Quote:
Originally Posted by browser2920
I see your point, and will re-examine my position. There is more nuance to this than my initial responses accounted for. But I'm not sure which way I will come down on this from a modding perspective. It's actually a broader issue, sort of like the "if it walks and talks like a duck, it's a duck" saying. If a poster makes the statement "Group X are a lower category of humans than group Y" (or any obviously racist comment) is he then, by that action alone, considered a racist? Or can we say that it's a racist statement but he isn't a racist? But would a non-racist ever really make a statement like that in the first place?
So thanks for surfacing this. I need to give the subject of the ramifications of calling someone racist, transphobic, etc more thought.
While Im doing that I'd like to hear everyones thoughts about labeling other posters with labels like that. If someone called me a racist, I would take great personal offense at that. I wouldn't expect a moderator to allow what I consider a serious insult to stand. But if I were a racist, I might take pride in that. But openly racists comments will get you banned anyway. So peeling this onion is exposing additional layers.
To summarize, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the general topic of how to treat posters who label other posters with derogatory terms like racist. And what about when someone labels another's statements as racist? Can we make a distinction between the two, or is a person making racist statements by definition a racist? Any input will be appreciated.
Thanks
Several points.
1a. Racism, sexism, homophobia, etc (henceforce simply labeled bigotry) unfortunately remain significant problems in our society. I think we all have a moral imperative to try and address these issues
1b. Part of addressing bigotry involves identifying when something is indeed bigoted.
1c. I thus believe that as a moderator you should be extremely hesitant putting in restrictions against labelling bigoted things as bigoted.
1d. I also believe that bigotry in our society is an order of magnitude larger in its negative consequences than inappropriate accusations of bigotry, and your moderation approach should similarly be far more focused on dealing with bigotry than dealing with inappropriate accusations of bigotry.
2a. I think there is a huge different between labelling a statement or word choice or argument as bigoted and a person bigoted. For instance, many people might not realize the bigoted ramifications of their language, and identifying it as bigoted as very different from identifying the person who ignorantly stated it as bigoted. I try to be excessively clear on this distinction in my own posting.
2b. However, occasionally we see a pattern of bigoted statements and I think it is important to identify the pattern in addition to isolated statements.
2c. I thus believe you should generally follow Rule 1 and make a clear bright line between identifying a statement or pattern of statements as bigoted, and a person as bigoted.
3a.Your job as a moderator is not, in my view, to adjudicate political arguments and to decide whose is more persuasive.
3b. What is and is not bigotry is a political debate. Those lines are something we negotiate through debate. A lot of the statements about how to moderate bigotry - including this one - reflect political worldviews.
3c. I thus think you should ensure your own personal biases as to what is and is not bigotry does not inform when you are allowing and not allowing accusations of a statement, a pattern of statements, or even a person of being bigoted.
4a. I accept that some people can flippantly accuse others of bigotry when this isn't the case and there is little reason to suspect this is the case. That said, I think on this forum it is pretty rare.
4b. I also think that it is a standard right-wing talking point to accuse the left of doing the above, and have a number of political opinions related to problems that arise from framing the bigotry debate around the idea of false accusations of bigotry as opposed to about bigotry itself.
All of this is meant to support my main point: When somebody asserts that a statement, pattern of statements, or person is bigoted, you should judge that assertion based on whether it is said in good faith, whether the person is backing their belief up with quotes and evidence. If someone is spuriously asserting anyone and everyone is bigoted on no evidence, delete/ban that ASAP. But if they are explaining why they believe what they believe in a genuine and productive way, I would be extremely hesitant to shut that down, even - and most especially - if I disagreed with them.