There's no expectation of a safe space for racism. That would be deplorable, and I'm confident nobody on the team is in favor of it. The problem is when it becomes a personal attack.

"I think beliefs x and y are racist." is totally fine.
"You're a fucking racist, asshole." is not OK.

If someone's being racist, we'll do our best to deal with them. We're not perfect, so you're welcome to call out the flaws in what they're saying respectfully or let us know privately that you think someone's breaking the rules. There's a difference between that and vitriol.

@Ogion

yes, but the idea that small government and free enterprise=racism/sexism kind of feels like you're leaving out some steps. we've already had conversations on sweeping generalizations, not all conservatives are racist, not all muslims are terrorists, et cetera

If I were to say that terrorism, FGM and murder were "undeniably a foundational part" of Islam I don't think it'd be received quite as well, would it?

I mean ARE WE allowed to start calling the religion of Islam, and any supporter of Islam, sexist because of beliefs held by only a portion of their followers? As long as we aren't vitriolic?

What's the rule for that on here?

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

All right, all right, I apologize. I'm really really sorry. I apologize unreservedly. I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.

That's fair Ghug, and I'll be raising serious problems with the mods rather than speaking out

@james: that is far from the entirety of conservativism as it is practiced in the US. If that were the entirety of it , that'd be awesome and we could have that debate. However, the reality is that the current administration has known and vocal racists in prominent positions (one White House advisor even went so far as to wear a quasi uniforms and medal from a WWI Nazi ally that murdered several hundred thousand Jews for crying out loud. How obvious do you have to be before you'll notice!?!?). Furthermore, a tremendous amount of the rhetoric and policies are clearly racist and sexist in their orientation. Particularly problematic is the realities new phenomenon or promulgatin a large number of completely factually false statements that invariably cut against women and minorities or play on old racist tropes. For example, much of Trump's rhetoric on crimes is simply and demonstrably false which begs the question of why he chooses those particular lies to make and the clear answer is that he is following on a longstanding racist thread of Republican ideology. Similarly with his whole "Obama is a secret Kenyan Muslim" and the entire cottage industry of making up derogatory facts about Obama in particular. We have seen this wider pattern for many decades and particularly now it is a dominant thread of the Republican Party in particular

That isn't to say there aren't other threads, some of which aren't particularly objectionable such as your small government example, and some of which are (such as the Republican anti-science agenda). However, given that all of these are major elements of the party, one can't embrace it without embracing the objectionable parts to some degree. Like it or not, those are important elements of the coalition that have been welcomed in.

Which goes to ghug's and Zultar's statements. We can disagree on a lot of things without bigotry being an issue, but that isn't to say that none of the disagreement isn't about racism, sexism, homophobia and the like. Some of the issues are squarely about those issues.

I hope that makes it clearer

And no, not all conservatives are racists. Indeed, there was a large movement of conservatives who were and are unequivocal in their denunciation of the racist elements of their own party. However, the largest part either embrace such attitudes or are at least willing to tolerate them as not being a deal breaker.

Honest?!? Honest as the day is long!

Just as there are liberals who are unequivocal in denouncing the racist and sexist elements of the Democratic Party.

@Ogion

I really don't consider Trump a conservative though... by American standards. Big gov't, large infrastructure spending plans, VERY socially accepting of LGBT, massive trade and commerce restrictions. My main problem with him is he is an embodiment of the European right come to America: populism with anti-immigration, pro-cultural norm mindset.

But even if I accept your premise that conservatism is FUNDAMENTALLY racist, I still am confused by the forum rules.

You are allowed to accuse someone of racism, sexism, bigoted and all of that, you are allowed to say racist, sexist and bigoted things: but you can't be vitriolic? Is that the only qualification for banning? I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this

Secondly,

I say that 19% of the polled Muslim nations by PEW reported that they supported either terrorism or suicide bombings, and with the number that supports Sharia law, their own personal religious interpretation of law (a very anti-secular and anti-western ideal) it becomes the majority of the polled muslim world (The non-polled countries being too violent to poll)

Now these are all statistics that were gathered, but I'm continuously told Islam is a "Religion of peace"

now I'm going to accept that premise, that Islam is peaceful. the most western, liberalized muslims are the true representation of Islam. But... by this same world view doesn't that mean that only the most peaceful respectful non-racist conservatives are the true representation of conservatism???

As to your first point, there is a reason I included the qualifier "as it is practiced in the US." I'm not sure that Republicans are conservatives in the traditional sense, but for better or worse they're the banner carriers by most self proclaimed conservatives. Would that that were not the case!

Second, I think vitriol is out, that much is clear. Pointing out that statements are problematic to either the speaker and/or mods is the way to go. As a step two truly problematic statements will be addressed by mods.

I think that's how it's supposed to work, right?

Both conservativism and Islam (and Christianity which shares a lot of those same characteristics) are contested even within their own communities. However, neither can be defended with the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. In all three cases we have to look to the conduct of self proclaimed members. All three are quite heterogeneous, but where officialdom expresses values and where the leadership is elected in particular its fair to characterize those values as at minimum a component of the movement.

All three have real diversity within them to acknowledge, but all three have very reprehensible elements as well. That's probably true of most movements

Interestingly, you are defending conservativism from charges of bigotry and then criticize Trump as "not conservative" because he is socially accepting of LGBT people. I think you may have just proved a nice example of my thesis frankly.

@Ogion

I wouldn't say I'm defending every conservative as innocent for racism/sexism and the like, but in any case there is widespread moral reprehension of homosexuality on the right, if ONLY based upon religious principle.

nonetheless, Trump's new Right helps explain why libertarians seem to be growing in size recently, Johnson won 3 times as many votes as he did in 2012

Reprehension of homosexuality in a practical sense is bigotry regardless of its basis.

well... one criticism of homosexuality is that if everyone were homosexual, we'd have a hell of a population growth crisis on our hands.

secondly, if you subscribe to a religion then homosexuality could be spelled out as a sin: gluttony and sloth are, though those are WIDELY practiced in my life. of course then we get into the debate about the fundamental irrationality of religion and furthermore many of its values.

Indeed, many of us question religion as a basis for moral values on precisely that basis since many of its values are so irrational and questionable. Keep in mind the same religious rational is also mobilized to justify terrorism. At the end of the day, the only real workable solution is for people to practice whatever they like as long as they don't inflict it on others.

As for your population argument, we have a population crisis now, in no small part due to religious ideas. Presumably that's a good example of where religion is best ignored on such questions because of the harm they cause

actually in terms of population growth, you have a brilliant dichotomy in the east: japan and China, decline and massive growth

Meanwhile you see Religious elements holding high population growth rates throughout Africa, whereas ours is decelerating along with many other judea-christian societies.

but my criticism of homosexuality as a "population growth problem" is WELL within the hypothetical realm for the foreseeable existence of mankind.

Those are both massively invalid criticisms of homosexuality and you should stop trying, James. There is no chance in the universe that everyone is homosexual, nor is there any chance in the universe that everyone is heterosexual. At all.

Religious law prevents the development of the human psyche and the progression of the mind across cultural shifts. Gluttony and sloth are sin *in your religion* (those last three words are a key phrase you seem to have forgotten, since I can name many, many sects, even within Christianity, where this is not the case), but they are not in mine. They are in Orthodox Judaism, and Orthodox Jewish people can avoid it or be hypocritical all they want. Opposing my lifestyle because it conflicts with their personal beliefs is the very definition of bigotry.

"well... one criticism of homosexuality is that if everyone were homosexual, we'd have a hell of a population growth crisis on our hands."

If everyone were male, we couldn't make children. If everyone were white, racists wouldn't have anything to complain about. If everyone were disabled, we might actuality have to spend money building ramps. That argument is so beyond ridiculous that nobody with sense could reason it in good faith. Everyone isn't. Some people are. If you want to think that those people are going to spend eternity suffering, I can at least understand your logic, even if I think it's terrible. In fact, we could totally make kids if everyone were gay. It's just so far beyond a non-issue.

"You are allowed to accuse someone of racism, sexism, bigoted and all of that, you are allowed to say racist, sexist and bigoted things: but you can't be vitriolic?"

No, you're not allowed to be bigoted. You're allowed to call it out respectfully if you get to it before we do. We punish bigotry and we punish vitriol.


I don't know that I'd classify American conservatism as *fundamentally* racist/sexist/whatever, but there are a lot of ideas pushed by the conservative establishment that do push those views, and I think that was true even before Trump (though in my opinion, he exacerbates things). There's a definite risk of normalization if we aren't criticizing these things, so that has to be allowed if we're having any political discussions, but generalizations and vitriol are both unfair and unproductive. The key here, as to everything, is balance.

As for Islam, there are undoubtedly issues in the Muslim world. There are extremists, as there are everywhere, and there are corrupt states hiding behind skewed interpretations of the religion to impose ridiculous standards and maintain power. That's not a condemnation of Islam at all.

@bo

"Those are both massively invalid criticisms of homosexuality and you should stop trying, James. There is no chance in the universe that everyone is homosexual, nor is there any chance in the universe that everyone is heterosexual. At all."

we don't take kindly to your empiricism 'round here

but yeah, mine was purely a hypothetical argument, that addressed the fact that some people's sexual orientation predicate that there genetic lineage cannot be passed on. that's an extremely abnormal position for an organism to take. thus it's a criticism of homosexuality - nothing against character, nothing saying they can't get married or raise a child, just... it's not a normal trait you'd expect an organism to have.

"Religious law prevents the development of the human psyche and the progression of the mind across cultural shifts. Gluttony and sloth are sin *in your religion* (those last three words are a key phrase you seem to have forgotten, since I can name many, many sects, even within Christianity, where this is not the case), but they are not in mine. They are in Orthodox Judaism, and Orthodox Jewish people can avoid it or be hypocritical all they want. Opposing my lifestyle because it conflicts with their personal beliefs is the very definition of bigotry."

yeah, that's why I ended my sentence with "of course then we get into the debate about the fundamental irrationality of religion and furthermore many of its values." because it's ABSOLUTELY irrational. my only contention is that for people who believe they're right, they CAN'T be bigots. But also i thought you guys knew i was an atheist, this is in no way my actual view...


@ghug

"We punish bigotry and we punish vitriol."
"but generalizations and vitriol are both unfair and unproductive."

ok... so i'm fine with that. can you let Ogion know that though? because he just pushed a generalization

you are all bigots and obtuse thinkers. if you deny you are biased you are lying. we are tribal-societal creatures and like to segregate with our own kind. if you don't believe this then why are you members of the geeky-diplomacy website?

@CAPT Brad

there's a difference between conscious bias and subconscious bias though...

The most pernicious of all forms of bigotry is self-rightousness. It is the thinking that "I am progressive, therefore I am right, and you are wrong" or "you say words like 'mo*-fo*' therefore you are a bad person" or "you should be censored and prevented from expressing your viewpoints, even if your viewpoint is that it's a perversion for one man to put his private parts inside of another man". Throwing around words like "bigot" is even more venomous than any opinions which the self-righteous insulter is meaning to criticize.

The true danger, however, comes when self-righteous thought-policing gets combined with power. For example, when a biased single-minded person like bo_sox has the power of being a forum mod. What results then is not "the best place to play Diplomacy", but instead it becomes "the best place for single-minded liberally-thinking people to play Diplomacy". The two are very different things.

"that addressed the fact that some people's sexual orientation predicate that there genetic lineage cannot be passed on. that's an extremely abnormal position for an organism to take. thus it's a criticism of homosexuality - nothing against character, nothing saying they can't get married or raise a child, just... it's not a normal trait you'd expect an organism to have."

There are a few things unique about humans:

a) Our babies don't die very often and our old people live way longer than they're supposed to.
b) Our species' survival is not dependent on reproduction.
c) Humans have basically zero genetic diversity.

Point A creates a population crisis. Does that mean I want babies to die and old people to kick it before they collect on their Social Security? No. It leads into point B, though, which says that our species is not dependent on making more babies to survive. Even if half of us never reproduced and the other half only reproduced once, there would still be 4 billion of us, which is massively above the historical norm. We would be at 8 billion again in another few generations. If 80% of humans died in a plague and half of the remaining 10% was infertile (meaning only 10% of 8 billion can reproduce), we would still survive. The fact that some people don't create more people has zero bearing on whether or not we survive because there are few things short of gamma ray bursts that could take humanity out right now.

As for the argument that that hinders evolution, I mentioned in Point C that we already have very little genetic diversity, so my genes are hardly different than yours. In a structured and civilized world like the one that we live in, most genes have the same likelihood of survival. Genetics is a weird field in that in most species, genetic diversity is a good thing, but in our society, genetic diversity would basically be an affirmation of Naziism, so I'm not particularly upset that there is no master race.

tl;dr - humans aren't normal.

The only people who would think that decrying bigotry and sexism is "self-righteous" or a threat are, well, bigots and sexists. Everyone else would be "well, duh. Of course those are bad." Those aren't the sort of thing you can defend by being offended when people call you out on them.

And pray tell how my diagnosis of the obvious problems of the conservative movement in the US is any more of a generalization than what anyone else is discussing. In fact, I'm kind of the only one here who acknowledged diversity within various movements.

And yeah, leave the evolutionary arguments to the evolutionary biologists.

Two things: one, what is "natural" has nothing to do with what's right. High infant mortality is "natural". Two, evolution is vastly more complex than you understand I suspect. In fact there are several evolutionary hypotheses about why you'd expect to see homosexuality in a species like humans

There are a few things unique about humans:

a) Our babies don't die very often and our old people live way longer than they're supposed to.
b) Our species' survival is not dependent on reproduction.
c) Humans have basically zero genetic diversity.

So Bo you are a self-hating human? such thinking leads to: Euthanasia, Abortion, Suicide, Homicide, Genocide, Elder Abuse, Sexual Abuse Spousal Abuse, Child Abuse, etc. I can go on but the thought that humans are not normal begs the question: what is 'normal' and who determines that?
Life is a gift. Not everyone appreciates that. Some gifts are not as nice as others; some may be broken, but that does not take away the wonder of the gift. I have three 'throw-away' children who give me joy, sadness, madding situations and wonderment. My half-brother would qualify for one of the 'special' circumstances for abortion, but even though he is a jerk, i would fight for is right to exist.

@bo

"a) Our babies don't die very often and our old people live way longer than they're supposed to."

true

"b) Our species' survival is not dependent on reproduction."

fucking laughably wrong

"c) Humans have basically zero genetic diversity."

i'll address this in more depth in a bit

"It leads into point B, though, which says that our species is not dependent on making more babies to survive. Even if half of us never reproduced and the other half only reproduced once, there would still be 4 billion of us, which is massively above the historical norm."

ok... do you mean we don't need a high reproduction rate? because we need SOME LEVEL of reproduction. I think that was a typo. Secondly, I'm not talking about the species on aggregate. The basic fundamental concept that has lead organisms to evolve and progress is self preservation and continuation of life. now i completely understand why homosexuality arises, our genetics and the environment we grow up in differ, and our standards for desirable traits in a mate become fairly entrenched into our psyche. then when we reach sexual maturity even if you're attracted to the a man or a woman who is infertile, their physical characteristics have a stronger appeal to you than their ability to reproduce. This even applies to mates who ARE capable of reproducing. HOWEVER, this does not take into consideration the effect on society as a whole.

The idea that if everyone were homosexual we would have a population crisis is a fair idea in a hypothesis, though immaterial to real life. My problem is that it's not like people are more likely to be gay because they don't see a social negative arising: I'm saying there's no connection between those two. People don't say "oh well there's actually no substantial population growth problem, I guess being homosexual is fine" rather the social pretense is never taken into consideration. Thus saying that there is no negative effect that homosexuality has on a population growth rate is immaterial to my argument: because sexual orientation isn't based on these things. sexual orientation is determined by a slew of other factors, and I'm identifying an abnormality in it. using the population rate to say that homosexuality could never have a bad effect still does not address the reasons behind why someone does not want to reproduce.

"c) Humans have basically zero genetic diversity."

and yet it is still VERY important. in fact more and more often we see children of incest with homozygous recessive diseases that are deleterious. genetic diversity is still VERY important medically for humans.

https://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2003-conferences/human-genetic-diversity-and-the-threat-to-the-survivability-of-human-populations/

"As for the argument that that hinders evolution"

much less concerned with evolution, rather than safe variation.

"Genetics is a weird field in that in most species, genetic diversity is a good thing, but in our society, genetic diversity would basically be an affirmation of Naziism, so I'm not particularly upset that there is no master race."

so because we'd be different, that would affirm Naziism? how would that affirm the belief in SUPERIORITY from one race over another? the very biological pretense for race is faulty enough, how on earth does that affirm Nazis???

Naziism believes in the superiority of the White, Germanic, Aryan or Nordic races. there was no logical pretense for this, only one based off of personal preference.

Being genetically diverse in no way supports Naziism. I mean... what the hell. am i missing something???