I try to keep a very light hand with the comments section on this blog, but if I see folks (and, yes, SLC, this means you) persisting in using the term "raghead" or other ethnic slurs I may need to do something about it. Please knock it off.
« McCain for Torture | Main | Retaliation Coming »
Fair Warning
13 Feb 2008 10:10 pm
Comments (92)
I assume other forms of slur, such as "thuglicans" or "rethugs" or "fundies" or "right wing knuckledraggers" remain acceptable, as these are not ethnic.
Are you okay with Repiglican, MY? Because as far as I can tell it's a word that there's a crying need for in our national discourse. Normal Republicans shouldn't have to suffer by sharing the same label with torture-loving would-be genocidal maniacs who defecate on the Constitution every day.
Thanks, Matt.
Who knew Yglesias even read the comments on any regular basis?
Good move, M. Yglesias!
Who knew Yglesias even read the comments on any regular basis?
I read them all the time.
Out of curiosity, does "slime-toad" count as a slur? I don't believe Republicans are an ethnic group, per se....
I assume other forms of slur, such as "thuglicans" or "rethugs" or "fundies" or "right wing knuckledraggers" remain acceptable, as these are not ethnic.
Good grief, Victorian housewives were made of sterner stuff than the modern wingnut. We'll give you a moment on your fainting couch with the smelling salts while you recover.
thank you.
Matt,
What's the difference between racist words and whole fucking racist paragraphs. You've accepted a lot worse for a lot longer.
I feel so young and naive since I don't know who the offending word is meant to offend. I guess it is better that way.
If Matt is still reading his humble blog-worshippers, perhaps he might define, in a mighty codex, all the words that may not be used, lest an innocent might stumble upon them by mistake. Would "slobbering fascist wingnut scumsucker" be considered a slur, for example, if applied to Jonah Goldberg? I hunger for instruction....
Thanks, Jen, but I don't need the smelling salts. I'm a tough old raghead.
This sort of thing always makes me uncomfortable. The conversation about these kinds of decisions, though, tends to be of very little value.
That was pretty ugly, I admit. I'm surprised, really. Though SLC is a zealot who would make Yigal Amir blush, he's usually more careful in the wording of his attacks on Arabs and Muslims. It seems out of character.
"Keep your supraesophageal ganglion to yourselves, this means you Jimmy."
"Ohhh, maaaan!"
Sorry, way too much Nemo.
Use of the terms rethugs, repigclican et. al. is simply a very stupid self-defeating thing for Democratic people to use on blogs that are open to the public as we approach a general election where Dems will want to get more than 50% of the vote. It's your own necks you'll help hang by continuing to use such terminology. For Obamabots in particular, I am pretty dang sure from reading some of Mr. Obama's writings and comments about the blogosphere that he certainly would not approve of that usage among his followers.
...and evidently they were funnier, too.
I can see a new movement against censorship arising from this... what shall we call it? The Raghead Trousered Philanthropists? *grin* Was that really Matt "I have no name" Yglesias earlier? It could have been some sacrilegious slobbering fascist wingnut scumsucker impersonating his Divine Self....
Don't ever have kids.
Why is it taking so long to post? I assume that's why so many people are posting the same message 2 and 3 times.
Whoa...Yglesias AND Douthat bringing the hammer down at the same time.
Okay, so they were definitely funnier, too.
What are the 'racist paragraphs'?
Uh, oh. Matt is forced to step up in loco parentis. Can he find his way back into the Peter Pan gallery with the rest of us, or is he permanently tainted by this "adult" outburst?
Matt,What's the difference between racist words and whole fucking racist paragraphs. You've accepted a lot worse for a lot longer.
Posted by Ben | February 13, 2008 10:31 PM
It's a dog whistle to idiot trolls; your comments section can go downhill very fast that way.
It's the same reason Jennifer's stupid insult posts without content need to be ignored or discouraged.
We want intelligence in our hate speech, damn it. :-)
Somewhere out there, Jonah Goldberg is quietly noting that both liberals and er... Ross Douthat employ censorship, and therefore Ross Douthat is a liberal. No, I meant, liberals are Ross Douthats...
Well, I stand rather rebuked.
I do think that Ben has a definite point: I've seen any number of simply reprehensible comments from Chris Ford, but don't recall any tendency of his to use profanity or derogatory terms, even as his bile spills forth onto the screen.
Uh, oh. Matt is forced to step up in loco parentis. Can he find his way back into the Peter Pan gallery with the rest of us, or is he permanently tainted by this "adult" outburst?
I'm still waiting for a decent political site to adopt slashdot style reader moderation and meta-moderation. Rip on it all you like (and everybody does), but I haven't seen another moderation system that comes close to working as well...
Whoa...Yglesias AND Douthat bringing the hammer down at the same time.
I imagine, actually, that this comes from on high at the Atlantic, but who knows? One of the consistently weird things about the blogs in their stable is the lack of transparency in the relationship between magazine and blog; what does the Atlantic require of them-- number of posts-wise, content-wise, traffic-wise? Do they have to link to other blogs under the Atlantic byline a certain number of times? And does this sort of reaction really happen organically at the same time on two separate blogs?
Are you required to be a loon to be a regular commenter at McArdle's place?
I rather liked ferd's comment the first time, but then ferd had to go and prove Just Karl's point ...
And JB, the site exists, and it's called The Daily Kos. Thing is, they frequently suffer from a major groupthink problem. I think the fundamental question is whether you can have that sort of community rating system without also getting the groupthink.
What are the 'racist paragraphs'?
Your average Steve Sailer or Chris Ford post qualifies.
And, yeah, why does posting a comment take so long? Is the hamster powering the server overworked?
The good news for SLC and other would-be Grand Wizards is that Ross Douthat's blog has a rather large opening since I'm apparently not welcome there any more. Sure, I'm having some fun there tonight under the name TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus, but I suspect that in the morning, after Ross has finished saying his morning prayers in front of his Saint Reagan Shrine, that name will be gone as well. Anything goes on Ross's blog - blatant racism, anti-homosexual diatribes that would make the Phelps family gag, you name it - just don't use words like "Repiglican," because that's just unconscionable.
Is the hamster powering the server overworked?
No, no, not hamsters, glow-worms. Each glow-worm generates approximately 3 McCains of energy per hour, so things are a bit slow.
artappraiser writes: "Use of the terms rethugs, repigclican et. al. is simply a very stupid self-defeating thing for Democratic people to use on blogs that are open to the public as we approach a general election where Dems will want to get more than 50% of the vote. It's your own necks you'll help hang by continuing to use such terminology."
I'm an independent, but thanks for your faux concern. Since you're a Repiglican you should probably be aware that every last Repiglican in the country could vote for McCain and he'd still lose. There aren't as many of you creatures as there used to be - the stench of Bush's incompetence has been toxic to his party.
Not fair to the pigs, ML&J. If you give them enough living space, they're actually very clean, sedate, and intelligent animals.
What's especially funny about our good friend SLC is that he's always saying America needs to exterminate tens of millions of people in "bad countries" overseas AND he's also always demanding that Matt immediately ban all the "nasty people" from his blogsite.
Personally, I really hope that the comments "stay free" and that SLC doesn't get banned or anything, though maybe he should tone down his language a little.
It's always useful to enhance one's understanding of the views of some unfortunate mental patient who keeps forgetting to take his meds.
Salaam alaikum,
As a raghead myself, I appreciate your policy.
Wa alaikum salaam.
Can we assume that animalist language and slurs will also be banned? I find abusing pigs by comparing them to Republicans profoundly offensive!
And JB, the site exists, and it's called The Daily Kos. Thing is, they frequently suffer from a major groupthink problem. I think the fundamental question is whether you can have that sort of community rating system without also getting the groupthink.
DailyKos is as close as it comes, but suffers from notable shortfalls. The moderation system is far less sophisticated and consequently less successful, and it doesn't allow readers to screen all comments below a set rating. Where slash allows you to boil down a 300 comment discussion to the best 15-20 comments with a click of the mouse, there is no effective way to filter discussions on Kos.
Groupthink is impossible to counteract completely, but neither should you want to completely counteract it. The "groupthink" is the product of the aggregated judgment of the readers (i.e. the wisdom of the crowd) and consequently provides much of the value of a reader-moderated site like slashdot. A well-implemented moderation system can temper this a bit though, as slash does by limiting moderation points, focusing them to the more productive contributors to the site, capping post ratings, and subjecting moderation decisions to meta-moderation. Kos does none of that.
Additionally, no matter how well the moderation system is set up, it is still ultimately subject to the quality of the readership, and the folks at Kos do leave a bit to be desired...
How, er, something, Matt. Does this mean that you're finally done playing footsie with Steve Sailer?
MoeLarryAndJesus:
Since you're a Repiglican you should probably be aware that every last Repiglican
Sorry, find another straw man, clueless Larry (you clearly don't have the analytic ability of Moe or Jesus.) Turns out I've never voted for anything other than a Democrat for any Federal office for over 30 years, and have been registered Independent for over 20 years, only because of local government reasons that are no one's biz but my own. Deal with it.
Amazingly stupid of you to even be in the habit of jumping on someone like me on a blog and assuming I am someone you need to attack, instead of woo, thinking you know what I think from a few posts of mine you've read. You're not capable of seeing that that strawman thingie is getting a bit old, are ya? You don't win anything that way, not a thing, not an argument, not a vote, not recognition as a writer, not respect from lurkers, nothing. You mainly just make yourself look like someone whose comments are not worth reading.
I don't have any "concern", just pointing out the self-defeating moronic behavior in the blogosphere, similar to that which was pointed out in a mini-Sister-Souljah-blogosphere moment by that Obama guy way bay in 2005 on DKos: Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party
The Rethug thing has grown quite tiresome if nothing else. And get yourself some treatment for that lingering Bush derangement syndrome.
What's the difference between racist words and whole fucking racist paragraphs. You've accepted a lot worse for a lot longer.
The difference between racist words and "racist paragraphs" is that the latter actually tend to include factual claims and an argument, and so tend to increase productive discussion, even if you disagree with them. On the other hand, simple use of ethnic slurs does not lend itself to anything at all.
Your average Steve Sailer or Chris Ford post qualifies.
Yes, Steve Sailer's writings regarding race are completely unscientific. You know, kinda like global warming, and for the same reasons.
Moe:
Ross is not upset that you've used the term Repiglican. I think he is just tired of it being used quite so much.
Obviously, it's a lot easier to crack down on discrete, definable words than hateful ideas, but it would be pretty hypocritical to have a zero tolerance policy about one and let the other slide.
But we are still allowed to bring up the fact that Micky Kaus fellates goats, right?
I try to keep a very light hand with the comments section on this blog, but if I see folks (and, yes, SLC, this means you) persisting in using the term "raghead" or other ethnic slurs I may need to do something about it.
I've only used the "R-" word in the context of impersonating a Giuliani supporter (as in, "he'll kill the R--h---s and that's good enough for me!")
artappraiser writes: "Sorry, find another straw man, clueless Larry (you clearly don't have the analytic ability of Moe or Jesus.) Turns out I've never voted for anything other than a Democrat for any Federal office for over 30 years, and have been registered Independent for over 20 years, only because of local government reasons that are no one's biz but my own. Deal with it.
Amazingly stupid of you to even be in the habit of jumping on someone like me on a blog and assuming I am someone you need to attack, instead of woo, thinking you know what I think from a few posts of mine you've read. "
Why would I want to woo you, chuckles? I'm an independent. If you generally vote Democratic, bully for you, but that doesn't hide the fact that you write like a dyed-in-the-pigskin Repiglican, what with your nonsense about "Bush Derangement syndrome" and "it's your own necks you'll hang," blah blah blah. Being pissed off by Dumbya Bush is the only rational and decent response to the man, and I'll use any terms I damn well please to express that.
As for what I assume about you based on what you write, what other criteria am I supposed to use in this medium, chuckles? ESP? Tea leaves? I read what you write, and you sound like Robert Novak to me - and he claimed for years that he wasn't a Republican, either.
In all due fairness, Matt has not suggested a "zero tolerance" policy for hateful words, just a "not unlimited tolerance" policy.
On Glaivester's post at 12:06:
This is the sort of idea-laden paragraph Glaivester - who worships Steve Sailer's every last dropping - has in mind. It's from Glaivester's own blog. If you want to see the rest, use Google, but it's really not worth the time:
"It is also of major importance to create a sense of noblesse oblige amongst celebrities and aspiring celebrities. In addition, we need to encourage those with lots of money (e.g. if we are talking about blacks, sports stars and rappers) to make large capital investments within the community. Particularly in the case of those who aspire to celebrity but have not achieved it yet, there is the need to drill into them a sense of responsible behavior, and for athletes, of modesty and teamwork."
Oh, the humanity!
blah
Hmmm. :-) It's possible that Atlantic Monthly might have a slight preference that you use satyrs for such content instead of goats?
I don't have access to the premium archive, but ya know, people on this thread thinking it might be inspiried by the boss-man had me was thinking it would be interesting to see what, if anything, they published on Lenny Bruce's legal troubles at the time they were occurring....
No, artappraiser does not write like a Republican, repiglican, concern troll, etc.
Yes, MLJ writes like a crazy person. Sorry. Assuming you aren't a regular (not concern) troll, "repiglican" is very unintentionally hilarious. I know you're on a high that Ross actually noticed you, but calm the heck down. I've always ignored you because you're always kind of unintentionally hilarious when not tiresome, (and, perhaps, because I only like attacking to the right) but now would be a good time to point out that you aren't convincing anybody of anything.
An amendment to my earlier post, which said:
Your average Steve Sailer or Chris Ford post qualifies.
Your average Glaivester post also qualifies.
You, and those other two, contribute nothing useful to the discussions here. All you are doing in is engaging in blogwhoring for your racist crap.
Consumatopia writes: "I've always ignored you because you're always kind of unintentionally hilarious when not tiresome, (and, perhaps, because I only like attacking to the right) but now would be a good time to point out that you aren't convincing anybody of anything."
If you think there's a whole lot of convincing going on in these blog discussions you're even daffier than Peter Leavitt is, pal. Can't say I'm a fan of your posts, either, especially since I can't remember any of them.
And yes, people who reference "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as artappraiser did are writing like Repiglicans. The phrase wasn't invented by non-fans of Dumbya. There is nothing deranged about pointing out that Dumbya is a 200 pound tumor wrapped around America's heart.
Maybe no convincing, but usually there's exchange of ideas, but you're just exchanging bile. You could at least try to convince people that, even when you disagree, you've got reasons for it. You just confirm what our enemies think about us. What good is that? They like it when you call them Repiglicans, because they want to think their enemies are tiresome and dull.
Yeah, I know the phrase was invented by Republicans, but, hey, you happen to be crazy, its only reasonable to blame Bush for it.
Sorry again. Give me my Repiglican sign and I guess I'll move along.
Consumatopia drones: "Sorry again. Give me my Repiglican sign and I guess I'll move along."
Nah, you're not a Repiglican. You're almost worse, in a way - you're a humorless "progressive" who wants everyone to play nice.
Yes, I take shots and engage in lowbrow humor as often as I feel like it, but it's simply untrue to say that I never engage people with ideas. I've had long and sometimes interesting exchanges with Hector and TMoC and a few others here, but nothing with you because you're simply not interesting. You're like the Kevin Nealon of bloggers. I'm sure you've said something amusing or worthwhile at some point but I'll be damned if I could ever recall it.
I suggest that if you can't work up the energy or passion to occasionally punch a Republican in the figurative mouth that there's something wrong with you, and that's too bad. I also think that if you're hugely concerned with how you come across to Bush supporters you simply haven't learned the essential lesson of the past 7 years - they sure as hell don't care about you.
Give us a break, Matt. You don't even read these comments, and we know that.
And don't give us that crap that you read them all the time. You wouldn't be half as ignorant about the topics you post on if you did, because at least a few people here do provide a lot of cogent, intelligent, fact-based discussions at odds with a lot of your posts.
So we know you don't "read them all the time."
By the way, asking Matt to list the rules by which you would be deleted is a waste of time. He comes by way of Josh Marshall, who proceeded to tell everybody he would list the rules and never ban anybody without warning, then never listed them, then THAT WEEKEND banned people without warning.
I'm sure Matt has learned well.
"It's a dog whistle to idiot trolls; your comments section can go downhill very fast that way."
First, it's way past Matt's bed time in that regard. He's been letting SLC and Chris Ford get away with both anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim murder here for months. Steve Sailor has been a model of decorum by comparison.
Second, take a gander at Josh Marshall's TPM. Well, at least the TPM before they changed it a couple weeks ago - now it's a disaster area where I think most of the original posters have abandoned ship. Marshall, being a "crypto-Zionist", banned several people for Israeli-Palestinian discussions based on his own "hot button" reactions while allowing a slew of what could only be called "Zionist freaks" - as bad as SLC, and more prolific - continually turn M. J. Rosenberg's threads into war zones.
You have a choice between allowing some fairly vociferous discussions or turning the blog into either a "kid's table" where nobody wants to go (I dropped out of a Corrs fan site because of that) or a "groupthink" operation where no dissent and no meaningful conversation is allowed.
Finally, I'm not sure what Matt can do about it, anyway, other than possibly deleting posts. Deleting posts? He can't even edit HIS OWN posts! How's he going to delete posts? There's no user account mechanism here, so he can't ban anybody.
And really, how much of an issue is it? SLC doesn't post that much, however offensive they may be. Ford's posts are lengthy and offensive, but he's an obvious troll. The rest of the right wing nuts here are either obvious RWN or obvious trolls, but they don't spend much time on racist epithets.
It's not like HuffPo where the place is full of screaming lunatics. And yet I was banned there for criticizing Josh Marshall for banning me. Great, huh?
Oh, well, if my experience at TPM is anything to go by, I'll be banned from here by tomorrow.
I'm with Consumatopia and artappraiser on this one. I've seen MLJ's comments here, and at Ross and Megan's blogs, and he (she?) never fails to be self-righteously infantile.
Tone it down or go play somewhere else.
Got that bigots? No more calling Scarlett Johansson* a delicious Swedish meatball.
* - actually a scrumptious Danish pastry
So what are the boundaries of this? Like, if I call keffiyeh-wearing hipsters "sand wiggers", we're still cool, right?
Just checking.
I'd rather deal with a few hateful comments than go to a place (like certain talk show chat rooms) where you get (temporarily) banned for calling someone a "knucklehead".
Presumably Matt would be fairly happy with the ethnic and other typically offensive slurs being kept somewhat in check; I don't think he's seeking a "clean room" environment.
Well, this has been quite the teapot tempest.
Yes, comrade.
Warren Terra - I've seen any number of simply reprehensible comments from Chris Ford, but don't recall any tendency of his to use profanity or derogatory terms, even as his bile spills forth onto the screen.
My civil reprehensibility? Well, I thank you with all my bile for such "kind words".
The Atlantic Magazine, for years, has sought to show many sides of an issue or problem. Rising to it's best, maybe under the late Michael Kelly, the standout editor lost in the Iraq War. So, to reflect the bold diversity of it's essays - you don't want an echo chamber of the Left or Right in the comments section, necessarily. As writers in the old Post&Riposte forum know, people can disagree vehemently and be civil, slam nationalities or ideas as the most despicable - yet avoid using stupid infantile names like "Democraps, Rethuglicans" or get into the whole nigger, raghead, zionazis, femmenazi, evil white oppressor race" lexion of slurs.
And generally, avoid ad hominems.....though if you get hit with some, hitting back seems kosher.
And be honest. If you think Africa is a lost cause, why not say it? Fallows did in "The Coming Anarchy". If you believe the media fix is in to throw the Clintons out of the race - say it..Ambinder seems to think it is so..Buchanan writes books that are bestsellers in 40 countries.
Re Matthew Yglesias
Fair enough, provided that Mr. Yglesias also censors the antisemitic and antilatino rants of Mr. Chris Ford. Let's have consistency here. Bigotry without derogatory references is still bigotry.
So the pot calls the kettle black, sans irony, and expects people to listen and take him seriously.
SLC and others, the object of such policies (when done well) is not to exclude bigotry, but to elevate the discourse to the level of ideas.
Sailer, for example, gives excellent weight for his bigotry. He's a racist, and thinks he's perfectly justified in being so on rational and empirical grounds. Thus, he provides data and arguments, which can be refuted. This is civilized discourse, because Sailer is a civilized racist. It's great.
Chris often brings decent weight, but occasionally descends into ranting bigot mode. SLC, otoh, can be found down there on a regular basis.
Sailer is a civilized racist
That is a great line. Like Hannibal Lector. He might be some poor guy’s liver with Fava beans and Chianti. But you don't want to disturb his diner because he's so cultured and erudite.
Re Bill and nolaboyd
Apparently, Mr. Bill and Mr. nolaboyd think that bigotry against Blacks and Latinos is perfectly OK but not against Arabs and Iranians.
Re Chris Ford's comment "The Atlantic Magazine, for years, has sought to show many sides of an issue or problem. Rising to it's best, maybe under the late Michael Kelly, the standout editor lost in the Iraq War."
--------------
I agree that Chris Ford is reasonably civilized and should be welcomed.
But his most endearing quality is his habit of making serious comments that make me collapse in helpless stitches.
So as the one above.
To see an example of Michael Kelly's "tolerance", just look at the extended ad hominem slur Kelly leveled on German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer in the runup to the Iraq War.
Fischer had tried to break through the massive barrage of right wing propaganda in 2002 and warn Americans that the evidence for Saddam's WMDs was not all that strong.
Instead of addressing Fischer's points --or providing facts to counter them -- Kelly went into an extended rant that Fischer had not been all that far from being a terrorist himself in his youth.
See http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/kell0211.htm
I've sometimes wondered if it was the Atlantic owners who detonated the IED in IRaq that blew Kelly up -- to remove a huge embarrassment.
Does this bug you? I'm not touching you.
Does this bug you?
Clarification: When I referred to Chris Ford's
" habit of making serious comments " -- I was referring to him making comments in a serious MANNER -- not to him making comments that should ..er.. be taken seriously.
chris ford,
You referred to “The Coming Anarchy” but misidentified its author, who is Robert D. Kaplan, not James Fallows.
Re Don Williams
Apparently Mr. Williams thinks that the rants of Mr. Ford relative to the influx of folks across the Mexican border are perfectly civilized because he doesn't use the term spik in referring to them.
Thanks, Matt.
Re SLC's comment "Apparently Mr. Williams thinks that the rants of Mr. Ford "
----------------
Such a USEFUL word is "Apparently". Let's one evade the slander law with a dance step -- e.g.,
"Apparently SLC likes to have sexual congress with stray dogs".
If, perchance, SLC is interested in what I THINK, then I will note that I agree with Thomas Jefferson -- co-founder of the Democratic Party and also founder of my University.
The guideline Mr Jefferson laid out for my University was simple:
--------
"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."
----------
Also:
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
2cynical, the fact that you think those two things are at all analogous is depressing.
I think another very important weighting factor is relative originality and uniqueness.
For example, I disagree with quite a lot of their stuff---and they totally hate each other!---but I'd say that Richard Steven Hack and Chris Ford are two of my favorite commenters. That's because you'd never find anything like most of their views within a million miles of the regular mainstream media.
And that's why I find SLC so boring and so useless (though he shouldn't be banned). Not only is his stuff total nonsense, but under a multitude of pseudonyms, he already writes the same thing every day for the Washington Post, TNR, WSJ, National Review, and a whole bunch of other publications. After you've read the same stupid argument eighteen times, the nineteenth can get pretty dull.
Same thing for all those Obamabots, endlessly preaching Teh Awesomenessitude of Obama's AmeriCorps as opposed to the total worthlessness of Bill Clinton's AmeriCorps.
heedless writes: "I'm with Consumatopia and artappraiser on this one. I've seen MLJ's comments here, and at Ross and Megan's blogs, and he (she?) never fails to be self-righteously infantile.
Tone it down or go play somewhere else."
Of course the fact that heedless is a thoughtless goober that I've smacked down on several occasions has nothing to do with that opinion.
Uh huh.
Thanks Matt
Steve Sailer's comments often bring some interesting new perspectives or information to the issue, even beyond his on-and-off racism. Plus, while his IQ obsession does make him a racist, it doesn't make him a virulent hater.
mq writes: "Steve Sailer's comments often bring some interesting new perspectives or information to the issue, even beyond his on-and-off racism. Plus, while his IQ obsession does make him a racist, it doesn't make him a virulent hater."
I'd just like to know what it is that would make someone become the public face of "scientific" white supremacy arguments. If the desired result isn't to give aid and comfort to bigots, what is it? In the practical world, everything Steve Sailer seems to be about buttresses the ignorance of pretty heinous assholes. I guess the best analogy would be to someone who wasn't a child pornographer but who spent all of his time arguing that child pornography should be legal and also sought out "scientific evidence" suggesting it was actually good for the kids "participating" in it.
Re RKU
"Not only is his stuff total nonsense, but under a multitude of pseudonyms, he already writes the same thing every day for the Washington Post, TNR, WSJ, National Review, and a whole bunch of other publications."
Mr. RKU has joined the totally wrong club with the above statement.
1. I have never posted a comment under any identification other then SLC.
2. I have never posted a comment on any of the web sites listed by Mr. RKU.
Re Don Williams
1. I see that Mr. Williams has again missed his daily blowjob from Eric Prince. Better luck tomorrow.
2. Mr. Williams is a graduate of Utterly Vacuous Assholes. Well, I suppose it's better then Liberty University.
SLC:
1. I have never posted a comment under any identification other then SLC.
Ha, ha!
Everyone can tell that half the columns published by Krauthammer, Peretz, Max Boot, Daniel Pipes, David Horowitz, and a whole host of other "mainstream" pundits are actually ghosted by our good friend SLC.
But you'd think that with so much outside income SLC could afford to buy lots of better and more effective meds...
Matthew, you've shown great forbearance with regard to incendiary comments. The vast majority of putatively Left/Progressive sites only allow criticism of Israel and its Lobby to go so far. It's why they're so morally bankrupt and feckless.
I'd just like to know what it is that would make someone become the public face of "scientific" white supremacy arguments. If the desired result isn't to give aid and comfort to bigots, what is it? In the practical world, everything Steve Sailer seems to be about buttresses the ignorance of pretty heinous assholes.
If what Sailer says is correct, what does it matter what his motivations are? And I notice that there has been no attempt to refute anything he says other than to scream that these are not nice things to say in public.
And yes, people who reference "Bush Derangement Syndrome" as artappraiser did are writing like Repiglicans. The phrase wasn't invented by non-fans of Dumbya. There is nothing deranged about pointing out that Dumbya is a 200 pound tumor wrapped around America's heart.
Finally, Moe, we agree on something. I am so sick of hearing Bush brown-tonguers talk about "Bush Derangement Syndrome" that I have created my own term for its exact opposite: Bush Anilingus Syndrome.
Christ, what a bunch of assholes. And each one is convinced he/she is especially smart.
To recap, here are the intelligent points from the above thread: any idea should be allowed expression because an idea can be rebutted; racial insults are simply insults, not ideas, and can be forbidden without interfering with debate. That's about it; the rest is garbage. Oh yeah, a couple of people thanked Matt for not allowing unbridled use of racial slurs. Those posts were ok too.
As for the rest ... please, please shut up. And to whoever dug out "Bush derangement syndrome" for one more go, you must promise never to type again.
Glaivester quotes and responds: "I'd just like to know what it is that would make someone become the public face of "scientific" white supremacy arguments. If the desired result isn't to give aid and comfort to bigots, what is it? In the practical world, everything Steve Sailer seems to be about buttresses the ignorance of pretty heinous assholes.
If what Sailer says is correct, what does it matter what his motivations are? And I notice that there has been no attempt to refute anything he says other than to scream that these are not nice things to say in public."
Bullshit, Glaivester. Sailer's racist horseshit has been refuted over and over again, and I'll tell you why his focus is fucked.
Sailer suggests that blacks as a group are less intelligent than whites (and Asians, BTW). He goes from there to suggest various social policy changes that should be undertaken with that "difference" in mind, all the while pretending to be caring for the best interests of black Americans.
Leaving the sheer audacity of that level of patronization behind, his emphasis gives short shrift to American ideals of fairness AND leads to unworkable and frankly stupid policy suggestions. You probably won't get how stupid they are, given your own howler about "drilling into the rappers and the dunkers principles of modesty and teamwork," but these suggestions just make no sense as public policy. Sailer almost gets it when he admits that millions of blacks are more intelligent than the "median white." He has no sense of scale. What do you do, process humans like you do fresh eggs?
Studies have shown that taller men tend, on average, to be more successful than short men. So do you change social policy with this in mind, also? When exactly do you stop dividing up the pie?
And you can use that argument to complain about affirmative action, I know - but aa was instituted because we as a society saw clear inequities in hiring practices and couldn't explain them except by looking at racial discrimination as the cause. Obviously such practices should be reviewed as realities shift, but what you and Sailer want to do is enshrine discrimination and claim it's a benevolent science.
I call that obscene.
Thanks, Matt.
Sailer almost gets it when he admits that millions of blacks are more intelligent than the "median white." He has no sense of scale. What do you do, process humans like you do fresh eggs?
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that even if on average blacks have lower IQs than whites, it doesn't mean that any particular black has a lower IQ than any particular white, so it is meaningless.
This is ridiculous. For one thing, group tendencies do matter. When you are dealing with groups of people (what neighborhood to move into or what school to go to) individual variations quickly cancel each other out and and group tendencies become the important factor.
And in any case, Steve is not suggesting that we make different rules for each race based on statistical tendencies; what he is suggesting is that we adopt policies that allow whatever differences to exist to come out. That is, you don't tell black teens that they cannot go to college because of lower average IQ; but you also do not lower the SAT threshold for admission and if that means that blacks are underrepresented by a factor of 10, so be it.
The only positive social policies Sailer advocates (by positive I mean acting to do something rather than just "stop doing what we are doing now"), e.g. a civilian corps) are geared toward opening up opportunities for lower IQ people in general and have little to do with race per se.
Comments closed February 27, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Just for clarification: Racism is okay, as long as you don't use any naughty words?
Well, I guess you do have to link to Sullivan sometimes.
Posted by Gabriel | February 13, 2008 10:15 PM