I am saying it should be against the rules, or you should allow people to respond in a manner befitting their arguments.
I cannot open another thread because I am prohibited from discussing these matters in public.
I would show you proof of that. But I am prohibited from showing you the contents of private messages.
As for calling you a liar, here is exactly what I said,
"“Wow! I’m really shocked you would make a post that is so blatantly untrue.”
That is not the same as calling you a liar. You could easily have been mistaken since you were not there and do know know the facts.
There are many other reasons why someone could post something that was not true without them being a liar.
Aside from mistake, there is also misunderstanding (it may have been possible that you did not understand something), misinformation (someone may have informed you of something incorrectly).
In any event, I would never give you the name of the party who was banned for several reasons. Not the least of which was that some mod said they would publish the name.
I would never give you the name without first getting permission form that permission. Did you never stop to think that it would be improper for someone to give out info without having permission from whoever was involved?
Even if such permission was forthcoming, it would almost certainly not include some mod from posting and making public.
Don’t you see how offensive it can be to be told that you want to know the name and on the same day saying that if I told you the name, it would be posted publicly.
I’m sorry I can’t remember exactly which of the mods said it would be made publicly. I’m hoping you will so I don’t have to take a lot of time to look back at the history and show it to you in what will likely be a lost cause anyway.
I just wanted to let you know, this was no fantasy and it is profoundly unfair for you to tell me to open another thread when Marley has specifically prohibited me in a PM from ever discussing this matter pubilcy again.
The above post was made in error.
I would ask any mod to please delete it.
Say what?!?
Nothing about the supposed banned name being made public, just that it would be shared amongst the staff.
I don’t know about your specific case, but this is generally false. While it may be uncouth to reveal what was intended to be a private message, I believe it isn’t against the rules per se.
But when you show up and start acting like an idiot, and they speculate that you might be an idiot on that basis, and you then proceed to prove that you are, in fact an idiot, by the questions you are 'just asking, so they conclude that you really are one, are they wrong, or just oversensitive to idiocy? I can’t understand this, so I’m ‘just asking questions’, here, OK?
I see you may have a problem with Irony. Perhaps that link will help. Sarcasm might also be a term you should get to know.
My post was made before I saw Marley’s instructions to you. I agree that you should let the matter drop rather than make any new threads on the subject. And don’t hijack other threads to complain about it.
I’m not going to try to discuss this further with you, because it’s obvious at this point it’s pointless.
This is just silly.
Any review of my frequent posts in the various “race” threads going back to April, 1999, and further back into the AOL board, will demonstrate that I find no “merit” in any of the various race claims that are put forth. On the other hand, I see no reason to believe that calling people names is a way to rebut an argument. People who supported the Iraq invasion did not win arguments by calling their opponents traitors. People who favor gun control do not win any arguments by referring to their opponents as “gun nuts.”
If both sides engage in name-calling, the actual points of the discussion get lost in the yelling. If one side is able to drive off their opponents with name-calling, then the arguments of those driven off remain unanswered and the next person who wishes to advance them has an opening claim that the louder yelling side never “really” won the debate, but simply out-shouted their opponents.
(And I certainly have to say that I enjoy the irony of a poster who has made a hobby–or, perhaps a fixation-- of complaints that the rules regarding insults in Great Debates should both be broadened and be much more strictly enforced now calling for the complete suspension of those rules if insult happens to include the word “racist.”)
BigT… Bless his heart! He’s such a valuable poster, isn’t he!
You…do…realize that the snarkiness of that post may have shortened BigT’s life by months–maybe years, right? A single snarky comment can kill a person according to BigT.
You monster. :mad:
I try my best… But he’s still here… Oh, well…
Brickbacon
It may seem like I have my toes on the wrong side of the political correctness line here, but bear with me and I’ll try and summarize my understanding of the latest thread started by Chief Pedant
- Blacks in America score lower, on average, than other communities regardless of economic background*
- Therefore, race/ethnicity should be allowed as a criterion for providing affirmative action instead of economic background
Now, I know Chief Pedant’s explanation for point 1) is usually `genes’. But in this case, if point 1) is true, it doesn’t matter what his explanation for it is. If point 1) is actually true, then the rest of his thesis still holds even if his explanation for point 1) is wrong. What’s more, if you believe affirmative action is useful (I don’t), his suggestion would be more helpful to the black community. Also, these words…
…don’t seem like they would be held by someone who is involved in spreading hatred against other races.
*I do not have a view on whether this is true or not
I’m just going to continue linking all these types of threads that come to my notice back to the SDMB Bigoted Asshole Omnibus Thread, if that’s still OK, mods? Otherwise I’ve given up attempting to engage every instance of racist prattle CP and Chen put out.
(I don’t want to get into a discussion/debate about this in this ATMB thread (or anywhere, really), so just consider this something to ponder about what you just said, since I won’t be replying in this vein any further.)
If someone considers AA useful, they just might not consider it useful when it’s premised on and designed around the assertion that Blacks are inherently/genetically inferior, intellectually.
I mean, shit, at that point you’d have to come up with a different name for whatever that is, because it wouldn’t be AA. What would be the end-point or goal? Corrective breeding? :rolleyes:
The difference is, there are no honest* terms to describe such people that aren’t taken as insulting because it’s such a thoroughly discredited position (ie racist or bigot). We can talk about gun owners or Iraq war supporters and call them “gun owners” and “Iraq war supporters” without anyone claiming that’s an insult. Where’s the equivalent neutral term for referring to racists? There isn’t any - so instead we have to spend a huge amount of time dancing around the elephant in the living room, never using the only terms available.
And frankly, the debate over racism has largely been won by shaming the racists and shouting them down, with a hefty dose of force & coercion thrown in. If they were amenable to reason, they wouldn’t be racists.
- As opposed to a blatant propaganda phrase like “race realist”
I do not accept the fundy premise that shaming is a good thing in a debate forum.
Whatever might happen in the politial and social spheres, I do not pretend that we are actually changing society in our little cyber bar. We are getting together to swap stories, exchange information, and argue. This board is left-leaning with streaks of libertarianism and atheism. To the extent that we cower people into silence, we simply reduce the amount of information that we share. A lot of the “information” posted here is wrong, but the dynamics of the board work better when we demonstrate error than when we chase away the people with whom we disagree. When we have silenced all the people who do not hold the “correct” views on a range of topics, we will be left with a boring little clique of posters who are simply posting +1 and QFT after any OP.
Go to it and good luck.
I guess you have a “remembering what I just posted even though it was quoted by what I’m responding to problem”, huh?
You said, in response to us suggesting you simply not open the goddamn threads:
This only makes sense if you have some kind of delusion of grandeur that your personal response is necessary to prevent that “non trivial” number of people from becoming racist. The rest of the rabble here might try to make some arguments, but only the mighty intellect of brickbacon can really save the fence-sitters from descending into cross-burning mobs… :rolleyes:
It serves the interest of those of us who wish to fight the ignorance of racism. If you don’t wish to do so, your solution is to not open the goddamn thread.
Post whatever you want. I have this rare magical ability that if I get tired of a subject, I can not open the fucking thread.