Because words mean things, and to most people the word “realist” suggests someone who has a pragmatic willingness to deal with the facts and the truth of a matter, rather than engaging in wishful thinking or deliberate obfuscation out of a commitment to personal ideology.
That does not, in my opinion, describe people who believe in the inherent superiority of some races and inferiority of others, no matter what those people might claim.
My question is, why not use the word that explicitly and specifically refers to someone who believes those things? If that word carries a pejorative connotation, tough shit.
I was talking specifically about this board, and going by the search results, it’s not really the “race realists” themselves using the term, most of the time.
Actually, I think a big part of the problem is we’re all a big bunch of smarty-pants who are looking for mechanistic solutions where such may not apply.
I find on thinking that the use of the word ‘racist’ can be either an insult or a descriptive depending on how it’s used and that it is subject to interpretation in how it is applied. If that leads to some confusion and disagreement then it does. The occasional ATMB thread aimed at me that reads, “Dude, WTF?” is simply a cost of doing business. I see no means by which to avoid that.
I do appreciate the time everyone puts in - in this thread and others - helping to pick apart whatever loose rules there are. But in a system with different rules for different fora and different moderators with different tolerances there will inevitably be some things that escape notice for one reason or another. The best defense against that is to use the ‘Report this Post’ button and make your case. It may not always lead to action but it at least brings things under consideration.
It simply means that they believe that these things we call “race” do exist.
It seems you want to believe that all people who believe that races exist also believe in the inherent superiority of one or another. That is not the case. There are people who are actual, hateful, racists, but they are a subset of the set “race realists”.
If you feel you must, then do so. But if you think they are so imbecilic, shouldn’t you be able to make them look so without calling them names? But if you have this need to call them names, there’s always the Pit. It you genuinely want to have have a debate, ad hominems do not improve the debate. They usually end it. Wish, actually, is what I think is behind this “need” to insult. Some people, possibly you, when faced with a point of view they find offensive do not want a debate. They want to shout the other person down and demonize. And that usually a sign of weakness either with the person or his position. Or both. This people are better suited for the Pit where they can generate screeds and a string of near content-free posts that merely insult.
And now that post in question has been brought to your attention, what’s you’re decision. I vote for call ing it a clear infraction. Most seem to agree with that smaller point, if not with the larger discussion.
Why is either okay in your view? In the first example it’s clear that the person in question is being called a racist. I thought the mods (and Jonathan in particular) have stated they are not interested in rules lawyers or slicing these distinctions this finely.
OK, so what’s your take on how it was used in the instance we are discussing in this thread? Was it a descriptor or an insult, in your opinion as a moderator?
He gave you his decision which is that it can be used as either an insult or as a general description. That’s been the stated moderator position on the term for awhile.
Actually, the term I usually use is “scientific racist” because it’s how they’re referred to in academia.
Also, there is no “insult component” to the term.
I don’t use the term “race realist” because it suggests that the philosophy they follow is somehow pragmatic, courageous or “realistic” rather than debunked pseudo science held by a fringe who either ignore or don’t understand why scientists used to overwhelmingly agree with them but came to reject them.
Anyway, if they don’t like the term racist then they should stop being scientific racists.
If I say that someone is a shoplifter, and I call them a shoplifter, I am not “calling them names.” The insult isn’t that I used a naughty word for them: the insult is that they do something contemptible.
If I say that someone is a Holocaust denier, and I call them a Holocaust denier, I am not “calling them names.” The insult isn’t that I used a naughty word for them: the insult is that they hold contemptible beliefs.
If I say that someone is a racist, and I call them a racist, I am not “calling them names.” The insult isn’t that I used a naughty word for them: the insult is that they hold contemptible beliefs.
If you don’t want to be called a racist, don’t hold racist beliefs. This isn’t hard.
My mistake. Sorry , I should have been clearer. I meant you hadn’t declared the term “racist” is an automatic insult that can not be used period.
Your position seems to be that it is a term that can be used as an insult or as a descriptor, unlike say the term “asshole” which is always an insult.
Historians regularly in lectures and books regularly use the term “racist” but I can’t think of any serious historian in one if their writings who referred to a historical figure as an “asshole.”
When historians use the term “racist” or “scientific racist” to refer to the believers in Eugenics or similar beliefs they’re not doing so to convey or express hatred but to describe their beliefs and differentiate them from other groups of racists who use different justifications for their beliefs.
That does not mean that BPC was or was not using the term as an insult and you clearly haven’t decided if he did or didn’t. I will add that while I think he didn’t he really seems to be pushing his luck in the thread and were I him I’d have backed down.
Sorry, that doesn’t work. Someone either shoplifted or they didn’t. It’s a simple matter of fact. Some either denies the holocaust or not, fairly easy to discern. Now while there are no doubt beliefs that everyone would agree are “racist”, it is evident from being on these boards that there is a broader category of things that one group thinks is racist (or in the case of SSM, bigoted or homophobic), that there is not universal agreement on.
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.
