Which espouses racism, notwithstanding your qualifications. — Sapientia
Oh come on, you know what I mean. — 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. — Sapientia
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
There is a common misconception that one is entitled to one's opinion: — 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? — Ovaloid
???
This is why we need clarifications. I legitimately did not know that. — 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. — 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. — 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? — Ovaloid
Who gets to decide whether something counts as a rational account/justification?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? — Terrapin Station
Moderators and admins and site owners. — unenlightened
I propose free skin-care for white people! — Agustino
No need to be fucking offensive, un. — Mongrel
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
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
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
you went as far as saying that in some circumstances, it is morally obligatory. You were espousing racism, given your qualifications. — Sapientia
It wasn't deleted, and the admin who took the action has provided an explanation as to why. — Sapientia
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
Here you seem to imply that racism by any definition which anyone ever uses is unacceptable. — Ovaloid
And how is it usually used in your sphere of the world? — 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? — 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"). — Ovaloid
I never said that I believe such things. So I didn't actually espouse racism by any definition I came across... — Ovaloid
...and certainly didn't think anyone would be so overly sensitive as to consider it offensive. I am quite baffled. — Ovaloid
Post your question in a non-inflammatory fashion. — Mongrel
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. — Sapientia
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
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?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
I said there was nothing wrong with certain definitions of racism. — Ovaloid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.