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.

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?

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

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

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? — Ovaloid

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!

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

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".

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

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.

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. — Ovaloid

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.

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? — Ovaloid

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

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

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!

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

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.

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

Moderators and admins and site owners.

Yippee.

Moderators and admins and site owners. — unenlightened

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.

I propose free skin-care for white people! — Agustino

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

No need to be fucking offensive, un. — Mongrel

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

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. — unenlightened

8-)

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". — Sapientia

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

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. — Sapientia

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?

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

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.

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

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':

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

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

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

The same way that it's 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? — Ovaloid

Because other statements of that nature are false and offensive.

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"). — Ovaloid

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).

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

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

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

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:

Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion. — Mongrel

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.

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 — Ovaloid

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

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

Nor I

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! — Mongrel

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

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?

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? — Mongrel

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.

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

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?

One person's trivial is another's mildly important.

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

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

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

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.

Define 'race' then demonstrate an example!

Why? Are you presently studying English?

Define 'race' then demonstrate an example! — charleton

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.

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? :’(