Then why are so many liberals continually making those arguments?

I'm more than happy to have my views challenged, even mocked. That is best done by attacking arguments, as is written in the forum rules.

It sounds like you concede that calling people racist, sexist, etc. is personally attacking them. How can you claim this is an intellectual space when the rule only applies to whoever happens to think someone is racist, sexist, and so on? That sounds just like a safe space, doesn't it?

If I call your ****ty racist views ****ty and racist, well guess what? It's because I think you're a ****ty racist.

So you literally just want me to add a single word to me calling you a ****ty racist to make it ok? And yet you complain about safe spaces?

Based on his posts, Bruce is a racist. Calling him a racist is no more an attack against him than calling him right handed.

No, Master, I would prefer you focus on the mistaken reasons for believing my thoughts are racist, so I can show you why they aren't. Like feel free to name one. Personal attacks get us nowhere.

Calling someone a racist can certainly be a personal attack, and if someone was going around calling everyone racists for no apparent reason I wouldn't have any problem with them getting modded for it.

On the other hand, truth is an affirmative defense against libel. Racist is also a description. It would seem kind of ridiculous to ban people for calling racists "racist."

On the other other hand, it's also obvious that most of the time when people get called racist the direct implication is that whatever they just wrote expressed racist presuppositions, or a policy preference based on racist assumptions or leading to racially unjust outcomes, or etc. Maybe it's sloppy writing, but the meaning is not that hard to follow. Most of the time people whining that they've been personally attacked just don't want to actually have the argument about why what they said seems racist.

Given all of that, plus my belief that racism is a much bigger problem than people getting called racist unfairly, I see no reason to provide any absolute protection for people against being called racist.

Again, how is that different from me saying that based on your posts, you a clearly a piss-stained idiot? (Hypothetically)

FoldN, nowhere you spout your nonsense will ever be confused with an intellectual space.

Because of gross incompetence, and then overall lack of effort, on the ASUCSD's part.

The issue over ten years ago was the UC Administration was threatening to yonk the ASUCSD's access to the campus tv station. That, and the Koala dudes rarely actually published back then, but instead took the AS $$$$ to pay pornstars to have sex with them, and generally used their subsidized office space as a party pad (which BTW is the major subsidy they receive from the AS, as their print run costs are quite nominal. FYI: the use/misuse of office space is also always a major bone of contention on the UCSD campus, way in excess compared to other colleges, for reasons that are somewhat arcane).

After the porno incident, the Koala-Bros cleaned up their act regarding the above. Also... the Koala publication itself has basically zero mindshare on the UCSD campus. It's infamously a "nerd school", and 99% of the students, 99% of the faculty, and 99% of the staff couldn't care less about any of this BS.

As I mentioned, there are no such issues with the Koala at SDSU or CSUSM. Those ASs don't share the historical incompetence and dysfunction the ASUCSD is infamous for.

I agree with you that racism is a big problem, and so is communicating about it. That's why there are forum rules. Based on your logic, since I also think ignorant idiots are a big problem (racists often being just that), everyone should be allowed to call people ignorant idiots on this forum, simply because they've made an ignorant stupid statement, correct?

You just said it was OK to call the views racist but not the poster. My question is, what the **** is the difference?

Because they think those individuals/groups or those specific attitudes are worth engaging and arguing against. Which is fine by me. I spend my time arguing with people on internet forums about random political topics, so I'm not about to accuse them of wasting their time.

To the extent that they believe that this is a crisis of national significance which can only be solved by establishing rules forbidding anyone to call someone racist, I disagree with them, although I don't really think they reach the same conclusions as you do.

Have you ever said anything stupid on this forum?

You know what. I'll answer my own question. When someone says something racist with no history of doing so in the past, my response will be "hey man, that was pretty racist, here is why."

If a poster has a serial issue of continuing to post the same racist thought over and over again I will say "hey man, you're a ****ing racist." In both situations my statement is completely correct and not name calling. It's stating fact.

I got laughed at for saying there was effectively no difference in practice here.

I accept there is a difference in principle

Sent from my XT1021 using 2+2 Forums

In practice, this seems to already be the norm. :P

For my part, I don't object to it provided the accusation of idiocy is accompanied by some actual substantive content. It seems like a bad idea to turn this into yet another debate about how the forum should be modded though, and also an idea that might get me banned, so...

Sure. And when I'm called on it, I tend to change my view if there is adequate proof of why what I said is stupid. If I doubled and tripled down on stupid **** like LAS or Wil, it would be entirely correct for you to call me a ****ing idiot for continuing to support the stupid thing over and over again after being shown where I was wrong.

Right. I quite often use the "Your thoughts are X" tactic in non-PU forums as that is what the rules require. It doesn't change the fact that if I tell Pyramidscheme he has lunatic ****ing views and his views belong in an asylum that I am directly inferring those comments about him and not his views.

Now you're mixing topics, but I'm very confident the free speech advocates at FIRE or the ACLU would agree the first rule of this forum is not enforced equally (in a viewpoint neutral fashion if you will). Surely it's no crisis of national significance though, don't be silly.

Anyway, they talk about the opinion that the current wave of student illiberalism has been overhyped on thefire.org podcast, it's pretty interesting.

Yeah, well I only talk about it when others challenge me on it. It's clear I'm right from a logical standpoint. How the site wants to enforce it's rules it up to them. I'll just say, in my opinion, the biggest obstacle to further reducing racism in this country is people not talking about it in a healthy, productive way, especially with people we think are racists. You can decide for yourself if this site does a good job fostering those discussions.

Because short of me saying I peed myself you can't know the status of my jeans. You also would have a hard time defining idiot in a such way that it would be possible for someone to both make a post and be one at the same time. Meanwhile, racist posts are fairly easy to spot and fairly obvious in their nature.

Yeah, but what if you disagreed, did not change your view, but you actually were still saying stupid things?

How are we supposed to describe someone who says that people being noisy is only a problem if they are Mexican because Mexicans are the problem?

As I've stated on this topic a number of times, there is a difference between somebody who comes in with an idea that is clearly wrong/racist/bigotted/whatever, and people say "Hey, that's not cool and makes you look like X, maybe you should reconsider it." And somebody who comes in with an idea, is told the same thing, and then whines about being called a racist while continuing to claim that they are correct without any desire to learn or consider another viewpoint.

At that point, it is very kosher to call that person a ****ing racist, etc, because they have no interest in why their ideas might be ****ty. So why waste the time, instead of letting them know what a **** pile they are? How is that making their racism worse? How is that hurting the ability to reduce racism? That person doesn't have any interest in changing their thought. Maybe shaming them about how ****ty their views are might get them to change their mind.

I think that statement is stupid. To act like judgement of what is stupid is any better or worse than judgement of what is racist is patently absurd.

According to your rules, you are not supposed to make personal attacks. Perhaps attack the statement and see if they will defend it?