There's no mention of race in the quoted post. There's only a reference to "white Jesusism" which is not a race but the racist idea that Jesus was white. You're allowed to critize that obviously.

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers

That, if anything, is a racist assumption on your part.

There's no mention of race in the quoted post. There's only a reference to "white-Jesusism" which is the racist idea that Jesus was white. — Baden

Yes, that's what the poster claimed. As I noted, I think that is disingenuous. Rather than arguing about that I'll just ask - if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts.

if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable. — T Clark

Dude, if the cap fits, whoever it fits needs to wear it, whatever race they are. You are retroactively presuming it does fit a particular race and then asking if that's racist. If there's a racist in that scenario, it's you.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts. — Baden

Of course I do, or, when you say "you have no right" do you mean that as a moderator you won't allow? If so, just stop the thread now. As I said, I plan to keep my input civil and low key.

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil or "low key" about that at all. Either show me the exact racist quote or retract the accusation.

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil about that at all. Either show me the exact racist quote or retract the accusation. — Baden

I think I've set up this discussion in a clear and fair way. If, as a moderator, you disagree, and if you think that the thread is unacceptable, I am not going to raise a ruckus if you remove it.

I think I've set up this discussion in a clear and fair way. — T Clark

I disagree, but I'm not going to delete or close it quite yet (although maybe another mod will, which is fine by me). I expect the response will be more akin to my interpretation that this is not at all a fair way to represent someone's quote than your idea that this is just a low key civil thing to do.

Now, please answer my question:

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adulterers
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers — Baden

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist — Baden

For the record, I didn't call the poster a racist. He's not. I like and respect him and he and I agree on a lot. I didn't say anything about him. I only asked about the post he wrote.

Now, please answer my question: — Baden

I don't intend to answer your question. In my opinion, the language clearly refers to white people. I don't feel any need to justify that. If other people agree with you, this thread will peter out quickly.

if I text were about white people, would it be acceptable. — T Clark

That's the thing, by the plain language alone, it would only be about some white people, not all. And, while I like the notion of "If the shoe fits, wear it", I like even better my own twist which is this: "If the shoe doesn't fit, why the hell are you wearing it?" Are you the accused? Or are you coming to the defense of the accused?

Another angle is the "All Lives Matter" mantra in response to BLM. As has been opined elsewhere, that's like walking across the street to your neighbor's house on fire and asking the fireman "Hey, what about my house?" Jeesh, take a seat.

Finally, when a heritage that you choose to venerate and hang on to is one of treason, slavery, racism, confederation, and anti-intellectualism, then you get to play the enemy of America. You probably don't want or need T Clark to come to your defense. Let the hate rain.

In my opinion, the language clearly refers to white people. — T Clark

Why?

I don't feel any need to justify that. — T Clark

Yes, you do, because it forms the basis of your accusation of the use of racial language.

You have no right to inject your own racist inferences into other posters' posts. — Baden

+1

You are retroactively presuming it does fit a particular race and then asking if that's racist. If there's a racist in that scenario, it's you. — Baden

+1

You're again falsely accusing another poster of being racist with no evidence whatsoever when you've been informed on several occasions there is no evidence. Having no leg to stand on, you again present this in a misleading way and try a trial by poll. There's nothing civil or "low key" about that at all. — Baden

+1

The language is a bit obscure to this ancient white dinosaur. Nevertheless, I catch the general drift I think.

And why must all of the following, for example, "clearly" be white people:

1) Religious hypocrtites
2) Opioid addicts
3) Adultereres
4) Strippers
5) Maskless morons
6) Unwed mothers

That, if anything, is a racist assumption on your part. — Baden

They don't have to be,

these "Gawd-fearing folks" belong to the least educated, least healthy, demographic in the US. — Not T Clark

I wonder what demographic that is? Could it be this one?

But the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool
He's taught in his school
From the start by the rule
That the laws are with him
To protect his white skin
To keep up his hate
So he never thinks straight
'Bout the shape that he's in
But it ain't him to blame
He's only a pawn in their game — Bob Dylan

To speak of race is always to take a risk, but the risk of not speaking is a far more damaging form of racism. Let me say out loud that the dreadful history of the manufacture of race and the institutionalisation of racism as ghettoising, apartheid, has damaged us all and continues to damage us all. But clearly the history of Europe and America is all one way and none of the other way. To suggest that there is a legacy of black superiority that needs to be addressed by special threads and moderation to protect white folks is an insult to the intelligence of a moron.

We can talk about white people in various ways, and we need to be able to, to make sense of history, of the whole colonial story of which the slave trade and colonisation of the Americas was a large part, and the troubles social and psychological that we inherit on all sides. We need to make sense of it and take steps to ameliorate the ongoing damage.

Essentially, it's a nice little conundrum he's gotten himself into. The extent he can be sure the language refers to white people equals the extent we're justified in assuming white people in the South are actually like that equals the lack of prejudicial content. And the only way out of this circus of foolishness is an even worse circular presumption that it's because 180 wrote it that it must be racist? Why? Because he's black? Oh, more racism from T Clark.

If not, why is it acceptable for white people? — T Clark

Maybe it's not. Go change the world instead of expecting others to change it for you if it's that important to you. Man "some people" are lazy af. Think everyone is just created to do things for them.

:100: The "other side" would then begin to understand what is meant by the term "dog whistle" which they've been using in support of fascist nationalism and racism from Dear Leader. Fun when the shoe is on the other foot.

That's the thing, by the plain language alone, it would only be about some white people, not all. — James Riley

I don't understand. What difference does it make whether it refers to all white people or just some? It definitely doesn't refer to me. I'm a northern white liberal

Finally, when a heritage that you choose to venerate and hang on to is one of treason, slavery, racism, confederation, and anti-intellectualism, then you get to play the enemy of America. You probably don't want or need T Clark to come to your defense. Let the hate rain. — James Riley

This is the issue I had hoped to discuss. It looks like the thread won't go in that direction though.

I don't think what the language describes is a "heritage." Actually, I think that was the posters point - he was describing what he considers to be the heritage of white southerners.

Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!

You have to laugh.

I don't understand. What difference does it make whether it refers to all white people or just some? It definitely doesn't refer to me. I'm a northern white liberal — T Clark

Then again, why wear the shoe if it doesn't fit? Is it because you find them an underdog in need of a white liberal defense?

I don't think what the language describes is a "heritage." — T Clark

I do. In fact, many a southern bigot specifically defends their own stance as one of heritage. I get it from the following language: "Confederate flags . . . endemic voter suppression . . . Dixie . . ."

My heritage is destroying them, circa 1860s. Why aren't they all about my heritage?

Actually, I think that was the posters point - he was describing what he considers to be the heritage of white southerners. — T Clark

This is a stereotype about white southerners, indeed. For example, when I think of people of the American South, my first impulse is to think of white people, not of blacks.

I do. In fact, many a southern bigot specifically defends their own stance as one of heritage. I get it from the following language: "Confederate flags . . . endemic voter suppression . . . Dixie . . ." — James Riley

On a philosophy forum, it should go without saying that people would do their due dilligence and check with the potentially offensive poster as to what they really mean, before accusing them of racism.

Unless it is clear from the poster's posting history that they are a particular kind of racist supremacist.

"If Jesus is white and God is white, then authority is white," Anthea Butler, an associate professor of religious studies and Africana studies at the University of Pennsylvania.

By the way, @Hanover's a white Southerner and though being obese, a maskless moron, an opioid addict and an adulterer, he is, as far as I know, not an unwed mother. Stripper is 50/50. So, you've got at least one wrong, Clarky.

We can talk about white people in various ways, and we need to be able to, to make sense of history, of the whole colonial story of which the slave trade and colonisation of the Americas was a large part, and the troubles social and psychological that we inherit on all sides. We need to make sense of it and take steps to ameliorate the ongoing damage. — unenlightened

This answer makes sense to me, although I don't agree. This is the question I was trying to get at.

I think there are two questions here 1) Do different rules apply to white people because of historical conditions and 2) Is the derogatory, contemptuous language used in the post acceptable.

As for 1) - If I thought that criticizing white people for current and historic wrongs would help solve racial problems or make things better for racial minorities, I would probably support it. It is clear to me that that type of criticism makes things worse rather than better. Calling people "racist" doesn't make things better for anyone.

And 2) - The contemptuous language in the post won't help solve any problems. It just makes the poster feel better but makes everything else worse. Beyond that, as I pointed out, I think this type of disparaging language would only be allowed about white people. I think that is a mistake.

Maybe it's not. Go change the world instead of expecting others to change it for you if it's that important to you. Man "some people" are lazy af. Think everyone is just created to do things for them. — Outlander

I don't understand what this has to do with this thread.

All your arguments fall apart because the assumption the comments are exclusively about white people is yours and 180 is not responsible for your assumptions. Further, we don't do moderation on the basis of unfounded assumptions. At some point you need to acknowledge that and stop pretending you have any basis for your argument/complaint.

So, now we're here:
Me: I saw some fat unhealthy stupid drug addicts in Atlanta the other day.
T Clark: That exactly describes white Southerners! You racist!
Me: But why do you presume I was exclusively talking about whites??
T Clark: I don't have to justify that. Now as I was saying...

On a philosophy forum, it should go without saying that people would do their due dilligence and check with the potentially offensive poster as to what they really mean, before accusing them of racism. — baker

As I noted. I have not accused anyone of racism. All my comments are about the text. I didn't even call it racist. I just asked if it was acceptable as a description of white people.