Please use this thread for (and only for) alerting admins to moderation issues and for raising complaints arising from particular decisions. We remind participants that TSZ is a benign dictatorship, the property of Dr. Elizabeth Liddle. All decisions regarding policy and implementation are hers alone.
I don’t think Salvador is a racist, others here pretend to be able to read his mind. I think it’s bullshit, that’s my honest assessment.
Mung,
Fwiw, I doubt he is either. While it is indeed very rare for me to defend him, it was likely just a slip of the tongue on his part. He makes a lot of little “semantic” errors of expression in his IDist/YECist approach. The question is rather one of if he actually cares how people perceive his written words, or not. To me, he seems highly zealous (-> zealotry) in his “missionary” work at sites like this one.
It would be helpful if STC would speak on his own behalf, acknowledging that “Wuhan virus” was the wrong choice of terms for him to have made. If I recall, he has a Filipino-American background, but please excuse if I’m mistaken.
I think your assessment is bullshit.
His choice of words was not accidental at all. Anyone who spends as much time following and preaching the right wing media talking points as much as he does knows exactly what he was saying. Do you think the right wing senators who use that phrase aren’t trying to fuel anti-China rhetoric? That’s what you think?
Do you think it is coincidence that this is the standard National Review and Epoch Times talking points? Do you think Sal does not closely follow these outlets? He frequently echoes their commentary. That is not coincidence Mung.
Gregory,
A very small percent of racists actually admit to being racist. The orange infant doesn’t admit to being racist. He just retweets and likes posts from white nationalists, and is frequently quoted as saying racist things by those who have been around him. So when ones says they are not racist, what should one believe, what they do or what they say?
I am pretty sure David Duke doesn’t claim to be a racist. Gavin McInnes doesn’t label himself a racist. White housewives who go on viral tirades telling people in restaurants to speak English or leave the country don’t say, “Oh and by the way, I am a racist.”
So? It doesn’t make Salvador a racist.
Isn’t there something about that in Matthew 5:27-28? To be a racist, is it enough to think racist thoughts?
phoodoo,
While I think that Salvador is a nauseatingly dishonest fool, and I suspect he might be somewhat racist (of the self-unaware kind, and because an exchange we had some time ago), I also think that you should not overgeneralize. You did that in your OP about “skeptics.” You think that if someone coincides in anything with whatever picture you have in your mind about “talking points,” instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt, you jump to the conclusion that they took it from a “church of atheism.” If someone writes “Wuhan Virus,” you assume that to be racist because it might coincide with something a racist group would do for emphasis against Chinese. It is unhealthy, for you, to overreact when confronted with wording that it not obviously racist. Instead, you could point to the potential misinterpretation and allow the other person to correct course if necessary, or at least to understand that the words might be misinterpreted. But angry overreacting only leads to these lengthy discussions where you look like a mindless fanatical, rather than helping your case.
I leave this theme now.
Mung,
Check Guano. And then please, Mung, stop with all efforts to defend STC on this. It should be very obvious now, unless you really don’t know racism when you see it.
Just to add a very minor point: I think we should not emphasize intentions, let alone avowed intentions, when it comes to deciding what actions and speech-acts ought to be proscribed.
Please excuse, I stand corrected, after above giving him the benefit of the doubt. It is now obvious that Salvador T. Cordova fits the classical definition (in social sciences) of a “racist”. His racism is “anti-Chinese”, which comes in a variety of forms. No doubt about it from what he posted that was properly sent to Guano 22-03-2020.
There’s a chance it could still be spun into smth like “not anti-Chinese, only anti-China,” as a geo-political position. I urge no one to entertain such an attempt here; just send anything like that to Guano and be done with it. Political racism is still racism and reflects ungodliness towards others who are created in the image and likeness of God.
Whilst I agree that phoodoo’s reaction was overblown, you might note I suggested to Sal that he avoid further use of the term. Might be worth glancing in guano for Sal’s response to my suggestion.
ETA link
I don’t give a dam if you think I shouldn’t overgeneralize. I know full well why Sal wrote that, just like I know full well why the right wing politicians in America also do this. It is not a surprise that it is only right wing politicians who say that. There are no Democratic politicians doing that.
So if you know it is race baiting, and you post it knowing that, then of course that is racist. There was no other point Sal could have been trying to make.
And you calling it overreacting is also bullshit. As I have stated, I personally know friends affected by the current situation. I personally know people who have been both verbally and physically attacked. So don’t try to tell me what I should or shouldn’t be getting angry about. You don’t know what you are talking about.
It doesn’t need to be a suggestion Alan. You said people would be banned if they were being racist. Have you directly warned Sal that if he does it again he will be banned?
If it helps calm the emotions, as the moderation issue has now been solved, with both Alan Fox & DNA_Jock making statements about it & moving STC’s racist posts to Guano, any further conversation about this, which is not about moderation, but rather race, ethnicity and geo-politics, should be moved to Sandbox. Good day.
phoodoo,
I don’t need to. That should be obvious. Incidentally, I was on another site I occasionally visit and there was a discussion thread entitled “The Wuhan Coronavirus Thread” so I commented that someone might consider changing the title. They did…
it’s now The Wuhan Chinese virus thread.
Alan Fox,
In fact you have just allowed Entropy to use that term, and you have even reposted that term.
You don’t seem to be taking your claim against disallowing racism to be taken seriously. In fact you initially protested about having to do anything about it. Now you are reposting it.
If I call some ethnic groups a derogatory name here, are you going to repost it and talk about it? Are you going to leave it here because this is moderation?
phoodoo,
Check the site Rules (http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/moderation/). Nothing there about racism. Thus, no banning of STC on that basis.
Alan Fox,
So now we see that you were lying all along when you said racism won’t be allowed here. Good job.
Do you have a brain tumor?
Gregory,
Except that Alan says that is the rule. He said he discussed it with Lizzie. But he doesn’t follow his own rules, unless he bans himself.
phoodoo,
Link please.
Unfortunately some rules have been added subsequently. The racism clarification was added by Lizzie in response to a previous incident but it is not on the rules page. I’ll see if I can find it.
Alan Fox,
Are you saying it is Ok to be racist in the moderation thread Alan?
I still think there is a difference between referring to a disease by the area where it was first reported and “calling some ethnic groups a derogatory name”. But rather than persisting in this distinction, I’ll accept the simpler stance of erring on caution.
Alan Fox,
I may have lost count, but I believe Alan has now repeated the phrase, which he reluctantly has agreed is racist, four times now.
Alan Fox,
That is why I repeat my accusation that you are a liar when you say you abhor racism. So far you have used the phrase here more than anyone else.
Alan Fox,
You are now walking back your statement that it is racist?
What a piece of work you are.
Nope. It is a bannable* offence to post racist comments anywhere on this site.
*That does not mean automatic. I won’t prejudge hypothetical situations. My belief is our members are not racist on the whole.
What are you talking about? What does “it” refer to?
Alan Fox,
You know some people call the latest virus the Jewish-American cabal disease. I believe that is what Richard Spencer calls it.
I read a thread where they were talking about it. I suggested they change the name. They changed it to The Tel Aviv disease.
Hahaha, isn’t that funny Alan?
Make sure you ban yourself Alan.
Nope. I merely make the point that racist language can sometimes be perceived and not intended. Though in Sal’s case, subsequent comments clarified there was intent.
Not that I know of.
While I appreciate your concern and expression of umbrage over Sal’s use of the obviously and intentionally derogatory designation of Covid-19 I think you are doing a disservice to your cause. it is one thing to be outraged over the terminolgy being posted in a thread outside of the moderation thread, however, in the moderation thread where this is being discussed you are now outraged over the phrase being used in a conversation of that very thing. Your stance appears to be that every instance of someone typing those words is racist. It isn’t.
The usage of the phraseology on the moderation thread does not have the same intention and deiberate finger-pointing as Sal’s initial posts. Are we now supposed to be so sensitive to word use that we are now required (by you) to only refer to racist language, i.e., the ‘N’ word, that even mentioning the phrase in a discussion of whether that phrase should be used is offensive. Don’t see it and most don’t see it. It lacks the intent of the original offense. However, it is your hobby horse to ride so ride away if you wish but faux outrage in a discussion about the phrase’s usage in a discussion of that phrase comes across as a bit snowflakeness.
For example when Alan posted the response he observed when he pointed out that the label use on that thread might be considered offensive he showed that it only ended with a new and improved racist notation. How else was he supposed to convey that experience without typing the offensive phrase(s) out so all can know to what is being observed? In your opinion, phoodoo, what words would you find acceptable to convey that experience that is different than what he wrote? If you can’t come up with the alternative conversation than perhaps reflect that maybe you need to take a deep breath and rethink when and where that usage is racist and offensive.
Lizzie’s comment on racist material:
Banning hate speech is a very slippery slope, as Jordan B. Peterson especially has drawn peoples’ attention to in the last couple of years. The other items in TSZ’s rules are much more clear cut. Tread carefully.
I frankly don’t see how “anti-racism” can/will be added to the site rules in a diplomatic or clear way by mods. Lizzie may need to intervene. Let’s see how this plays out. There is a potential for sabotage here.
This is why analytic philosophers invented the use/mention distinction: the difference between using a word and mentioning it. (Though the use/mention distinction is more often mentioned than used.)
Are you saying we should be able to use the N word if we want to talk about it? I can do that here?
What you are suggesting (and what Alan did) is that it is ok to use any racist statements you want, as long as you suggest that your intention is not to be racist, but rather you just want to talk about those words. Debate them. Parse their meaning here. So if I say some people think this or think that about Jews, it is not that I feel that, it is I am talking about that some people say, and I want to talk about that here. Can I talk about all the things that Richard Spencer says about Jews?
So now you are giving a pass to Sal, giving a pass to Mung for defending him, and giving a pass to Alan for his funny little racists anecdotes.
PeterP,
You have in fact made my point by writing the N word, because you know that it would be inappropriate here to use the word , even if you were just talking about about its usage. Why didn’t you just type the word you meant?
Well, what Alan did was exactly that. But he claims it is not racist because he had a funny story to tell along with it.
It’s long settled case law that the regular rules do not apply in the Moderation Issues thread. But if the moderator/admins want to all get together and unanimously agree on a new rule I encourage them to do that.
The Iranian and Chinese leadership seem to be in agreement.
Mung,
That’s overkill. Lizzie has already made it clear that she doesn’t want racist material anywhere on the site. No new rules are needed for that.
I refered to the ‘N’ word as an example of the extremes of where your outrage has taken you. In a discussion of racist language I don’t consider typing nigger to be directly offensive but rather as an example of what exact language should not be used. Typing the ‘N’ word was not because I thought a discussion of the referred to word would be considered racist.
Yes, that is what I am saying. If there is a current discussion about derogatory labels directed at people of African descent than I do not feel it is racist to state that using the term nigger is out of line. are you too much of a snowflake to stand up to reading that word?
What Alan typed was not racist. It did represent the racist and uncaring response he received when trying to get people to consider not using language that could be perceived as racist or even racist up front and center. I don’t think Alan or anyone else found the response funny. It was, sadly, an example of the recalcitrant racist nature of more than a few people in htis world.
I’m not giving Sal a pass. To come to that conclusion means you missed my point entirely. I’d have no problem with Sal, or anyone else, being tossed for either overt racisim or just being provocative. Mung’s defense of Sal or, rather, his stance that just because Sal is an asshole doesn’t mean he is a racist is true generally speaking. He, Sal, might be a racist or as his history suggests he is a deliberatively provocative asshole and I’d have no problem seeing him shown the door either permanently or but on restricted use until lessons are learned.
yes, if the conversation is about the use of specific language and words then for sure refer to those words in the conversation. I’m not so fragile that I can’t handle the discussion. How else are you going to discussion the subject matter if your sensitivities are so high you cannot handle the mere mention of the words in question.
Why shouldn’t you be able too have that discussion in the appropriate setting? If you are advcating that the verbiage is appropriate or directing it at an individual that is far different than discussing the former..
I think folk there (the site has what you might call liberal or socialist leanings) must have thought I was being a bit of a snowflake and the intent was to mock me. Who, if anyone, was being racist?
Mung,
See Lizzie’s comment above. Thanks Keiths for finding it. All that needs doing is adding it to the rules page. I’ll do that unless other admins object.
That is a very good point, KN. Thanks.
phoodoo,
I encourage you to take a few deep breaths, read what PeterP actually wrote and try to avoid the ever-popular “So what you’re saying is [strawman distortion of writer’s point]?” reactions.
Sal’s goal was to upset you.
You are making him very happy.
I chose to guano, rather than delete, because I am not a fan of deleting offensive speech.
I left no link, because I hoped to avoid further escalation and the joy that it would bring malefactors. Fat chance.
phoodoo, DNA_Jock is correct. Sal’s singular purpose was to promote discord and punch somebody’s buttons. You’ve taken his bait and run with it and as DNA_Jock pointed out Sal is likely quite gleeful over the response that has been generated. If you haven’t noticed everyone is standing in solidarity with you in condemnation of not only Sal’s usage of the offending phrase but others as well. the conversation/discussion has now shifted focus onto your, apparent, stance that any mention, or usage, of the verbiage is forbidden.
There was a TV character Maynard G. Krebs (played by Bob Denver) who was a beatnik. Regardless of context everytime he heard the word ‘work’ he would become apopleptic and would repeatedy say the word ‘work’ in a state of agitation, fear, and sometimes would faint over hearing the word. I see you in this role. Can’t you just accept that everyone is with you on this subject?
You’re a fucking ass-hole phoodoo. You should try and learn to use your brain at some point. In the meantime you are behaving like a mindless fanatic.
ETA: Also, you “reposted” the term yourself several times you poor incoherent imbecile.
Holy crap!
There’s a good reason Sal Cordova earned the nickname “the human shit stain” on discussion boards across the web.