Author Topic: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site  (Read 12381 times)

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #150 on: July 10, 2017, 03:35:43 PM »
Moonwaves is correct.

Re: swearing, I fucking love to swear, and swearing is a great example of how all offense isn't equal. Making "gay people are pedophiles" a casual unchallenged talking point in public discourse leads directly to gay people being discriminated against, closed out of certain spaces, and even legislated against. "Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board. This is measurable harm, the yardstick I generally use to judge this stuff.

Conversely, someone who's offended that I said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm done to them aside from the rufflement. They're just mad at me. That's fine.
Someone who's offended you said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm because you are using an entirely different yardstick to judge the effect than the "gay people are pedophiles" comment.

You're assuming anything you say has no significant negative effects, but that these specific comments that you disagree with need immediate correcting lest they result in some major institutionalized discrimination.

I don't assume you have ill will yourself, but I assume the majority of people engaged in call-out culture are. I have almost no interactions them in my real life. The few people I know who engage in this sort of thing, or who I suspect do (don't meet them much anymore, so who knows) are not known for their...."understanding." They are otherwise okay people, but their politics are pretty vile.

I apologize, I was unclear in a way that has lead to you getting cause and effect wrong here. I'm not (theoretically) calling things out when they result in major institutionalized discrimination. I would call something out when I see it reinforcing major institutionalized discrimination that already exists, and am using "measurable harm" as a way to think about "kicking someone when they're down." Hope that at least clarifies my point.


I get what you are coming from, but I don't agree with this. The Supreme Court overturned just this summer an unconstitutional attempt to deprive the Washington Redskins of their free speech rights, because "Redskins" was deemed racist.

If you want to bring in second-order effects, the anti-racist movement directly resulted in unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. But it's those specific instances of unconstitutional restriction that should be fought: call-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects.

I remember on one forum a poster made a fuss because we offended him with some off-hand discussion of Macedonia when talking about NATO plans. He was Greek and objected to the identification of the nation of Macedonia as Macedonia. That's a big dispute in that region. We can't really change the common name of the nation, though, so we just ignored it. That he was offended by it doesn't really affect us all that much.

I guess we could just not talk about NATO, but given that it was an international relations board, that'd defeat the point.

Obviously this forum has an entirely different purpose so different norms will prevail. The goal is to provide a discussions for Mustachian fans.


shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1782
  • Location: UK
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #151 on: July 10, 2017, 03:44:28 PM »
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?

Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!

One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.

I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)

freshstash

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 75
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #152 on: July 10, 2017, 03:58:38 PM »
Moonwaves is correct.

Re: swearing, I fucking love to swear, and swearing is a great example of how all offense isn't equal. Making "gay people are pedophiles" a casual unchallenged talking point in public discourse leads directly to gay people being discriminated against, closed out of certain spaces, and even legislated against. "Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board. This is measurable harm, the yardstick I generally use to judge this stuff.

Conversely, someone who's offended that I said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm done to them aside from the rufflement. They're just mad at me. That's fine.
Someone who's offended you said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm because you are using an entirely different yardstick to judge the effect than the "gay people are pedophiles" comment.

You're assuming anything you say has no significant negative effects, but that these specific comments that you disagree with need immediate correcting lest they result in some major institutionalized discrimination.

I don't assume you have ill will yourself, but I assume the majority of people engaged in call-out culture are. I have almost no interactions them in my real life. The few people I know who engage in this sort of thing, or who I suspect do (don't meet them much anymore, so who knows) are not known for their...."understanding." They are otherwise okay people, but their politics are pretty vile.

I apologize, I was unclear in a way that has lead to you getting cause and effect wrong here. I'm not (theoretically) calling things out when they result in major institutionalized discrimination. I would call something out when I see it reinforcing major institutionalized discrimination that already exists, and am using "measurable harm" as a way to think about "kicking someone when they're down." Hope that at least clarifies my point.


I get what you are coming from, but I don't agree with this. The Supreme Court overturned just this summer an unconstitutional attempt to deprive the Washington Redskins of their free speech rights, because "Redskins" was deemed racist.

If you want to bring in second-order effects, the anti-racist movement directly resulted in unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. But it's those specific instances of unconstitutional restriction that should be fought: call-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects.

I remember on one forum a poster made a fuss because we offended him with some off-hand discussion of Macedonia when talking about NATO plans. He was Greek and objected to the identification of the nation of Macedonia as Macedonia. That's a big dispute in that region. We can't really change the common name of the nation, though, so we just ignored it. That he was offended by it doesn't really affect us all that much.

I guess we could just not talk about NATO, but given that it was an international relations board, that'd defeat the point.

Obviously this forum has an entirely different purpose so different norms will prevail. The goal is to provide a discussions for Mustachian fans.

I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this. "Calll-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects" - aren't the merits we're discussing as follows:
- an atmosphere where criticism that the majority sees as trivial isn't quashed, leading to the potential for growth for individual posters (when they don't get defensive) and an overall diminished incidence of hurting others carelessly
- decreasing the likelihood of adding to the death-by-a-thousand-papercuts sort of discrimination that many marginalized groups have to face, or at least providing support for those who are dealing with that

Those are both direct merits, not tangential ones.

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #153 on: July 10, 2017, 04:24:50 PM »
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?

Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!

One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.

I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:

Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?

Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?

Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4323
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #154 on: July 10, 2017, 08:19:36 PM »
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?

Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!

One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.

I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:

Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?

Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?

Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Does that just make you want to be sarcastic at them for being moronic.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #155 on: July 11, 2017, 07:08:46 AM »
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?

Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!

One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.

I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:

Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?

Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?

Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Does that just make you want to be sarcastic at them for being moronic.

I'm a bipedal carbon based life form from the planet terra.

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 176
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #156 on: July 11, 2017, 08:55:51 AM »
Moonwaves is correct.

Re: swearing, I fucking love to swear, and swearing is a great example of how all offense isn't equal. Making "gay people are pedophiles" a casual unchallenged talking point in public discourse leads directly to gay people being discriminated against, closed out of certain spaces, and even legislated against. "Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board. This is measurable harm, the yardstick I generally use to judge this stuff.

Conversely, someone who's offended that I said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm done to them aside from the rufflement. They're just mad at me. That's fine.
Someone who's offended you said bullshit hasn't had any measurable harm because you are using an entirely different yardstick to judge the effect than the "gay people are pedophiles" comment.

You're assuming anything you say has no significant negative effects, but that these specific comments that you disagree with need immediate correcting lest they result in some major institutionalized discrimination.

I don't assume you have ill will yourself, but I assume the majority of people engaged in call-out culture are. I have almost no interactions them in my real life. The few people I know who engage in this sort of thing, or who I suspect do (don't meet them much anymore, so who knows) are not known for their...."understanding." They are otherwise okay people, but their politics are pretty vile.

I apologize, I was unclear in a way that has lead to you getting cause and effect wrong here. I'm not (theoretically) calling things out when they result in major institutionalized discrimination. I would call something out when I see it reinforcing major institutionalized discrimination that already exists, and am using "measurable harm" as a way to think about "kicking someone when they're down." Hope that at least clarifies my point.


I get what you are coming from, but I don't agree with this. The Supreme Court overturned just this summer an unconstitutional attempt to deprive the Washington Redskins of their free speech rights, because "Redskins" was deemed racist.

If you want to bring in second-order effects, the anti-racist movement directly resulted in unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. But it's those specific instances of unconstitutional restriction that should be fought: call-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects.

I remember on one forum a poster made a fuss because we offended him with some off-hand discussion of Macedonia when talking about NATO plans. He was Greek and objected to the identification of the nation of Macedonia as Macedonia. That's a big dispute in that region. We can't really change the common name of the nation, though, so we just ignored it. That he was offended by it doesn't really affect us all that much.

I guess we could just not talk about NATO, but given that it was an international relations board, that'd defeat the point.

Obviously this forum has an entirely different purpose so different norms will prevail. The goal is to provide a discussions for Mustachian fans.

I'm honestly not sure where you're going with this. "Calll-out culture should be criticized or defended on its merits, not tangential effects" - aren't the merits we're discussing as follows:
- an atmosphere where criticism that the majority sees as trivial isn't quashed, leading to the potential for growth for individual posters (when they don't get defensive) and an overall diminished incidence of hurting others carelessly
- decreasing the likelihood of adding to the death-by-a-thousand-papercuts sort of discrimination that many marginalized groups have to face, or at least providing support for those who are dealing with that

Those are both direct merits, not tangential ones.

I suspect my disagreement is with your "Death-by-a-thousand-papercuts" comment, though I don't entirely understand what you mean on that. To be more specific, you said you would criticize the gay joke because it might lead to criticism of gay parenting on the Mini Mustache board. My personal thought: address the criticism of the gay parenting on the Mini Mustache board. Lines should be drawn at the places you're actually wanting to defend.

I suspect you might have a problem with the gay joke on its own merits, which, you know, is fine.

Specifically, this:
Quote
"Gay people are pedophiles" becoming a fine thing to throw around on this forum specifically might lead to gay mustachians having really bad experiences with the Mini Money Mustache board
There could very well be a connection to this, but you can prevent the "measurable harm" by addressing the second, and not the first.


EDIT:
I would also expand definitions of harm, but I'm sure you would agree that people who are offended and suffering some version of harm. Corralling people into effort-posting all the time is kind of harmful, too, though. People who like abrasive atmospheres are also harmed by rules of decorum...but that's why there shouldn't be universal rules of decorum and we have independent cultures. They can find their own space.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 09:08:38 AM by A Definite Beta Guy »

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
  • Age: 34
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #157 on: July 11, 2017, 09:24:57 AM »
Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)
Does that just make you want to be sarcastic at them for being moronic.

I'm a bipedal carbon based life form from the planet terra.

Ugly bag of mostly water.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2352
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #158 on: July 11, 2017, 10:07:06 AM »
Some people are always going to react defensively to having it pointed out they've done something problematic, and they're always going to come up with all sorts of knee-jerk justifications and defense mechanisms to push away their embarrassment and foist it onto the other person. This is why we have the phenomenon of drivers who almost cut you off or drive into your lane, and then flip you off when you honk to warn them.

It doesn't mean they're right. Just that they're resistant to having it pointed out that they've done something wrong.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

rockstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2122
  • Age: 2013
  • Location: Northeast
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #159 on: July 11, 2017, 10:40:37 AM »
'Where are you from' is one of my go to conversation starters (as an awkward conversationalist). I hope no one takes it the wrong way, although I could see how they might after this thread. I don't care if they say Oklahoma, Canada, or Sudan, I usually follow it up with what high school did you attend, or I've always wanted to visit there etc etc...is that wrong? Should I take that question out of the rotation entirely? Or does it only get offensive when you press to get a nationality out of them (which I would never do - gah!)?

Wow, thanks- I thought I was the only one lol!

One of the reason I ask "Where are you from?" is because I've been asked so many times myself. I'm used to it,and it seems like a normal question to me. Another reason, and the reason I'm asked is pure curiosity. I can see how it might put the person on the spot with regards to race, especially if they've experienced racism in the past. In all honesty though, without these kind of questions how exactly are people supposed to get to know one another? Maybe if the questions are couched in a "get to know you" way with a bunch of other questions, it's less awkward and more obvious that a person is genuinely curious as opposed to harboring some sort of hidden prejudice.

I tend to go with "Are you from round here?", because it's a slightly more casual wording and has no risk of sounding like "WHERE ARE YOU FROM YOU FOREIGN STRANGER?" :)
Yeah. My ranking would be:

Best/safest: are you from around here? Did you grow up here? Where did you grow up?

Less safe, but okay if followed up in a normal way: where are you from?

Worst/please don't: what are you? (Yes, I have gotten this multiple times)

Thanks shelivesthedream and psychstache for the alternate wording suggestions! I will definitely try to shift my phrasing, assuming I can avoid the nervous blurt.

jooniFLORisploo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2384
  • Location: on terra wateria
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #160 on: July 11, 2017, 10:58:03 AM »
If it's any comfort, rockstache, I love being asked that question (in person). It has led to all sorts of cool things -finding a cousin several times removed; finding out via strangers what my heritage is; fun conversations about borders, politics, immigration, the difference in experiences based on how many generations here; etc.

I would be very confused if asked at first meeting (which has happened, but also resulted in the abovementioned cool things), and often seek clarification: Where did I live right before here? Where was I born? Where were my parents born? What is the geneology we know of? Different people mean different things by their question.

My own policy is to not to ask any question I think a given individual probably gets every day: "Wow, what's the story behind your name?" "Are you from [guesses country by accent, always incorrectly]?" But if I find myself accidentally staring at a person too long over too many meetings, I attempt to halt my unintended jerkness by asking, "Can I ask what your heritage is?" People have so far been great about it.

An aside to the larger conversation: I refuse to identify as white. White is a colour; my skin is not that colour. As information about heritage or culture, "white" is again meaningless, as though there are some distinct cultures then a giant blob of a generic one. So I put "other" on everything that asks.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 25301
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #161 on: July 11, 2017, 05:02:00 PM »
To add on a tiny bit: If you don't find something offensive, whether you're in a group or not, but plenty of other people do, maybe instead of blaming it on "PC culture" you could have some empathy, see that they DO find it offensive, and try to avoid whatever talk was offensive and support others in doing the same?

I understand what you're saying. However, why are some topics protected by this code and others not?

In fact, MMM has several articles in which he purposely tries to agitate and be offensive (like Clown Car habit). He didn't have to say clown car, he could have been much more polite. Telling people they can live on half their income offends plenty of folks too.

Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:

1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.

No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).

There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.

Quote
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?

See above definition.  You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.

Quote
Now, this isn't my house, so I'm fine with cherry picking the topics for which we can be offensive (whatever that means), I just don't think there is any logic behind it.

There is, and hopefully you understand it a bit better now? :)

Quote
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.

It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.

But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.

In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.

Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk.  Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.

Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.

*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with a kid.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (occasionally) blog at AdventuringAlong.com.
You can also read my forum "Journal."

kayvent

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Location: Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #162 on: July 11, 2017, 08:55:07 PM »
I have to respectfully disagree with you arebelspy on almost every single thing you just said.

....
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:

1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.

Who decides that? Especially since, as an internet forum, we are different people from different parts of the world with potentially different groups of people around us who are "historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities".

In many places around the world, there is circular or bi-directional opposition. This complicates your simplification. In my homeland of Canada, we've kinda oppressed the French people in Acadia and Quebec for around three hundred years. And continue to do that. Quebec, in turn, has used this as leverage to bash and debase the Maritimes and the Western provinces. This back-and-forth kindling of animosity makes some people very aggressive and some people extremely violent. So can non-Francophonie people living in Canada sans Quebec not criticize Quebecers and French people living in Quebec not criticize the scourge of Canada? (But I guess Francophones outside of Quebec can criticize Canada and English people in Quebec can criticize Quebec? Could I lie about where I live to get away with this?)

Quote
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.

Quote
One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).

There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.

Quote
Many people find standing up for abortion rights as offensive (i.e. they think it's supporting murder), however in the abortion threads it seems fine to offend in this manner. Why is this OK?

See above definition.  You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.

Jews are a very historically oppressed group. They've presently oppressed. Someone who holds to conservative Judaism is by consequence pro-life. How would you discern between someone disagreeing with the pro-life stance or someone using it as a guise to be anti-Jew? People will often veil their bigotry behind another issue. Take as a toy example those Fox News anchors who constantly ask "where are the fathers?" Do you think they really care about the integrity of inner-city family households or do you think they are coding it to be hide latent racism?

Quote
Quote
Finally, I agree with much of prognastat posted (he did so while I was posting). I'm an atheist too, I guess I should shut up about it since it offends many. Some group of people are always going to be offended at anything, so it's tough define when the offensiveness bar is high enough for enough people that it becomes a problem that needs to be censored.

It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.

But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.

Here I dissent strongly.

First, people don't choose the religion they belong too. We could get into theology or sociology but that is another matter. People generally stay in the religion they are born into; if people had a free action in their choice of religion, someone born to two Jewish parents in Idaho would have the same likelihood of converting to Christianity as someone born to two Astrozorianist Communists in Punjab living in a rural village. (If you think people choose their religion, tell me this: assuming you're not already one, could you choose to be an ultra-orthodox Jew and believe their doctrine sincerely? No, pardoning a seismic shift in your life outside of your control, you can't decide to abandon your basis and worldview and adopt a new one.)

Second, your example is the worst one you could pick. Historically and presently [link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kelly-james-clark/christianity-most-persecuted-religion_b_2402644.html]Christians are the most prosecuted religion group of people in the world[/link]. (Depending on one's estimate for the world's gay population, Christians could be more prosecuted than homosexuals.) I think when you say "this group is prosecuted so we can't criticize them" you get into rat holes on how much they are prosecuted, how to order things (i.e. kyriarchy and who can criticize who), and disagreements on who is the privileged group and who is the oppressed group. (The batshit crazy MRAs believe men are the oppressed group, feminists believe women are. Who decides which one is right? Do we need to call a ceasefire and never comment about pervasive issues in the male populace or female populace?)

Or third, would you ban someone who vocally supported the BDS movement on these forums? That is deeply anti-Semitic and continues two millenniums of Western jew-hatred.

Quote
In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.

Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk.  Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.

Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.

*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.

How does one define `being a jerk`? Take the always controversial infanticide debate. (By this I mean post-term abortion.) If a supporter of infanticide mentioned they support it and have done it, and a detractor says "you are a baby killer", is that name calling or a wholly factual statement of fact? What if the parties disagree on the facts of the matter and what is considered a factually statement by one party is considered a slur by the other?

What if two worlds views are so diametrically opposed that one mentioning the other disgusts/offends the other party?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #163 on: July 11, 2017, 09:58:10 PM »
Wow Glenn Beck has nothing on you.

[link removed]

[MOD NOTE: Whatever that was about ... make it clear to whom you are responding and respond appropriately]



« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 04:13:58 PM by FrugalToque »

nnls

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 859
  • Location: Perth, AU
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #164 on: July 11, 2017, 10:20:23 PM »

Quote
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.


Which of these do you think are changeable by choice?

kayvent

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Location: Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #165 on: July 12, 2017, 04:13:23 AM »

Quote
No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

We disagree about the set of traits that are mutable by choice.


Which of these do you think are changeable by choice?

I give an example lower. I'd define the set larger and include religion/spiritual beliefs.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #166 on: July 12, 2017, 08:52:28 AM »
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:

1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.

No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).

There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.

I would say there is a spectrum of how mutable traits are, of course stopping being an SUV driver isn't that big of a deal, however I would say for example changing your religion on that spectrum is a lot closer to changing your sex than changing what kind of car you drive. There are also studies that speculate that ones propensity for religiosity has at least some limited genetical basis.

Quote
See above definition.  You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.

What if those people feel the babies that are aborted are an oppressed group with an immutable trait in need of their protection the way many other people try to stand up for the rights of minorities that you agree need protection? I'm pro-choice myself, however your argument is on based on opinions on who constitutes as oppressed and in need of protection. Pro-Lifers opinions differ on this and feel the "babies" are being oppressed rather than the women in this situation.

Quote
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.

But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.

In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.

Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk.  Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.

Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.

*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.

Except that atheists have historically been oppressed all around the world and in many places still do. In many African and middle eastern countries you can be put in to prison or put to death for admitting to be an atheist and in even more of them you will face those if you advocate for atheism the way others advocate for their religion. Even in many countries where atheists are tolerated they have to accept being a marginalized group, even in the US no politician wants to admit to being an atheist and any that do generally don't get very far. In polls about trustworthiness atheists rank below homosexuals in the US, so if it can be said that gays are oppressed then I fail to see how they end up ranking higher in public opinion than atheists do.

I would also say that being atheist isn't a choice for most. I can't force myself to believe something I don't. I could act as if I do to make things easier, but would that be any different than a gay or lesbian acting straight and hiding their true feelings?

Also kayvent covered this pretty well, someone can be oppressed for their characteristics in one situation and on the other hand someone with the same characteristics can be an oppressor elsewhere. A Christian in the US would be the majority and could be argued to be oppressing, homosexuals, non-christians, atheists etc. However Christians in muslim majority African, middle eastern eastern and asian countries are often oppressed and persecuted. This isn't even going in to who feels oppressed, despite Christians being the majority and often in control in the US many feel oppressed when held to the constitution and the amendments as far as separation of church and state goes by people from other religions or atheists. So in these kinds of situations you have a group that is effectively oppressing another group, yet feels like they are the oppressed group.

You say there is a difference when you have atheists bashing christians and christians bashing atheists and this might mean it is different, however I see plenty of LGBT people bashing back Christians and Conservatives for how they have been treated by those groups. Does this invalidate their feelings of oppression?

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

In my opinion you are acting as if your opinions on who is and isn't oppressed are not just opinions, but facts when the oppressor/oppressed dynamic can be very subjective and inconsistent.

In the end I feel that though oppressor and oppressed may change that we should always fight for as much freedom of speech because one day you might not be the one deciding which speech is and isn't acceptable.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 616
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #167 on: July 12, 2017, 09:13:04 AM »
Has to do with several factors, most notably two things:

1) Historically and/or currently discriminated or injured minorities.

No one has been persecuted or injured historically, or currently, for driving an SUV (rare exception aside, but not as a group). Think: Homosexuals, black people, women, etc.

2) Immutable traits that aren't changeable or by choice.

One can stop being an SUV driver. One cannot stop being gay, or black, or change their gender (though they possibly can change their sex, they count in this group).

There's lots of interplay, but that's where the line is, typically, around those two items.

I would say there is a spectrum of how mutable traits are, of course stopping being an SUV driver isn't that big of a deal, however I would say for example changing your religion on that spectrum is a lot closer to changing your sex than changing what kind of car you drive. There are also studies that speculate that ones propensity for religiosity has at least some limited genetical basis.

Quote
See above definition.  You can be offended that people want to "murder babies," or offended that others want to "control your body," but being prolife or prochoice isn't typically a historically oppressed group, nor an immutable trait. So they need less protection.

What if those people feel the babies that are aborted are an oppressed group with an immutable trait in need of their protection the way many other people try to stand up for the rights of minorities that you agree need protection? I'm pro-choice myself, however your argument is on based on opinions on who constitutes as oppressed and in need of protection. Pro-Lifers opinions differ on this and feel the "babies" are being oppressed rather than the women in this situation.

Quote
It is tough. It's often a judgement call, and a difficult one, at that.

But can you see how sluring homosexuals is different than an athiest bashing on a Christian, or a Christian bashing on an atheist? Both have had some discrimination in the past in certain cases, but it's not a generally discriminated thing today, nor is it a trait anyone is born with.

In the end, the overriding #1 site rule is "don't be a jerk." That's to everyone, all the time.

Posting an opinion isn't being a jerk.  Calling someone a name is. The athiest and christian mentioned above may cross that line, if bashing someone, or may not, if sharing their opinion in a polite way, even if it offends someone.

Don't be a jerk is a clearer line, and chances are, if you're offending people, you're being a jerk. We'll still allow you to say it, we'll just strike it out so that it's clear it's not acceptable*.

*Assuming we, mods, see it, or it's reported to us.

Except that atheists have historically been oppressed all around the world and in many places still do. In many African and middle eastern countries you can be put in to prison or put to death for admitting to be an atheist and in even more of them you will face those if you advocate for atheism the way others advocate for their religion. Even in many countries where atheists are tolerated they have to accept being a marginalized group, even in the US no politician wants to admit to being an atheist and any that do generally don't get very far. In polls about trustworthiness atheists rank below homosexuals in the US, so if it can be said that gays are oppressed then I fail to see how they end up ranking higher in public opinion than atheists do.

I would also say that being atheist isn't a choice for most. I can't force myself to believe something I don't. I could act as if I do to make things easier, but would that be any different than a gay or lesbian acting straight and hiding their true feelings?

Also kayvent covered this pretty well, someone can be oppressed for their characteristics in one situation and on the other hand someone with the same characteristics can be an oppressor elsewhere. A Christian in the US would be the majority and could be argued to be oppressing, homosexuals, non-christians, atheists etc. However Christians in muslim majority African, middle eastern eastern and asian countries are often oppressed and persecuted. This isn't even going in to who feels oppressed, despite Christians being the majority and often in control in the US many feel oppressed when held to the constitution and the amendments as far as separation of church and state goes by people from other religions or atheists. So in these kinds of situations you have a group that is effectively oppressing another group, yet feels like they are the oppressed group.

You say there is a difference when you have atheists bashing christians and christians bashing atheists and this might mean it is different, however I see plenty of LGBT people bashing back Christians and Conservatives for how they have been treated by those groups. Does this invalidate their feelings of oppression?

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

In my opinion you are acting as if your opinions on who is and isn't oppressed are not just opinions, but facts when the oppressor/oppressed dynamic can be very subjective and inconsistent.

In the end I feel that though oppressor and oppressed may change that we should always fight for as much freedom of speech because one day you might not be the one deciding which speech is and isn't acceptable.

I strongly disagree with this statement.  You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there. 

I will say this however.  It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay.  Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay.  Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender.  The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans. 

I do not see this happening with atheists. 

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #168 on: July 12, 2017, 09:17:27 AM »
I strongly disagree with this statement.  You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there. 

I will say this however.  It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay.  Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay.  Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender.  The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans. 

I do not see this happening with atheists.

You do realize in the US there are many states with at will employment where being an atheist can and does get you fired. When searching for jobs I have found listings that either outright said you had to be christian or veiled in in a we are a company with strong christian values and you have to fit in to the "culture". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Also you ignored my mentioning there are plenty of places in the world where atheists are imprisoned or even executed for their beliefs right along with gay and trans people.

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
  • Age: 34
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #169 on: July 12, 2017, 10:21:33 AM »
Let's start a "who's more oppressed" thread and battle it out!

SimpleCycle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #170 on: July 12, 2017, 10:34:15 AM »
I strongly disagree with this statement.  You may be correct that trust amongst an atheist is just not there. 

I will say this however.  It is still legal to get fired in many states due to being gay.  Also, you can be removed from your home if you are gay.  Trans people have laws in several places that makes it ill eagle to use the washroom of their gender.  The 15th person of color trans woman was murdered in the US, for no other reason then she was trans. 

I do not see this happening with atheists.

You do realize in the US there are many states with at will employment where being an atheist can and does get you fired. When searching for jobs I have found listings that either outright said you had to be christian or veiled in in a we are a company with strong christian values and you have to fit in to the "culture". Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't happening. Also you ignored my mentioning there are plenty of places in the world where atheists are imprisoned or even executed for their beliefs right along with gay and trans people.

Those employers are most likely violating the law, while people who discriminate in employment because of sexual orientation and gender identity are not in many states.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion for all covered employers (all federal jobs, all private employers with at least 15 employees).  In addition, 47 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion (which has consistently held to also be lack of religion), while only 22 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT people.  So the whole "it's worse for atheists thing" doesn't hold water in the U.S. context.  I agree that in the international context, things are far worse in some countries than they are here.

All that said, I think it's clear that religion is something people can face discrimination for.  The "immutable characteristics" argument comes from constitutional case law, not anti-discrimination legislation, where it is defined differently.  I don't think something must be immutable for it to be a reason for discrimination.

SimpleCycle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #171 on: July 12, 2017, 10:40:49 AM »
Also, it is possible to be anti-racist and also staunchly pro first amendment.  I think the Slants/Redskins case was the correct holding, no matter how distasteful I find the Redskins trademark.  But the first amendment applies to government action to suppress speech, not communities setting standards of appropriate behavior.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #172 on: July 12, 2017, 10:52:53 AM »
Those employers are most likely violating the law, while people who discriminate in employment because of sexual orientation and gender identity are not in many states.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination based on religion for all covered employers (all federal jobs, all private employers with at least 15 employees).  In addition, 47 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion (which has consistently held to also be lack of religion), while only 22 states and D.C. have laws prohibiting employment discrimination against LGBT people.  So the whole "it's worse for atheists thing" doesn't hold water in the U.S. context.  I agree that in the international context, things are far worse in some countries than they are here.

All that said, I think it's clear that religion is something people can face discrimination for.  The "immutable characteristics" argument comes from constitutional case law, not anti-discrimination legislation, where it is defined differently.  I don't think something must be immutable for it to be a reason for discrimination.

At no point have I said that atheist objectively have it worse. I am making the point that your view of who is and isn't oppressed is very subjective and not something to use to restrict free speech.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #173 on: July 12, 2017, 10:54:46 AM »
Also, it is possible to be anti-racist and also staunchly pro first amendment.  I think the Slants/Redskins case was the correct holding, no matter how distasteful I find the Redskins trademark.  But the first amendment applies to government action to suppress speech, not communities setting standards of appropriate behavior.

In my opinion free speech is not only about the government. The legal aspect is not the only thing I care about. I prefer to foster a community that is also pro free speech as much as possible. Most censorship doesn't originate in the government, most of it originates from the populace even if it does attempt to use the government the enforce their will.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 11:50:40 AM by prognastat »

SimpleCycle

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 265
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #174 on: July 12, 2017, 10:56:50 AM »
African American is the more technically correct term because if their ancestors were from only north Africa, they'd be classified as white.

.....
And why do black people have to be "of African descent" (I.e. all about their ancestry) whereas white people just get to be white (I.e. All about who they are now) rather than "of European descent"?

A slight correction, the US Census Bureau defines white as people descended from Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans This is a bit too exclusive of a definition but I'll get to that later.

To answer your question, I think the reason why we do this is because all black people have some lineage to Africa whereas the map for "white" people spans five continents. I think this is all bloody aside though and I prefer if we dropped the adjective/modifier in front of nationalities.

Quote
We don't call people "of Saxon descent" or "of Norman descent" in the UK. How many generations before someone gets their own identity?

Pretty much when people stop caring. It is all abitrary. The various statistic departments of countries adapt these terms to fit with what culture has subsumed into various categories. Cameras used to not be considered white for instance but that by and large has vanished. Native Americans used to be considered white but now only a minority are. Slavs and Greeks, like Cameras, used to not be considered white but eventually were.

Some people can't discern someone Idaho from someone from Bangkok. I presume eventually, and by this I mean a few generations, Asians will be considered white. Some already are. I think we are a coin flip away from all people being considered white too. Take former president Omaha. Had he chosen to call himself white only the most bone headed people would have objected; his mother was white so he had equal claim to say he was white as black (ignoring that this is all arbitrary for a second). And if this sounds crazy, I will remind you that Caucasians from India or black skinned people from Iran or North Africa are already considered white.

Kayvent, are you familiar with the phrase the "social construction of race"?  I went to a race exhibit at the Smithsonian American History Museum a few years back and it was fascinating and made a similar point to what you are making.  But they didn't argue it was arbitrary, per se, but arrived at through hundreds of years of evolving social understanding of race.

Take people from the Middle East and North Africa.  There is a proposal to add a Middle Eastern/North African race to the census form for the 2020 Census, because "white" doesn't reflect the social reality of being of Middle Eastern and North African descent in the U.S. these days.  Which is at once arbitrary and deeply meaningful.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #175 on: July 12, 2017, 10:59:14 AM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?

dividendman

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 933
  • Age: 34
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #176 on: July 12, 2017, 11:18:09 AM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?

Exactly, people were "offended" on their behalf... but not really on their behalf.

zoltani

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
  • Location: PNW
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #177 on: July 12, 2017, 11:39:57 AM »
Let's start a "who's more oppressed" thread and battle it out!

It makes sense. As others have eluded to, you basically can't have a voice unless you are part of a marginalized group, so we have to compete to see who is the most marginalized and therefore has the loudest voice. 
“The hardest thing in the world is to simplify your life. It’s so easy to make it complex. What’s important is leading an examined life.”

Yvon Chouinard

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #178 on: July 12, 2017, 11:57:19 AM »
...

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

There aren't any Jews in "Palestinian territory" (AKA Areas A/B). Palestinians have stated several times that no Jews would be allowed in a hypothetical future Palestinian state.

prognastat

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Texas
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #179 on: July 12, 2017, 12:04:32 PM »
...

Jews have historically been an oppressed group, however I would say Israel can definitely be seen as oppressive by Palestinians. However, non-Israeli Jews in Palestinian territory are also often not treated well.

There aren't any Jews in "Palestinian territory" (AKA Areas A/B). Palestinians have stated several times that no Jews would be allowed in a hypothetical future Palestinian state.

My point exactly.

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #180 on: July 12, 2017, 12:16:32 PM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Yeah, you usually only get those kind of numbers with pretty subpar polling methodology. Oops.

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
  • Age: 9
  • Location: WA
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #181 on: July 12, 2017, 12:52:15 PM »
The redskins trademark story was hilarious. The team received an insane amount of vitriol, then the WaPo commissioned a study that found that 9 in 10 Native Americans didn't give two shits.

That's an extraordinary finding. When was the last time 90% of polled individuals agreed on anything?
Yeah, you usually only get those kind of numbers with pretty subpar polling methodology. Oops.
The criticism of the methodology is valid, and their rebuttal seems pretty valid as well. The WaPo publishing the results even goes into how it's a little embarrassing for them because they had pretty negative Redskins coverage before they saw the results of their own poll. I trust the WaPo editorial team a little more than the lady for whom this is the life cause.

FrugalToque

  • Global Moderator
  • Stubble
  • *****
  • Posts: 213
  • Location: Canada
Re: Tolerance of racism and homophobia on this site
« Reply #182 on: July 14, 2017, 04:19:25 PM »
[MOD NOTE:

We tolerate neither racism nor homophobia on this site.  Nor sexism, misogyny or any other kinds of bigotry.

However.

We don't read every post.  You can't just sit back, look at a rude, bigoted post and say, "Let's see how long it takes them notice."  You want something fixed?  Flag it for moderation.  These are volunteer positions, basically, and we aren't always on duty, especially over the summer holidays.  We do what we can.

Just because we don't take care of a problem instantly, however, doesn't mean we don't care at all.

Thanks,
Toque

Also, this thread is getting out of hand ---- Thread locked.]