[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No, nobody becomes a social pariah just because they're called racist. Racists become social pariahs on their own by being repeatedly racist.

Then don't call them that until they've done so. This is tantamount to saying that people who aren't successfully branded as racists don't become pariahs. Obviously a post on a message board isn't going to do it. The point was that it is, in fact, a really bad thing to accuse someone of being, because if it were true, it's a completely horrible thing to be.

Calling out racism, even casual racism, is important and you're the perfect example of why. By reserving racism for only the most extreme examples, we effectively ignore or condone many of the much smaller forms and examples of racism.

I'd like you to be careful with your wording, as you (later in your post) claim is important to you. By phrasing it this way - "you're the perfect example of why calling out racism is important" - you've connoted that I am, if not racist myself, somehow culpable, or in league with people who are racist. In fact, I'm expressing a moral view about the evidence required before applying a label that would, if true, be a horrible and harmful label to be applied to someone.

Second, I agree that talking about racism, including the ways we might be exhibiting biases against other races without even realizing it, is important. I don't agree that "calling out" racism is the right way to approach that conversation, because the accusatory nature is not only not productive, but it suggests something about the person on the other end that often isn't true.

I've said racist things and held racist ideas. And maybe I would today, but I've been called out and thankfully had some life experience that rocked that dumb way of thinking into submission.

I don't think this is the best way to approach it in most cases.

Regarding the thug thing, considering I was one of the ones who explained the context and highlighted it's racist usage by pointing out how a poster only used it to refer to Black people and Black athletes, even those who did not fit any "criminal" description, I would think you'd at least give me the benefit of the doubt for not jumping to conclusions based on a single post or whatever.

I'm more than happy to. I also know that you sometimes get frustrated and worked up and cross the line, and the reason I know that is because on more than one occasion, you've said so. I'd like to think you make an effort to be constructive here. On some occasions, though, you do just skip right to the personal stuff, and that's what I'm objecting to here.

If you'd like an example, look back at post 4449 in this thread, which is a post you made. I didn't comment on it, but I remember thinking, that GGG was doing absolute yeoman's work in the posts preceding and following yours and was getting nowhere near enough appreciation for his efforts. In the midst of that, the personal stuff you posted there (in spite of the number of "thanks" it received, which is switfly becoming an inverse indicator of whether something actually was a good post) was pretty unfortunate, in my view.

I choose my words carefully most of the time, and I apologise when I don't.

I appreciate that. When you do that, I've no issue with your posts beyond potential (alright, let's be fair, likely) disagreement with their content. Sometimes you don't. Those instances are the only instances I'm objecting to. And of course, my posts on this subject are not directed at you specifically - far from it. There are plenty of other posters who do it. I was mostly talking to Psycnet because he was the one responding to me.

The last part also wasn't directed to you. So I'm not sure why you took it personally.

Really? I'm confused, then... when you said, "You seem to think calling everything you don’t like “tribalism” is perfectly fine" after quoting my post, who was the "you" that you were directing that statement at? I don't know how else you'd think I would take that besides personally.