The Study of Racialism

fwsweet · Last edited by fwsweet on Wed 20 Jun 2007 20:00; edited 2 times in total

Request for proposals regarding offensive group generalizations and ad hominem retaliation.

This concern was raised by the recent flame-war in the thread Rejecting Blackness because Blacks suffer discrimination in the "Issues for Biracial Americans" forum.

Some people think that "offensive generalizations about groups" should be forbidden. This is impossible because, for example, Europeans really did conquer, colonize, enslave, and exploit everyone else. It is a group generalization. It is offensive. And it is factually accurate. If we cannot say such things, historical discussion would end. At the other extreme, some think that even inaccurate or unsubstantiated group generalizations are allowed as long as they do not target individuals. This is also in error, since every statement must be substantiated upon request. We have stated the policy about providing sources for generalizations and refraining from ad hominem many times, but we just do not get through to some people. How can we make it clear that mere offensiveness does not make a credibly sourced generalization illegal and that being offended does not make ad hominem retaliation legal?

I doubt that rules changes are needed, since the rules are clear. The problem is that the rules are ignored, especially by Black Activists who feel that offensive generalizations about African-Americans demand retaliation, even if they are accurate and thus legal. Retaliation usually comprises either offensive generalizations about other groups that are unsubstantiated and thus illegal, or ad hominem attacks, which are illegal whether substantiated or not. When punished for either of these two illegal forms of retaliation, offenders usually claim irresistible compulsion due to their having been offended. Again, the problem is that the existing rules are ignored. So the question is: how can we make members take notice that (1) Substantiated generalizations are legal even if they offend. (2) Unsubstantiated claims are illegal whether they offend or not. And (3) ad hominem attacks are illegal whether substantiated or not. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Salsassin · Suspended Joined: 04 Apr 2005 {Posts: 3508 }

Certain European nations. Not all Europeans. Cool

I say people have the right to challenge a generalization by asking for clarification. And the person who made the generalization has to further explain and clarify as requested.

fwsweet · Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 03:53 Post subject:

sagascend · Moderator Joined: 17 Jun 2006 {Posts: 2112 }

High School Teacher · Posted: Thu 21 Jun 2007 02:06 Post subject:

fwsweet · Posted: Thu 21 Jun 2007 05:10 Post subject:

fwsweet · Posted: Thu 21 Jun 2007 16:59 Post subject:

Subsequent messages spun off to Should some topics be suppressed because they offend? in this forum. Anyone wanting to discuss that, please do so there.

Anyone who wants to continue discussing "how can we get across to people who ignore the rules by thinking that substantiated, credibly sourced topics can be attacked with impunity merely because they offend someone," should coninue here.