**tomndebb **issued a warning to **DigitalC **in the If the Republicans do end up nominating someone else… thread for asserting that “Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia”, characterizing it as “ludicrous, partisan nonsense”. Bear in mind, this is in the Elections forum, where partisan comments are not exactly unheard of, and ludicrous is a subjective judgement, depending on whose ox is being gored.
The point is, his comment was within the guidelines for that forum; his comment was directed at conservatism not conservatives, so he was not insulting a poster, he was insulting the philosophy.
And checking, no warning was issued. I think Tom would have been more explicit had he pushed that button.
That said, it’s one of those grey lines. I was tempted to note it myself. We have, in the past, had posters attempting to demonize the opposition in Great Debates and Elections by presented their opponents beliefs as some sort of horrible never-get-overs. It’s a cheap tactic and one that precludes further debate as well as possibly punching the ‘hate speech’ button.
Examples:
“Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia.”
“Being Jewish IS greed, cowardice and hook-nosed.”
Both use the same presentation and both are demonstrably wrong on the face of it. The difference is that the reader may agree with one and not the other and consider it acceptable because of that.
But really, it’s the need to demonize one’s debate opposition that should cause some inner reflection.
Fun Fact: The infraction button I mentioned up there? It’s a red/yellow card. I don’t think non-mods can see it but I figure someone at VB is a soccer fan.
Being Jewish represents a cultural and religious identity, indistinguishable from the person, and a protected class as well. Conservatism is a political ideology which may be held by any race or religion, and is not a protected class. That is the difference. Moderating criticism or characterization of conservatism (or liberalism) will have chilling effect on speech for all political topics.
Well, I hope it has a rationalizing effect on discussion and debate.
Are you seriously arguing for the right to treat your debate opponents in an insulting and dismissive manner here? Because that won’t get you very far if you are.
As for the ‘protected class’ thing? Last I heard we’re not a branch of the federal government - if we are I want my pension - and such doesn’t apply. You might as well argue that we violate someone’s first amendment rights are being violated when they are banned.
In short, learn to debate and discuss, not accuse. Great Debates and Elections are about the discussion. Things that cut away from that mission are looked at unsympathetically.
I was almost ready to agree with you, Fear, but if you go back and read DigitalC’s post, it’s pretty clear he is directing his comments at the people and the idea, not just the idea:
I think JC’s analogy would have been better worded as:
Then why wasn’t **adaher **moderated for calling anyone who votes for Trump a “low information voter that has never been on board with conservatism”? **DigitalC **responded, “This IS the base.” All he did was expand adaher’s characterization from Trump voters to the whole Republican base. If **DigitalC **is guilty, then so is adaher. DigitalC’s following comment, “Conservatism IS racism, misogynism and xenophobia” is within the rules.
Those two phrases aren’t even remotely close to each other. If you can’t see that, I don’t know what to say. Do you actually think adaher knows every Trump voter?
The conundrum here is that it was clearly insulting to conservatives, and yet it was a substantive point which was relevant to the discussion. It’s not like he was just tossing off an insult.
I’m not the guy making the rules here, but my inclination is to allow substantive points to be made, even if insulting.
Thank you. It’s definitely an uphill battle around voice opinions counter to the accepted group-think party line, and allowing that sort of demonization and the usual attendant poisoning of the well makes it even tougher. Hell, a lot of the time you can’t even have a politically neutral discussion without someone on the left side of the line coming in and blaming the Republicans/Conservatives for everything, even when the question at hand is more structural than anything else.
To weigh in on the debate; the issue for me comes in with the blanket nature of the statement which tars and feathers conservatism as a philosophy, and by extension anyone who espouses it as being composed primarily of those negative attributes. Which isn’t fair at all- a more accurate way to say it would have been something like “A lot of conservatives are racist, misogynist and xenophobic”, which is hard to argue about, but it doesn’t necessarily tar the philosopy or everyone who believes in it as that way. There are a whole lot of non-racist, non-misogynistic and non-xenophobic conservatives out there, believe it or not.
Terrible, unrelated example.
Seriously, even I see a BIG difference in those two examples.
It’s as if the mods try too hard to co-sign another mods mistakes.
ETA.
He expressed an opinion in a poll thread. That’s exactly what the thread called for.
If I called Republicans “cry-baby misguided children” with respect to that issue, I would have been modded too?
This is, as others have noted, a very weak analogy. Conservatism is a set of beliefs; attempting to identify some of those beliefs is a wholly appropriate activity, even if the person fails to identify them correctly. Judaism is an ethnicity/religion/cultural identity; identifying biological traits and character traits attached to the ethnicity/religion/cultural identity is a nonsensical activity.
If you want to analogize it to a religion, how about this:
That said, I’m pretty uncomfortable with the sort of broad-brush attacks that DigitalC engaged in. I’m a fan of weasel words in such cases, because weasel words reflect the weaselly reality we occupy. His statement should have read something like this, IMO:
“Conservatism in the United States is far too accommodating of racists, misogynists, and xenophobes, and has been for a long time. While there are principled conservatives who lack these traits, their alliance with bigots implicates them as well.”
It doesn’t make sense to say he should have put it differently if that would involve him making a completely different point than the one he was trying to make.
His point was that there was too much overlap between the Trump supporters and ordinary conservatives for them to be separated out politically, which was directly relevant to the post he was responding to. What you’re saying is that he could have successfully impugned conservatives in a milder manner, but without making the point he was trying to make. Nothing in that.
You think there is an Angstrom of difference between these two groups: