Their connotation is irrelevant, because they have negative denotations.
For the purposes of this board, especially Great Debates, make your point about the person’s stated ideas, and avoid making your point about the person’s character.
“That statement is bigoted.” = acceptable
“You are a bigot.” = not acceptable.
Make a thread in The BBQ Pit.
Because the trait is a negative descriptor. Someone can be offended by the truth. They can also deny the truth. Or, you might be wrong.
“That seems like a selfish attitude”= acceptable.
“You are selfish” = not acceptable.
What if he thinks an insult was intended? Then he’s insulted, even if you didn’t mean one. And then he insults you back, because he’s a poopyhead. Then you’re insulted. Then a fight breaks out, and the next thing we know, the meaningful conversation is drowned out by exchanges of “No, you are the poopyhead”.
That’s the thing. You can. Marley has made that very clear–calling someone racist is not an insult. Thus calling someone a bigot can’t be either.
Don’t get me wrong, I would prefer both to fall under the insult category, but I do think it’s unfair to punish someone when you have that big a loophole in there.
So, let me get this clear… After an exchange such as LoHD described, and given the rule that insulting a group of people is acceptable, I could come in and say:
“I want to re-iterate, all reasons for opposing SSM are bigoted” – this should be OK because I’m attacking the position, not the person; right?
“I want to re-iterate, all opponents of SSM are bigots” – this has been alredy been said upthread, but now it’s pretty clearly applicable to a specific poster. Is this still legitimate? Why or why not?
It’s similar to complimenting somebody. If somebody has an attribute you admire, they’d probably like to hear it. But if it’s an attribute you don’t like, they probably don’t want to hear you point that out, and would feel insulted, even (or perhaps especially) if it’s true.
Consider the following: “Wow - you look great!”
Simple compliment.
“Wow - you look great! It’s amazing how much that facelift has helped!”
This may be true, but pointing it out would not be welcomed.
I’m really not trying to find the knife-edge of the rules, I promise–but in a situation like my totally non-hypothetical thread, it does get tricky.
If someone voluntarily brings up the issue of their own status as a bigot (what, I presume, Czarcasm means by “he started it!”), am I right in thinking that they cannot be directly contradicted in their claim? That is, if someone says, “I am not a bigot,” they cannot be contradicted, is this correct?
But if they make this claim as an on-point addition to the thread (“I am not a bigot because x,y,z, which contradicts the reasoning of previous people”), it’s okay to respond by saying something like, “A person who believes x,y,z is a bigot”?
Because otherwise it seems like the only proper response to someone’s participation of “I am not a bigot because of x,y,z” is to ignore their post entirely.
Again, I’m not trying to be difficult here, and I understand why you don’t want to carve out exceptions to the namecalling rules. But we’re seeing a case here in which this problem arises, and some guidance on how to handle it might be helpful. I’m trying to thread the needle of following both letter and spirit of the rules while putting forth my arguments in a cogent fashion, and want to be sure the needle remains threaded :).
One could say x,y, and z are bigoted views, and leave the determination of whether the poster who holds those views is a bigot as an exercise for the reader.
So you are too cowardly to stand behind your own words? Are you a bigot, too?
Anyway, martu, it goes back to the fighting words doctrine, a recognized limitation of the First Amendment. Reduced to the obvious, if you were to meet magellan01 IRL, called him a bigot and a coward, he punched you in the nose, and an independent observer, or judge, said you deserved it because them’s fightin’ words, you don’t have a case. You cannot make such insults here outside of the Pit. Them’s the rules and they should seem obvious to adults.
Politeness can sound a little odd at times. Just making an observation: odd sounding prose can aid the discourse. In other words, I’m characterizing the disadvantage that you identified as slight.
Great debates really shouldn’t be about characterizing individual posters. In your example, it’s pretty straightforward to back off and create a hypothetical person with views identical to what was put forth. That’s actually not that ludicrous: I don’t really know any contributor here that well: I only know what they have posted online.
People can not be selfish, or any other ephemeral attribute. They can temporarily possess such attributes or commit concrete acts with such attributes, but they cannot wholly and permanently become one with the suchness of those attributes.
I think the most important part of the rule is that it keeps threads on track by focusing on the issue and not the participants. Pointing out the bigotry of a statement is important and useful. Pointing out the bigotry of a poster is a distraction and a dangerous assumption. And ad hominem arguments are generally fallacious.
Actually, the mods have never ruled that you are never under any circumstances allowed to call another poster “a racist/sexist/homophobe/etc.” the way they’ve ruled that you’re under no circumstances allowed to accuse another poster of trolling or being a liar, and have, on a handful of occasions allowed people to call other posters “racists” or “sexist” outside of the Pit.
The rule is that you’re not allowed to insult another poster and the consensus amongst the mods is that while in the overwhelming number of occasions, calling someone a racist or a sexist is an insult, there are a small, limited number of occasions where one could call another poster a racist or sexist without insulting them.
Personally, I’d recommend not trying to test the mods and finding out just how far you can push them.
As far as I’m concerned allowing people to call other arguments or posts “racist” is enough.
If coward, bigot and/or racist don’t have negative connotation to you, then why try to apply such descriptors to other people? There could be a reason to do so if defining those terms was the the point of the thread, but otherwise it’s an irrelevancy.
If defining “coward” isn’t the point of the thread, and if calling someone a coward isn’t an insult, then what would be the point of labeling someone a coward.
[INDENT]“Uhh, just as a purely intellectual point, the traits you are exhibiting definitely establish that you are a “coward.” But don’t worry, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.”[/INDENT]
Is that a correct interpretation of what you would mean if you called someone a coward in a thread? It seems odd to me.
That. Argue the logic of a position rather than trying to label the person holding the position.
IANA mod, but I think you have it. Just because a person voluntarily inserts themselves into the topic does not give you free reign to discuss them. That is hijacking the topic to be about a person.
You could instead reply “I think your argument about x,y,z is faulty on these grounds” or “x,y,z are also bigoted statements” or any other phrasing that addresses the statements and beliefs, rather than the character of the person.
“You may not be a bigot, but you sure have some bigoted beliefs,” or “… you sure say some bigoted things.” But even that is probably sketchy, because it aims too close at the specific poster.
This is true. But if a stranger comes into a thread on obesity and says, “I weigh 430 pounds, but I’m not fat, I’m just big-boned,” surely we have a different situation.
Irishman’s response makes sense. Someone says, “I’m not a bigot because of x, y, and z,” and even though they’ve opened the door to discussing their status as a bigot, I might respond obliquely: “x, y, and z aren’t evidence that a person isn’t a bigot; indeed, they’re pretty good evidence themselves of bigotry, for the following reasons.” That response would, I think, meet board rules in both letter and spirit, yes?
I told my wife she was overweight, didn’t use the word fat though. I also said I too am overweight, what should we do about it? She did better than me though as she has lost about 3 stone and is looking better than ever while I have only lost 1 and am still overweight.
Speaking of wives I spoke to my wife about this last night and she just rolled her eyes at me and said Remember the time you said X to Y? A to B? C to D? Seems I have a general problem with being too thick skinned myself not to spot that something is insulting. Working on it!
Why would you ask this question in a public forum?
Don’t you think it would have been better to ask the person who gave you the warning privately?
I have found that whenever I have a problem with someone and try to talk with them, it is much, much easier to resolve things when we talk privately.
When I address my problem with that person publicly, it’s as if I force them to have their back against the wall. They cannot say anything to me that others could possibly find fault with.
In general it is much, much better to bring these kinds of issues to someone privately than it is to do it in public.
IMO, doing this in public seems to be a deliberate attempt to provoke an angry response from the moderator or, at the very least, to initiate an argument with them that you almost certainly know you ain’t gonna win.
When I first joined this forum, I tried to read the rules in the forum titled, “About This Message Board”. But, it was just too long and so I wound up reading the lead-off item which seemed to me would be a pretty reasonable guideline and, if I tried to follow it, would prevent me from breaking most of the rules here. It said:
“We have one guiding principle: Don’t be a jerk.”
I have belonged to many other message boards and I have seen Intenet arguments, fights, quarrels and wars rage on incessently. Many, many times these arguments are largely “quibbling”. For example arguing whether something is an insult or just nearly an insult could go on for days and days and in the end, it would never be resolved.
I tried to find the original post that contained this excerpt, "“If defining “coward” isn’t the point of the thread, and if calling someone a coward isn’t an insult, then what would be the point of labeling someone a coward.”, but I could not.
However, it seems to me that quibbling is quibbling and it leads to quarreling which leads to arguing then fighting and then to an all out war. For most people, it’s just too much to take and they usually just turn off the noise and forget about it. After a certain length of time, what is the point?
I’d like to offer you a tiny bit of wisdom that some wise person once gave me and it goes something like this: Starting a fight on a message board to get back at someone who did something you didn’t like is like drinking poison in the hopes that other person will die.
It almost never works. But I sincerely wish you the best of luck.
