I believe there’s more to the discomfort around racism on the Dope then allowing discussion of certain topics. I think it would be helpful if it were further discussed to allow modification to the social norms here as appropriate.
Ok, so what does the subject of ridicule being a conservative have anything to do with misogyny? I mean, this is a thread about misogyny right or am I mistaken and this is just a poor me the conservative thread? I’m confused.
To address your post though I certainly don’t think hypocrisy is a conservative trait in general. Is that even a trope? Hypocrisy has always been something that bothers me and I certainly wish it could be easily confined to one particular political subgroup but I just don’t see it.
May I submit that you don’t have clue one on what people do and don’t consider disparaging, then? “Subsaharan Africans are, on average, retarded” *is *disparaging to Subsaharan Africans.
Why not just make that a topic ban, then? It’ll certainly save us from more idiotic “how close *can *I get to the line, then?” ATMB threads.
Even though many racist jerks use IQ data to justify mistreating people of different races, it is not neccesarily racist to believe the Bell Curve data are valid. As long as one maintains a commitment to treat all human beings with dignity and respect, and not prejudge people on the basis of their skin color, it’s possible to interpret the scientific data in a way you don’t agree with or like. My brother has a lower IQ than I do, but I would never mistreat him.
What definition of “racist” allows you to say that it’s not racist to believe that black people are intellectually inferior to white people?
It’s possible to make the argument that racist views are the correct views, but it’s bizarre to argue that such a belief isn’t racist.
I believe the argument goes like this:
- It is not racist to speak the truth.
- I believe that what I am saying is the truth.
- Therefore, I cannot be a racist.
In my view, racism equals prejudice. Not judging people on their individual merits, but discriminating against them simply because they are members of another group. It’s possible to acknowledge average differences in group IQ while maintaining a commitment to avoid prejudging people.
Data isn’t racist or sexist. Data is data. It’s what you do on the basis of that data that could be right or wrong.
Men, as a group, are massively more violent than women. I can provide you with a mountain of evidence confirming that fact. Is it sexist to acknowledge that fact? It would be sexist if you were an employer who refused to hire anyone with a Y chromosome, but it would not be sexist merely to discuss crime data on a message board.
Focus, people.
There’s no need to focus. The subject of the OP has been fully discussed, there’s nothing left to say.
Whuh?
Fair.
Moderator Note
The topic of racism was brought into this discussion as a comparison for how threads are moderated. Feel free to continue that aspect of the discussion, but let’s not completely hijack this thread with a discussion of how racism is moderated. If you want to discuss how racism is moderated in more detail, feel free to start a new thread. In this thread, please keep everything relevant to the thread topic.
Discussions about racism in general are also not a topic for ATMB. If you want to discuss the more general topic of racism, please feel free to do so in a more appropriate forum.
Don’t junior mod.
And of course that’s what all racists believe whether it’s claiming blacks are stupid, Jews control the media, or Mexicans are rapists. They think they’re telling the truth that others are terrified to admit to.
This seems to me the real reason behind the bright line demands and possibly a reason for the persistent misogyny (and maybe the racism) on the STMB. Those who view modding as a bid to control others based on caprice are going to resent every effort to make the Dope misogyny-free. The establishment of bright line policies would only result in endless arguments about why a particular phrase has been deemed misogynist.
The only power and control issues at play here are the ones the misogynists use. They insist that it’s their gods given right to call people anything they please and express themselves exactly as they like without fear of reprisal or censure because they view themselves as the pinnacle of humanity, the very arbiter of what’s right and acceptable and only what they themselves find objectionable is what the entire world must agree is Very Bad. The concept that they actually exist in a diverse culture with many types and levels of acceptable speech and behavior is anathema–it’s supposed to be a white man’s world and any hint that is no longer the case is grounds for frantic thrashing and hysterical spittle flecked panic. Too bad, so sad, deal with it.
We’ve had this conversation before SmartAleq, but I still have problems wrapping my mind around it. I get white male conservative aversion to avoiding phrases like “Little Lady” or a weird insistence on calling a fire fighter a fireman.
But here we’re discussing the absolute right of white male conservatives to perv out. Before and after the 1970s there was this concept of “Mixed company” where males were expected to avoid locker-room talk. Now I’ll admit that there might have been a thin span of time during the era of shag carpets and bell bottoms where the genders were encouraged to just let it all hang out. I do your thing, you do my thing. Maybe a few liberals believed that for a couple of years.
But today? Or in 2008? Or 1998? Or 1988, 1958, 1948, 1938…? You insist on perving out? That’s the hill you want to die on?
Look, I’m a clueless SWM. There’s lots of wacko stuff that women routinely deal with that flies under my radar. So here’s a question for female dopers: outside of this message board how often do you encounter hot headed and butthurt defensiveness regarding the SWM alleged right to perv out? Because it strikes me as bizarre. Sure, lots of males like myself will make inappropriate remarks from time to time. But normal males don’t consider overtly sexualized remarks to be a form of expression properly free of social sanction. They understand that there’s a time and place for crude remarks. It’s not a social right.
The answer to that question would place the OP’s position within a broader context.
Yes, that seems clear. I’ve asked several times and been told:
- How terribly obvious it is to anyone with a brain, but
- We cannot give a definition, because it would be too complicated.
I’m done with the topic, yet you are absolutely correct.
I’ve been staying out of this thread, but I feel compelled to comment on this. Perhaps you should consider the implications of the fact that, though you two seem to agree on this, almost no one else does. It’s not just the mods, it’s the vast majority of us regular posters, too. I have no problem with how misogyny is moderated, and I speak as someone who has occasionally (most notably in the Chris Hardwick discussion) taken the male side of a controversy, suggesting for instance in that particular case that Hardwick was likely the victim of a vindictive ex-partner, and also suggesting that in some ways #MeToo is becoming an overly broad self-serving bureaucracy introducing its own share of unfairness.
I’ve had people quite strongly disagree with me on that, but I’ve never been moderated for misogyny on this kind of position, because it isn’t misogyny, and I’ve always been among the strongest supporters of women’s rights. I might be wrong here but it’s frankly hard to shake the notion that those demanding a simple bright-line rule are those most interested in asserting misogynistic ideologies and looking for help in how they can be framed in an acceptable manner.
Yet, in some utterly mysterious fashion, you have avoided ever having been warned on the subject (like the vast majority of posters). You evidently don’t need a precise definition to avoid running afoul of the rules.