Prejudicial Naming: True or Fale

[Taco]

Quick poll on the inherent prejudice of a name, and the true exercise of classic (as per the rules of logic) 'Begging the Question'


See poll, discuss....

I welcome PM's

 

[manifold]

I would offer that naming an African-American woman's naughty region a "blackhole" would be both inherently racist and sexist.

Edit: The poll wasn't up yet when I initially responded. Didn't know you had a specific name in mind.

 

[dilloduck]

I would offer that naming an African-American woman's naughty region a "blackhole" would be both inherently racist and sexist.

and a misnomer to boot.

 

[manifold]

and a misnomer to boot.

Yeah, but blueish doesn't really work for the joke.

 

[Abelian Sea]

The term "conspiracy theory" is not inherently pejorative, but in common use it does often carry connotations of dismissiveness and sometimes even contempt.

Wiki words it well:

The term "conspiracy theory" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." However, conspiracy theory is also used to indicate a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of (not necessarily related) arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true.

...

In an early essay by Daniel Pipes "adapted from a study prepared for the CIA", Pipes attempts to pin down what beliefs distinguish 'the conspiracy mentality' from 'more conventional patterns of thought': appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all.

The term "conspiracy theory" is frequently used by mainstream scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with particular methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration.

 

[Taco]

hm. seems like a prejudicial definition, too.

so like, what if i wanted to talk about the MLK assassination.

would the fact that the 'conspiracy theorists' won two civil trials mean anything?

i mean, it is a matter of opinion as to whether you agree with the facts of the case, but surely, such a case can't be shuttled off into some kind of loony bin, no?

 

[Taco]

Further, if we have people confessing to participation in the JFK assassination, and corroberations of said confessions, how is that not prejudicial to dismiss the evidence as a 'mere conspiracy theory'?

If forensic science rules the offical RFK assassination explantion is physically impossible, is it really paranoid to point out that the official story is, by science, undfounded?



I think we need multiple terms. Ya, you got your "Jews run the world" guys, but even they deserve to make their case. I mean, how can I KNOW if they're wrong? Paucity of evidence isn't proof of absense, no?

Would a "CIA involved in drug tade" thread belong here, given, again, we have congressional reports discussing it, and numerous first-hand witnesses, including DEA agents, who have written about their knowledge?

Just seems to me, this category is entirely subjective, as a category.

The relegation to a pejorative subcategory, is immoral, and antithetical to a true discussion of ideas.

Lumping ALLLLL theories into one category, is wrong, and not very smart, either.


But thanks for the attempt at a rational response!

 

[Gunny]

No need for a poll. I named this subforum. The Conspiracy Theories subforum IS prejudicial to conspiracy theories.

Any theory can be misconstrued as a conspiracy theory, and any conspiracy theory can be presented as not one, so we won't play the game of semantics.

Conspiracy theories are those theories generally accepted as paranoid-delusional theories of event, people, organizations, places, etc. I created this subforum to keep them from distracting, detracting from and/or deflecting from other topics in other forums.

Since you chose to address this in public, I will respond in kind ... don't give my moderator shit for enforcing my rules. They don't make the rules, they enforce them.

You want to dish out some shit concerning the composition of this board and or moderators, dish it MY way. Via PM. That's how it is done here. Questioning either in public forums will not be tolerated.