From here.
The number of dopers who believe and espouse this is not zero (and it seems to be growing).
I’m just curious what, if anything, makes espousing these beliefs not jerkish.
Why isn’t arguing to abolish welfare “being a jerk”? Why isn’t wanting trials for accused terrorists “being a jerk”? How about arguing that transfats should be kept legal? Or suggesting that organized religions can be harmful to society as a whole?
Many beliefs people hold are viewed as jerkish by others. For most of us, the chance to argue with people who hold opposing viewpoints is what makes message board life interesting. Using letter of the law arguments to quash opinions you don’t like would bland this place out of existence. I think a far better approach is to either sack up and start a Pit thread or make judicious use of the ignore list.
I asked first.
Then I’ll answer: because “don’t be a jerk” makes no sense as a global rule for every aspect of a person’s participation on a message board. It works pretty well as a catchall rule to let people know that they’re expected to be generally non-terrible message board citizens.
Now how about you address my post: how is punishing people for holding opinions some posters don’t like not going to make this board a bland, boring place to post at?
Because, as a practical matter, “being a jerk” on this board refers to behavior, not to beliefs. You are free to hold and defend beliefs and opinions that others might hold repugnant (whether racism, pro-choice, pro-life, communism, fascism, Zionism, anti-Zionism, or others) as long as its done in a civil fashion (at least outside the Pit).
We wish to allow as free a discussion of beliefs as possible. It serves no purpose to ban the discussion of questionable beliefs; better to expose them to scrutiny so they can be debunked.
What can someone do to be a jerk if declaring entire segments of the population genetically inferior doesn’t count?
Considering the sheer number of threads that a handful of posters are managing to start and/or hijack, it’s becoming a boring place already (not that it was so spectacularly interesting before). Bigotry is dead boring.
How is an argument about the genetic inferiority of a segment of the world’s, and board’s, population not a behavior?
People get banned for what they say all the time. Saying things is a behavior.
ETA: I’m not saying the racists among us should be banned. I don’t care what people believe. I care what they do.
As Colibri has said, the “don’t be a jerk” refers to behavior as a poster, not to beliefs that a person has.
Giraffe’s point is irrelevant to that point.
If they said “twickster is genetically inferior and stupid” that would be considered behavior as a poster. If they said “mods are genetically inferior and stupid” that would also be considered “behavior.”
I disagree. I think jsgoddess should provide us with a list of opinions that she finds unacceptable, so the rest of know when to keep our mouths shut.
By “behavior” in general what we mean is things that tend to derail discussions, that is, direct insults, trolling, harassment, and so forth.
So it’s OK for people to be racists in real life, as long as they don’t speak about or defend what you regard as racist positions here?
If you wanted to raise those questions as a serious proposition, you would be expected to support those positions with data and cites. 
Post a serious attempt at discussion about something that touches on race in GD. It’ll get derailed so fast your head will spin.
Yes, it’s “okay” for someone to be a racist in real life. This board isn’t real life. We can’t call people names, which is as far from real life as possible.
As for being “expected” to defend my propositions, to meet the standards the racists have, all I’d have to do is make shit up and post it and say it means you’re all stupid. That’s all a racist can do.
Well, you could start now. I won’t complain.
Or you could attempt to answer the question I posed in the OP. Your pick! (I’m generous like that.)
Holding beliefs you don’t like isn’t being a jerk. Derailing every thread with those beliefs can be. Reeder didn’t get banned for hating Bush. He got banned for starting hundreds of threads about his hatred, and going on and on about it everywhere. Evil Captor didn’t get leashed because of his out-of-the-mainstream sexual proclivities, but because he brought them up in every post. I personally think any number of fellow Dopers are genetically, intellectually, morally, physically, politically, culturally and attitudinally inferior, but since I haven’t said who or why, and I don’t tell them constantly, my behavior isn’t jerkish. Much. 
Posting to insult a specific poster or posting in ways in which one’s language is intended to provoke other posters to break the rules is being a jerk. Holding stupid opinions does not automatically incite others to break rules or insult other posters.
We (well 99% of us) find racism abhorrent. Unfortunately, your proposed cure is worse than the disease.
Free speech makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but the cure for racism (which is taking longer than we thought) lies in open discussion, not shutting people up and isolating them.
So will any number of other questions. Shall we ban them all?
Yes you can. There’s a thread going in the Pit where people are doing that right now.
What is your objective in participating in a debate on racism in GD? To demonstrate that the points raised by a racist are incorrect, or to get them to shut up? Because if it’s the latter, I’m afraid you’ll continue to be frustrated.
Free speech doesn’t apply to a private message board.
The board does not allow open discussion of lots of things, so the board’s standards are that not everything is acceptable for discussion. Agreed?
I haven’t offered a proposed cure.
I’m replying to your explicit statement that it’s about posts that are “things that tend to derail discussion.” How does racism not qualify?
Half of the population is of below average intelligence.
^ Fact.
The problem is separating fact from racist propaganda. But, you certainly can never find all the facts if you’re unwilling to accept data that goes against your preconceptions. I mean, if you look at the bell curves of male and female IQ, while the center of female is higher, the bell is narrower. There are fewer women at the very top of the IQ scale. Does this mean that women are inferior? No, a woman with 165 IQ is just as intelligent a a man with a 165 IQ. (Not to mention that there are fewer unintelligent women compared to men). There might be more men with 165 IQs but all that matters is the individual. And of course, it’s entirely possible that this isn’t a genetic difference, but rather one created by societal pressures.
It’s possible that there are genetic differences that make one race more likely to fit within a particular range of IQ, strength, sexual stamina, or whatever else that might be less than that of another race. But it’s also possible that factors of diet, education, social pressures, etc. explain differences in measurement. But you’d just be sticking your head in the sand to say that it’s a given that it’s not genetic.
But like I said before, even if something is genetic, that might apply to a race or group of people. At the individual level, a woman with 165 IQ, the strength of an ox, and who can go aaaallll night is still the person you want for the job.
Ultimately, debate the reliability of the data and the methodology by which it was created. Tossing someone out because of their motives is scientifically indefensible.