This is not to argue to Marley23’s decision, but it is puzzling to me. I had rather be called a bitch or a whore than a racist. I’ve seen how cruel and crude real racists can be. It is the ultimate in arrogance combined with stupidity and stubbornness. I cannot imagine any sense in which it would not be an insult.
I hope in the future that some reconsideration might be given to this.
a/s/l?
It can be used as an insult, but its primary use is as a descriptor.
And suppose, just for the sake of argument and in the proper context, one wishes to describe another poster as a dickfaced cheesebrain…?
And I’d be more insulted if someone called me a conservative than if they called me an asshole, but that still doesn’t make calling someone a conservative off limits.
Only if they actually have a dick on their face and cheese in their skull.
A better example might be “retarded”. That word just means “slowed down”. It’s original use was a formal way to say “not very bright”. But any word that has an objective meaning can become an insult if that meaning has negative connotations.
It’s one reason why coming up with new PC labels for things is doomed to failure. Rename retarded as develepmentally challenged, you just get that turned into the equivalent insult.
"You’re special", from “special needs”.
“You’re challenged.”
So, if a person is espousing views that some races are superior than others, that view is objectively “racist”. So a person espousing those views could objectively be termed a racist. But the connotations that word carries means it will be insulting to some segment of the population, possibly even the one using the word.
A similar example might be pedophile. For an adult that desires or pursues sex with children, that word is accurate. But it can also be thrown out to describe someone who, say, makes a comment about a teenaged celebrity looking cute. Or like the example recently, the accusation if not the word is used to describe the father in a commercial, the one where the parents are trying to decide which kid gets to pick the second show to record on the DVR, and dad makes comments about how pretty their daughter is. In another thread someone decided that is the father having fantasies of killing off his wife and taking his daughter as his new sex partner.
So, sometimes it might be accurate to say someone is a racist, and sometimes that label is just getting thrown out to denigrate the opponent. Sounds like a tough thing to moderate. If you classify it as an insult and bar it, then it hinders actual description of certain views about race. If you don’t classify it as an insult, then people throw it around willy-nilly. If you try to evaluate each circumstance on its own merits, you get accused of being arbitrary or biased.
Can one provide a dictionary definition of “dickfaced cheesebrain”?
Thank you for parsing this as carefully as you did. I’d just add that even if the term does not rise to the level of insult (which I still think is absurd), it is still name-calling, an attack on the poster. And THAT is still disallowed in any forum other than the Pit, as per C K Dexter Haven’s post:
I don’t think anyone has claimed that it can only be used as an insult. Do a quick search of the term as used by tomndebb. You’ll find plenty of instances where the term is used in discussion by him and others appropriately. But in those instances the term is not used to describe another poster in an attempt to denigrate him or discount their views.
That is not the case with the instance in question. How you can attempt to claim that An Gadai was not attacking me—and that is what you’re doing, even if it’s unintentional—is mind boggling.
If An Gadai thinks that you have racist viewpoints, do you think that he should be able to use the word “racist” to describe you? If not, what word would be an acceptable substitute?
I haven’t seen that for 10 years.
No. He can refer to me as magellan01. No ad hominem necessary, directly or as a descriptor. He can then go on to attack those viewpoints I hold—or he thinks I hold—as vigorously as he likes. You do realize it is possible to do this, right?
So tell me, is it your opinion that he was not using name-calling to denigrate the poster: me?
I’d like to add, if this need to describe me as racist is so strong that he can’t control his fingers, he always has the option of going to the pit and letting his freak flag fly. Like I might do when I feel that I need to say more to Der Trihs or another poster I’d like to slap, than is allowed in a particular forum.
It is also possible to not use words like “liberal”, “conservative”, and “Religious” to describe people(all of which certain posters have claimed to be insulting to them.)
I don’t know if his purpose was to denigrate you or to use the term as a descriptor of what he thinks your views are-I just know that you take it as a denigration.
You’re kidding. Based on your logic here, one can use the term “pedophile” to describe a poster and you make room for the defense “Oh, I didn’t mean it as an insult, I was just the word as a descriptor.” Yeesh.
Well, good thing I didn’t ask you what you “know” then. I asked you for your opinion. His words are still there. You can read them. And surely you can form an opinion. So, again: (emphasis added)
I think that he thinks he was using the word to accurately and precisely describe what he thinks is your viewpoint…but I’m just guessing at this point.
Yes. I’m confused. Is there a less loaded term for describing people who believe in the intellectual or physical superiority of one “race” over another? Racialist?
And here is the apparent conflict: One side is using the word as a dictionary-defined descriptor, and the other side is receiving the word as an intentional insult.
Okay. Again, what is your opinion?
Aside from the FACT that that’s not what I believe, you needn’t use either term. You can either use the term and not link it to a poster, or address the beliefs I hold—or you think I hold.
It’s really that simple.
Um…answered in post #75.