why is it against forum rules to call someone bigot when they push biogtry

There is irrational fear, and then there is rational public debate on the subject. Certainly the Palestinians are not living in normal circumstances.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They probably don't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Gluing the hair back together, or something like that

Frankly, methinks you're splitting hairs. But ....

No. It's more a product of running political disputes. Think of "Dubya" and "Teabagger" to the one, and "Hussein" and "The Obama" to the other.

The first two are names bestowed by the people targeted by others. That is, President Bush was frequently referred to as Dubya by friends, business associates, and political sympathizers. It only became problematic as a name when the opposition started using it. Suddenly, "Dubya" was seen as insulting. And the Teabaggers? They gave themselves that name. The other side of the aisle laughed its collective ass off, so once again, the self-appointed moniker was seen as insulting.

With "Hussein" and "The Obama", the terms were deployed specifically in a disrespectful context. Yes, it's the president's middle name, but the opposition fixated on it as part of a tactic intended to promote the xenophobic "secret evil Muslim" politic. "The Obama" is just a stupid attempt to depict President Obama as some sort of liberal-crowned messiah figure, so that those among the opposition who use it can pretend to feel threatened, and thereby justify their ferocity.

Well, no, that has nothing to do with celebrity. Think of it this way: As a leftist, I'm accustomed to angry conservatives accusing that people who see the world in a similar context to mine are trying to destroy America, or help terrorists murder innocent children. To the other, when a member is posting arguably bigoted material, it is inappropriate to call that member a bigot. Just like it is inappropriate to describe cowardly argument as cowardly. Or stupid people stupid. Many people are insulted by arguably accurate characterizations of their posts, attitudes, and behavior. And we keep coming around to accommodate those folks. I find this problematic, to say the least, but a the same time, I'm not certain where to draw the line. After all, as some around here note, if one person uses a term another finds insulting to describe—arguably accurately—the other's behavior, then why shouldn't the other attack the one in the same way, simply to be insulting? Really, there are quite a few people around here who simply don't get this. That is, if you repeatedly catch someone lying, and call them a liar, they might be insulted, so why shouldn't they call you a liar regardless of truth or falsehood, and simply because they find the word insulting?

Bearing all that in mind, what happens if we start accusing one another—without any real evidence, or even purpose—of molesting children, or blowing dead goats?

Sure, I might think we have quite a few idiots around here, but the fact that they're idiots ought to suffice. There's no need to accuse them of murdering Kermit the Frog, stealing cookies from retarded kids, embezzling from their mothers for meth money, or whatever. And, to be certain, some of that has gone on before, but one person's offhanded joke is another's mortal insult, and it should go without saying in the context of libel that one person's cruel, calculated joke is another person's reason to get legitimately and sincerely pissed off. It rarely led to anything good, and at best, when everyone taking part was in on the joke, it brought a few laughs. And then those people who couldn't tell the difference had trouble understanding why they weren't allowed to randomly and deliberately insult someone by libeling them. ("But ... but ... he said she liked to lick puppies!" Yes, but you obviously have no idea what was going on in that particular discussion; those two are always at each other like that. And, yes, really, there are people who can't figure out that a longer relationship was taking place between members. If you're familiar with the term in medias res, just go with that—some people can't understand that they are walking into the middle of a conversation, or only picking up fragments of what is really going on.)

In the long run, I would illustrate by suggesting you think of all the random shit friends often give one another. Once upon a time, the atmosphere at Sciforums was thick with that kind of jocularity, rivalry, general bullshit, and camaraderie. And over the years, we've had to trim away some of that behavior as excessive in order to accommodate the stupid. And, yes, paradoxically, we have given broad permission to many of those stupid to deliberately remain so. Maybe we just didn't want to be cruel to the less fortunate among our neighbors, but we've gone well beyond dumbing this place down. We now face the possibility that we are officially retarding social and intellectual growth at Sciforums.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Republican Space Rangers

And 98.6% of them Freudian. It's the nature of the beast.

 

In many cases, appropriate evidence does not impact. It is still seen as hate speech - regardless of its veracity.

 

I'm a Teabagger.

I enjoy teabags.

Also pendulums.

I hate fags.

At least when they aren't my own.

They just flaunt, and blow smoke in your face. It's very menacing. And anti-family.

 

The big error is seeing this only as an ethical/moral issue. In fact it is an existential issue: if 20% of the world pop became gay, humanity would cease to exist after a few generations. This makes it more problematic for humanity than even incest. I say, gay rights are good for gays and I support it - while equal gay rights is bad for gays.

 

:roflmao:

Calculations please.

 

I'll take dumbest statements ever for 500 please Alex....