Is it unreasonable to censor racial slurs?

*




This has nothing to do with what words are used to describe African-Americans or other black people and everything to do with the ideas that underpin those that think of black people in a derogatory way.



*

 

Slurs are low class. problem is classy seems out of fashion, Stop rippin down people who behave properly toward fellow man.

If we had classy we wouldn't need censorship.

 

Balbus: what do you mean by the word 'discredited'? Discredited by whom, exactly? Is it just a more authoritative way of saying you disagree? Do you mean that someone you agree with has argued against the idea in question, and you therefore consider it 'discredited'? I'm not supporting social Darwinism, but I think the word 'discredited' is thrown around far too often -- how can a social theory ever be discredited? It all depends on your viewpoint on social issues.

 

Grape

It’s not just me; I think anyone that has seriously studied evolutionary theory would think Social Darwinism was a pseudo-science at best.

http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/so/Social_Darwinism

http://www.sahistory.org.za/classroom/grade11/3_1.htm


*

Try reading - The Age of American Unreason by Susan Jacoby (I think it was chapter three that deals with pseudo-science in the US)

*

The simple answer - is when it claims to be ‘scientifically’ based when it isn’t.

Do you think rich people are superior to poor people?

Do you think some ethnic groups are inherently better than other ethnic groups?

There are people that think so and the supposed ‘science’ of Social Darwinism conveniently gives them the cover to hide behind.

Certain sections of the right often pushes such ideas as a way of justifying the established order or wealth based systems. As the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould points out –

The same Social Darwinist arguments are used by racists to back up their warped prejudices.

They’ll point out the ‘failure’ of Africa and they know which ethnic group makes up some of the lowest social strata in the US.

And of course its not racism if its ‘scientific’, they just shake their heads slowly and sigh – ‘it’s just a sorry ‘fact’ that these races are lacking when compared to others’.

*

I am happy to hold up my hand and say I disagree, even dislike Social Darwinism, but then I think any rational person would.

 

Social Darwinism is not the issue here; it was just an example of the use of the word 'discredited.' In this case, anyone claiming Social Darwinism as a science is wrong, and I can see how it could be discredited as such. But my question remains, in the broader sense, what does it mean to call something 'discredited?' From what I've seen, it usually amounts to 'a decent argument was made against it, so I'll consider it discredited and ignore the possibility or existence of valid counter-arguments.'

Also, why you cited sources aimed at high school kids, I'm not sure. I'm not arguing the Social Darwinism angle anyway, but still.

 

Zobra is like me; He is a deconstructionist and enjoys picking apart preconceptions that often go under the radar. He wasn't looking to prove social darwinism correct but desires to remain open to the possibility that their may be more to the 'theory' than realized. As in, there may be different views/versions on social darwinism, so one version is discredited while another version of it is not. So making the statement, "SD has been discredited" will point to all versions of it being untrue not just one. One version may include social reformation while not making a positive or negative statement on how different groups of people choose to govern themselves, but in the broader sense that societies under go interpersonal development. As in, becoming more rational minded, compassion to each other, tolerance and then go into what can prevent that kind of development, while leaving out other elements that are usually considered as important but isn't because it's a subjective viewpoint such as race, culture, how they choose to govern themselves, etc.

I personally stand on end whenever there is a suggestion that 'the debate is over', just out of principal, not as a way to support an idea.

Hope that makes sense.

 

It seems like it's Balbus' way of being helpful. I don't think he is doing that to suggest that you are not knowledgeable if that's what you might have thought.

 

Edit: Double post

 

I wasn't really insulted by it, I just found it odd. Surely there are enough sources out there without resorting to K-12 educational resources -- and doing it twice, no less.

 

Good point.