It would be a tough thing to prove here, I'm guessing. But, in the scattered few instances you can dig up anyone honestly trying the civil approach, the one that's so obviously better IRL, yet so far disputed in the ether, I'm fairly sure you'll find a much friendlier and constructive, and educational conversation. No, that doesn't mean you'll automatically convince him, or that you or he is anymore right or wrong to begin with, just that there's a much better shot somebody, somewhere learns something worth learning.

I was trying to give you an out because I wasn't trying to make it about Bruce. You want me to dig up examples of the team Bruce indecision and bring it back to Bruce? I'd be happy to talk about other examples though too.

My point was that it doesn't really matter whether things really are racist, at least for you guys. It just seems like you guys just hate when someone mentions that people are doing or saying racist things.

FlyFW calling me and Chezlaw racist works fairly well.

It didn't really offend either one of us though...

Oh well that helped.

It did manage to change the subject from 'racism' to 'FlyFW is an idiot.'

Probably not as constructive a use of my time than me discussing racism.

I'm not sure if I'm trying to convince some of you purposeful hostility is an inferior approach to constructive discussion or if I'm trying to convince you constructive discussion is better, or both.

Don't tell us... show us. How about you trying to give us a real world example... how would you try to engage ih8ustfu in a 'serious conversation about race' ??

I'm not sure I understand all his points, but it looks like he believes calling things racist that aren't racist and bickering can cause racism to flourish. Why don't you explain how you took it and why you think what he wrote was "racist derp." First, what is racist about it, then why that it's so obviously terrible you would choose to insult him by calling it "derp."

Serious? You're telling me you don't find anything racist in ih8ustfu comments? Nothing at all?

Now sure, I'll answer your Q about what's racist about them. As to why I said 'derp'... well that's exactly what it is. It's a well-worn canard, and probably even has a name. But first I'd like to give you another swing at the ball...

What's racist about ih8ustfu post, and how would you engage him in a 'serious conversation' regarding it using 'common civility' ??

I honestly don't think he was clear enough with most of his points to feel comfortable calling anything he wrote racist... animus, institutional or otherwise. You seem to know what he means though, and I have little doubt you'll stick to it, whether he meant it that way or not.

If I were to engage him, I'd ask him to clarify if he thinks just talking about racism is "empowering it," or if he means something else, like abusing it for political gain perpetuates racism. I'd first ask him to clarify by being more specific.

Most of the people who get called racist aren't interested in having a conversation. In fact, most of the time most posters aren't interested in having a conversation, about anything. There are forums and threads that are an exception (like this one), but in general - and in fast moving threadzillas in particular - people aren't talking to individual people, they are talking to the entire forum. The kinds of conversations you want are neither possible nor appropriate in those situations.

You're complaining about the style, but your real problem is the venue. This is the nature of an internet forum with moderate to heavy traffic. Insults, jeering, gossip and trolling have been 100% standard since the beginning of the internet. It's never going to change. There actually is a conversation of sorts that happens, and it can be pretty fascinating at times if you know what to look for. But you don't see it because you want the forum to be the sort of place it never can be.

The 2+2 politics forum is about as civil as it gets for the topic and traffic level, and despite my occasional snark to the contrary, I have consistently been pleasantly surprised by the quality of what comes from it. You just have to accept it for what it is and take the value you can from it.

You could be right, zikzak.

Me too.

That is a fairly decent description of events.

The problem is that it is extremely stupid to not change your strategy when you know what game you are playing. I am assuming that your game has something to do with reducing racism. If so, then playing into your opponents hands is a bit stupid.

It is quite simple: They aren't obliged to play by your rules. If you hand them a grenade, you can whine that they chuck it at us if you wish, but that is pretty dumb.

The liberal strategy has always been to take the moral and intellectual high ground. It is slow going, but it works.

When?

He is right.

That's why I earlier quoted the relevant parts earlier (and below) The rest of the poorly written post is just word salad... no real need to read it.

OK, you haven't connected all the dots yet... but your getting an idea. Fair enough. How about you trying to actually engage ih8ustfu in a 'serious conversation' regarding your concerns mentioned above using 'common civility'? As in... quoting his message and addressing a reply directly to him?

Could you do that for me?

I don't want to muddy the above waters right now.

Fair enough.

Sometimes it's better to not engage. And I'd say the waters are plenty clouded by now, but why not, I'll give it a go.

I think I see where you're going with some of this, but I'm not sure. Do you think it's worse to discuss racism in a constructive manner than it is to ignore it? Are you saying you expect it will go away on it's own eventually if we pretend it doesn't exist?

In the last month or all time tally?

If he was right he could explain how calling out racial instigation and using racism to immaturely troll equates to whining. These guys just don't want to consider the consequences of when the mob is wrong about who is a racist or the seriousness of making accusations of racism in a realistic manner. They want entertaining mocking of anyone who fits a stereotype and by any degree, so far as to treat people who disagrees their behavior the same as an actual racist. They have a whole pseudo- theory about human social order that suits the purpose. So what? Popular opinions can be wrong. It's certainly mostly good intentioned, I think we can weed out the real malfeasance behavior and keep the unintended consequences in check by keep tabs on who is called a racist, or other social oppressor and enforce due process and being fair and reasonable ourselves. We can do this with threads like this, self-modded with rules to suppress the mob disruption behavior of degradation and mockery. We can accurately decide racism at an individual level in a way which is dignified. People's Court to keep a check on people who just can't stop calling people racist and having nothing but disagreement and trolling to back it up.

Personal attacks dishonesty dressed up as it all being about the posts is the main problem.

Those who honestly personally attack someone are okay (assuming it's allowed in that forum) even if the person making them is totally wrong.

True.

If a group IRL commonly say 'racist' meaning 'institutionally racist' or something similar then that usage would be fine in the group. Used on a forum then the more common usage is required. You can have some leeway but not when it causes such a problem.

It so obviously causes a problem that it's very difficult to believe those who continue to do it are't intent on causing a problem.

I'm not going to defend bickering but what's your view on policies e.g affirmative action? Is that an example of something you would claim empowers racism or could it help solve the problem?

Strawberry fields?