[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

On the actual topic though, you weren't called racist, but have you actually reflected on what you said at all? You said "one poster is just allowed to come in and call other people racist pieces of #### because he doesn't like what they've said." Is that a fair comment to make?

Yes, after reflection, it clearly is.

Do you really think it's just because he didn't like what he said?

Yes - although not in this one particular instance alone. I've no doubt it was a culmination of a series of tone-deaf or superficial posts White Out has made in here.

The rationale, however, does not actually matter very much, in my view, because there are supposed to be norms here, in the form of moderated rules. There are certain posters on this forum that I certainly don't personally like, and I feel that I have very good reason for disliking them. I cannot call them ignorant ####ing pieces of ####, much as that might be cathartic to do. If the rules only apply to some people, then they're meaningless rules.

Again, part of the statement was needless, and I know you are with a couple other people in thinking that "racist" is a bad word and should be reserved for only the most obvious of occasions.

And it clearly is. It's a horrible thing to be called and it's a horrible thing to call someone. Particularly someone you've never met. The analogy has been previously made, but if you called another poster a sexual predator because you think their attitudes toward women justify that label, that would not simply be accepted unless they had effectively admitted to it.

But at a certain point, what are you actually defending when you brush off any claim of racism because it doesn't fit your notion of what racism looks like to you, a well-off white person, and go around criticising anyone who uses the word?

I criticize people who weaponize the word because of its power as a morally repugnant state of being. As for what I'm "actually defending", well, it's the ability to have a conversation without the conversation devolving into what's happening in this thread right now. The current state of the thread actually acts as a case in point as to why I objected to his post.

There are times to be a champion of decorum, politeness, and all that.

And those times are, "whenever there is a conversation going on".

When do you make the time to just stop and listen, instead of inerjecting, and ask "is this person, who has actually experienced racism unlike myself, seeing something I am missing."

I certainly would be prepared to afford that sort of consideration to someone who is expressing their perspective. I am not likely to, and don't think I should be expected to, when someone is simply throwing a temper tantrum and yelling and swearing. This is not behaviour to be encouraged or tolerated. That would simply induce further behaviour of this type.

You can still disagree with the approach, but you dismissed Crown's position outright because of the approach. Is that any more fair than what he said about you?

First of all, I didn't dismiss his position because of his approach. I have read all of White Out's posts in here and have fairly straightforwardly disagreed with him on a number of occasions. I have formed my own opinion about him as a result, which I don't need to re-litigate. My response to Crown Royal had nothing to do with his position, it only had to do with his approach. Now, when your approach is that toxic, yes, it's reasonable to expect that no one's going to give a crap about it.

Put another way, when you first responded, you asked White Out 403 to look at the tone of his post and think to himself, "what did you think was going to be the response when you post something that provocative"? You could have asked exactly the same question of Crown Royal. Maybe some self-reflection on your part is appropriate: why didn't you? Why not apply that same reasoning to the guy coming in and calling people explicitly, or tacitly, racist?