Rationalskepiticism,lol.

[Mr.Samsa]

Well no, there is a huge difference between someone saying "Nigger scum" and "Cracker scum". Yes, they are both insults and individual people might have their feelings hurt by both but obviously there is a larger context behind the terms. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "cracker scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then that's practically every single community in the entire world. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "nigger scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then there are very, very few places for them to go to.

Honestly, I've given up trying to explain this. I really despair that people can't see the difference.

To be clear, are you saying you agree with me or are you saying you don't have the energy to argue against me? I assume the former but I'm constantly surprised by how statements I think are uncontroversial tend to inspire so much hate and disagreement (e.g. 4-5 pages of arguing with Beatsong because he believed that The Guardian was a feminist publication).

[pErvinalia]

I'm agreeing with you here (although, I disagree with your assessment of your argument with Beatsong). There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging. I think in Audley's case he holds a romantic, yet utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech". Usually it's 18 year old libertarians who get all vocal over not being able to say whatever the fuck they like whenever the fuck they like. I'm pretty sure Audley isn't an 18 year old libertarian. So I don't know what his story is. And unless you quote this, he won't see it anyway, as he's not mature enough to read and filter my comments on his own.

[Mr.Samsa]

I'm agreeing with you here (although, I disagree with your assessment of your argument with Beatsong).

Then you'd be right for agreeing with me but wrong for disagreeing with my assessment there.

There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging.

Even though the word drives people crazy, the reason is simply "privilege". When you're not subject to things like racial abuse, or homophobic slurs, or misogyny, then all insults look the same to you - "nigger scum" is literally just the same as "cracker scum". But, in reality, this obviously isn't the case.

I think in Audley's case he holds a romantic, yet utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech". Usually it's 18 year old libertarians who get all vocal over not being able to say whatever the fuck they like whenever the fuck they like. I'm pretty sure Audley isn't an 18 year old libertarian. So I don't know what his story is. And unless you quote this, he won't see it anyway, as he's not mature enough to read and filter my comments on his own.

I find most people have a poor understanding of free speech and seem to interpret it as you mention above: "I should be able to say whatever I want". This is particularly true when they go to a private community, make a comment they don't like, and then claim that their "free speech" is being infringed because they are choosing to censor such talk. It's not a violation of "free speech", it's a demonstration of it.

[pErvinalia]

There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging.

Even though the word drives people crazy, the reason is simply "privilege". When you're not subject to things like racial abuse, or homophobic slurs, or misogyny, then all insults look the same to you - "nigger scum" is literally just the same as "cracker scum". But, in reality, this obviously isn't the case.

Yep.

[Audley Strange]

Well no, there is a huge difference between someone saying "Nigger scum" and "Cracker scum". Yes, they are both insults and individual people might have their feelings hurt by both but obviously there is a larger context behind the terms. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "cracker scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then that's practically every single community in the entire world. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "nigger scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then there are very, very few places for them to go to.

I disagree. Historical and political rationalisations aside, calling someone "cracker scum" is contempt for another individual based on race. It is merely aggressive behaviour. There may well be contextual reasons for calling someone such, but it seems to me to complain about such behaviour while indulging in it is to betray oneself as at best a hypocrite and at worst part of the problem. Such a person that uses "cracker scum" would, as far as I am concerned be exactly the type of person who would use "nigger scum" if they had a different skin colour.

I also disagree that anyone called "cracker scum" would be supported and defended by almost anyone in fact I'd say given the culture most people would not bat an eyelid and at the same time would be appalled by someone being called "nigger scum". As far as I'm concerned if one is inappropriate then the other should also be, especially by groups who use such language to evince somehow they are social victims.
[/quote]

The point of safe spaces is to give those people somewhere to go.

And, importantly, just because a safe space is (by definition) only about protecting minorities doesn't necessarily mean that they allow the kind of "hate speech" that you're discussing. Most safe spaces that I've been a part of don't allow either.

A difference in perception, most "safe spaces" I've been involved in in the real world were about trying to give people confidence to deal with trauma and personal issues. Most safe spaces I've seen online prior to claims for it at R.S. have been authoritarian circle-jerks.

I accept this is very different from the original intent which was to provide a place for people to talk about things openly that they could not in a public space. A.A. meetings, their doctors offices and psychologists group therapy sessions were "safe spaces". However it was co-opted pretty quickly and is not how the phrase is seen or used by those who demand them these days. More often than not it is meant as an exclusive club, an echo chamber, a circle-jerk to lash out at the world. Which given your experiences over at Ape-Lust I am sure you are aware of. Not that it is unique amongst those benighted fools. As we can see from many fora.

What you've described is the exact opposite of what I experienced at the A+ forum...

Again, seems to me a difference in perception. To me it looks like you were set upon by intolerant assholes who didn't even want to hear anything you had to say. I'll grant you though that I spent only a small modicum of time over there, but what I saw mostly was intolerant inhospitable assholes attack people.

I can't argue with your experiences directly but my experiences differ. Most people defend free speech and find it distasteful to suggest that any topic should be illegal to discuss, and instead they take the approach consistent with free speech - to fight back, attempt to censor, boycott, etc.

Well it seems to me most people defend free speech as lip service to the idea rather than meaning it. Free speech is an absolute and I have no problem with people being offended by others free speech taking social measures such as responding in kind, boycotting etc. Censoring is a different matter though, to censor someone is to say they are not entitled to speak. Again I have no problem with people who have that attitude, but lets not pretend they are somehow supporters of free speech.

That had been part of the rules for a long time before Josh (and I think it was even transferred over from the RDF days). It was there for a guy who used to be called "Paul" or something who'd create a bunch of sockpuppets and had a blog about some wacky pseudoscientific idea, and then later it was needed for Steve[someone] the creationist.
Importantly, the rule never stated that public figures were fair game, only that their ideas were fair game - you still aren't allowed to personally attack them.

I don't know what to say if you don't want to debate it but you're simply objectively wrong here. No rule was ever changed to allow personal attacks against Josh and the rule (before the Timonen thread and the edit afterwards) explicitly disallows personal attacks against all users, whether they are in the public sphere or not.

The only reason I know this is that I think the initial wording was mine and I was staunchly opposed to the idea that the rules should be changed to allow personal attacks. So I don't know if the rule was changed after I was a mod and changed back to what it is now without any mention of the changes on the forum, but at the time what you're describing certainly did not happen. Members have always been warned for personally attacking Josh and the thread was put under "strict moderation" just so people could be sanctioned harshly for doing so.

If I recall correctly, Rationalia initially relaxed its personal attack rule when members insulted Josh (and then banned him?) so maybe you're mixing the two forums up.

I don't wish to debate it. I'm sure you're in error but in lieu of making any effort at all (since I'm not that bothered) to prove it you can consider the point yours if that satisfies you. I will say I don't know what happened here at the time, since shortly after leaving R.S. for precisely those reasons I had real life family issues that kept me off the net for a few months and didn't join here until some months later.

[pErvinalia]

Such a person that uses "cracker scum" would, as far as I am concerned be exactly the type of person who would use "nigger scum" if they had a different skin colour.

I think this shows a spectacular naivety.

Free speech is an absolute...

This is your problem right here. Freedoms "to" are NEVER meant to be absolutes. The concept of "freedom" equally encompasses a freedom "to" as well as a freedom "from".

That had been part of the rules for a long time before Josh (and I think it was even transferred over from the RDF days). It was there for a guy who used to be called "Paul" or something who'd create a bunch of sockpuppets and had a blog about some wacky pseudoscientific idea, and then later it was needed for Steve[someone] the creationist.
Importantly, the rule never stated that public figures were fair game, only that their ideas were fair game - you still aren't allowed to personally attack them.

I don't know what to say if you don't want to debate it but you're simply objectively wrong here. No rule was ever changed to allow personal attacks against Josh and the rule (before the Timonen thread and the edit afterwards) explicitly disallows personal attacks against all users, whether they are in the public sphere or not.

The only reason I know this is that I think the initial wording was mine and I was staunchly opposed to the idea that the rules should be changed to allow personal attacks. So I don't know if the rule was changed after I was a mod and changed back to what it is now without any mention of the changes on the forum, but at the time what you're describing certainly did not happen. Members have always been warned for personally attacking Josh and the thread was put under "strict moderation" just so people could be sanctioned harshly for doing so.

If I recall correctly, Rationalia initially relaxed its personal attack rule when members insulted Josh (and then banned him?) so maybe you're mixing the two forums up.

I don't wish to debate it. I'm sure you're in error but in lieu of making any effort at all (since I'm not that bothered) to prove it you can consider the point yours if that satisfies you.

You really are a limp piece of lettuce. You pull this shit every time. Why don't you grow a set and actually attempt to use that free speech you so uncritically promote?

[Mr.Samsa]

Well no, there is a huge difference between someone saying "Nigger scum" and "Cracker scum". Yes, they are both insults and individual people might have their feelings hurt by both but obviously there is a larger context behind the terms. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "cracker scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then that's practically every single community in the entire world. If someone wants a community where they aren't regularly faced with being called "nigger scum" and where they will be supported and defended if such an insult were to arise, then there are very, very few places for them to go to.

I disagree. Historical and political rationalisations aside, calling someone "cracker scum" is contempt for another individual based on race. It is merely aggressive behaviour.

There's no disagreement that there are superficial similarities and that it's aggressive behavior, I just think you're taking far too broad a view of the similarities and then claiming they are the same. If I think it's wrong to harm animals it doesn't necessarily follow that I have to treat the humane killing of cattle as being the same as sadistically torturing an animal then disposing of its carcass for no reason.

Yes, we agree that there are similarities but there are also huge differences. These differences don't justify allowing the second type of language but it does justify treating them separately in many situations and requiring a separate rule to forbid the second type.

There may well be contextual reasons for calling someone such, but it seems to me to complain about such behaviour while indulging in it is to betray oneself as at best a hypocrite and at worst part of the problem. Such a person that uses "cracker scum" would, as far as I am concerned be exactly the type of person who would use "nigger scum" if they had a different skin colour.

Arguably true but irrelevant. The same kind of person who marched against gay rights could, conceivably, in a different world, biology, and upbringing, be the same kind of person who marches for gay rights. Doesn't mean that the two causes are the same.

I also disagree that anyone called "cracker scum" would be supported and defended by almost anyone in fact I'd say given the culture most people would not bat an eyelid and at the same time would be appalled by someone being called "nigger scum". As far as I'm concerned if one is inappropriate then the other should also be, especially by groups who use such language to evince somehow they are social victims.

Anyone attempting to use "cracker scum" in the real world would be laughed out of the room, and if they then seriously tried to push the issue and argue that white people are evil or flawed in some way, all hell would break loose. Look at any discussion on historical reparations for past injustices or talk of affirmative action - what's one of the first and major responses you see? "But that's not my fault, white people deserve jobs too, we aren't responsible for the actions of our ancestors, etc".

But then go out and say that black people are inherently inferior and that maybe they belong in more menial jobs and a significant response will be: "Hey hold up now, don't call him a racist. Let's hear what he has to say, he has a right to free speech!". I don't even have to imagine these situations because I've been part of discussions, even recently on RatSkep, where the idea that "all black people look the same" was being defended as an idea someone should be allowed to have whilst they simultaneously argued that it was a horrible injustice that someone who held that view might be labeled a racist...

The point of safe spaces is to give those people somewhere to go.

And, importantly, just because a safe space is (by definition) only about protecting minorities doesn't necessarily mean that they allow the kind of "hate speech" that you're discussing. Most safe spaces that I've been a part of don't allow either.

A difference in perception, most "safe spaces" I've been involved in in the real world were about trying to give people confidence to deal with trauma and personal issues. Most safe spaces I've seen online prior to claims for it at R.S. have been authoritarian circle-jerks.

It's impossible to have a safe space without having "authoritarian" rules. The whole point of a safe space is that regular social conventions and ideas that we take for granted are not welcome there because such ideas are harmful to the people who need and want the safe space, and so of course it'll feel restrictive and over-the-top to us because we, by definition, don't understand what's so wrong with the language we use or the ideas we express.

What you've described is the exact opposite of what I experienced at the A+ forum...

Again, seems to me a difference in perception. To me it looks like you were set upon by intolerant assholes who didn't even want to hear anything you had to say. I'll grant you though that I spent only a small modicum of time over there, but what I saw mostly was intolerant inhospitable assholes attack people.

I was just responding to the claim you made about my experiences, and my experiences were inconsistent with how you described them. There were idiots there, undeniably, just as there are idiots here, on RatSkep, and everywhere else in the world. I presented ideas on some topics and some people agreed, others disagreed, and some felt offended by my ideas. We discussed them, sometimes heatedly, and came away with a better understanding of everyone else's position.

It seems like my experiences directly contradict the idea that it was a circlejerk or echo chamber, at least as applied to me (and since I have no reason to think I'm particularly special, and my own observations seem to confirm it, I think it was a general rule across the forum).

I can't argue with your experiences directly but my experiences differ. Most people defend free speech and find it distasteful to suggest that any topic should be illegal to discuss, and instead they take the approach consistent with free speech - to fight back, attempt to censor, boycott, etc.

Well it seems to me most people defend free speech as lip service to the idea rather than meaning it. Free speech is an absolute and I have no problem with people being offended by others free speech taking social measures such as responding in kind, boycotting etc. Censoring is a different matter though, to censor someone is to say they are not entitled to speak. Again I have no problem with people who have that attitude, but lets not pretend they are somehow supporters of free speech.

I think that censorship is one of the fundamental features of free speech and freedom of expression. I have the right to say what I want at least in some form of media, somewhere in the world. I also have the right, in my private space that I've created, to tell people to fuck off.

If an all-encompassing and broadly applied understanding of "free speech" meant that I had to listen to all views, all the time, and I was not allowed to drown out their views in my own private space, then that is not a good principle to hold on to.

I don't know what to say if you don't want to debate it but you're simply objectively wrong here. No rule was ever changed to allow personal attacks against Josh and the rule (before the Timonen thread and the edit afterwards) explicitly disallows personal attacks against all users, whether they are in the public sphere or not.

The only reason I know this is that I think the initial wording was mine and I was staunchly opposed to the idea that the rules should be changed to allow personal attacks. So I don't know if the rule was changed after I was a mod and changed back to what it is now without any mention of the changes on the forum, but at the time what you're describing certainly did not happen. Members have always been warned for personally attacking Josh and the thread was put under "strict moderation" just so people could be sanctioned harshly for doing so.

If I recall correctly, Rationalia initially relaxed its personal attack rule when members insulted Josh (and then banned him?) so maybe you're mixing the two forums up.

I don't wish to debate it. I'm sure you're in error but in lieu of making any effort at all (since I'm not that bothered) to prove it you can consider the point yours if that satisfies you. I will say I don't know what happened here at the time, since shortly after leaving R.S. for precisely those reasons I had real life family issues that kept me off the net for a few months and didn't join here until some months later.

You're obviously free to maintain or drop the point as you wish but I just want to be clear that I'm not arguing the point so it can be "mine", like internet points for winning an argument. I just wanted to correct a factual error with the ideal end goal being an accurate understanding of the issue - whether my position is right or wrong, or whether I get the internet points or not, isn't that important as I'd rather just be happy in knowing that I either hold the correct position or I previously held an incorrect position and I've now been corrected.

[Audley Strange]

There's no disagreement that there are superficial similarities and that it's aggressive behavior, I just think you're taking far too broad a view of the similarities and then claiming they are the same. If I think it's wrong to harm animals it doesn't necessarily follow that I have to treat the humane killing of cattle as being the same as sadistically torturing an animal then disposing of its carcass for no reason.

Are you then arguing that calling someone "nigger scum" is equivalent to animal torture and calling someone "cracker scum" is like humane killing of cattle? I don't see it that way. I see one is considered outrageous and the other a form of socially acceptable bigotry. Like torturing cats being a no no but torturing dogs a fun game for all the family.

Yes, we agree that there are similarities but there are also huge differences. These differences don't justify allowing the second type of language but it does justify treating them separately in many situations and requiring a separate rule to forbid the second type.

So if a gang of black youths beat to death an elderly man and are heard shouting "death to whitey" and "cracker scum" they should somehow not be considered violent racist bigots? If so, that seems to me to be arguing for privilege of the oppressed.

There may well be contextual reasons for calling someone such, but it seems to me to complain about such behaviour while indulging in it is to betray oneself as at best a hypocrite and at worst part of the problem. Such a person that uses "cracker scum" would, as far as I am concerned be exactly the type of person who would use "nigger scum" if they had a different skin colour.

Arguably true but irrelevant. The same kind of person who marched against gay rights could, conceivably, in a different world, biology, and upbringing, be the same kind of person who marches for gay rights. Doesn't mean that the two causes are the same.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. I'm of the opinion that people's beliefs are, more often than not, rationalisations for their behaviour and thus when you strip the rhetoric away a shitty person is a shitty person, no matter creed, colour or political belief.

Anyone attempting to use "cracker scum" in the real world would be laughed out of the room, and if they then seriously tried to push the issue and argue that white people are evil or flawed in some way, all hell would break loose. Look at any discussion on historical reparations for past injustices or talk of affirmative action - what's one of the first and major responses you see? "But that's not my fault, white people deserve jobs too, we aren't responsible for the actions of our ancestors, etc".

Do you think the responses are unfair? Slavery was an abomination but I don't hear anyone demanding reparations from African countries for happily rounding up and selling slaves to the West. As such are those who are descended from countries which allowed people to be purchased as slaves responsible for the actions of their ancestors? Should the families of all the poor young men drafted into wars in the 17th to 20th century demand reparations too? I recognise that people were treated dreadfully, but not everyone was a slave and plantation owner, many people at the time still endured under indentured servitude too. So there is a class issue that is being ignored in favour of blaming "white men." The whole point of universal suffrage was that it was to be universal, not an oppression olympics.

But then go out and say that black people are inherently inferior and that maybe they belong in more menial jobs and a significant response will be: "Hey hold up now, don't call him a racist. Let's hear what he has to say, he has a right to free speech!". I don't even have to imagine these situations because I've been part of discussions, even recently on RatSkep, where the idea that "all black people look the same" was being defended as an idea someone should be allowed to have whilst they simultaneously argued that it was a horrible injustice that someone who held that view might be labeled a racist...

To say that black people are inherently inferior is by definition racism. Just in the same way that to conclude all white men are oppressors is, for if that were true, we would still have black slaves and women would not be entitled to the vote. I'm not buying the argument that middle-class people with a smattering of sociology are objectively correct in their accusations and I find the exclusion and villification of the "white male" as a group as repugnant as one would excluding and blaming any other group.

The point of safe spaces is to give those people somewhere to go.

And, importantly, just because a safe space is (by definition) only about protecting minorities doesn't necessarily mean that they allow the kind of "hate speech" that you're discussing. Most safe spaces that I've been a part of don't allow either.

It's impossible to have a safe space without having "authoritarian" rules. The whole point of a safe space is that regular social conventions and ideas that we take for granted are not welcome there because such ideas are harmful to the people who need and want the safe space, and so of course it'll feel restrictive and over-the-top to us because we, by definition, don't understand what's so wrong with the language we use or the ideas we express.

Well again, a different understanding. My impressions came from dealing with children with learning difficulties and adult psychiatric patients in which a safe space was a place for them to discuss their traumas and actions. Do you not see though how such places as you describe are inherently echo-chambers in which people are basically fuelling each others neuroses or bigotry. Without any dissenting or reasonable contrary argument being disallowed it creates, like the terrorist cells and cults, a feedback loop where outsiders become the enemy?

I was just responding to the claim you made about my experiences, and my experiences were inconsistent with how you described them. There were idiots there, undeniably, just as there are idiots here, on RatSkep, and everywhere else in the world. I presented ideas on some topics and some people agreed, others disagreed, and some felt offended by my ideas. We discussed them, sometimes heatedly, and came away with a better understanding of everyone else's position.

Well if you got something positive from it who am to correct your own perceptions?

It seems like my experiences directly contradict the idea that it was a circlejerk or echo chamber, at least as applied to me (and since I have no reason to think I'm particularly special, and my own observations seem to confirm it, I think it was a general rule across the forum).

I think you are in a minority with that position, given the way they have alienated supporters and even some of the most vehement and aggressive members have turned upon each other.

I think that censorship is one of the fundamental features of free speech and freedom of expression. I have the right to say what I want at least in some form of media, somewhere in the world. I also have the right, in my private space that I've created, to tell people to fuck off.

So you think that a small group of individuals has the right to disallow people to see or read the words of others is protecting free speech? Nah. Certainly you can tell them to fuck off, that is after all free speech, but to make the claim that censoring another is protecting free speech is ridiculous. To defend free speech is to allow those things that you do not agree with, its to rebut such claims, not to delete them, IMO.

I don't understand how people can claim that one should be allowed a private space to be discriminatory, yet also complain about private businesses being discriminatory. Either it is wrong or it is not wrong. That probably sounds simplistic but it is to me the heart of the problem. I think the current meme is "it's okay when we do it." I disagree with that and consider it another manifestation of the exact behaviour they complain about. The casual obliviousness of the hypocrisy and the lack of understanding of compromise makes them extremists in my view.

[Beatsong]

On second thoughts: meh.

[Mr.Samsa]

There's no disagreement that there are superficial similarities and that it's aggressive behavior, I just think you're taking far too broad a view of the similarities and then claiming they are the same. If I think it's wrong to harm animals it doesn't necessarily follow that I have to treat the humane killing of cattle as being the same as sadistically torturing an animal then disposing of its carcass for no reason.

Are you then arguing that calling someone "nigger scum" is equivalent to animal torture and calling someone "cracker scum" is like humane killing of cattle? I don't see it that way. I see one is considered outrageous and the other a form of socially acceptable bigotry. Like torturing cats being a no no but torturing dogs a fun game for all the family.

But they aren't similar levels of harm.

Yes, we agree that there are similarities but there are also huge differences. These differences don't justify allowing the second type of language but it does justify treating them separately in many situations and requiring a separate rule to forbid the second type.

So if a gang of black youths beat to death an elderly man and are heard shouting "death to whitey" and "cracker scum" they should somehow not be considered violent racist bigots? If so, that seems to me to be arguing for privilege of the oppressed.

Why would they not be considered violent bigots? But your example raises a great demonstration of the difference here - what is the headline when those black youths beat an old man to death? "Violent Crime Among Blacks Still a Problem - Is Hip Hop Culture to Blame?!". What happens when a white guy shoots down a black dude because of a racist attitude? "Hero Protects Community and Acts in Self-Defence Against a Man Armed with M&Ms".

They simply aren't the same, there's no rationally debating that point.

Arguably true but irrelevant. The same kind of person who marched against gay rights could, conceivably, in a different world, biology, and upbringing, be the same kind of person who marches for gay rights. Doesn't mean that the two causes are the same.

Perhaps not, perhaps so. I'm of the opinion that people's beliefs are, more often than not, rationalisations for their behaviour and thus when you strip the rhetoric away a shitty person is a shitty person, no matter creed, colour or political belief.

Again, arguably true but irrelevant. The positions are still different even if they were hypothetically created by similarly deranged individuals.

Anyone attempting to use "cracker scum" in the real world would be laughed out of the room, and if they then seriously tried to push the issue and argue that white people are evil or flawed in some way, all hell would break loose. Look at any discussion on historical reparations for past injustices or talk of affirmative action - what's one of the first and major responses you see? "But that's not my fault, white people deserve jobs too, we aren't responsible for the actions of our ancestors, etc".

Do you think the responses are unfair?

Whether the responses are fair or not isn't the point here, the interesting part is the stark difference in approach depending on which group is being 'criticised'. But personally I'd point out that yes, the responses are unfair and largely come from a place of ignorance.

Slavery was an abomination but I don't hear anyone demanding reparations from African countries for happily rounding up and selling slaves to the West. As such are those who are descended from countries which allowed people to be purchased as slaves responsible for the actions of their ancestors?

Maybe, if it could be shown that institutions and companies that operated in that trade have benefited from it then yes, they should attribute some of their profits to the descendants of those affected.

Should the families of all the poor young men drafted into wars in the 17th to 20th century demand reparations too?

Did the draft result in a whole class of people being treated as second class citizens, to the point that it still affects their status and ability to function in today's society? If so, then definitely.

I recognise that people were treated dreadfully, but not everyone was a slave and plantation owner, many people at the time still endured under indentured servitude too. So there is a class issue that is being ignored in favour of blaming "white men." The whole point of universal suffrage was that it was to be universal, not an oppression olympics.

Nobody is "blaming white men" though, that was part of the whole strawman position I describe in my comment above. It's simply a case of a society that wants a population of free and equal people making efforts towards ensuring that these people are free and equal.

But then go out and say that black people are inherently inferior and that maybe they belong in more menial jobs and a significant response will be: "Hey hold up now, don't call him a racist. Let's hear what he has to say, he has a right to free speech!". I don't even have to imagine these situations because I've been part of discussions, even recently on RatSkep, where the idea that "all black people look the same" was being defended as an idea someone should be allowed to have whilst they simultaneously argued that it was a horrible injustice that someone who held that view might be labeled a racist...

To say that black people are inherently inferior is by definition racism. Just in the same way that to conclude all white men are oppressors is, for if that were true, we would still have black slaves and women would not be entitled to the vote. I'm not buying the argument that middle-class people with a smattering of sociology are objectively correct in their accusations and I find the exclusion and villification of the "white male" as a group as repugnant as one would excluding and blaming any other group.

But I don't think anyone does that, outside of strawmen and probably some nutty extremists. It certainly isn't a popular view.

Well again, a different understanding. My impressions came from dealing with children with learning difficulties and adult psychiatric patients in which a safe space was a place for them to discuss their traumas and actions.

Safe spaces can be used in different ways to suit the needs of people there. In terms of minorities, safe spaces are places where they can take a second to escape the world that discriminates against them before having to head back out into it.

Do you not see though how such places as you describe are inherently echo-chambers in which people are basically fuelling each others neuroses or bigotry. Without any dissenting or reasonable contrary argument being disallowed it creates, like the terrorist cells and cults, a feedback loop where outsiders become the enemy?

That's just absurd though. It's not like these people aren't aware of the "dissenting views", it's just that safe spaces aren't the place to raise those views. Let's take your psychiatric patients for example and suppose that a person comes in saying that they're struggling to cope with the fact that they were raped. Should we allow "dissenting views" where people are allowed to blame them for what happened to them? Where people are allowed to make "reasonable contrary arguments" that suggest that maybe they brought it on themselves and deserved it? Of course not. And banning such talk in a safe space wouldn't make it an echo chamber.

It seems like my experiences directly contradict the idea that it was a circlejerk or echo chamber, at least as applied to me (and since I have no reason to think I'm particularly special, and my own observations seem to confirm it, I think it was a general rule across the forum).

I think you are in a minority with that position, given the way they have alienated supporters and even some of the most vehement and aggressive members have turned upon each other.

Which means, by definition, it cannot be an echo chamber. The whole point is that nobody gets a free pass to bigotry just because you're a respected member of the community. As you say, they even criticise the behaviors of their friends when they step over the line, meaning that nobody is free from criticism.

I think that censorship is one of the fundamental features of free speech and freedom of expression. I have the right to say what I want at least in some form of media, somewhere in the world. I also have the right, in my private space that I've created, to tell people to fuck off.

So you think that a small group of individuals has the right to disallow people to see or read the words of others is protecting free speech? Nah. Certainly you can tell them to fuck off, that is after all free speech, but to make the claim that censoring another is protecting free speech is ridiculous. To defend free speech is to allow those things that you do not agree with, its to rebut such claims, not to delete them, IMO.

Nonsense, free speech and freedom of expression is to say what I want and to use whatever means I can (barring legal censorship) to shut down views that I disagree with. If I started my own newspaper dedicated to how awesome Pikachu is as a pokemon, then as the editor I can refuse to publish any articles saying that Charizard is better than Pikachu. This is a demonstration and exercising of my freedoms. Because of freedom of speech and expression, that person is then allowed to start his own newspaper or submit articles to other newspapers.

To accept freedom of speech does not mean that I have to implicitly support every possible view by refraining from drowning it out.

I don't understand how people can claim that one should be allowed a private space to be discriminatory, yet also complain about private businesses being discriminatory. Either it is wrong or it is not wrong. That probably sounds simplistic but it is to me the heart of the problem. I think the current meme is "it's okay when we do it." I disagree with that and consider it another manifestation of the exact behaviour they complain about. The casual obliviousness of the hypocrisy and the lack of understanding of compromise makes them extremists in my view.

The confusion lies in the ambiguity of the word "discriminatory", which has the trivial use meaning "to decide between things" and the more serious use to mean "to arbitrarily refuse someone a service based on prejudice". I absolutely allow private businesses to be "discriminatory" in the first sense - restaurant doesn't want to allow people without shirts and ties? Go for it. Newspaper doesn't want to publish an article by someone who is as interesting as a rock? Go for it.

The problem comes when someone is arbitrarily discriminated against, so if a restaurant has no shirt and tie policy but chooses to refuse a guy service because he doesn't have a shirt and tie, then that's shitty. Then throw in the huge societal issue of minorities struggling to find work, find somewhere to eat, etc etc, and you have a problem that requires government intervention - unless we're happy with watching these people either die, live in slums and turn to crime, or pay higher taxes to help them survive in the world.

[Scott1328]

This is actually a good discussion, I don't suppose it could be spun off to its own thread?

[DaveDodo007]

I'm agreeing with you here (although, I disagree with your assessment of your argument with Beatsong). There's clearly a set of bigots and/or arrogant fucksticks who don't like that their narrow world views are challenged by this sort of thing you describe. Then there's people like Audley and other "rationalists" that I really can't understand why it is they find this idea challenging. I think in Audley's case he holds a romantic, yet utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech". Usually it's 18 year old libertarians who get all vocal over not being able to say whatever the fuck they like whenever the fuck they like. I'm pretty sure Audley isn't an 18 year old libertarian. So I don't know what his story is. And unless you quote this, he won't see it anyway, as he's not mature enough to read and filter my comments on his own.

Oh please, how fucking naive are you whilst accusing Audley of being a 'romantic, yet (having a) utterly juvenile, idea about "free speech".' Hearing cracker scum might be a laugh amongst your friends but If I hear in in my own city, say Toxteth in the dead of night I'm reaching for my keys (the only legal weapon you are allowed to have in the UK.) Time and place and context matters though that is a concept liberals can't seem to grasp. Free speech is defending that which you would rather not hear but need to no the less. What do you achieve by banning some racist thug from saying nigger scum, please tell me as I'm all ears (or in this case eyes.) If you censor them from saying racist shit is it going to magically go away? You stop people saying nigger scum is not going to make them stop thinking it, if anything they will keep quiet. Until they find like minded people and then they form a group who hold these views and share them amongst themselves in an ever increasing circlejerk. At least if they are openly allowed to voice their opinion it is easier to call them on it, rather than let it fester in a closed group.

I honestly believe liberals have filled more body bags with their good intentions than capitalist have with their outright greed.

[Beatsong]

What do you achieve by banning some racist thug from saying nigger scum, please tell me as I'm all ears (or in this case eyes.) If you censor them from saying racist shit is it going to magically go away? You stop people saying nigger scum is not going to make them stop thinking it, if anything they will keep quiet. Until they find like minded people and then they form a group who hold these views and share them amongst themselves in an ever increasing circlejerk. At least if they are openly allowed to voice their opinion it is easier to call them on it, rather than let it fester in a closed group.

You seem to be making the same mistake a lot of people do when talking of "banning" and "free speech".

Banning people from saying "nigger scum" on RatSkep isn't going to magically solve the racism problems of the WORLD IN GENERAL. I very much doubt that whoever wrote the FUA there thinks it will, or that that's the intended point of such banning - so what you write here is a bit of a strawman, really.

The only thing that banning people from using racist speech ON RATSKEP can possibly do is make RATSKEP a place where racism is not expressed. As for what this achieves - the most obvious answer is that it becomes a place where people from minority races can go and discuss things along with everybody else, without being described as subhuman because of their race.

There are plenty of other places on the internet that racists can call black people whatever they want. That's why Audley's thing about freedom of speech is a red herring. Ratskep isn't banning free speech - they couldn't do so if they wanted to, for the simple reason that they don't have any power over the 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the world that isn't Ratskep. All they can possibly do is decide that some things are inappropriate to say within their site. People do that all the time, within their homes, workplaces, schools, whatever - so I don't see how this is even remarkable.

[Beatsong]

FWIW - I've suggested in the past at Ratskep that maybe the rule against hate speech of groups should, in fact, be extended to ANY group. Not because I'm particularly sensitive to such speech or want to pull the Poor Oppressed White Male card, but simply because I think it makes for lazy arguing.

A classic example is many of the anti-muslim threads, which basically consist of spewing out a few stereotypes about how all muslims "are", and then following whatever kind of contorted acts of reasoning or imagination are necessary to show that whoever the news item concerned is about, must be conforming to that stereotype even when all the evidence suggests the opposite.

The way I envisaged it was not allowing stereotypes about groups that are not part of the definition of the group. So you could argue on the basis that all muslims believe in the koran, but not that they all beat their wives.

This idea never got seriously discussed and I suspect it would be more trouble than it's worth. It would certainly place a higher burden of moderation than most people want over the more informal, social and fun part of the forum. And it might make a field day for the trigger happy types who feel the need to report every fucking thing they can. But I wonder whether some version of it has potential.

[Mr.Samsa]

Hearing cracker scum might be a laugh amongst your friends but If I hear in in my own city, say Toxteth in the dead of night I'm reaching for my keys (the only legal weapon you are allowed to have in the UK.) Time and place and context matters though that is a concept liberals can't seem to grasp.

I don't know how you can say this when, as discussed above, everyone seems to agree that it's at the very least not a nice thing to say and potentially it's something that could cause a person to become concerned for their wellbeing.

That doesn't make it the same thing though, which is what you're missing. If I hear "Hey fuckface" in the middle of the night whilst I'm alone then I'm going to try to find something to defend myself with as well. That doesn't mean that "fuckface" is the same as "nigger". There are similarities, undeniably, but that doesn't make it the same.

Free speech is defending that which you would rather not hear but need to no the less.

No, free speech is defending the right for someone to say what they want without legal ramifications simply for the words spoken (with the obvious caveat that your right ends where another's begins). If I call you an asshole for expressing an opinion and then rally a community I'm a part of to discourage and make rules against such language, then that's a demonstration of my free speech and freedom of expression.

What do you achieve by banning some racist thug from saying nigger scum, please tell me as I'm all ears (or in this case eyes.) If you censor them from saying racist shit is it going to magically go away? You stop people saying nigger scum is not going to make them stop thinking it, if anything they will keep quiet. Until they find like minded people and then they form a group who hold these views and share them amongst themselves in an ever increasing circlejerk. At least if they are openly allowed to voice their opinion it is easier to call them on it, rather than let it fester in a closed group.

I honestly believe liberals have filled more body bags with their good intentions than capitalist have with their outright greed.

The evidence seems to suggest the opposite. Generally the language we use and the type of things we hear in daily lives has a huge impact on our own beliefs and attitudes. By disallowing certain types of comments, either through explicit rules or implicit social norms, you actually do create a group where those beliefs and attitudes become less prevalent.

The problem with allowing such comments in a community is that people who are more prone to those bigoted ideas begin to think that their attitude is normal and is in fact shared by others. This is the problem we see with things like sexist and racist jokes, as explained by prejudiced norm theory, where some of the people involved in the joke may realise that it's supposed to be taken as a joke but those who are actually bigots treat the joke as an acceptable view of how things really are. What makes it worse is that research into prejudiced norm theory shows that not only do these ideas and attitudes become normalised, but that those who treat the view as a consensus are then far more likely to behave in discriminatory ways following hearing the attitude expressed.

This idea never got seriously discussed and I suspect it would be more trouble than it's worth. It would certainly place a higher burden of moderation than most people want over the more informal, social and fun part of the forum. And it might make a field day for the trigger happy types who feel the need to report every fucking thing they can. But I wonder whether some version of it has potential.

We did have the "group attack" rule for a while which serves the same purpose as what I think you're describing there and yeah it was pretty much unworkable. Basically I think the problem is that there can be occasions where you can generalise and attack a group and that criticism will be valid; e.g. "all racists are ignorant, backward thinking assholes" or "global warming deniers who refuse to do anything to improve the state of the planet are fucking up the world for everyone".

Whereas when it comes to things like black people, gay people, disabled people, etc, there isn't really any valid way to criticise them as a whole without being a gigantic asshole and 99% of such discussions will boil down to the incredibly uninteresting position of: "I'm a bigot and any facts or evidence you show me won't ever convince me I'm wrong" so, as you mention above, such discussions can just be banned on the basis of not wanting a community where such things are discussed.