If you look at precisely what I was replying to, you can see it was merely a demonstration.
Would you oppose equally incendiary language (“Once again we see that the Republicans hate poor people?”) or would you say that those types of comments, inasmuch as they’re generally accurate, are within the bounds of permissible discourse?
And I’d be curious to know who else endorses this view, especially among the moderators and admins.
This is like the third “gotcha!” post, so I’ll answer it once and then leave y’all to come up with your own hypotheticals.
Your hypothetical doesn’t match your parenthetical.
But let’s make it match: “Once again we see that poor white people who vote Republican have no idea what their best interests are, and when they find they can’t get health insurance any more for their obese selves, I’ll be the first in line to laugh at the grave they dug for themselves.”
Absolutely I’d favor getting rid of that shit.
Now, if folks want to keep throwing out attempts to show that I’m not really interested in treating people compassionately but just want to be part of a partisan mob, I wish you joy and luck in your endeavors; you can go ahead and assume that whatever bias you have is confirmed, and mark a point in your victory column.
That way the thread can move on with discussing the actual issue, not with defending challenges against the interminable hypocrisy-hunt.
Given the mod note about how that’s not ATMB-material, how about you satisfy your curiosity in a different thread in a different forum?
I got it. For what it’s worth.
Surely being polite and well-behaved is showing respect? Even arguing for something that is illegal should be tolerated - how else would we have achieved gay marriage in the UK and drug legalisation in the US? As long, that is, as the poster sticks to arguing and not actually acting.
This is why bigotry is bad. It’s not the bigots that have to pay the price, but rather the generations that follow after that do.
Tangent: There is also a distinction between being respectful and being civil. There is furthermore a line between “Basic respect” and “Being respectful”.
Expecting dopers to respect each other’s positions is ridiculous (and has not been advocated so far): spirited attacks on positions are an integral part of this board. That’s not to say we can’t have a civility bar. We could also in theory institute a respect bar, which I’m arguing could be quite a bit lower and consistent with the proposal in the OP.
As for the substance of the OP, I vacillate on the issue. I wouldn’t have vacillated 6 years ago.
What are your definitions of “reasonable” and “compassionate”? And what if “compassion” right now leads to problems later?
A single instance of a post of the second type can be answered civilly. A string of such by the same poster I’d report as threadshitting. Thus is the matter dealt with under current practices.
Why don’t we let the dictionary people do that job?
Also, taking Ms. Morrison’s quote out of context, read it again. It means exactly the opposite of your interpolation.
You’re gonna have to explain this one.
The quote is from Toni Morrison’s debut work, The Bluest Eye (1970). Wikipedia, emphasis added: [INDENT] The novel is set in 1941 and centers around the life of an African-American girl named Pecola who grows up during the years following the Great Depression in Lorain, Ohio. Due to her mannerisms and dark skin, she is consistently regarded as “ugly”. As a result, she develops an inferiority complex, which fuels her desire for the blue eyes she equates with “whiteness”. The point of view of the novel switches between the perspective of Claudia MacTeer, the daughter of Pecola’s foster parents, and a third-person narrator with inset narratives in the first person.
Due to controversial topics in the book including racism, incest, and child molestation, there have been numerous attempts to ban it from schools and libraries. [/INDENT]
I haven’t read the work and have no idea what don’t mind me is talking about either. I just thought I’d give some background, tacked on to cheap shot putatively in favor of free speech. Any attempt to elaborate upon it though runs into the fact that this is a private message board and the internet is vast.
Post #4 was as polite and well-behaved as can be, no?
As post #8 shows, it wasn’t respectful in the slightest. Which was **CarnalK’s **point.
Similarly, you can reference any of the “Africans are genetically intellectually inferior” GD threads. The OPs, at least, are not crudely-worded or phrased as hostile attacks. Nevertheless, by their very existence, they do not show any respect for either Africans or the scientifically-educated.
Post 8 also shows that the OP is slightly misguided because clearly Jonathan Chance is willing to moderate respect levels. Mocking another poster is a definite no-no. Mocking a race or gender is more a judgement call. (and no, not answering any question that includes any variation of “does that include political affiliation?”)
Albert Camus’ “The Rebel: An Essay on Man in Revolt” shows the truth is a more complex one.
To tell the truth, I can’t. I meant something like, with the understanding that we are taking the quote out of context. And now that I’ve looked closer at the Morrison quote, I don’t know what she’s getting at either. Baldwin, however, is clearer and on point. So I haven’t completely lost it.
And we want to stop it in the centre. We don’t build a future of equality by substituting a new set of victims.