I can certainly appreciate the spirit of your post.
Hypocrisy is a topic that seems to come into my mind very often when reading this board - especially when reading what some of the moderators have to say.
I recall just a week ago how two of them just outright called me a liar when I was not lying one little bit.
They seemed to base this opinion on the fact that I would not rise to their challenge to provide them with some information about someone when most anyone would or should realize that before someone can make known some private info, they really need to first of all get permission.
To top it off one of the mods came right out and said that when I provided them with this info, they would definitely publish in a public forum. Then they used the fact that I would not give them that info to be “proof” that I was lying.
So, I am well acquainted with the topic of “hypocrisy” and you have my complete empathy on that subject.
I did not want to say any of this at the time because tempers seemed to be running hot and I didn’t want to raise the temperature any further at that time.
I’m just sorry that I am not well enough acquainted with the discussion of racism to provide you with any good ammunition in this thread. But I just don’t know enough about it.
Why are you assuming that was meant to be an exhaustive list? I linked to those threads because someone asked for an example of what I was talking about. I didn’t know I was supposed to be prosecuting a case beyond a reasonable doubt. All I was trying to do is provide context for my annoyance. I don’t think it’s fair to make it seem like those are the only times this type of stuff has happened, then further assume that it’s not a “big problem” because of that.
Obviously not. The Economist is not (generally) racist. Great research detective. That said, the article and research reported on in The Economist makes several unsubstantiated claims that are utilized by racists to justify their beliefs. That alone makes the SDMB’s virtual connection to the research problematic in my mind. But if you want to hang your hat on the fact that The Economist is not racist, so be it.
Either way, as I am sure you know, on the SDMB, any nit that can be picked will, and that, of course, invalidates everything else I have said.
Because tomndebb thinks they have merit. Marley may, too. It’s especially odd seeing as Chief Pedant’s position is irrelevant to his current thread, and he admits he knows it is inflammatory. But someone can always justify it.
What was most upsetting was telling Ibq that he couldn’t post responses to what appeared to be baiting, but Chief Pedant was allowed to continue making those remarks. Surely both should have been against the rules. Especially, as again, the topic of whether race-based differences are inherent was completely irrelevant to the point made in the OP that the Supreme Court should stop beating about the bush and just accept racial quotas based on current demographics.
Note, I haven’t been back to the thread since I asked my question.
I’m getting tired of this, Lazlo Hapsburg. This is the third or fourth time you have brought up this issue in a thread where it had no relevance at all. And I believe you have said in each of those threads that you weren’t going to talk about it anymore, but you keep doing so. It’s time for you to make good on your promise and drop it permanently.
And now I have, and his explanation made absolutely no sense, just a short meaningless rationalization followed by a bunch of other crap that had nothing to do with the question. I do not see how reasonable people can interpret it as not intentionally trying to piss people off about something you know they will react to.
Look, you claimed that “When you Google some of the racist terms used in these OPs, the Straight Dope is often on the first page of results” Because “The reason why the SDMB is often on the google search page is because the thread topics are quoting racist literature” and gave as a example that article in The Economist. Which is not a racist source, nor is the paper quoted there racist literature.
So, no this does not “invalidate everything else you have said”. But it does invalidate one part of your OP. Look, you’re getting some support here, so name calling ,snarky remarks and a refusal to back off from even a minor point aren’t going to help you at all.
There’s merit in allowing the claims to be aired and debunked, and there is merit in allowing as many topics to be discussed as possible within reason. The ideas themselves don’t have any merit. Your post didn’t make that distinction.
[QUOTE=DrDeth]
So, no this does not “invalidate everything else you have said”. But it does invalidate one part of your OP. Look, you’re getting some support here, so name calling ,snarky remarks and a refusal to back off from even a minor point aren’t going to help you at all.
[/QUOTE]
I guess we can agree to disagree on that. So long as you recognize this is a minor point not worth focusing on, I am more than willing to drop it.
So you are fine with me starting weekly threads about Holocaust revisionism in the GD? What about a weekly thread about how the moderators are are gamblers and masturbaters? Is that allowed?
You’re back to overstating claims about how many of these threads there are, and if you have to overstate them, it suggests your argument is not strong enough on its own. We’ve had discussions about the Holocaust and Holocaust revisionism. It goes without saying that the posters usually don’t last long because of overt anti-Semitism, but we’ve had thorough discussions of the subject. If you start one every week, you’ll start getting warnings for being a one-trick pony pretty soon.
I don’t know what Caesar’s Palace told you, but there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for what I was doing with that slot machine.
Hey, at least that’s an improvement over the last time this was brought up, in which the characterization of ‘the usual suspects’ was “people who’s user names start with ‘Ch’!” I’m glad to no longer be lumped in with them. It’s unfair discrimination and bigotry against those two letters in our ‘user names’, I tell ya!
Yeah, discrimination sometimes exceeds its scope. I live with it. The OP should learn that skill. It’ll result in lower blood pressure, and less risk of heart attack.
It has nothing to do with my argument. I was asking a question. Yes, I don’t see transparently racist threads on a weekly basis. But, I don’t see how that matters given that their frequency, and the small group of people who are almost always involved, has not escaped the notice of several other people. What you seem to be saying is that so long as you don’t do something completely unacceptable very often, then you have no problem with it. That makes no sense to me given that none of the other rules seem to function in a similar manner.
It hasn’t escaped the notice of the mods either. New Deal Democrat was banned a while ago for ignoring mod instructions (about posts and hijacks related to these topics), and most of the posters who start these threads have been warned about injecting them into unrelated threads or similar issues.
I’m saying if they are not breaking the rules, then they’re not going to get warned for rules violations. Their positions on these topics are not against the rules.
