I’ll let the moderators answer that, but now we’re closer to the point of accurately representing what adaher posted.
It doesn’t even make a difference. If they allow it, then **DigitalC **is not subject to moderation; if they don’t, then **adaher **is subject to moderation. </ackbar>
I think this is the key point for two reasons.
- It accurately identifies that DigitalC insulted the political philosophy of conservatism. One may take issue with his characterization, but arguing about political philosophies is fair game. If anyone - including tomndeb - thinks DigitalC’s assertion about conservatism is incorrect, then they should step up and prove it.
After all, that’s the same argument that the mods make for allowing racist assertions, isn’t it.
2. There is in fact an awful lot of data points in support for DigitalC’s assertion that conservatism is a philosophy of xenophobia and racism.
Here’s a link to a recent Salon article about a Reuters study that found that Trump’s supporters in particular
I’m providing this link because it aggregates several other links and summarizes them thusly:
And here are links to the research -
[ul]
[li]Reuter’s poll with pretty graphs:[/li]
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-race-idUSKCN0ZE2SW[/ul]
[ul]
[li]Tom Jacobs - [/li]Obama’s Unwanted Legacy: The Renewed Influence of ‘Old-Fashioned Racism’
https://psmag.com/obama-s-unwanted-legacy-the-renewed-influence-of-old-fashioned-racism-6b036b5dd7c7#.pjuuonwgn [/ul]
[ul]
[li]Wesley Lowery, Washington Post[/li]Does small-government conservative ideology have racist roots? Academics offer a history lesson.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/29/does-small-government-conservative-ideology-have-racist-roots-academics-offer-a-history-lesson/[/ul]
[ul]
[li]Paul Rosenberg, Salon[/li]**It’s racism, not “principled conservatism”: The South, civil rights, GOP myths — and the roots of Ferguson **
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/21/theyre_racists_not_principled_conservatives_the_south_civil_rights_gop_myths_and_the_roots_of_ferguson/[/ul]
[ul]
[li]Eric Knowles et al[/li]Race, Ideology, and the Tea Party: A Longitudinal Study
[/ul]
The reason I’m saying this is because I think it’s important to show that DigitalC’s assertion that conservatism is racism is an arguable position - not simply partisan insults.
I don’t want to actually argue about any of that research at this time. I’m aware that some may not find it persuasive. That’s good! That means it’s a viable topic for discussion on this, a message board.
Calling conservatism a racist philosophy is not a mindless insult. It may be uncomfortable for conservatives to hear - but the onus is on them to explain why the research is wrong and to defend their positions.
Just like the every other subject we discuss on this message board.
Ding DigitalC for not supporting his position if you want. Ding him for making a crappy, low-effort argument. But it’s inappropriate to try and restrict a discussion of the merits of a political philosophy from the political forum.
I’ve been supportive of DigitalC here on other grounds, but IMO your post misses the point entirely. DigitalC’s entire point was that there’s no meaningful difference between Trump supporters and other Republicans. So your posting data about “Trump supporters in particular” from an article about how “trump_backers_are_the_most_bigoted_within_the_gop” is off target in terms of supporting his point.
No. Because adaher was talking about (the few) Trump supporters he knows, not all Trump supporters. You honestly can’t see the difference between talking about specific people you know and talking about millions of people you don’t know?
I’m not going to defend or debate any of the links I offered in this thread. My only point in offering them is that they are debatable. There’s a real conversation to be had about conservatism and racism/xenophobia.
We should be able to have this conversation about the political philosophy of conservatism in the political forum - even, as you correctly noted, if someone finds it insulting.
The difference doesn’t apply here.
Adaher was making a factual statement about the few Trump supporters he knows, but the premise of his post was that you could extrapolate from these to
Trump supporters generally.
As one of those who reported that post, I can tell you that I took exception to the comment. The Election forum is not the Pit.
Compare ‘Conservatism is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’ with ‘Islam is racism, misogyny, and xenophobia’. (I’ve corrected the language.) A comment very much like the latter deservedly got a warning in another thread and I’m disappointed that DigitalC didn’t get an official warning.
The response to this identical to Fear Itself’s response in Post 5 to Jonathon Chance’s Jewish example:
“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.”
Whether people and/or the idea, if that isn’t trolling then I don’t know what is…which could very well be the case.
Is trolling allowed in Elections?
Like the “Jewish” example, Islam is a cultural and religious identity, indistinguishable from the person. Conservatism is a political ideology which may be held by any race or religion. Attacking conservatism is specifically allowed by the “attack the post, not the poster” rules for the Election forum.
The difference I see is summed up in the difference between:
Conservatives have worked hard to earn their reputation of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia.
and
Jews have worked hard to earn their reputation as greedy secret rulers of the banking system.
The former is a perfectly rational assessment of the modern political climate; the latter is imaginary conspiracy theory. That doesn’t meant the rational assessment is a fact: it remains an opinion. A harsh opinion, but one that can be defended by non-bigots and can’t be dismissed as “ludicrous, partisan nonsense” unless you admit that equal “ludicrous, partisan nonsense” appears in ever thread in Elections and is never moderated.
Tom, you were plain wrong and went way overboard in your note.
I see no difference between the two. “All the ________ I know are ________.” are just weasel words to imply that “All _____ are ______.” Just like when Trumps says, “Mexico is sending rapists, drug dealers and murderers. And some, I assume, are good people.” Are we really suppose to give him a pass because he added that disclaimer? “All the ________ I know are ______.” is bigotry, plain and simple.
What I think people want is a fixed set of things that they can know are wrong, and not feel like everything is at the whim of the mods and how they are feeling that day. I mean, tom’s post is more hostile than the post he was moderating.
There is no set of rules that one can follow that will guarantee no moderation against them in GD. You guys say you don’t want to hand out Warnings, but you never actually sit down and give rules so we know how to color within the lines.
We actually just had a moderation instruction to keep the partisan stuff out of Elections. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? No guideline on what the problem actually is. Just that it’s “ludicrous”–despite being a common belief–and that it’s “partisan”–when nearly every post in Elections is partisan to some extent. There’s a reason why there are posts you can make in Elections you can’t make in GQ.
This thread is full of people after the fact trying to figure out what in the world was wrong with that post. That should never be the case!
I think posters want consistent and clear instructions on how to act. They’d probably prefer polite but firm, as well.
Remember, you wouldn’t moderate “Clintonistas” and “Bernie Bros.” Yet they caused more people to get upset than this one thing that got no response at all.
I deny that cultural and religious identity is indistinguishable from the person.
I have to disagree with you, John, I think Fear Itself has a point. You can micro-analyze the words and claim that the sentences are saying different things, but in this sort of context they’re really not. One is a broad generality but the other is just a more tangible, supportable statement that implies exactly the same generality. Saying “all Trump supporters are bigots” isn’t factually supportable, but saying “I’ve done random sampling and every Trump supporter I’ve talked to is a bigot” is ostensibly a statement of fact. Yet the basic message of the two is essentially the same.
I agreed with your previous point that **adaher **'s wording and DigitalC’s wording are effectively the same, but that’s not the issue here. As you just said, “All he did was expand adaher’s characterization from Trump voters to the whole Republican base.” The issue that seems to have attracted moderator attention is precisely the fact that a very large group has been characterized in rather extreme terms. For instance we know that at least a subset of Trump supporters fit the above description, because white supremacists support him. Extending such a description to the entire Republican base might be considered hyperbolic and unreasonable. Whether this deserves a mod note or warning I leave to wiser heads than mine.
In my view there’s a significant difference between a religion and a political ideology. Religion is often just an accident of culture, ethnicity, or nationality, and like those latter attributes, one can’t necessarily associate them with what every member of the group believes. Furthermore, those are the groups that have been historically associated with just such broad-brush characterizations, and we call that bigotry. Hence particular caution is called for in avoiding them. Whereas a political ideology attracts adherents precisely because of a shared set of values and beliefs. There’s nothing bigoted about a good-faith effort to try to define what one thinks those common values and beliefs are. A statement like “all Muslims are …” is already off to a bad start. But a statement like “all conservatives are…” might be quite accurate – all conservatives are at least conservative, if nothing else!
Moderation of “partisan stuff” in the Elections forum is silly. That is what it was designed for.
That went well beyond partisan.
But it was not directed at any person. That is the bright line in the rules. His comment was directed at the ideology, not the person. It should not be subject to moderation.
It’s not that bright, really.
We’ve had posters in the past that have attempted to take shots at people with almost exactly those words. “All X are Y! Oh, you’re Y? Heavens!”
No part of that promotes debate. It’s simply an attack on people with a certain set of values that posters know are participating. We moderate it - at our discretion - based on when we believe it goes too far into the pejorative. Certainly if there’s no back up to the accusation it’s going to look like an attempt to let emotion trump reason.
“All X are Y and here’s my evidence for such.” is better than “All X are Y.” The first is an attempt at debate and discussion. The second is just hurtful opinion. And we value reason and debate here, not attempts at harming others through line seeking.
I have no interest in getting pulled into a series of hypotheticals in an attempt to establish safe harbors for insults. If you’d like to remain inside a safe harbor I’d encourage you to avoid insulting others in any way. Honestly, what’s to be gained? You don’t promote either the debate or your own side of it.