Lol, okay, that makes it less vile

No I'm not ceding that point. It's a ridiculous point.

IMO gratuitously calling someone a racist is an personal attack. OTOH if the caller can articulate a pattern of racist actions or words from someone it's not a personal attack at all... it's simply a description. That aptness of description is open to debate of course, just like anything else.

Sure, I can think of a few words which are beyond the pale: the N-word and C-word come easily to mind. The R-word isn't anything like them. IMO equating the R-word with the N-word is a flat-out racist viewpoint.

But here's the thing... nobody ever needs to use the N-word or the C-word, "black person" or "female" work just fine. But we don't have any other word for "a pattern of racist actions or words". If that word is effectively censored (even if not added to the profanity filter), the whole conversation is effectively ended.

This isn't some kinda trivial side issue.

Out in the real world, attempting to end these conversations is a technique used by racists all the time. In fact, it's their go-to strategy to help maintain the status-quo of institutionalized racism. It's really hard to change the status-quo if you can't even discuss it... and it's really hard to discuss it if the necessary words are removed from the lexicon.

Example: the Ferguson killing takes place. Racists immediately jumped in with their cries of "race hustling", and claiming the "real racists are the ones who cry racism", and whining about all the "insults" and poor tone. All this shiz does is change the subject, derail and preclude any serious conversation.

Again: the real problem isn't people being "rude". It's the interwebs, just ignore them. The real problem, again out in the real world, is racists ending any serious conversations with all this whining, derailing, and 'tone policing'.

This. We shouldn't even be having this so-called debate anymore... as the whole problem of 'rudeness' has completely been solved.

So why are we? What exactly more does team #whine&derail want ??

Fixed Their Posts

Does the above 'fixes' solve the issues team #whine&derail have with the R-word ??

1 - every one agrees

2- if you pay attention to Duffee, he argues all sorts of positions he doesn't particularly agree with. He may disagree with you that they are racist, but he often agrees they are invalid for a different reason, such government over-policing. Either way, what he actually believes is of no concern. Just counter the argument. Do you have so little faith in the posters on this site to be able to make their own decisions about whether or not something makes sense, or should be considered racist, that you believe everyone with whom you disagree about racism should go away?

You should re-read my question because it's apparent you don't understand it. You can't answer it, btw. Also, you should stop saying we want to end discussions on race, because it's the opposite. In fact, it is you and others who have claimed you want to run off anyone you judge to be racist, which ends those discusdions.

that means he wasn't breaking anyone's rules, you utter ass. Do try to follow along with your own conversations. Can't always expect your intellectual superiors to do it for you.

French?

OK, if you don't want to pick one of mine, pick one of tom's or pvn's. What is a post that made poor Brucey run off, and what should have been said instead?

It's a personal attack either way. It's not a matter of opinion.

Non-gratuitous personal attacks are acceptable in P. Even then there is a limit to how personal and how attacking but that's for the mods (as is the judgement on what is gratuitous).

Accusations of racism can be germane to a political discussion. Trolling supporters of a rival group should be permissible in the Sporting Events forum (to a certain degree) because that's the nature of sports fandom. Context matters. Calling someone racist should be more permissible in Politics than in another forum.

What some people seem to want is a non-partisan current events forum, which I think is silly. This is one of the places on the Internet where you can be a partisan and discuss politics with partisans of a different side instead of an echo chamber concerned with assessing ideological purity tests.

A rapist is something that is reviled where those who support the accusation might believe they have solid evidence while the accused and his apologists might see it as an insult and personal attack that is false.

You mean this question? Sure I can answer it, and I did: the N-word and the C-word are so reviled that IMO they are always considered insulting and a personal attack.

So, what are you saying... the R-word is in the same category (but for some unexplained reason you don't want it added to the profanity filter)?

You might have a point here. I'm completely clueless on what the motives are, in general, for team #whine&derail's whining and derailing. Hence the general questioning of "what do they want", and "why are they here".

What I do know is this however...

• All this whining and derailing regarding the R-word has the effective result of ending discussions on race, regardless of the motives involved.
  
• Out in the real world, it also has this effect.
  
• Out in the real world, real racists know this. They use it as their go-to strategy to really end such real conversations with what is generally called 'tone policing'. In fact, a lot of these particular trigger phrases (perhaps "race hustling", "law & order", "the real racists...") were created by pros in the PR business.
  
• It stinks to high heaven.

Now I've asked this question before, and I never get an answer. Is it a personal attack because the R-word is used, or is it a personal attack because of the underlying meaning conveyed.

A: IMO you're a racist.
B: IMO you're someone who has established a pattern of racially problematic actions and/or speech.

Are A&B both personal attacks??
Is B a personal attack??

If we could have a discussion of the above, then I really feel we could finally make some progress here. And that requires those who #feel (A) is always a personal attack to express an opinion on (B).

What's confusing? It's about the person and it's an attack on their character.

Lets just accept that as long as it's not gratuitous and it's relevant (as judged by the mods) then personal attacks are acceptable in P. Covers any reasonable accusations of being racist doesn't it?

A and B can be different but so what?

"IMO you're someone who has established a pattern of racially problematic actions and/or speech"

What's confusing is I have no idea if you were referring to "IMO you're racist", or the quote above, or both... which was the whole point of my post.

So I'll ask specifically and explicitly, is the quote above a 'personal attack' ??

I hate to get on this, but, uh, the issue isn't just calling posters racist. The SMP crew gets furious when specific people, whether they post here or not, get called racist. They get furious when political movements get described as racist. They get furious at when arguments are called racist.

And it's not like I'm speculating here, before FoldN came up with this brilliant "if it's so bad to be racist, that must make it an insult!" gotcha, he was whining about how Nancy Pelosi called immigration reform opposition partially racist. That's how generalized a comment can be to attract the ire of FoldN.

If the ask here is to pretend that no one is racist, that request is denied. Do you have another request? Is there a point to any of this our futures?

+1. Whether some folks think being called a racist would not be insulting to them isn't relevant. Some (myself included) really do find it offensive because it insinuates an enormous amount of knowledge about a person's thoughts, actions, and experiences that simply cannot be gleaned from some internet posts. And I guess the ease with which it is used here is what caught me off guard.

To be fair, I need to develop a thicker skin if I want to participate here going forward, no doubt about that. But the broader point above about "ending discussions" is true because I felt that I had to defend myself against the accusation which effectively ends the discourse.

For the record:

1. I am white

2. I grew up what most people here would consider privileged.

3. I certainly have biases that are not good that come from background that I would like to not have.

4. I certainly do not consider myself an authority on issues related to race and discrimination.

So why am I here? Because a lot of reading this forum opens up ideas and opinions that I rarely get elsewhere and those can only help me to re-define some of the biases that I know I have. I think overall that is a good thing and I would also think that the main goal of discourse is to understand and improve.

Bottom line, I think there is a lot of emotion and nastiness that goes on here that detracts from those goals (for me anyway).

Like all communication the meaning depends on the intention, common usage and context. Communication requires an effort from all participants and the meaning of a sentence is not always contained within the words.

That's why we need mods and not bots. Judgement have to be made and sometimes questions have to be asked

I still don't get what the problem is. Non-gratuitous personal attacks are allowable anyway

Actually I am not sure I agree (although maybe Bruce is the example you are referring to). For me it is more about how the conversation goes sideways and downward if/when someone is called that and how hard it is (in some cases impossible) to get back on track. But maybe my thought of how the forum might be better is not shared by most people here. If that is the case then OK. Maybe time for me to move on then.

Whether something is offensive enough to be added to the profanity filter is beside the point. Nobody is talking about that but you. I have been illustrating that calling people bad names (however true you may believe they are) is always a personal attack, and personal attacks are against the rules for obvious reasons.

We can't even call voter ID laws designed to discourage minority turnout racist without a ****ing 1000 post derail.

Hey, morons, it's not like we MAKE you have a freakout about how nothing is racist and you can't see anyone's soul to say what lies in the heart of hearts. Don't blame the grownups, who were having a grownup talk about grownup issues amongst themselves, for your immaturity and need to passionately deny the existence of racism.

If someone says "Asians are bad drivers," what additional personal thoughts, experiences, and actions do I need to be savvy to in order to safely say, "That's racist?"

What is an example of some of the heightened discourse we missed out on when we called one of your posts racist?

Fly is all about shutting people up and/or trying to get them to leave at times.

You can just not respond to him when his in full fly mode. Or just appreciate the show. Same with others when they are just being abusive/trolling - you have no obligation to respond.

Can someone identify when racists became as fragile as hot-house flowers?

There is, and it's like 95% from people saying racist things and then crying when they get called racists.