Just because I came to my own independent conclusions that agree with a few things that racists twist to their own ends does not mean I was duped by them. Do you also believe that anyone that supports decentralizing decisions to the states instead of the Fed is duped by racists?

Is it still a "misunderstanding" when it's a deliberate twisting of my intentions? I do not for one second believe that Fly actually believes it, although I guess he might have convinced himself after years if repeating it.

Fair enough. Makes a huge difference though, possibly all the difference.

Except you have done something. That is unless you don't think PC works.

That doesn't mean what was done was correct or the best approach, but forcing ourselves to take extra care not to offend certain groups is a good idea. Maybe even more important its reminded us what a good idea it is.

The misunderstanding is more general at this point.

I have demonstrated the political tactic of mischaracterization by show and tell recently. It is defeated by simple accuracy that doesn't need frequent assertion if that wasn't obvious.

Treating it like a misunderstanding is probably easier for more people to agree with.

Seems like from the context of his message Tom is using the least severe definition of racist.

So even if you want to count that one as a direct accusation of being a racist, (fair enough he did write it,) that's still only 2 people. And only 1 said it in a mean attacking sort of way.

After Bruce's post it was gloves off, but before that doesn't seem much like a crazy mob to me.

One, you totally didn't come to your own independent conclusions, especially if they mysteriously track with exactly what the Mises paleo-libertarian crowd argues/ed. BUT the whole reason why Rothbard joined the paleo conservative crowd and the libertarian crowd was expressly to gain more adherents even if they weren't totally aware of the bend Rothbard/Ron Paul put in it. It's possible to argue about the secession and Civil War in libertarian terms which is exactly why Rothbard joined them. But at some point you've got to see the forest from the trees. The unrepentant social darwinism, the nostalgia for the more "libertarian" American past free from Federal oversight, the odd way that the Mises arguments tracked with Lost Cause/Noble Heritage arguments. The libertarian patina on this stuff starts coming off pretty easily. Libertarianism is an ideology that doesn't necessarily entail playing with racists but one has to see where libertarianism has been coopted for racist ends and the Civil War apogetics is certainly one of them.

What... no way.

As I mentioned, the mindless semantic appeasement of calling a BruceZ a 'racist' -vs- calling BruzeZ a "poster of racist ideas" just doesn't work.

It's patently ludicrous to imagine that if every single other poster had used the phrase "poster of racist ideas" instead of the word 'racist' that BruceZ... (a) wouldn't have got his panties in a twist, (b) would have engaged in a substantive conversation regarding race, (c) wouldn't have whined about the 'Librul PC Vagina Police', (d) wouldn't have threatened to abuse his mod position, (e) wouldn't have had his multiple mental breakdowns, or (f) wouldn't have ran away with his tail between his legs.

But as soon as any one single poster used the word 'racist' instead of the phrase "poster of racist ideas"... well to the BruceZ's of the world they are 100% justified in doing all the above, derailing any thread, and whining incessantly about how they're the 'real victim'.

The attack on the person rather than the idea was before he responded though and I think you will agree if you re-read Bruce's reply was a source of considerable anger. There were some other issues as but if the focus of the debate among the more serious 2+2ers had been about the posts being unacceptable then things might have been a lot different. A more determined effort to de-escalate would have been optimal imo.

We will probably have to agree to disagree, because I don't see Tom's post as some kind of unfair attack. Seems fairly measured and reasonable to me.

Wat? I missed the arguments, I guess.

Simply stating "that is racist" doesn't amount to an argument. "Person x said something racist" doesn't amount to an argument.

That is just gossip.

******

More to the point, how does anything I said relate to some random guy?!?!!

That's a different issue. It definitely called the person rather than the idea racist.

Ridiculously I'm not sure that's what Tom even meant. Future posts claim he only decided Bruce was racist because of how he responded which cant be right unless the earlier post was meant to say 'the posts were clearly racist'.

It really doesn't matter now. I'd hope its done in a better way next time.

When everybody was talking about the quotes that were just up thread there was no argument going on. We all agreed. Which should tell you something. (Though I have a funny feeling it will tell you something different than it tells me.)

I thought you were still talking about Bruce. In the last 100 posts or so he's been the subject of several posts regardless of if he was named.

No it's not an argument. But it isn't 'gossip' either, it's an unsupported assertion.

At that point Person-X has several options... including ignoring it, dismissing it without explanation (canonically "LOL" full stop), engaging in the conversation by asking the person making the assertion to 'show their work', or whining like a stuck pig about 'name calling' and derailing the conversation.

BruceZ spectacularly choose the whining like a stuck pig option.

Let's assume Tom's post was a spiteful and vitriolic attack. How does that justify responding as if the entire forum came after him with personal attacks? That was really what blew this thing up.

I agree in a sidewasey-squishy sort of way. Just trying to keep the boat from capsizing, really.

Assuming that 'if a person reacts emotionally in response to a racist assertion, that is proof to support the assertion' is not a reliable or exactly realistic assumption.

This points to the idea of that any particular racist disposition is not expectable. An indifferent attitude and an emotion-less denial are not the same as responding with 'fighting words'. A person with a conscious human-oriented perspective about people may or may not take kindly to the characterization. A real racist might never say another word however which way they are confronted.

I used to assume that any random anti- racist would flinch at being accused of racism. I still think that response is reasonable. Being angry at facing the notion is also understandable. How reasonable and understandable a situation evolves after that point is unpredictable.

It could be that the ideal strategy is also the least stable - escalate unreasonably and then all start backing down towards a compromise.

I think PC provides the best solution. Posts are attacked for being non-PC, they can be deleted if necessary and the PCness of them can be debated with vigour with barely a need to discuss whether the posts are actually racist let alone whether the poster is. If someone doesn't respond to repeated warning to keep their posts PC then they can be banned.

Much more civilised, a lot less fun for a few and squeals of PC gone mad from many - that's a price worth paying

Me? I don't do loyalty.

No. I wasn't. I am interested in making things better for my kids.

We share the interest and the idea.

I'm not justifying it. It was personal and explosive from very early on is all I'm saying.

I think it would have been better if it hadn't been so personal, and as it was so personal, it would have been better if both sides had tried to deescalate.

That works precisely once per relationship.

Bruce shouldn't have gotten so offended since he was just play acting at being a racist anyway.

Yes, you should never attack a person. Unless you logically deduce that that person is an estrogen laden butt-buddy.

The SMPers keep forgetting that this is the lie they are going with.