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.

Which espouses racism, notwithstanding your qualifications. — Sapientia

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

Oh come on, you know what I mean. — Sapientia

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

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. — Sapientia

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.

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. — Barry Etheridge

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?

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. — Sapientia

Which definition of 'racism' are you referring to?

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

How come?

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

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

That horse has bolted. — Baden

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.

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

I see them now.

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?

The bit in bold seems to contradict your first sentence. — Michael

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

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? — Michael

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.

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

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. — Baden

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"?

There is of course considerable historical support for the observation that when freed from oppression the oppressed become oppressors. The interesting thing is that it is usually not those who actually suffered that are responsible but the first generation after them, those seeking 'justice' by which, of course, they usually, if unconsciously, revenge, for their parents. — Barry Etheridge

Can I see some please?

My thinking was that having no social pressure to be consistent across posts might enable people to have inconsistent ideas at a single time. But if it also pressures people into being constant in their ideas over time, I'm not sure.
Total anonymity is certainly the easiest option technically speaking.

Good point
I guess total or near total anonymity seems to be the option that best suits everyone's wants then.

Is your point that people should have the freedom to judge ideas based on person?
I get your point about there being no irrelevant issues and everything is connected (although I'm not sure I agree) but I don't see how this will stop people from thinking that way just because they can't see others thinking that way.
The original idea (before I posted on this forum) was that a fully anonymous forum would be a bad idea because there would be no social pressure to post consistently (and possibly therefore think consistently). But I'm not sure how true that connection between public thought and private thought is.

Are you criticising the idea absolutely or in comparison to another idea you consider better?

If in comparison to representative democracy:

Impractical because the politically inactive will always be politically inactive. They'll have no more interest in or make any more effort towards appointing proxies than they do to voting themselves. — Barry Etheridge

While it may not be an advantage when it comes to some people, there is still the other good thing of allowing people to vote directly.

Unworkable because a register of voters and the proxies they hold and the votes for which they are eligible would be near impossible to maintain accurately, and a huge drain on resources and time that should be devoted to the actual politics. — Barry Etheridge

I don't see how that would be near impossible to maintain accurately. Can you explain?
I see how that makes it more corruptible though, since the decision making process is more accessible (if you get my meaning).

Corruptible for much the same reasons as it unworkable and because special interest groups would simply hijack the entire scheme gathering up proxies by fair means or foul to wield in pursuit of ever more self-serving agendas. — Barry Etheridge

Well, people can still withdraw their votes from their proxies. But maybe most people won't be bothered to. In that isn't it still better than RD (with forced proxies).

Democracy is so palpably is not is a good thing and never will be! — Barry Etheridge

I'm interested: What is democracy worse than and why?

Please explain
EDIT: if you want, I will look up the disadvantages first. There's no point cluttering up the Internet with the same content

It depends on the idea: if it's a philosophy of life then it's effect on someone's personality is important but I can't see how it would otherwise.

In order for there to be a world in the first place, there has to be Other, and if there is no Other than there does not seem to be any room for existence of anything. — schopenhauer1

Can you explain why you think this way?

One advantage I could think of, for keeping the names constant throughout the issues is that whenever the issue in discussion is a really deep one, and the poster couldn't possibly type his entire position on the issue, any reader could put his post in context with what he's posted before, and thus understand where the idea is coming from better. — hunterkf5732

Yes, that could happen for related issues. But if the poster wants to be understood he should link back to his other, relevant posts.

Hmm, that point works against the pro-ban side too I see
are there stun weapons that stun for a long time (e.g days) until an antidote?
The effectiveness of this depends on how long police/criminal tension usually lasts (in all democratic countries please, don't assume everywhere is the states)

I have a solution. Please tell me if it fits your needs: Ban guns, allow tasers and other stun weapons. For police also. Homes and people can still be defended by knocking the offender out without killing them. Right?

Please, stop these un-backed-up, irrelevant and ad-homing generalisations.