triggered much? this is getting ridiculous... u can't even state certain words in the context of a debate about the use of themHeadKilla wrote:
WTF is this post? These are exactly an example of the problem. If this post is acceptable, I have no desire to even log into this forum ever again.
A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
spoiler
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I half agree with this.Amsel_ wrote:I'm not opposed to a shake-up of off-topic. It's rather irritating to scroll through a thread and not see any actual discussion. I can describe virtually every post you'll find right now: a random shitpost, someone just stating their opinions on something, someone just making a mocking reply that completes ignores the actual discussion that should be had, a question that's kind of stupid, someone knit-picking another person's post, etc. (These aren't all bad things. But it's hard to have good discussions with just those things.) I like to have discussions with people, especially those who are able to provide information I haven't heard before. This is rather rare, unfortunately, and the person who indulges me in new information the most is Dolan when he's telling me about his country.
But Dolan is being named as the most problematic user. Why is that? I've seen him post. He shitposts a bit, but he's fairly consistent about giving proper replies to people who talk properly with him. I disagree with him about a lot of stuff, but he's never argued against me in bad faith - unlike many users who no one sees a problem with. So why is he being brought up? The answer is that there are two separate issues at hand that are being mixed together. One is forum quality and the other is political. People who are unhappy with others' political thoughts are trying to use the issue of forum quality as a vehicle to get rid of people they disagree with politically. But it's difficult to outright promote banning someone for what they believe and still feel good about yourself and what you're doing, so the rhetoric is disguised. We say that we need to fight hate, or that ESOC shouldn't be a platform for racism, anti-semitism, or bigotry.
The problem here is the definition of hate, of racism, of anti-semitism, and of bigotry. Is it hate if I say I hate libertarians, or truck drivers, or Scientologists? Is it okay to hate groups and insult them, so long as it's not a particular "protected" group, the groups protected being decided politically as conservatives, Christians, and Whites never seem to find themselves placed in this protected status? And what about racism? The moderator of real-life discussion thinks most people who support the president are racists. To his credit, he is very hands-off as a moderator, but by virtue of precedent the definition of racist will gradually expand further and further, and the only limit to this expansion would be when it reaches the point that the majority of the userbase is an inch away from being in the realm of "racism." This is certain to happen. When rules such as this are enforced, people immediately switch their debate tactics to trying to bait the other person into getting banned; Ear does this already. And what about anti-semitism? Is it anti-semitic if I say most American news channels and major media companies are owned by jews, and name the owners of those companies with proof that they're jewish, and then use this to argue that "jews control our media?" Would it be against the rules to state facts that necessarily lead to "hateful" conclusions? And bigotry is a non-word at this point. The way it's used is essentially just a way to delegitimize an opposition's views from the get-go by branding them illogical, and recently connotations of hate have been associated with it; but its original definition is closer to "someone who is narrow-minded, stubborn about their beliefs, and unable to tolerate other beliefs and viewpoints." If this is our definition of bigotry, target number one would have to be the people wanting to ban racists and the like. They're technically the ones being closed-minded and intolerant.
It's exceedingly obvious that this discussion is about silencing "right-wing" elements on the forums. Where were the staff resignations when a user called for the president's assassination? Where were the polls when people talked about how they wanted to ban religion? Why is it unacceptable for ESOC to "be a platform for hate," yet it's perfectly fine for users to talk about how they dream of overthrowing the government in a communist revolution? (Note that defenses of these posts will be given a "Well he didn't really mean it like that" defense that would never be given to people accused of making a racist post. Suddenly the term "dog whistling" is used to make sure that even people trying to be respectful about having politically incorrect views can be silenced.) If you want to improve the quality of forums, that is fine; that is good. If you want to ban people for having a different opinion from you, that is your prerogative. But what is absurd is to do the latter under the guise of the former. Not only is it disingenuous and hypocritical, but it sabotages the actual issue of improving discussion quality.
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I voted twice srry
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I find it offensive that you insult my place of origin as "backwards" because you personally don't agree with its culture.iNcog wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_wordsKaiserklein wrote:Have to agree that american are (from my point of view) way too PC. And I'm not talking about this specific thread, I don't even want to start arguing about it. Just overall, they seem to get offended so quickly, even in a non serious context.Show hidden quotes
Even just the fact so many of them say "the f word", or whenever you watch a TV show they beep it... It's like they're talking about voldemort or something, it's kinda ridiculous to me
Oh the United States is a backward, backward country. Fuck is a bleeped word but faggot is not.
But that's because the bible is hateful towards homosexuality and the United States is run by predominately old, white, Christian men.
I find it offensive that you describe being old as if it were a bad thing.
I find it offensive that you imply there's something wrong with Whites having majority-political influence when they are the majority.
I find it offensive that you have a problem with Christians adhering to their religious doctrines and beliefs.
Mods please ban this person. And edit out the "f word" from his post too. (F--k, not FAGGOT) We shouldn't be exposing younger users to this kind of filth.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
What isn't acceptable about it?? I genuinely don't understandHeadKilla wrote:WTF is this post? These are exactly an example of the problem. If this post is acceptable, I have no desire to even log into this forum ever again.
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Can you back up your statements with evidence? Because there are lots of accusations being thrown around here, but the whole discussion seems to be one motivated by lots of underlying frustrations that are being collectively unloaded, rather than an evidence-based discussion.RefluxSemantic wrote:As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Possibly, but I don't intend to put in the effort. I know what I've read from you and I've merely stated my opinion based on that.Dolan wrote:Can you back up your statements with evidence?RefluxSemantic wrote:As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.RefluxSemantic wrote:I half agree with this.
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
So why do you think people are emphasizing that its Jews who own many large media companies? Have you ever heard anyone say the white controlled super markets, or the Asian controlled hair salons or the African owned ethnic food stores? "Jewish people own x% of large media companies" is a neutral fact. However when you make a negative statement about the Jew controlled media, you have to wonder at least if the person is possibly anti-semetic. Why else would they bring up this irrelevant fact? Is there something inherent in a Jewish persons DNA that causes them to own media companies? I dont think its unreasonable to at least suspect someone might have racist tendencies when they bring up the race of someone in a negative context when its completely irrelevant. Like if someone said, that white person owned vitamin shop is terrible, there's nothing inherently racist about it, but you might suspect the person speaking has something against white people. So on a scale of 0-10 on is it racist, its obviously not a 10 or even a 5, but its not a 0 either.RefluxSemantic wrote:I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.Amsel_ wrote:I'm not opposed to a shake-up of off-topic. It's rather irritating to scroll through a thread and not see any actual discussion. I can describe virtually every post you'll find right now: a random shitpost, someone just stating their opinions on something, someone just making a mocking reply that completes ignores the actual discussion that should be had, a question that's kind of stupid, someone knit-picking another person's post, etc. (These aren't all bad things. But it's hard to have good discussions with just those things.) I like to have discussions with people, especially those who are able to provide information I haven't heard before. This is rather rare, unfortunately, and the person who indulges me in new information the most is Dolan when he's telling me about his country.
But Dolan is being named as the most problematic user. Why is that? I've seen him post. He shitposts a bit, but he's fairly consistent about giving proper replies to people who talk properly with him. I disagree with him about a lot of stuff, but he's never argued against me in bad faith - unlike many users who no one sees a problem with. So why is he being brought up? The answer is that there are two separate issues at hand that are being mixed together. One is forum quality and the other is political. People who are unhappy with others' political thoughts are trying to use the issue of forum quality as a vehicle to get rid of people they disagree with politically. But it's difficult to outright promote banning someone for what they believe and still feel good about yourself and what you're doing, so the rhetoric is disguised. We say that we need to fight hate, or that ESOC shouldn't be a platform for racism, anti-semitism, or bigotry.
The problem here is the definition of hate, of racism, of anti-semitism, and of bigotry. Is it hate if I say I hate libertarians, or truck drivers, or Scientologists? Is it okay to hate groups and insult them, so long as it's not a particular "protected" group, the groups protected being decided politically as conservatives, Christians, and Whites never seem to find themselves placed in this protected status? And what about racism? The moderator of real-life discussion thinks most people who support the president are racists. To his credit, he is very hands-off as a moderator, but by virtue of precedent the definition of racist will gradually expand further and further, and the only limit to this expansion would be when it reaches the point that the majority of the userbase is an inch away from being in the realm of "racism." This is certain to happen. When rules such as this are enforced, people immediately switch their debate tactics to trying to bait the other person into getting banned; Ear does this already. And what about anti-semitism? Is it anti-semitic if I say most American news channels and major media companies are owned by jews, and name the owners of those companies with proof that they're jewish, and then use this to argue that "jews control our media?" Would it be against the rules to state facts that necessarily lead to "hateful" conclusions? And bigotry is a non-word at this point. The way it's used is essentially just a way to delegitimize an opposition's views from the get-go by branding them illogical, and recently connotations of hate have been associated with it; but its original definition is closer to "someone who is narrow-minded, stubborn about their beliefs, and unable to tolerate other beliefs and viewpoints." If this is our definition of bigotry, target number one would have to be the people wanting to ban racists and the like. They're technically the ones being closed-minded and intolerant.
It's exceedingly obvious that this discussion is about silencing "right-wing" elements on the forums. Where were the staff resignations when a user called for the president's assassination? Where were the polls when people talked about how they wanted to ban religion? Why is it unacceptable for ESOC to "be a platform for hate," yet it's perfectly fine for users to talk about how they dream of overthrowing the government in a communist revolution? (Note that defenses of these posts will be given a "Well he didn't really mean it like that" defense that would never be given to people accused of making a racist post. Suddenly the term "dog whistling" is used to make sure that even people trying to be respectful about having politically incorrect views can be silenced.) If you want to improve the quality of forums, that is fine; that is good. If you want to ban people for having a different opinion from you, that is your prerogative. But what is absurd is to do the latter under the guise of the former. Not only is it disingenuous and hypocritical, but it sabotages the actual issue of improving discussion quality.
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I'm not making an accusation thoughDolan wrote:So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Reminds me of a time someone claimed that trans people were constantly editing his posts on wikipedia and when asked to substantiate that claim provided 0 evidence, claimed that asking for evidence was unreasonable, and proceeded to declare that the only type of person who could possibly be interested in editing a page about trans people is a trans person( despite the fact that he himself was editing it, and it was statistically unlikely to be a trans person)Dolan wrote:So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Well, you said I err on the side of racism. What does this even mean? Because I know what I think on the subject and this doesn't match anything I wrote or thought about this topic.RefluxSemantic wrote:I'm not making an accusation thoughDolan wrote:So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Can you not see the difference in these two examples? I asked Reflux to quote a post that can be searched on the forum, not to track me down on planet earth by IP and establish my "gender identity". Not all evidence is equally easy/difficult to produce. I would have gladly given you that evidence if it was reasonably possible for me to get it. It would have obviously been a pretty explosive revelation of manipulation through Wikipedia edits. Which I know it's happening, but it's very difficult to prove, again.gibson wrote:Reminds me of a time someone claimed that trans people were constantly editing his posts on wikipedia and when asked to substantiate that claim provided 0 evidence, claimed that asking for evidence was unreasonable, and proceeded to declare that the only type of person who could possibly be interested in editing a page about trans people is a trans person( despite the fact that he himself was editing it, and it was statistically unlikely to be a trans person)Dolan wrote:So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Faggot and Fag aren't even offensive
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).Amsel_ wrote:Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.RefluxSemantic wrote:I half agree with this.
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Yes, the claim he made would be much easier to substantiate( if it is indeed true) so its a much more reasonable claim to make. The claim you made is impossible(obviously its not technically impossible, but for all practical purposes it is) to substantiate, so I'm surprised that someone who believes in evidence based approach without spin, would make a claim that is impossible to prove. It's almost like if you can't substantiate a claim, you shouldn't make the claim in the first place.Dolan wrote:Can you not see the difference in these two examples? I asked Reflux to quote a post that can be searched on the forum, not to track me down on planet earth by IP and establish my "gender identity". Not all evidence is equally easy/difficult to produce.gibson wrote:Reminds me of a time someone claimed that trans people were constantly editing his posts on wikipedia and when asked to substantiate that claim provided 0 evidence, claimed that asking for evidence was unreasonable, and proceeded to declare that the only type of person who could possibly be interested in editing a page about trans people is a trans person( despite the fact that he himself was editing it, and it was statistically unlikely to be a trans person)Dolan wrote:So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I did not. I said that I think you err on the side of racism. I did not say that you objectively err on the side of racism or claim that you do. I just said that I think you do. Sorry to go into semantics, but I specifically phrased that sentence in that way because that was exactly the message I wanted to convey. I did not want to claim that you are a racist, or that you make racist posts, I wanted to claim that I think you do.Dolan wrote:Well, you said I err on the side of racism. What does this even mean? Because I know what I think on the subject and this doesn't match anything I wrote or thought about this topic.RefluxSemantic wrote:I'm not making an accusation thoughDolan wrote:So you're making very pointed and precise accusations that you cannot substantiate with evidence.
It's like saying "he stole my car" versus "I think he stole my car".
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I think there are some gay people who would beg to differ.Riotcoke wrote:Faggot and Fag aren't even offensive
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
-- deleted post --
Reason: on request (off-topic bulk delete)
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
good OP shit thread
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
- Riotcoke
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 4088
- Joined: May 7, 2019
- ESO: Riotcoke
- Location: Dorsetshire
- Clan: UwU
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
In the UK they aren't :)
twitch.tv/stangoesdeepTV
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Well, then, it's just your impression that you cannot prove.RefluxSemantic wrote:I did not. I said that I think you err on the side of racism. I did not say that you objectively err on the side of racism or claim that you do. I just said that I think you do. Sorry to go into semantics, but I specifically phrased that sentence in that way because that was exactly the message I wanted to convey. I did not want to claim that you are a racist, or that you make racist posts, I wanted to claim that I think you do.Dolan wrote:Well, you said I err on the side of racism. What does this even mean? Because I know what I think on the subject and this doesn't match anything I wrote or thought about this topic.Show hidden quotes
It's like saying "he stole my car" versus "I think he stole my car".
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
So would it be fine to argue that, say, Iraqis have a lower IQ because of genetics? What if I insulted Iraqis and called them "stupid?" You wouldn't be wrong to call them stupid if they had a low IQ, but it's technically insulting a race, because "stupid" is an insult. I'll take it as given that calling Iraqis gay, or some other generic insult would be unacceptable.RefluxSemantic wrote:I don't believe that accepting that there is on average a difference between two groups is racism though, given the 'and' in the initial definition of "the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." However, applying these findings to certain individuals beforehand would fall under racism as per the second definition (as it is a prejudice, and acting on solely on that prejudice is also discrimination).Amsel_ wrote:Would I be able to circumvent the anti-racism rules if I divided humans into genetic taxonomies called Bites, Clacks, and Ayjans, and I argued that the Ayjans were the best group because of their genes? This isn't judging based on looks; although, looks are a derivative of genetics, and Bites, Blacks, and Ayjans would incidentally match up perfectly with Whites, Blacks, and Asians.RefluxSemantic wrote:I half agree with this.
But I must say this: Racism is originally defined as something intrinsically illogical (and I'm willing to say something bad). Racism is " the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance, and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I am willing to say that enforcing a no racism policy is a good compromise of freedom of speech.
I'm also willing to say that racism and similar principles are being used way too broadly in modern day society. Your example of "jews controlling the media" is a good example; nowadays it's almost considered unacceptable to say things that facts confirm if they aren't what people want to hear. People then often cry racism/bigotry, but this is in my opinion not correct.
However, I do think actual racism is really something we cannot and should not accept. In that sense I disagree with your post. Comparing actual racism to opinions like communism or hating Trump seems very far off. I do think you did not mean to say that, but you did imply that you think actual racism is the same as an unusual opinion. As far Dolan, I think sometimes he errs on the side of actual racism (or sexism, or similar unbased prejudices/beliefs that certain groups of people are intrinsically superior).
Now I'll ask about my own personal beliefs. I do believe in genetic differences between races, and that these genetic differences cause behavioral differences among different races. However, I don't think it's possible to objectively declare one race superior to another, because the standard by which a race is judged is going to vary depending on the race doing the judging. Imagine an explorer who meets a tribe of natives, the explorer climbs a tree to look off into the distance, but the natives laugh at him and say "This guy's crazy. Only animals climb trees." I think that every people is naturally going to see itself as the best, and recognizing this, see an ethnopluralistic world as an ideal, and a multiracial democracy as a disaster that will only result in war and genocide. Am I racist? Should I be banned?
I also want to address the fact that you see things like communist revolutions as merely "unusual opinions." Why do people who hold beliefs that are hateful and harmful to society, to Christians, to people who like their country, etc get to be given the benefit of an "unusual opinion," yet racism is an ultimate sin? You are arbitrarily ascribing severity to beliefs, and granting protected status to certain groups, based purely on what happens to fit the political agenda of a certain group.
I am not against people expressing beliefs that are potentially harmful, nor am I necessarily against people expressing hateful beliefs. I am also not saying that racism is the ultimate sin. What I am saying is that forbidding racist opinions as by the definition of racism that I provided, seems sensible to me, given that racism appears to me as inherently illogical and harmful.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests