That just moves the locus of disagreement to a different place, to whether the argument is respectful or not. And the risk is it will be less intellectually honest.

For example, what if I argued in favour of racial segregation of schools because it would give a better environment for children to learn in, being around role models they could easily identify with and not get sucked into cultural traps like thinking being academically excellent means you're acting white.

I think this is a racist position. It explicitly discriminates on the basis of race. I also think it could be an honest argument. Is it respectful? I personally think it is.

(To be clear, I'm not in favour of racial segregation of schools. The "acting white" thing is overdone and normalizing a binary division isn't good.)

What about the kids who don’t fit neatly into either category? You’ll be throwing a bunch of people into a group in an arbitrary fashion and then teaching them, perhaps just implicitly, that the group’s standards are “normal” and they are different. By saying this is a good thing you’re disrespecting a ton of people.

This is part of why a racist argument can’t be respectful: it’s fundamentally opposed to basic reality.

Is it possible that such an argument could be made honestly? Sure, by an ignorant nimrod. Does that make it respectful? No, part of respect in an argument is making sure you have a grasp of the basic facts before you spout off. Is it bad to block ignorant but honest nimrods in an attempt to block racist shitheads who have learned to cloak their arguments in polite-sounding language? No, for every ignorant nimrod there are a hundred racist shitheads, and you’re not going to educate the ignorant nimrods by giving equal footing to the racist shitheads.

You've descended straight to namecalling (in the abstract, I hasten to add - your counterargument is similar to mine). I don't think your counterargument is nearly as respectful - it's outright ad hominem.

Have a listen to this if you can find the time:

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/13-miss-buchanans-per...

It was enlightening to learn the subtleties of segregation at the time, from black people in the period. It might not change your mind, but it would lead you to be less hasty to descend to namecalling, not least because you'd learn who you risk calling ignorant racist shitheads.

My comment contains two separate arguments. The one against school segregation is perfectly respectful and based on the facts.

The argument against giving racist shitheads a platform does involve namecalling, and I don’t much care.

A lot of people will extend the definition of "racist" to include things they don't like but would not be considered racist by most people. For instance there are still people who think the Covington teens are racist even after the additional footage became available. I've seen plenty of accusations of racism against people who say the teens are innocent.

People will make bad arguments on all sides. This is not a surprise, and is not really related to my point.

> It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position.

My point is that in 2019 this statement has no meaning because there are wide swaths of the audience (not just fringe elements) that will label nearly everything "racist". The main point of contention in this thread is whether you should ban unpopular opinions or let them stand on their own. Racist comments are and should be unpopular but when the definition racism is widened to include half the population then censoring "racists" and hitting a bunch of false positives becomes much more damaging that not censoring "racists" and letting actual racists expose their own ignorant thinking.

I think that statement only has no meaning if you are contending that I am one of those people who labels nearly everything “racist.”

>. Racist comments are and should be unpopular but when the definition racism is widened to include half the population then censoring "racists"

Half the population didn't vote for Trump.

I think that's what we're supposed to be reading between the lines here, that half the population voted for Trump and have now been unfairly demonized as racists and homophobes and that, because of this, the terms "racist" and "homophobic" have no meaning... but no. Those terms still have a definite meaning, and half the population didn't vote for Trump.

Also, the demonization isn't entirely unfair. At least, it's not entirely arbitrary and without merit. There was a definite and overt narrative of racial identity and struggle behind the populism of Trump's campaign, and its appeal to white supremacists was well documented by mainstream media, and the narrative of Trump's success as a revolution of white cultural identity was even defended here on Hacker News a few times.

Trump supporters can't have their anti-establishment cake and eat it too. They can't support a campaign which galvanized right-wing extremists and xenophobes and then complain that people think they might be racist.

  Half the population didn't vote for Trump.

More than that, in total population terms.

Then again, Trump got over 40% more votes than Bill Clinton did for his first term.

Comparing absolute numbers of votes across time is silly.

What people consider to be necessary to show "respect" for someone is seen differently by different people. There are a lot of people out there with a sense of entitlement, to money, to jobs, to popularity, and will scream at their "oppression" if it isn't given to them. Take egalitarianism to an extreme and they have a point, if I give a job to person X rather than person Y, am I not saying that person Y is on some level "less than" person X?

I think that depends heavily on why you chose X over Y.

Lets assume that beauty of woman decreases over time. Lets further assume, that contracts are needed to uphold a ressource supply. Lets call such a contract marriage. Lets assume, to uphold such a contract a - "neutral" third party is needed. This party should be able to be pressurized into certain behaviour, while beeing independent enough to not be seen as affiliated to one side of the interest conflict.

Consider, for a moment, homophobia, not as a trained fear, but a usefull emotional reaction. One party hates a third party, the second party can controll that emotional reaction, by sanctioning this behaviour (lets call this sanctioning/ controlling religion).

Thus, without saying anything disrespectfull to anyone, just stating that we are a sad, retarded species in full blown denial of what we where and are - and the state of economic surplus keeps civil peace afloat, i took your concept of homophobia for a ride.

PS: I predict, that the love of your life will check on your emotional inner workings regularly, by telling you little stories about a gay co-worker. If you don not show a emotional reaction, i predict increasingly hostile reactions and worries.

Turing and Haber-Bosch did more for gay rights then all those processions (catholic back then - rainbow now) combined.

Let’s assume that the only value a woman has is her beauty. Gosh, why would anyone say I’m being disrespectful!