Why is this "perilously close to an infraction" as opposed to being an infraction?

About This Message Board
101

It doesn’t. In fact, it does the opposite. The reason they like to use it is because the discussions where it comes in are “soft”. In those discussions, there is not a simple fact that anyone’s viewpoint is dependent upon, so nothing can be “proven” one way or the other. But for some, the mere existence that someone would even want to have a discussion about something one finds so offensive is simply intolerable. So what do they do? When they can’t convince the person with this offensive view to change, they simply can’t let it stand. If they do, it’s as if the target of their dismay and dislike might have an actual legitimate point of view. That can’t stand. Remember it’s something the BCP or others have deemed offensive. So, they must now try to disparage the deliverer of the offensive message to strip it of any credibility. It’s a sign of weakness.

It’s akin to the need some feel to rally a crowd around them for support. It moves from, “Sorry, you’re not convincing me” to “Sorry, you’re not convincing any of us”. It’s a different tactic, but the motivation is the same, to destroy and ostracize the deliver of the offensive message. What cracks me up about both tactics is that the people who employ them really don’t be able to see that it’s a sign of weakness in one’s argument or debate skills. Usually both.

102

Isn’t it bad enough that we let GD and the Pit used as a platform for racist thought, somehow exempting it from the “don’t be a jerk” rule, but now we’re letting ATMB be used as a platform for Stormfront-style demagoguery?

103

I can imagine the word being acceptably used to characterize an argument. Here’s one:

“Those who note the differences in mean IQ among populations who are self-selected by race are not necessarily racist to the extent that they consider covariates relating to education, parental background, etc., to the extent that they understand that the within-population standard deviations vastly exceed the differences in the population means, after controlling for said standard covariates, to the extent that they recognize that the evidence for IQ relating solely to genetics is highly dubious, to the extent that they tightly define their key terms, to the extent to which they eschew studies that have not undergone peer review, and to the extent that they grasp the concepts of a probability and population distribution and the distinctions between statistical significance and substantive magnitude.”

That, in my view, is an example of a substantive point. John Mace’s remark goes too far. I agree though that the term refers to a 120 megaton insult in an early 21st century context.
Oh yeah, and Stormfront style demogaugary, to the extent that it exists, doesn’t especially lend itself to a civil debate atmosphere in GD either.

104

It is loaded. I agree.

The problem, i guess, is that if you use other words, many of them end up being euphemisms. It’s like calling waterboarding “enhanced interrogation techniques” instead of “torture.” You might argue that using the epithets prevents civil discussion, but i would argue that using the euphemisms can, at times, have the effect of giving discredited and irrational ideas the cover of legitimacy.

For the record, i did a search and i think i’ve only referred to one member as a racist in my time on this board, and that was the late and unlamented LonesomePolecat, who was honest about his white supremacism and quite unconcerned about being called a racist.

This conversation won’t change my own posting habits, because i’m not in the habit of calling people racists in debates around here. But i think that arguing against the word because of its loaded nature gets the cart before the horse. It’s not loaded because it’s an inherently loaded word; it’s loaded precisely because it describes ideas and beliefs that are (now) widely recognized as backwards and uninformed and the product of prejudice rather than reason.

105

Well, it’s also loaded (if that’s the right word) because it is overused and it’s the ultimate taboo in our society. It’s just about the worst thing you can call someone who hasn’t committed some kind of crime.

All this gnashing of teeth about when it is or is not an insult, and then we end up with a situation where it’s taking, what, 3 days now and still no ruling from the mods on this? Seems rather a waste of time just so we can allow some people under some circumstances to call some other people racist in GD.

106

So freakin’ allow it, then.

Frankly, the idea that calling out racists is more offensive and less conducive to debate than allowing racists to spout dishonest nonsense is appalling. I’ve defended SDMB’s policy of allowing racist idiots to post hereabouts because I think that it’s useful for such arguments to be exposed to reasoned scorn, and I think that’s a good policy. But the call to protect racists from having their pobrecito feelings hurt is ridiculous.

As I said before, if they don’t want to be called racist, they can stop saying racist things.

107

I haven’t insulted you so I’m not sure why you’re insulting me.

Beyond that your post is not exactly conducive to complaints about incivility or posters insulting others.

Beyond that, if suggesting that someone is masturbating while making a post isn’t an insult I’m not sure what is.

108

Well, it’s a good thing I never suggested that it was! I’m perfectly happy to have the mods ban racists at the first sign of such. I never understood why we are so tolerant of racist and other idiots around here.

If only we had another forum where scorn was A-OK. Alas, we can only wish.

109

Glad to hear it. I don’t mean to accuse you particularly of tolerating racists; I quoted you to respond to the idea that we were wasting time via discussion. My paragraphing was deliberate :).

Reasoned scorn has always been allowed in Great Debates. By “reasoned scorn,” I mean shredding a person’s arguments to pieces using reason, and making it clear when appropriate that their arguments are not worthy of respect.

There are plenty of arguments that I think are legit. I disagree with folks over education policy on a weekly basis in GD, and I sometimes step in to threads about religious freedom, and I follow threads about metaphysics and Mideast policy and other subjects all the time where I learn rather than post. These are all areas in which disagreement is acceptable.

But we have decided as a society that in a discussion of race, the racist position is unacceptable. It’s absurd for us to allow this unacceptable position to show up on the board but not be allowed to point out what it is. Either we shouldn’t accept it (a position I’d argue against), or we should accept its presence but call it out. It’s one of a very few positions that I feel confident in declaring that the opposition is motivated almost entirely by bigotry.

110

I actually think Tomndebb had a rather appropriate quote on the “white privilege” thread responding to someone who kept complaining about being insulted.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16822540&postcount=157

I think its pretty appropriate for this thread.

111

Presumably the feelings of all posters here should be taken into account and it’s been documented that many conservatives are particularly prickly on the subject of race. Kevin Drum has some relevant commentary, which I submit while the mods are still pondering appropriate application of the jerk rule:
[QUOTE=Kevin Drum]
At the same time, it’s also obvious that, in many ways, a liberal focus on race and racism is just flatly counterproductive. When I write about, say, the racial obsessions displayed by Fox News (or Drudge or Rush Limbaugh), it’s little more than a plain recitation of obvious facts, and liberals applaud. Ditto for posts about the self-described racial attitudes of tea partiers. But conservatives see it as an attack. And why wouldn’t they? I’m basically saying that these outlets are engaged in various levels of race-mongering, and by implication, that anyone who listens to them is condoning racism. That’s such a uniquely toxic accusation that it makes any real conversation hopeless. Cognitively, the only way to respond is to deny everything…
[/QUOTE]
Cite: Conservatives’ Biggest Fear: Being Called Racist

So yeah, this 105 octane accusation has demonstrably powerful and apparently behavior molding effects, according to the study.

112

Given the way that this conversation has gone, it might also have been relevant to include this last observation from Drum:

Emphasis mine.

Drum concedes that the accusation itself is powerful and causes problems, but he also seems to acknowledge, at least implicitly, that resorting to euphemisms carries a different set of problems in that it can serve to obscure the truth.

113

You know who could resolve Kevin Drum’s dilemma? Racists, that’s who. Yes, it’s a very serious accusation to accuse someone of being racist, but mirabile dictu we’ve got a lot of racist people in our society, and that leads to a very serious situation.

If folks would respond to sincere claims of racism by considering them and considering their own behavior and changing the racist aspects of their behavior, instead of responding by making the whole conversation be about their poor hurt feelings, we could make some real progress.

114

Remember, the feelings of people who claim that non-whites are genetically inferior are important, but the feelings of people who are being called inferior, or basic facts, aren’t important at all.

115

Could you expand on this? I can’t see anywhere in this thread where anyone put forth a notion that could be characterized as you describe.

Either that, or just throw a lit match on it.

116

I’m not insulting you, really. Just the absurd position that you feel so, so invested in protecting. So, as I said, IF it is that important to you to be able to insult people in a debate, knock yourself out.

And, no, masturbation was not on my mind. I guess it is how some get their jollies. But, evidently, there are others. So, let those insults of “racist” fly.

117

The question is, WHY is it necessary to call someone a racist in a debate? If they are racist, won’t that be evident by the arguments they put forth? What purpose does it serve? What can be achieved through those means that can’t be achieved without the insult? Can you answer that, please.

Anyone?

118

Agreed and +1.

Clarity of thought. Dancing around the issue can result in, “deliberate euphemistic misuse of incorrect words to disguise unacceptable meaning”, otherwise known as doublespeak.

We’re here to fight ignorance, not sip tea.*
Look, I’ve stressed in this thread that we’re dealing with a balancing act. And frankly I can imagine a number of valid ways to moderate this board: I can adapt. For example, in practice the mods recognize that giving blanket permission for the OP’s term in question will prompt all manner of GD mayhem and misuse. (Consider the evolution of the word troll on the internet.) I’m just saying that we need to concede that we’re dealing with a 120 megaton insult and this is the case because certain arguments and POVs are quite frankly vile, though dressed up to varying degrees.

  • Not that I have anything against tea-sippers!!! :smiley:
119

Not according to you. You whole argument in this thread has been premised on the notion that, as long as some people argue that they aren’t actually racist, then they shouldn’t be called racist. You have, in almost every post you’ve made, precluded the possibility that some of the people debating on this message board might, in fact, be racist.

But let’s assume for a moment that you’re right, and that some people will, “by the arguments they put forth,” show evidence of their racism. Why, then, would you have a problem with calling them racist?

You don’t seem to comprehend the fundamental difference between different types of insults. Calling someone an asshole is fundamentally and intrinsically insulting. The specific purpose of applying that word to a person is to insult them. “Asshole,” when applied to a person, might conjure up a particular image of that person, but it is not defined by specific actions or beliefs. Liberals can be assholes; conservatives can be assholes; men and women an be assholes; blacks and whites; Americans and Canadians; old and young.

And there are any one of an almost infinite number of reasons that someone might be called an asshole. Cut you off in traffic? Asshole. Voted for Nader? Asshole. Drives an SUV? Asshole. Talks about how he doesn’t own a TV? Asshole. Talks on a cellphone on public transit? Asshole. etc., etc., etc. It’s a catch-all insult, unattached to any particular ideology or belief system or political leaning or social group.

But racism (and racist) describe a particular way of thinking about the human condition. They are terms coined specifically to describe certain types of beliefs about human difference. There are certain positions that people take, when talking about different groups of people, that can be reasonably logically and consistently and accurately described as racist.

If racist is an insult (and i agree that it often is), it’s not because it’s designed as one. It’s because the range of positions defined as racist has, over time, come to be seen in our society as socially damaging and scientifically unsupported. If a person’s arguments about human difference can be reasonably accurately mapped onto the definition of racism, why then is it unacceptable to call them a racist?

There will always be borderline cases, but the fact that the line might not be perfectly black and white, and the fact that some people might disagree about exactly where the line is, doesn’t mean that the line doesn’t exist, as you seem to have been arguing in this thread.

120

Absolutely, and it’s not a word I throw around lightly. In my life, there are very few people I even think of as racist, and nobody that I’ve called racist.

But this board is different. There’s a population of people on this board who say things close to the fringe of racist thought: folks who talk about the genetically-based intellectual inferiority of black people, for example. That’s so far out of the mainstream that it’s insane to not use the word “racist” to describe it.

I’m not talking about calling someone racist because they happen not to enjoy rap, or because they dislike Obama, or because they want to defund early childhood education or something. I’m talking about calling people racist who say that black people are genetically inferior.

C’mon.