# Why is this "perilously close to an infraction" as opposed to being an infraction? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [November 3, 2013, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965 "2013-11-03T05:34:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![TBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c89c15/32.png) [@TBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TBG)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/81 "2013-11-05T00:37:00Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Because the term “asshole” is indisputably an insult. The term “racist” or “sexist” isn’t. Those terms are indisputably insults in the 21st century. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/82 "2013-11-05T00:42:17Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > Those terms are indisputably insults in the 21st century. Yes, but they’ve become insults precisely because the ideas and the beliefs that they describe have become socially unacceptable. They are still also descriptive of those ideas and beliefs, in a way that is independent of the pejorative associations. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/83 "2013-11-05T01:00:13Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > That pretty much shoots down my next example of goat felcher right away. “Aye, I’ve thrown every English dog who wandered across my threshold the fuck outta my pub, but do they call me ‘Angus the Racist’?” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/84 "2013-11-05T01:07:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Fair enough, then. Since there’s debate on it, and since it’s a substantive debate, I back away from my “shoplifter” analogy. And I think folks are right that since it nearly always carries a negative overtone unlike “Christian,” that’s also not a good analogy. > > Instead, I’ll suggest it’s comparable to “traitor”: it’s a word with a factual definition, but the factual definition’s exact parameters are debatable, and that debate is substantive, and it’s nearly always a negative word to be applied to a person. As such, I’d suggest that it ought to be moderated when there’s no content to support it, but that if a person is willing to support a claim of racism against an individual, it be allowed as fair debate. Interesting. I’d say that whether or not someone is a racist is a valid to debate to have, on its own. But when it is thrown in to a larger debate, it will either hijack it completely or it just acts as an ad hominem. I really don’t get why people think it’s so valuable to be able to insult someone _in a debate_. Do the points your making become magically stronger if you’re able to refer to someone as a racist? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/85 "2013-11-05T01:21:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Interesting. I’d say that whether or not someone is a racist is a valid to debate to have, on its own. But when it is thrown in to a larger debate, it will either hijack it completely or it just acts as an ad hominem. I really don’t get why people think it’s so valuable to be able to insult someone _in a debate_. Do the points your making become magically stronger if you’re able to refer to someone as a racist? Not magically, no–indeed, your use of “magically” there is an example of a gratuitously-used vaguely insulting word that added nothing to the discussion, for which example I thank you :). But yes, correct labeling of an argument can only benefit discussion. We don’t need to rehash the reasons why racism is bad in every argument; we can consider that to be a previously-solved equation. Therefore, if you can show that a particular argument is racist, then you’ve shown it to be a flawed argument. In the same way, if you can show that a third party (say, Obama) is lying, we don’t need to go over why it’s bad to lie. You’ve demonstrated that he’s lied, and we can refer to the previously-solved equation that demonstrates the badness of lying. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/86 "2013-11-05T01:39:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Interesting. I’d say that whether or not someone is a racist is a valid to debate to have, on its own. But when it is thrown in to a larger debate, it will either hijack it completely or it just acts as an ad hominem. I really don’t get why people think it’s so valuable to be able to insult someone _in a debate_. Do the points your making become magically stronger if you’re able to refer to someone as a racist? You seem to misunderstand the position of the mods. Everyone agrees that it can be used as an insult and when used as an insult you’ll get dinged. However when not used as an insult but a descriptor you won’t. It’s obviously up to the individual mod to decide if when a poster is using it which one they’re using it as. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/87 "2013-11-05T04:46:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Not magically, no–indeed, your use of “magically” there is an example of a gratuitously-used vaguely insulting word that added nothing to the discussion, for which example I thank you :). > > But yes, correct labeling of an argument can only benefit discussion. We don’t need to rehash the reasons why racism is bad in every argument; we can consider that to be a previously-solved equation. Therefore, if you can show that a particular argument is racist, then you’ve shown it to be a flawed argument. You’re attempting to use a label to do the hard work for you then, aren’t you? If the argument is flawed, you should be able to show that. It’s a cheap shortcut (and begging the question) to not focus on the flaws in the argument but to try to characterize the argument in a way that you think it, by definition, losses any validity. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > In the same way, if you can show that a third party (say, Obama) is lying, we don’t need to go over why it’s bad to lie. You’ve demonstrated that he’s lied, and we can refer to the previously-solved equation that demonstrates the badness of lying. This analogy does not track. A correct analogy would look at the relationship between the actual lie and the label of “liar”. And again, you can either show that someone lie or they didn’t, i.e., did they relay something that they new to be untruthful. Charges of racism are not nearly so easily proven. For some, even holding the notion that races exist qualifies you as a racist. And for that they think they can paint them with the same brush as a Klansmen. And once they do, it’s the pointing of the finger, “Aha, he’s a racist!. Of course we can discount anything he’s had to say.” Neat trick, huh? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/88 "2013-11-05T04:47:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You seem to misunderstand the position of the mods. Everyone agrees that it can be used as an insult and when used as an insult you’ll get dinged. However when not used as an insult but a descriptor you won’t. > > It’s obviously up to the individual mod to decide if when a poster is using it which one they’re using it as. Can you give me an example of the term being used in a non-insulting manner? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/89 "2013-11-05T05:07:24Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Can you give me an example of the term being used in a non-insulting manner? Yes. People who insist that “black people” have, as a group, lower IQs than “white people” due to genetics, are racists. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/90 "2013-11-05T05:20:20Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Some either denies the holocaust or not, fairly easy to discern. You just destroyed your argument. Virtually everyone termed a “Holocaust Denier” claims they aren’t. Most people accused of being “Holocaust Deniers” insist they aren’t but instead claim they are “just asking questions” or “haven’t seen enough evidence to justify it.” In fact most actually don’t even claim the Holocaust didn’t happen, but merely claim that it was heavily exaggerated for propaganda purposes. For example, probably the three most well known Holocaust Deniers in the World are Abu Mazen(AKA Mahmoud Abbas), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and David Irving. Ahmadinejad has given countless conflicting account to various reporters but in most he says that he doesn’t think it didn’t happen, but wants “more study to determine the truth.” Abbas wrote his Ph.D dissertation claiming that only about 10,000 Jews(IIRC) were killed during the Holocaust and that the six million figure is pure propaganda. And of course Irving repeatedly claims he thinks the Holocaust happened but that only about 100,000 Jews were killed in it. Based on your logic then we shouldn’t be allowed to use the term “Holocaust Denier” or “Holocaust Denial” because people called that claim they aren’t and claim they feel the term is insulting. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/91 "2013-11-05T05:39:52Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Based on your logic then we shouldn’t be allowed to use the term “Holocaust Denier” or “Holocaust Denial” because people called that claim they aren’t and claim they feel the term is insulting. Exactly. His whole logic argues that, as long as the people who hold certain views deny the label that has been attached to those views, then the label is inappropriate. It’s a hilarious journey down the rhetorical rabbit hole, whereby descriptive words are rendered impermissible by the fact that some people can’t handle an honest description of their ideological positions. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/92 "2013-11-05T18:13:55Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Yes. > > People who insist that “black people” have, as a group, lower IQs than “white people” due to genetics, are racists. Well, “insist” might be the problem here. If there is zero evidence, and even evidence to the contrary, that blacks have lower IQs that whites, and that person still insists, then I’d say it safe to say the/she is a racist. But let’s say this person is not insisting anything. Let’s say he is simply of the mind that that is the case. And he may even have some evidence, weak and scant as it may be, that whites have a higher IQ than black people, is that person a racist. My answer is, we don’t know. Moving the examples along, how about if this person is a clinical psychologist, and he has done studies and has at a particular moment in time, come to believe that whites have higher IQ scores than blacks, is that person a racist? And finally, let’s say that teams of independent researchers from various well-respected universities conduct studies and firmly conclude—unanimously—that whites have higher IQ scores than blacks, if someone then relays that opinion, either a researcher or a person on this board, is that person necessarily a racist? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/93 "2013-11-05T18:21:47Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You just destroyed your argument. Virtually everyone termed a “Holocaust Denier” claims they aren’t. > > Most people accused of being “Holocaust Deniers” insist they aren’t but instead claim they are “just asking questions” or “haven’t seen enough evidence to justify it.” > > In fact most actually don’t even claim the Holocaust didn’t happen, but merely claim that it was heavily exaggerated for propaganda purposes. > > For example, probably the three most well known Holocaust Deniers in the World are Abu Mazen(AKA Mahmoud Abbas), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and David Irving. > > Ahmadinejad has given countless conflicting account to various reporters but in most he says that he doesn’t think it didn’t happen, but wants “more study to determine the truth.” > > Abbas wrote his Ph.D dissertation claiming that only about 10,000 Jews(IIRC) were killed during the Holocaust and that the six million figure is pure propaganda. > > And of course Irving repeatedly claims he thinks the Holocaust happened but that only about 100,000 Jews were killed in it. > > Based on your logic then we shouldn’t be allowed to use the term “Holocaust Denier” or “Holocaust Denial” because people called that claim they aren’t and claim they feel the term is insulting. Interesting. I did not know that a a majority, or even a portion, of holocaust deniers thought it to be an insult and would seek to separate themselves from the term. (ignorance fought!) Still, it’s fairly easy to discern if they deny events of the holocaust or not. We have real-life events. And people who deny them. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/94 "2013-11-05T18:59:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, “insist” might be the problem here. If there is zero evidence, and even evidence to the contrary, that blacks have lower IQs that whites, and that person still insists, then I’d say it safe to say the/she is a racist. > > But let’s say this person is not insisting anything. Let’s say he is simply of the mind that that is the case. And he may even have some evidence, weak and scant as it may be, that whites have a higher IQ than black people, is that person a racist. My answer is, we don’t know. > > Moving the examples along, how about if this person is a clinical psychologist, and he has done studies and has at a particular moment in time, come to believe that whites have higher IQ scores than blacks, is that person a racist? > > And finally, let’s say that teams of independent researchers from various well-respected universities conduct studies and firmly conclude—unanimously—that whites have higher IQ scores than blacks, if someone then relays that opinion, either a researcher or a person on this board, is that person necessarily a racist? The question isn’t whether or not they are racists but whether or not the term is an insult. Yes, like “conspiracy theorist”, “creationist” and “Holocaust Denier” it has negative connotations but it’s not inherently more insulting. Oliver Stone doesn’t like being called a conspiracy theorist, denies being one, and insists those who use the term are engaging in ad hominem attacks but that doesn’t mean the term is either inappropriate or an insult, though like “racist” it can be used as such. Beyond that all the arguments you put forth could be used as to why Holocaust Deniers shouldn’t be called anti-Semites or Holocaust Deniers. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/95 "2013-11-05T19:02:19Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > Those terms are indisputably insults in the 21st century. No, they aren’t. Charles Darwin and Thomas Jefferson were racists. I didn’t insult them. Charles Darwin was an asshole. I just insulted him. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/96 "2013-11-05T19:45:21Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > No, they aren’t. > > Charles Darwin and Thomas Jefferson were racists. > > I didn’t insult them. > > Charles Darwin was an asshole. I just insulted him. Well, if anyone from the 19th century posts here, you can feel free to call them a racist. OK? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/97 "2013-11-05T20:49:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, if anyone from the 19th century posts here, you can feel free to call them a racist. OK? Why? There are racists in the 20th and 21st century as well. The term can be used as an insult and when used as one can be sanctioned, but not always. Similarly, the term Holocaust Denier and conspiracy theorist can be used as insults but not always. If people don’t like getting called conspiracy theorists or racists then the people shouldn’t express belief in conspiracy theories or racist beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![SiXSwordS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/49beb7/32.png) [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/98 "2013-11-05T21:20:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, if anyone from the 19th century posts here, you can feel free to call them a racist. OK? I come from the 19th century with this OMINOUS WARNING! The vellum in Drawer 2 may be low. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/99 "2013-11-05T23:20:16Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > If people don’t like getting called conspiracy theorists or racists then the people shouldn’t express belief in conspiracy theories or racist beliefs. :rolleyes: You know, if it’s really _that_ important to you to call people you THINK are racists, racists, you should go right ahead and do that. This is just a message board among strangers. There are guidelines that help debates be civil and productive. But if a thought that YOU deem is racist should meet your eyes, well, I don’t think anyone should prevent you from donning your Cape of Political Correctness and depriving you of getting your jollies. Knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2013, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965/100 "2013-11-05T23:58:31Z")
I just can’t imagine how being able to call someone a racist leads to a civil debate atmosphere in GD. It’s not like we don’t have an outlet where anyone can call anyone else a racist. That word is just too loaded, IMO, to add anything of substance to a debate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-this-perilously-close-to-an-infraction-as-opposed-to-being-an-infraction/672965.md?page=6)