Moderation is relatively light here in my view. In fact, to my knowledge, you are the first person to complain of it being too heavy.

I didn't understand your view. Was it that there's no such thing as a Jew? Or just that Jews don't qualify as a race?

Note that I moved this thread to the Feedback category. We aim not to moderate Feedback at all, so you're free to say what you like here. As it happens, my original moderator action was not in response to the view you expressed--even though I think it's obnoxious--so much as your reluctance to defend it or even explain it properly, which in the end amounted to low post quality.

I shall use this as the thread for rule criticism and questioning

Types of posters who are not welcome here:
Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having. — Baden

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?
Or did you mean "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having and don't listen to the other side"?

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that?
Or did you mean "Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having and don't listen to the other side"? — Ovaloid

Yes very good points! I thought much the same. Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant.

In my opinion, simply believing or stating that a certain race is inferior or superior to another is fine and in some cases morally obligatory (when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting). It is when it is used to insult that it becomes wrong. — Ovaloid

How can something like "I am morally obligated to point out that whites/men/heterosexuals are superior to blacks/women/homosexuals" ever not be an insult?

Since it is quite an emotive word that people generally don't like to be associated with I think it's definition should be and stay at "Prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt directed against someone of a certain race (so that said person feels it) based on the belief that it is inferior to another".

The bit in bold seems to contradict your first sentence.

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that? — Ovaloid

It's not impossible, but as clearly stated, these are general guidelines.

So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant. — Agustino

They're clear enough, in my opinion, and it sends the right message: homophobes aren't welcome here.

homophobes aren't welcome here. — Sapientia

Okay, I agree that it's the right message, but what does that mean? What counts as homophobic? In common discourse in todays world, many things are associated as homophobic, which don't really express either hatred or desire to do violence to a group of people based on their sexuality. A religious person may think that it's sinful to engage in homosexual sex, for example - but does that make them homophobic, necessarily? I don't think so - and yet many common people would say "yes it does". I think that should never be acceptable here is (1) hatred of homosexual people and (2) desire to do violence to homosexual people based on their sexuality. Such should never be welcome, I agree.

But I disagree that we shouldn't allow discussions about the morality of homosexual sex. I think that such discussions can be fruitful and are important to both sides.

Why? Can't interesting discussion result from that? — Ovaloid

Generally, no.

Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having. — Baden

The evangelist by definition can't think critically about their own position. Their interlocutors in their eyes are nothing but potential converts. It doesn't take much imagination to see how that almost inevitably leads to unproductive discussions. Note the words in bold though. Provided you don't fit the bill (and I'm not aware of anyone on the forum who does), you have nothing to be concerned about.

Furthermore, the racist/homophobic/sexist distinction looks potentially dangerous, as these terms are not very well defined. In many people's minds for example, thinking that homosexual intercourse is immoral is being homophobic, but the fact is the two are quite different. It's one thing to think an activity is immoral, and another to hate a group of people and want to harm them. So I think those terms should be defined, so that it becomes clear what is meant. — Agustino

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target in that sense.

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here. — Baden

Thanks for clarifying :)

The bit in bold seems to contradict your first sentence. — Michael

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't.

How can something like "I am morally obligated to point out that whites/men/heterosexuals are superior to blacks/women/homosexuals" ever not be an insult? — Michael

It depends on the situation. Saying things intended to insult what the speaker believes will insult (what I meant by 'insult') is wrong. But say for example the context is a discussion about differences in the level of attainment between ethnic groups, then it's perfectly OK to suggest or state that they are due to racial, genetic differences, just as it is OK to suggest or state that for any proposed cause.

Just to be clear, the guidelines don't represent any change in policy. Rather, they're a statement of existing policy. (That's another way of saying, "Chill, folks, if you haven't had a problem before, you're not going to have a new one now").

Well, we didn't want to write a book length tract. Anyway, no, you won't be censured for stating the view that homosexual intercourse is immoral. But, hate speech concerning homosexuals or other minorities won't be tolerated. So, your distinction is on target here. — Baden

That is what I was hinting at when I said that it is clear enough. It is clear enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. (Even if the wheat is still wrong).

I've merged @Ovaloid's racism thread in here as it's really just a challenge to the guidelines.

No, it wasn't. It was a much more general criticism of the culture I experience. Therefore, I would like it left there, please. Also, why did you delete the comments?

No, it wasn't. It was a much more general criticism of the status quo. Therefore, I would like it left there, please. — Ovaloid

That horse has bolted.

Also, why did you delete the comments? — Ovaloid

I didn't delete the comments. I merged the thread, so the responses are here now. Or should be, at least.

That horse has bolted. — Baden

You can reverse the change so the thread under politics can still be bumped. Is your problem that people will respond here still? In that case you can put a link and a note here.

I didn't delete the comments. I merged the thread, so the responses are here now. Or should be, at least. — Baden

I see them now.

You can reverse the change so the thread under politics can still be bumped. Is your problem that people will respond here still? In that case you can put a link and a note here. — Ovaloid

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. So, in that sense the move is in your interest.

Just another quick general comment: The site is expanding and having a set of guidelines to refer members, especially new members, to, helps reduce the increasing workload of the mods. Call us selfish, but we consider that a good thing. If you're a regular, have a quick read and get on with whatever you were doing. Pretty much everyone is cool here.

(Even if the wheat is still wrong). — Sapientia

LOL :D

The belief itself is OK, but the prejudice, discrimination, antagonism and/or contempt that goes along with it isn't. — Ovaloid

I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.)

The particular belief we're considering tends to equate a person with their facial features and skin color. Since the underpinning of this belief is a materialistic outlook, you could argue that if we're going to vilify beliefs, it should start there: materialism is evil.

Of course, that's ridiculous. Just because materialism can potentially lead to racism and ultimately to black men being burned to death, it's not true that materialism is evil.

Maybe that would be the better way to explore the question philosophically. It has less chance of being perceived as Neo-Nazi adaptationist crap.

I agree that beliefs can't be inherently good or evil. I say that because I believe morality is about actions, not beliefs (Jesus disagreed with that... but oh, well.) — Mongrel

Why can't it be about both? If beliefs play no part in your conception of morality, then all the worse for your conception of morality. It's not a category error to categorise beliefs as good or bad. He who believes that racism is acceptable is worse than he who believes that racism is condemnable (all else being equal), and he who believes that racism is acceptable and is actively racist is worse than both. The former sort of "passive" racism isn't okay or amoral; it's bad.

That's an interesting issue you've raised there.

Unless a) morality requires a choice and b) we don't choose what to believe.

But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :)

Unless a) morality requires a choice and b) we don't choose what to believe. — Michael

So you think that ignorance is always excusable under those circumstances? I don't. I think that some people should know better.

There are at least some things that we don't have any choice but to believe, but we do have some control over our attitude and level of ignorance and that sort of thing.

But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :) — Michael

You're right, but we don't have to be in feedback. Feel free to reply elsewhere.

Re the comments about beliefs, I'm not of the view that any beliefs, or even any speech, is morally wrong.

However, I sure don't agree that racist beliefs/comments would ever be "morally obligatory," especially given that racist beliefs are mistaken (re the idea that some "race(s)" are superior/inferior to others).

Pretty much everyone is cool here. — Baden

I can't help but feel that you meant me. Thanks! You're cool too.

Any mod would be well within his rights to delete the other thread in its previous position. — Baden

How come?

But that's philosophy, and we're in feedback, so let's not get sidetracked. :) — Michael

The fact that people can think things like this is part of the reason why my thread should not have been moved, @Baden.

Why can't it be about both? If beliefs play no part in your conception of morality, then all the worse for your conception of morality. It's not a category error to categorise beliefs as good or bad. He who believes that racism is acceptable is worse than he who believes that racism is condemnable (all else being equal), and he who believes that racism is acceptable and is actively racist is worse than both. The former sort of "passive" racism isn't okay or amoral; it's bad. — Sapientia

Which definition of 'racism' are you referring to?

How come? — Ovaloid

We've only just put up the guidelines, which includes the following part, which you obviously read:

Racists/homophobes/sexists: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.

You then decided to submit the following comment:

In my opinion, simply believing or stating that a certain race is inferior or superior to another is fine and in some cases morally obligatory (when and if the evidence implies it and the context makes it relevant and not insulting). — Ovaloid

Which espouses racism, notwithstanding your qualifications.

Given that we've stated in the guidelines that we don't consider racist views worthy of debate, and that you will be banned for espousing racism, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the decision was made to moderate the discussion in which you espoused racism.

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.

I didn't play any part in the decision to merge your discussion into this discussion or to close your original discussion, but I understand why that decision was made, and I support it.

Which definition of 'racism' are you referring to? — Ovaloid

Oh come on, you know what I mean.