Use of derogatory names for politicians and groups of people

[CJD]

(03-12-2024, 10:48 PM)Dill Wrote: C-Dawg, I have some questions and concerns.

What about giving oneself permission to call other forum members "terrorist supporters" because of some "perceived association with Hamas"? Or to call
them "ISIS supporters" or "racists" or "antisemites" on the grounds it's not personal attack if its true, and then simply declaring "it's true!"?

This post is mostly regarding use of derogatory terms for politicians or groups of people. We already have rules in place regarding insulting fellow forum members. Very flatly, do not call other forum members terrorists or terrorist supporters. 

Similarly with racists or antisemites, you may be able to call a thought or belief racist if you care to explain your thought process, but do not call other forum members racists or antisemites.

Quote:My main concerns are about the "offending or upsetting" criterion. Some are upset by accurate news about their favorite politicians or countries; consequently they want to ban topics and different perspectives and to delete threads and otherwise control discussion thereof.  
Some make no distinction between historical, scholarly or social-scientific comparisons between groups and direct slander. It's all just "personal attack."

When that occurs, I'm pretty sure that different ideals and principles are at issue. Some prioritize close reading, observation and analysis before
judgement; others prioritize ideology--judgment should come first to protect and guide analysis, reading etc.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to create a blanket ruling that applies to every single scenario. Whether something is offensive for the sake of being offensive or offensive because "truth hurts" or something like that would need to be determined in the moment by the moderation team. I think most people have a pretty good idea when someone is attempting to intentionally provoke people and those cases are typically not the times when evidence is laid out in a methodical and logical way to demonstrate a point.

Quote:We are living in a country in which someone who tried to stay in power by overturning a fair election now has a fair chance of regaining that power.

Given that extraordinary and unprecedented fact, it doesn't make sense to forbid discussion of cult-behavior or authoritarianism in our politics because 
it may "upset" someone.  E.g., if there is a clinical definition of "cult" behavior which was set down before the MAGA movement, and some MAGA behavior can be demonstrated to square with it, that ought to be allowed, even if it upsets. Those upset are free to demonstrate why it doesn't square, if they can.

I've addressed that point in post 31. If you want to discuss it in a clinical or technical manner, this rule would likely not apply. 

Quote:I tend to agree with Bels here, that deploying formal definitions of political behavior, and then showing how a politician or group's behavior does or does

not align with such, is the stuff of rational political discussion. It is different from name calling or simply arguing with labels.  If someone tries to prevent
that sort of analysis/discussion from going forward, I'd like the freedom to push back, to argue why, in a democracy, we ought to allow the close
reading/observation/analysis model to operate, without subject to deflection or censorship on grounds it is "upsetting."

You and I are aligned. This post is about name calling and labeling with the intent to upset or offend, not to regulate beliefs that may be upsetting.

For instance, I find it upsetting that so many people in this country have a generally negative attitude towards immigration, seeing it as something that must be begrudgingly accepted only under certain scenarios rather than embraced as a part of how a country grows and flourishes. But someone expressing that view is not a violation of this rule. 

Now, if someone said illegal immigrants (I.e. the people that come into this country from the southern border) are filth that is poisoning the blood of our country...then that's a violation of this rule.