In this thread one of the first posts is this, emphasis added:
The mod note that follows is:
Perilously close? Since when is direct name calling not an infraction? The guy called another poster a racist in GD. If that is not “an infraction”, what is?
n.b.: I do not sanction the OP or the opinions of the OP in that thread. But as long as the mods leave the thread open, why is not clearly and unambiguously “an infraction” to directly call the guy a racist?
The mods have ruled that you can use the terms like “racist” or “sexist” in GD so long as they are not used as insults.
I don’t want to speak for them, but I think their general belief regarding calling other posters racist or sexist is that it is permissible but strongly discouraged and should only be done so when it’s clear you’re not using it as an insult.
Cite? We can call other posters “racists”, as opposed to calling ideas “racist”?
But if that’s the case, is there any doubt that this wasn’t intended as an insult? Any doubt at all?
Yes, you can, so long as it’s not done as an insult. For example, if you’re doing so to describe their beliefs.
This was a description of the poster, not of his beliefs. “This racist”, not “these racist ideas”.
I used to think that was the truth and actually complained when another poster explicitly called me a sexist for this comment here.
And no, the poster wasn’t joking. They simply felt that I was a sexist because I used the phrase “their wives” instead of “their siblings.”
I thought this was an insult and complained when the mods refused to even note it and they made it clear after quite a bit of hemming and hawing and some rather contradictory claims that yes, in certain situations it was permissible to call another poster a racist/sexist/homophobe/etc.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=656660
That’s the reason I use the term “scientific racist” rather than “racist” when describing our board’s resident believers in the mental inferiority of blacks because “scientific racism” and “scientific racists” are the terms academics regularly use to refer to believers in Eugenics and it’s modern day permutations. In this way I make it clear I’m describing their beliefs rather than directly insulting them.
If their siblings were also their wives, you’d have bigger problems than sexism.
D’oh! Typing while tired. :smack:
I meant to type “their spouses.”
Back to watching The Hobbit.
Whoa, I might have to rethink this.
Mace, I find that I entirely missed the ‘this racist’ thing. No kidding. I focused on the ‘you are ignorant’ in the note. I thought hard about that but missed the other. My ‘perilously close’ bit was in response to the word ‘ignorant’. I decided to provide direction as opposed to an infraction because bita malt was in the habit of referring to his lack of knowledge.
Still, thanks for the pointing out. All I can say is that I miss things, especially in threads like our current spate of racially-tinged ones where the same thing appears to be said over and over.
Still, ibn brings up an interesting point that I wish to think about. Be patient.
Oh, OK. I’ve always considered “ignorant” to be quite different than “stupid”, as the latter just describes a lack of knowledge.
However, in this particular case, I can’t see any nuance in the phrasing leading up to “this racist” that would imply it was not an insult. Take your time thinking about this, but I’ll be very interested in hearing any explanation that finds the nuance I missed.
The problem with calling someone racist or sexist or some other ists is that there is the built in assumption that you are right and they are wrong by YOUR definition.
Not to mention those are strong labels with bad connotations. Ones often not really associated with the point being made. Lets say I believe one little aspect about women that allows people to disagree with me and I get the sexist label. There is always the implication that with label that I believe all sorts of “bad” things about women. And the defense that its not a insult seems pretty weak to me. Hey Bob, you sure do believe a lot of racists things, buy hey I’m not calling YOU a racists. Please.
IMO not only is it an insult, its also a rather smug intellectual position to take if one wishes to engage in reasoned discourse.
Now, I don’t give a rats behind personally. But it is kinda funny to see poo being flung from the ivory towers.
When somebody holds views that are indisputably racist, describing that person as a racist is NOT an insult, but rather a dispassionate statement of fact.
Anybody who believes otherwise must necessarily believe that the mere act of describing a murderer as a murderer is an insult, in order to be consistent.
Perhaps, and I’m not going to argue that because that is not what our “nuance” rule says. It says that you can’t use it as an insult, which can be the case even if the person is “indisputably” a racist. And I think this is the case here:
I’m not going to wander into what constitutes “indisputable” racism, but I think we can agree that there is no object measure of what constitutes an “indisputably” dumb thread. I think that firmly establishes the name calling in the realm of insult.
I think you might mean ‘the former.’ I find your grammar to be dummyesque. 
Well, that is indisputable!
Or, perhaps I have grammar dyslexia. Might that not the case be?
The mods have repeatedly stated that while the calling of people “racist”, “sexist”, or other phrases is strongly discouraged it’s not considered automatically an insult.
In fact, they specifically argued it wasn’t an insult to call me “sexist” after I made this comment.
Now, if it’s considered permissible to call someone “sexist” for a statement that I can’t imagine too many women would be offended by and using the term “wives” when “spouses” would have been more permissible, then I certainly don’t see how they could justify sanctioning someone for using the term “racist” who is such a strong proponent of “scientific racism”(to use a common academic term for that particular brand of racism) that he has put up many posts and multiple threads claiming blacks are mentally inferior.
If bita malt doesn’t like getting called a racist then I’d recommend he stop being a racist a or stop posting racist comments.
Anyway to paraphrase our beloved Mr.Dibble, as well as multiple mods, I don’t think it’s fair to automatically classify “racist”, “sexist”, "anti-Semite etc. with clear insults like “asshole”, “prick”, or “idiot”.
“Racist” and “sexist” are descriptions of a person’s beliefs more comparable to “Holocaust Denier” which like the other two can be used as an insult or as a description of a person’s beliefs.
I’m sure someone will protest that the boards resident scientific racists don’t call themselves “racists” and insist they aren’t but based on that logic then the mods should sanction people who refer to other posters as “Holocaust deniers”.
After all, most people termed “Holocaust deniers” don’t actually claim they think the Holocaust didn’t happen but either claim that they are “Holocaust skeptics” unsure if it actually happened, or they insist they do think it was done but think it has been grossly exaggerated for nefarious purposes. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an example of the first while Abu Mazen and David Irving are examples of the second.
I’m reasonably certain if David Irving were a member and I referred to him as a Holocaust Denier that the mods wouldn’t ding me for insulting him.
Here’s how I view it -
In the thread where the racist/sexist remarks are being made, usually relevant to the topic at hand - its not so much an insult to call someone racist/sexist based on those remarks -
Referring to a poster, secondhand - as in the quote above “that racist” - can only be seen as an insulting jab, as (without context otherwise) there is no reason otherwise to bring the term to the conversation.
Had the quote been “in his other posts, X has shown himself to be a racist/sexist” its less of one, again, assuming some context in the thread that makes said comment relevant.
As to why this incident did not get an infraction - as the Moderator in question said - he focused on a different aspect of the comment and ‘missed’ the ‘that racist’ part - he is apparently now reviewing that - since I have no reason otherwise, I take him at his word.
Budget Player Cadet provided the context by referring specifically to the other thread started by bita malt claiming that blacks were less intelligent than others.
Moreover, it had already been noted by another poster, Marley, that bita malt had a history of starting racist threads promoting scientific racism.
I would say that if the mods are going to let people repeatedly start thread promoting racist ideas without dinging them for trolling or violating the “Don’t be a jerk” rule then we should be allowed to call them what they are “racists”.
Obviously, if there’s a complete thread derailment that changes things.
I also can’t help but notice that bita malt hasn’t complained that he was insulted either on this thread or the thread in question.
I’m plagiarizing that!