"Race realism"? It's toxic racist crap. Let's discuss why.

The goal was probably “get this out of the Captain Marvel discussion” more than “let’s have/condone this conversation over in P&R.”

But I don’t think it should be here either.

They’ve had no problems shutting down conversations before. They just won’t do it with racists which implies it’s okay on QT3, just don’t be rude about it I guess… as if racism itself is not rude.

I think there’s value in debunking crazy racist theories, and also value in openly mocking racists.

I mean, we do have a whole thread dedicated to Fox News …

edit - But yeah, I can understand the desire to nuke from orbit.

Thus far, it seems like everyone in the forum came down on the side of “this is trash” regarding the OP’s original opinion. Not sure what the problem is.

I agree.

I’m generally against censorship, but blatant racism doesn’t have a place in the marketplace of ideas. I don’t come here looking to see, understand or debate blatantly racist posters, even if they attempt to couch their position in neutral-sounding jargon.

Some people are pushing for banning along with deletion.

Without making a statement either way about whether this thread should exist, there are very good arguments to be made that it’s mere existence amplifies and in some ways provides even a sliver of acceptance of that worldview here. And there’s a lot of merit in that argument.

There’s also a very academic moderation argument to be made that if you nuke this one, you possibly open a can of worms for nuking other threads that may be less poisonous than racism, but on a different subject. Which I also understand. And it needs to be part of the consideration.

And finally–an academic argument like that is one thing when its someone from another demographic being victimized – until you’re in the demographic being attacked by the person/thread in question. Especially in this case, where the history of racism and racist code words have been used to excuse all kinds of awful shit, including genocides and here in the US more recently, lynchings. The gut-level reaction needs to be understood and taken into account.

This thread makes me sad. It’s abhorrent. I hope the person who posted it goes away from here.

I think it’s partly the free speech issue (like the Joe Rogan discussion) and partly the “maybe we can nudge racists into not being that way anymore” discussion. A lot of moral complexity in both of these areas. I think hearts can be in the right place even if they don’t 100% line up with your way of thinking on the issues.

At times, I’ve felt that your strongly opinionated comments towards the mods on this issue comes close to breaking the “don’t drag baggage from previous disagreements into new conversations” rule. But I think your anger is justified in this case!

We will not tolerate move open bigotry or racism to P&R. Just need a simple update to the rules and I’m good. /s

I doubt that has ever happened due to discussions on an internet board. People sometimes change their view on race when they have extended personal contact with members of other races. But nobody gets ‘debated’ into a different position.

I think there’s no value in posts of this nature, or the people who post them.

This isn’t a universal thing. The least they could have done is told him to knock that shit off. It has no place here, and we don’t want to to see this or anything like it again. It makes it clear what’s okay, and what is not okay. That’s not banning. And this isn’t some political discussion. This is a person who saying that the biological make-up of people in the world, including members of this site, is less than.

Yeah, when it comes to racism, I get pissed off. I think that should be pretty understandable, but I guess it’s not is it? it’s easier to give leeway to racists than it is to understand and accept the anger, even rage, racism itself creates.

If it involves racism, yes it’s linked. It’s not a different topic; it’s just a new skin. And people who use voodoo science to justify their bigotry, they’re not going to be changed. It doesn’t matter if they use words from the 1950s or the 21st century.

That’s a pretty valid point.

Again, everyone here agrees with you except guru whose days are hopefully numbered. Consider the idea that you might take out your anger on folks who don’t deserve it. This section I quoted comes off as passive aggressive and lashing out at the community rather than racism.

So, it’s not the anger, it’s the expression of the anger? We accept your anger! We understand it, even if many of us can’t understand it?

I think that if we agree (and I presume that virtually everyone here does) that racism and bigotry are bad, then we want to work towards fighting it. But fighting racism, and preventing its spread, can really only be achieved in one of two ways (really, how any bad idea can be fought):

  1. Punish those who express that idea, to the extent that the general population is ultimately afraid to express that idea
    -or-
  2. Explain why the idea is bad, and in doing so, cause others to internalize that explanation

The first can be effective, but ultimately only addresses manifested behavior, rather than any of the underlying problems that lead to that behavior. It only tangentially attacks the core of these ideas, by instilling some vague and abstract notion that they are wrong “because I’ll be punished”. It fails to inspire any deeper rejection of those ideas, because no real counter argument was ever established.

In order to really reject things like racism and bigotry on a fundamental, permanent level, I think it requires that you think about them. It requires that you understand exactly why they are wrong. And that deep down, underlying ethical framework is often complex. It’s much harder to uncover and establish than simply saying, “This is wrong. Never speak of it.” Having that deeper ethical framework, and understanding of why such things conflict with one’s basic notions of right and wrong, helps promote more holistic good behavior.

Seeing the expression of those ideas, especially for someone who is directly affected by the manifested behavior that arises from those ideas, can be unsettling or even painful. But I think there’s value there, in establishing the deep foundations of why those ideas are wrong.

Also I think that there is a difference between challenging those ideas in the open, and exploring why they are wrong, and simply allowing them to express those ideas unchallenged.

As a non American is race realism some new far right rebranding of just plain racism?
Because it’s the first time I’ve encountered the term, and I don’t want to Google it, in case it is.

I am lashing out at the community, at large. As far as I am concerned, this is the second racist to cause an issue and be given kid gloves about it. And my position hasn’t changed since the last open racist here, and that was not handled well and there are still beliefs that he was okay. Meanwhile, some of the people who get heated the most, including me, against racism, against frankly shocking responses around that are actually frequently berated about the way we handle hurtful, hateful and painful subjects. These guys, barely a peep.

There’s a big difference here from our former but I’m just saying not really being mean racist and this one; this one has been a member for more than five minutes. I’m not asking for a banning of a long-term member. I am asking to take a solid stance against blatant racism, even if they use pretty words to disguise it. And that equates to, when that’s uncovered, it stops.

Yes, it is. It comes as an update to the “eugenics” movement from ages past.

It’s made up science to justify and support racism. They come up with a new word for it and a handful of racists who get through college to back it up every couple/few decades. It’s almost always paired with the same approach to sex.

Gurugeorge said a couple of things in his early posts (when this was in the Captain Marvel thread) that I don’t think were racist.

I don’t think these are popular opinions here, but looking only at the parts I quoted, this isn’t sexist or racist if you consider it in the abstract: there can be factors affecting representation and results that aren’t the result of oppression.

I don’t think that’s relevant to the discussion of film critics and the press, and you’d have a long way to go to make me reconsider that. So I don’t think that can explain away the issues Brie Larson was addressing, which is what kicked this off in the Captain Marvel thread.

And then, yeah, the “race realism”. I have no idea why he brought that up, because I also can’t see how it’s something other than racism with a different name.

I still believe the specific points I quoted are not racist, but it’s pretty obvious how they could be misused to support racist views, or “race realism”. And once gurugeorge introduced that angle, I’m not sure how he expected to put that toothpaste back in the tube.

I can see from one angle why that tangled mess of ideas looks like something that doesn’t belong in the Captain Marvel thread, but does still have enough someone could unpack into a conversation in P&R without the topic’s existence being an endorsement of racism by whatever name you want to use.

But that conversation isn’t happening, and that blame seems like it’s on gurugeorge for poisoning his debatable points with racist ones.

I don’t think anyone’s responses here or the existence of this thread reflect poorly on Qt3’s members or moderators at this point, I think everyone responded pretty much how you’d expect, but I won’t miss this thread if it’s locked.