Yet another blinkered over moderated Forum

Reply to charleton Moderation is relatively light here in my view. In fact, to my knowledge, you are the first person to complain of it being too heavy.

Reply to charleton I didn't understand your view. Was it that there's no such thing as a Jew? Or just that Jews don't qualify as a race?

Reply to charleton Note that I moved this thread to the Feedback category. We aim not to moderate Feedback at all, so you're free to say what you like here. As it happens, my original moderator action was not in response to the view you expressed--even though I think it's obnoxious--so much as your reluctance to defend it or even explain it properly, which in the end amounted to low post quality.

I shall use this as the thread for rule criticism and questioning
Quoting Baden

Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?
Or did you mean "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having and don't listen to the other side"?

Quoting Ovaloid

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?
Or did you mean "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having and don't listen to the other side"?

Yes very good points! I thought much the same. Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant.

Quoting Ovaloid

In my opinion, simply believing or stating that a certain race is inferior or superior to another is fine and in some cases morally obligatory (when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting). It is when it is used to insult that it becomes wrong.

How can something like "I am morally obligated to point out that whites/men/heterosexuals are superior to blacks/women/homosexuals" ever not be an insult?

Since it is quite an emotive word that people generally don't like to be associated with I think it's definition should be and stay at "Prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt directed against someone of a certain race (so that said person feels it) based on the belief that it is inferior to another".

The bit in bold seems to contradict your first sentence.

Quoting Ovaloid

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?

It's not impossible, but as clearly stated, these are general guidelines.

Quoting Agustino

So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant.

They're clear enough, in my opinion, and it sends the right message: homophobes aren't welcome here.

Quoting Sapientia

homophobes aren't welcome here.

Okay, I agree that it's the right message, but what does that mean? What counts as homophobic? In common discourse in todays world, many things are associated as homophobic, which don't really express either hatred or desire to do violence to a group of people based on their sexuality. A religious person may think that it's sinful to engage in homosexual sex, for example - but does that make them homophobic, necessarily? I don't think so - and yet many common people would say "yes it does". I think that should never be acceptable here is (1) hatred of homosexual people and (2) desire to do violence to homosexual people based on their sexuality. Such should never be welcome, I agree.

But I disagree that we shouldn't allow discussions about the morality of homosexual sex. I think that such discussions can be fruitful and are important to both sides.

Quoting Ovaloid

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?

Generally, no.

Quoting Baden

Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

The evangelist by definition can't think critically about their own position. Their interlocutors in their eyes are nothing but potential converts. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that almost inevitably leads to unproductive discussions. Note the words in bold though. Provided you don't fit the bill (and I'm not aware of anyone on the forum who does), you have nothing to be concerned about.

Quoting Agustino

Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant.

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target in that sense.

Quoting Baden

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here.

Thanks for clarifying :)

Quoting Michael

The bit in bold seems to contradict your first sentence.

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't.


Quoting Michael

How can something like "I am morally obligated to point out that whites/men/heterosexuals are superior to blacks/women/homosexuals" ever not be an insult?

It depends on the situation. Saying things intended to insult what the speaker believes will insult (what I meant by 'insult') is wrong. But say for example the context is a discussion about differences in the level of attainment between ethnic groups, then it's perfectly OK to suggest or state that they are due to racial, genetic differences, just as it is OK to suggest or state that for any proposed cause.

Just to be clear, the guidelines don't represent any change in policy. Rather, they're a statement of existing policy. (That's another way of saying, "Chill, folks, if you haven't had a problem before, you're not going to have a new one now").

[reply="Agustino;19954]

Quoting Baden

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here.

That is what I was hinting at when I said that it is clear [i]enough[/I]. It is clear enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. (Even if the wheat is still wrong).

I've merged @Ovaloid's racism thread in here as it's really just a challenge to the guidelines.

Reply to Baden No, it wasn't. It was a much more general criticism of the culture I experience. Therefore, I would like it left there, please. Also, why did you delete the comments?

Quoting Ovaloid

No, it wasn't. It was a much more general criticism of the status quo. Therefore, I would like it left there, please.

That horse has bolted.

Quoting Ovaloid

Also, why did you delete the comments?

I didn't delete the comments. I merged the thread, so the responses are here now. Or should be, at least.

Quoting Baden

That horse has bolted.

You can reverse the change so the thread under politics can still be bumped. Is your problem that people will respond here still? In that case you can put a link and a note here.


Quoting Baden

I didn't delete the comments. I merged the thread, so the responses are here now. Or should be, at least.

I see them now.

Quoting Ovaloid

You can reverse the change so the thread under politics can still be bumped. Is your problem that people will respond here still? In that case you can put a link and a note here.

The reason the best place to clarify this issue is here is because you can freely say whatever you want in Feedback including arguing that we are being too hard on racists and their ideas. Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position. So, in that sense the move is in your interest.

Just another quick general comment: The site is expanding and having a set of guidelines to refer members, especially new members, to, helps reduce the increasing workload of the mods. Call us selfish, but we consider that a good thing. If you're a regular, have a quick read and get on with whatever you were doing. Pretty much everyone is cool here.

Quoting Sapientia

(Even if the wheat is still wrong).

LOL :D

Quoting Ovaloid

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't.

I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.)

The particular belief we're considering tends to equate a person with their facial features and skin color. Since the underpinning of this belief is a materialistic outlook, you could argue that if we're going to vilify beliefs, it should start there: materialism is evil.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Just because materialism can potentially lead to racism and ultimately to black men being burned to death, it's not true that materialism is evil.

Maybe that would be the better way to explore the question philosophically. It has less chance of being perceived as Neo-Nazi adaptationist crap.

Quoting Mongrel

I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.)

Why can't it be about both? If beliefs play no part in your conception of morality, then all the worse for your conception of morality. It's not a category error to categorise beliefs as good or bad. He who believes that racism is acceptable is worse than he who believes that racism is condemnable (all else being equal), and he who believes that racism is acceptable [I]and[/I] is actively racist is worse than both. The former sort of "passive" racism isn't okay or amoral; it's bad.

Reply to Sapientia That's an interesting issue you've raised there.

Reply to Sapientia Unless a) morality requires a choice and b) we don't choose what to believe.

But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :)

Quoting Michael

Unless a) morality requires a choice and b) we don't choose what to believe.

So you think that ignorance is always excusable under those circumstances? I don't. I think that some people should know better.

There are at least some things that we don't have any choice but to believe, but we do have some control over our attitude and level of ignorance and that sort of thing.

Quoting Michael

But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :)

You're right, but we don't have to be in feedback. Feel free to reply elsewhere.

Re the comments about beliefs, I'm not of the view that any beliefs, or even any speech, is morally wrong.

However, I sure don't agree that racist beliefs/comments would ever be "morally obligatory," especially given that racist beliefs are mistaken (re the idea that some "race(s)" are superior/inferior to others).

Quoting Baden

Pretty much everyone is cool here.

I can't help but feel that you meant me. Thanks! You're cool too.

Quoting Baden

Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position.

How come?


Quoting Michael

But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :)

The fact that people can think things like this is part of the reason why my thread should not have been moved, @Baden.

Quoting Sapientia

Why can't it be about both? If beliefs play no part in your conception of morality, then all the worse for your conception of morality. It's not a category error to categorise beliefs as good or bad. He who believes that racism is acceptable is worse than he who believes that racism is condemnable (all else being equal), and he who believes that racism is acceptable and is actively racist is worse than both. The former sort of "passive" racism isn't okay or amoral; it's bad.

Which definition of 'racism' are you referring to?

Quoting Ovaloid

How come?

We've only just put up the guidelines, which includes the following part, which you obviously read:

Racists/homophobes/sexists: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

You then decided to submit the following comment:

Quoting Ovaloid

In my opinion, simply believing or stating that a certain race is inferior or superior to another is fine and in some cases morally obligatory (when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting).

Which espouses racism, notwithstanding your qualifications.

Given that we've stated in the guidelines that we don't consider racist views worthy of debate, and that you will be banned for espousing racism, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the decision was made to moderate the discussion in which you espoused racism.

Now, I understand that you appear to have been making the pedantic point that there are multiple definitions of racism, and that you were making a distinction, and that according to one definition of racism, you can think of relatively uncontroversial counterexamples. This is why you haven't been banned outright like the admins would have done with someone who had submitted comments of a more explicit and offensive nature. But you should have been aware - and I believe that you were aware - that you were wading into risky and provocative waters.

I didn't play any part in the decision to merge your discussion into this discussion or to close your original discussion, but I understand why that decision was made, and I support it.

Quoting Ovaloid

Which definition of 'racism' are you referring to?

Oh come on, you know what I mean.

Reply to charleton

There is a common misconception that one is entitled to one's opinion: a misconception that has seen so many internet 'discussion' facilities turn into little more than a series of ever crazier, abusive monologues. One is not, especially in a philosophy forum, unless one can give a rational account of that opinion and justify it from evidence, observation, or logical progression.

I will try to keep the conversation cool and I hope you will do the same. Not that it isn't already cool, I just feel it going in that direction.
Quoting Sapientia

Which espouses racism, notwithstanding your qualifications.

???
This is why we need clarifications. I legitimately did not know that.


Quoting Sapientia

Oh come on, you know what I mean.

No, I really don't know which one you mean and I can't make my comment (which assumes a certain meaning) without knowing.


Quoting Sapientia

Now, I understand that you appear to have been making the pedantic point that there are multiple definitions of racism, and that you were making a distinction, and that according to one definition of racism, you can think of relatively uncontroversial counterexamples. This is why you haven't been banned outright like the admins would have done with someone who had submitted comments of a more explicit and offensive nature. But you should have been aware - and I believe that you were aware - that you were wading into risky and provocative waters.

You seem to think that just because the ideas are put under the same term in some language that they are similar enough for that to be a reasonable action. But that's not true.

Reply to Sapientia Quoting Barry Etheridge

There is a common misconception that one is entitled to one's opinion, a misconception that has seen so many internet 'discussion' facilities into little more than a series of ever crazier, abusive monologues One is not, especially in a philosophy forum, unless one can give a rational account of that opinion and justify it from evidence, observation, or logical progression.

Re this quote from Barry. Can any moderators give such a rational account of why my post was bad enough (not that I consider it bad at all) for deletion to be justified?

Quoting Barry Etheridge

There is a common misconception that one is entitled to one's opinion:

It's not a misconception. It's a principle. You either like it or you don't.

Quoting Ovaloid

Re this quote from Barry. Can any moderators give such a rational account of why my post was bad enough (not that I consider it bad at all) for deletion to be justified?

Just start over, dude. Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion. If you don't know what that is, I'd say there's no time like the present to learn!

Quoting Ovaloid

???
This is why we need clarifications. I legitimately did not know that.

It was implied. That was the point of your discussion, was it not? You titled it as "By many definitions of 'racism' it is not a bad thing'. But more than that, you went as far as saying that in some circumstances, it is morally obligatory. You were espousing racism, given your qualifications. You were making a distinction between two definitions and distinguishing "good racism" from "bad racism".

Quoting Ovaloid

No, I really don't know which one you mean and I can't make my comment (which assumes a certain meaning) without knowing.

Racism. I'm using the word how it's usually used. Not, for example, to point out that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin in comparison with white people.

Quoting Ovaloid

You seem to think that just because the ideas are put under the same term in some language that they are similar enough for that to be a reasonable action. But that's not true.

Perhaps he jumped the gun, but if he did, it was understandable, because your comments were provocative and easily misconstrued. I'd rather see the discussion closed than potentially escalate. And the discussion hasn't been censured or deleted in any case, it's merely been moved somewhere that was deemed more appropriate.

Quoting Ovaloid

Re this quote from Barry. Can any moderators give such a rational account of why my post was bad enough (not that I consider it bad at all) for deletion to be justified?

It wasn't deleted, and the admin who took the action has provided an explanation as to why.

Quoting Sapientia

Not, for example, to point out that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin.

I think we should get some affirmative action about this... I mean it's just so unfair you know... :D I propose free skin-care for white people!

Quoting Barry Etheridge

unless one can give a rational account of that opinion and justify it from evidence, observation, or logical progression.

Who gets to decide whether something counts as a rational account/justification?

It seems like often what happens is one person thinks they're forwarding something with adequate support and the person with a different view thinks no such thing. Then both parties keep talking without budging--and on philosophy forums, often with the apparent idea that the best approach is to simply type more words each round--until one of them gets tired of it.

Quoting Terrapin Station

Who gets to decide whether something counts as a rational account/justification?

Moderators and admins and site owners.

Yippee.

Quoting unenlightened

Moderators and admins and site owners.

As if you folks would do that without any interest at all in the thoughts of the members. No need to be fucking offensive, un.

Quoting Agustino

I propose free skin-care for white people!

We already do in England. It's called rain!

Quoting Mongrel

No need to be fucking offensive, un.

There is need for clarity. This is how the site works. The owner sets it up, recruits some folks he has some regard for to help him, and other folks vote with their presence or absence. It's not a democracy, and while we all like to argue about rules and principles, decisions are made by the aforementioned offensive fuckers according to the kind of stuff they like and don't like to see. The guidelines give a general indication of what that is, and those that don't understand them or don't wish to abide by them are probably going to have problems with the site.

The internet is too big and people are too ridiculous to be able to operate without blinkers and get even part way round the course.

Don't despair, folks. It's not as bad as the previous post might make you think.

See here:

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/485/how-totalitarian-does-this-forum-really-need-to-be#Item_16

Quoting unenlightened

The internet is too big and people are too ridiculous to be able to operate without blinkers and get even part way round the course.

8-)

Quoting Sapientia

It was implied. That was the point of your discussion, was it not? You titled it as "By many definitions of 'racism' it is not a bad thing'. But more than that, you went as far as saying that in some circumstances, it is morally obligatory. You were espousing racism, given your qualifications. You were making a distinction between two definitions and distinguishing "good racism" from "bad racism".

Here you seem to imply that racism by any definition which anyone ever uses is unacceptable.


Quoting Sapientia

Racism. I'm using the word how it's usually used. Not, for example, to point out that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin in comparison with white people.

And how is it usually used in your sphere of the world?
Also how is stating that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin in comparison with white people less wrong than any other kind of stating a race is naturally superior in some aspect?


Quoting Sapientia

you went as far as saying that in some circumstances, it is morally obligatory. You were espousing racism, given your qualifications.

I said it is only obligatory when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting (perhaps I should have said "would be obligatory"). I never said that I believe such things. So I didn't actually espouse racism by any definition I came across and certainly didn't think anyone would be so overly sensitive as to consider it offensive. I am quite baffled.


Quoting Sapientia

It wasn't deleted, and the admin who took the action has provided an explanation as to why.

I was referring to this quote by Baden:
Quoting Baden

The reason the best place to clarify this issue is here is because you can freely say whatever you want in Feedback including arguing that we are being too hard on racists and their ideas. Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position. [my emphasis] So, in that sense the move is in your interest.

And I responded to his 'reason why': Reply to Ovaloid

Quoting Ovaloid

Here you seem to imply that racism by any definition which anyone ever uses is unacceptable.

Nope. I was just describing what you were doing, as I understood it.

Quoting Ovaloid

And how is it usually used in your sphere of the world?

The same way that it's used in your sphere of the world.

Quoting Ovaloid

Also how is stating that black people have naturally superior UV protection for their skin in comparison with white people less wrong than any other kind of stating a race is naturally superior in some aspect?

Because other statements of that nature are false and offensive.

Quoting Ovaloid

I said it is only obligatory when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting (perhaps I should have said "would be obligatory").

Yes, those were the circumstances I referred to. (And yes, it would have been better if you'd have just used "would be" and "if", if that is what you meant).

Quoting Ovaloid

I never said that I believe such things. So I didn't actually espouse racism by any definition I came across...

You did, perhaps inadvertently, imply that you do in your original statement due to your use of present tense.

Quoting Ovaloid

...and certainly didn't think anyone would be so overly sensitive as to consider it offensive. I am quite baffled.

You implied something potentially offensive that you have since claimed not to have meant, you didn't elaborate until later, and it is obviously a sensitive subject. A non-staff member has also noted the problem in the way in which you worded your discussion:

Quoting Mongrel

Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion.

So, in light of this, why so baffled? If you'd have taken more care in how you worded your discussion, then we might not be in this situation.

Whether the action taken was right or wrong, it is understandable.

Quoting Ovaloid

I was referring to this quote by Baden:

The reason the best place to clarify this issue is here is because you can freely say whatever you want in Feedback including arguing that we are being too hard on racists and their ideas. Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position. [my emphasis] So, in that sense the move is in your interest.
— Baden

And I responded to his 'reason why': ?Ovaloid

Well, I've put in my two pennies worth. I'm not going to go round in circles.

Quoting Sapientia

Well, I've put in my two pennies worth. I'm not going to go round in circles.

Nor I


Quoting Mongrel

Just start over, dude. Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion. If you don't know what that is, I'd say there's no time like the present to learn!

I wasn't aware it was inflammatory. Could you help me put it in a better way please?

Reply to Ovaloid You could start by being honest. Your title suggested that there's nothing wrong with racism, so obviously you know it is held to be wrong.

The National Guard has been called out to maintain order in Charlotte, NC because of rioting related to racism. Are you aware of that?

Quoting Mongrel

You could start by being honest. Your title suggested that there's nothing wrong with racism, so obviously you know it is held to be wrong.

The National Guard has been called out to maintain order in Charlotte, NC because of rioting related to racism. Are you aware of that?

Er, where did I say that I don't know it's held to be wrong? And what does the US national guard have to do with this?
Be honest yourself first. Making irrelevant criticisms like that for people who don't check to read is a pretty dishonest tactic.
Also: I said there was nothing wrong with certain definitions of racism. Don't strawman either.

Quoting Ovaloid

I said there was nothing wrong with certain definitions of racism.

But beneath the supercial appearance of controversy, that's actually a very trivial point, so I don't get why you still want to continue that discussion, as you implied when you asked how to go about rephrasing it. There's nothing morally wrong with certain definitions of anything, racism included.

Wouldn't you rather move on than continue to dwell on this?

Reply to Sapientia
One person's trivial is another's mildly important.
Quoting Sapientia

I don't get why you still want to continue that discussion

I don't like having my view hidden like that.

Reply to Mongrel Nothing qualifies as a race, least of all Jews as the term reflects not only a religious group, but an assumed "ethnic" grouping.

Reply to charleton The word is used in various ways. If you object to a certain usage, I would advise an attempt at persuasion. Historically, emotional appeals are the most influential. You can also try bribes.

Reply to Mongrel Define 'race' then demonstrate an example!

Reply to charleton Why? Are you presently studying English?

Quoting charleton

Define 'race' then demonstrate an example!

A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, etc. to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Not over moderated so much as a Forum full of jokers. Or should I say morons? yes, morons would be more like it.

Reply to charleton But if you leave now our moron tally will diminish by one! If only you could then experience the grand state of the forum after our moronness has been curbed, >:o

Edit: I just realized...am I also a moron for interacting with morons? :’( Reply to Mongrel Reply to Michael