usually not racist. Hence, “some blacks are stupid” is not per se racist.
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
Would you mind keeping the racist claptrap in the pit where people can properly respond to it.
[/QUOTE]
I was willing to let it slide that that remark was a bit direct and worth a moderator note to keep from derailing a thread, but I really don’t see that as rising to the level of an insult, especially as it has been interpreted on this board.
He addressed the post, not the poster. He called the post “racist claptrap”. He did not call the poster a racist.
Frankly, I’m having a hard time seeing any rules violation, unless calling out racist remarks is a rules violation.
As for “one band of primitive savages attacking another”, I’m hard pressed to find the gray area the moderators are arguing exists. Trying to say it refers to two different religious groups engaged in a brutal war rather than an expression about their racial status? I suppose I could think of an example where two contending political groups who were mutually engaged in horrific deeds such as chemical weapons versus suicide bombers or something. I don’t think that is the situation here, was it?
I suppose there is just a think margin where DingoelGringo was attempting to exemplify and caricature the attitude he perceived for why the story was being ignored, except it read more like a straightforward presentation of that position.
“Both of you calm the heck down” seems a bit weak, and vague. It characterizes the exchange as a trading of personal barbs or personal animosity rather than two incidents that need separate attention.
Call out DingoelGringo directly for his remarks, then call out Ibn Warraq for what makes his reply inappropriate. Don’t lump them as if they are the same thing.
And again, I still don’t see a rules violation from Ibn Warraq.
Yes, that’s what happened.
Since you’re asking me a public question, I’d like to be able to respond in public even though you’re asking me to put this in a PM.
I also don’t think that this would be taking thing “far afield” since the whole point of the OP was that she believes the board’s mods are treating racist attacks on Muslim Middle Easterners differently than they’re treating other groups.
I won’t now link to the incident, because doing so would be disrespectful after you asked me to reply in a PM as well as presumably violating mod instructions but I’d like your permission to link to it with an explanation.
Now, if you don’t want me to do this publicly and rather respond privately to you with a PM I will, but in that case I would say it would have been preferable for you to initially send the request to me via PM rather than on a post in this thread.
One last question if you don’t mind.
If someone on one of our rather tiresome Gaza threads declared “Never underestimate the savagery of the Palestinians or their willingness to engage in terrorism” would you have given them a warning for hate speech and then an instaban?
I do not know whether or not Jonathan Chance considered that statement a rules violation. However, he addressed it with a Mod Note and both of us have used Mod Notes simply to tell posters to ratchet back the vitriol before a rules violation occurs.
Ok, I’m confused. I thought it had already been established that I was not guilty of “junior modding” with several people citing your own explanation of the rules.
Are you now reversing course and saying requesting a poster “take this to the pit” is now to be considered “junior modding”.
I’m also a bit confused as to why you’re saying I should have reported it since the mods seem to be saying that Dingo violated no rules and wasn’t engaging in racism when he said we shouldn’t care about a bombing that killed a number of children because the people of that region are backward savages he was merely being “stupid” and we’re an American board which believes that people have the right to express stupid opinions.
If you honestly think he broke no rules and wasn’t engaging in racism then why do you think I should have reported it?
Indeed. I issued the note to - hopefully - prevent actual rules violations when I saw a thread begin to get overheated. It’s an attempt to head off trouble down the line rather than to evoke any actual disciplinary action at the time. Had that happened, I would have issued warnings and moved on. It wasn’t needed there, but - in my opinion - a simple heads up was.