Don't Respond to Slurs With Rational Arguments

The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

AmNat said:

The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Click to expand...

You do make a very obvious point, but the problem that this usually stems from is that those that keep using such words don't really have such an argument to make, or are never actually interested in having a real discussion, and just chooses to do this alone.

Yeah - this kind of name calling (ad hom) is often the behavior of incompetent, petulant, immature individuals.

It allows them to remain in their echo chamber, and has the bonus of being high-fived by like minded incompetents.

Strength in idiot numbers & all that.

It's also kinda fascistic: "You disagree with me AND you revealed my incompetence - I condemn you as a RACIST!!!"

Oborosen said:

You do make a very obvious point, but the problem that this usually stems from is that those that keep using such words don't really have such an argument to make, or are never actually interested in having a real discussion, and just chooses to do this alone.

Click to expand...

That's why trying to argue against such words (e.g. "I'm not a racist because XYZ) is counter-productive. Because it validates such people in the belief that using those words can re-direct a conversation about whether something is true (which matters) into a conversation about whether something is racist/sexist/xenophobic/bigoted/etc. (which doesn't matter).

why is identifying racist behavior found to be a negative act?

justabubba said:

why is identifying racist behavior found to be a negative act?

Click to expand...

Calling an argument or assertion racist is a way of distracting from the question of what's true and what isn't. If a statement is true, it doesn't matter if it's "racist". If a statement is false, then it's false regardless of whether or not it's "racist". Either way "racism" is irrelevant.

People worried about being called out for their racist positions or support for racist commentary could always just stop with the racist rhetoric.

It's not rocket science.

AmNat said:

Calling an argument or assertion racist is a way of distracting from the question of what's true and what isn't. If a statement is true, it doesn't matter if it's "racist". If a statement is false, then it's false regardless of whether or not it's "racist". Either way "racism" is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Here's an assertion: Black people commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population, and should be excluded from the US.

True or false?

AmNat said:

The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Click to expand...

You mean emulate my practices here in the Forum?

I also adhere to my tagline, I stop responding for the following three reasons.:

1. I believe that I've made my point already and really don't feel like repeating it.

2. The post is fallacious in some way (emotional appeal, ad hominin, red herring, straw man, false dilemma, etc.) therefore trolling and I simply chose not to respond.

3. There is no real issue to respond to, it's just an opinion or an assertion I have no interest in.

Click to expand...

https://www.debatepolitics.com/blogs/captain-adverse/1391-time-re-introduce-myself.html

justabubba said:

why is identifying racist behavior found to be a negative act?

Click to expand...

Why is the person identifying the alleged racist behavior? What is his motivation? If it is to shut down or derail a conversation, then that could be a net negative act.

Serenity said:

People worried about being called out for their racist positions or support for racist commentary could always just stop with the racist rhetoric.

It's not rocket science.

Click to expand...

If you goal is to persuade, then using inflammatory rhetoric will not help your case.

OTOH, if your goal is to judge and condemn, then by all means call out racism wherever you find it. You'll feel superior to the people you insult and they will simply tune you out and ignore you and feel superior to you and your racebaiting. Everyone wins!

eman623 said:

If you goal is to persuade, then using inflammatory rhetoric will not help your case.

OTOH, if your goal is to judge and condemn, then by all means call out racism wherever you find it. You'll feel superior to the people you insult and they will simply tune you out and ignore you and feel superior to you and your racebaiting. Everyone wins!

Click to expand...

I don't casually throw around racism accusations but I will call out actual instances if I see it and the need arises. I make no apologies for calling out racism, that's what any sane and reasonable person will do. I'm not going to pander to racists and neither you or anyone else for that matter will silence me or make me believe it's a bad thing to do.

It helps to understand the breadth of meanings of any given -ic or -ist and interpret it in context.

Depending on the individual, "racism" can refer to anything from intense racial hatred to modest prejudice (e.g. "white people can't dance") to simple indifference/antipathy toward issues others consider important (e.g. "white privilege", "black history month").

Likewise, some people invoke "homophobia" only to describe the most intense hatred of homosexuals; some include being disgusted by homosexuals; some include slurs and jokes; some include opposition to homosexuality on any grounds; and some use it to describe indifference to any of the aforementioned.

Similar rules follow for misogyny, xenophobia, agism, etc. "Bigotry" is a fungible term that nearly always expresses the sentiment, "Your thinking on a political topic is wrong to the point of being immoral," which of course refers to the writer's moral standard.

Hence observe when and how often an individual invokes these terms, and adjust your response accordingly. I assure you, if I personally use these terms to describe one of your arguments, you shouldn't regard the criticism lightly. I don't invoke the terms lightly. In contrast, for a member who wields them casually on a weekly basis, "Your argument is bigoted and racist," might reasonably be interpreted as "You're indifferent to a race issue that I believe we have a moral obligation not to be indifferent to." Take the argument seriously, but since you essentially agree with it, there's really no point in rebutting.

If you're hankering for a debate and haven't gone over it before, try challenging their moral standard. Get them to explain why man has a moral obligation to regard a race issue in a particular way. Maybe they'll have no argument, maybe their argument will fall apart, or maybe it will be harder to dismiss than you initially thought.

Bottom line: blanket rules such as "If you think you have a rational argument, ignore all -ist and -ic criticisms." are too rash. Context is important.

justabubba said:

why is identifying racist behavior found to be a negative act?

Click to expand...

Irrelevant and/or false in many instances, as well as a red herring (among other pernicious fallacies).

AmNat said:

Calling an argument or assertion racist is a way of distracting from the question of what's true and what isn't. If a statement is true, it doesn't matter if it's "racist". If a statement is false, then it's false regardless of whether or not it's "racist". Either way "racism" is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

Beat me to it...

Serenity said:

People worried about being called out for their racist positions or support for racist commentary could always just stop with the racist rhetoric.

It's not rocket science.

Click to expand...

Well, since just about everyone's a bigot...

It's ultimately meaningless.

It's basically a claim that one's shirt doesn't stink, but that another's does.

A childish dodge; an incompetent deflection.

And as has been pointed out quite often, its overuse and misuse has rendered it all but meaningless.

spud_meister said:

Here's an assertion: Black people commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population, and should be excluded from the US.

True or false?

Click to expand...

:roll:

Illogical/fallacious.

eman623 said:

If you goal is to persuade, then using inflammatory rhetoric will not help your case.

OTOH, if your goal is to judge and condemn, then by all means call out racism wherever you find it. You'll feel superior to the people you insult and they will simply tune you out and ignore you and feel superior to you and your racebaiting. Everyone wins!

Click to expand...

Ha!

Well said.

3leftsdoo said:

Well, since just about everyone's a bigot...

It's ultimately meaningless.

It's basically a claim that one's shirt doesn't stink, but that another's does.

A childish dodge; an incompetent deflection.

And as has been pointed out quite often, its overuse and misuse has rendered it all but meaningless.

Click to expand...

As I said in the other thread, there's a name for people who find themselves more offended by the calling out of bigotry than the bigoted opinions themselves. They are, as evidenced by their behavior, bigotry enablers.

If that's the look you're going for, congratulations, you certainly succeeded.

spud_meister said:

Here's an assertion: Black people commit crimes at a greater rate than the general population, and should be excluded from the US.

True or false?

Click to expand...

Depends on what underlies it: if it’s said to discuss and/or understand all the contingent social/historical/economic forces at play for that observation and fix it, then no, it’s not racist. If it’s said with the implication that there is something innate/genetic/biological to it, then yes, it’s racism.

That’s how the dictionary defines racism:

“racism noun
rac·​ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism“
Racism | Definition of Racism by Merriam-Webster

So based on the dictionary definition of racism above, it would appear that the assertion above is a dictionary definition of racism: 1) it assumes that the higher crime rate in blacks is something inherent to their race, and 2) proposes public exclusionary policy based on it.

AmNat said:

The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Click to expand...

Schroedinger's race card: Playing the race card and attacking the race card at the same time. :bravo:

AmNat said:

The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Click to expand...

How are you ask people to use rational thought and logic. In this day and age it is all about emotional outrage and feeling trigger.
/sarcasm

Phys251 said:

Schroedinger's race card: Playing the race card and attacking the race card at the same time. :bravo:

Click to expand...

Where did he play the race card i missed it.

ludin said:

Where did he play the race card i missed it.

Click to expand...

Hmm. What do you think?

AmNat said:

The words "racist", "bigot", "Xphobe", and so on are not rational arguments, they are slurs (whether directed against a person or against an argument) designed to make people be quiet. They have the same value and purpose as the n word.

If you make a rational argument, and someone counters by calling you or the argument some variant of ist, ism, or ic, it is counter-productive to try to respond to such slurs with further argument (imagine the absurdity of a black person getting called the n word, and proceeding to argue that that slur is inaccurate as applied to them). Depending on the particular person you're dealing with, the correct response will either be to stop responding to them, or to try to calmly explain that such terms are irrelevant to the question of what's true. In no case does arguing that you aren't a racist (or what have you) have any value, it only encourages further use of such slurs by allowing the conversation to be derailed from the original point.

Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but single words like the ones you've mentioned are NOT arguments. They are only words, and they may or may not be accurate descriptions of certain persons.