Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[Greg]

I want to clarify the rules on insults. Lately a few forum members have resorted to calling other forum members "racists" and or "bigots" in response to certain opinions.

Use of either of these terms in relation to another forum member will be considered an insult and a warning will be issued. If someone posts a comment that you feel is ignorant and or racist/bigoted, we ask that you simply ignore the post altogether or reply with a comment that refutes the original posters opinions/facts.

If you feel a members comments do not encourage "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion" then please use the report the post button to report the offender.

Thanks,

[Michael Hardner]

Greg,

I am absolutely thankful for MapleLeaf and respectful of your wishes to keep decorum around here.

I do think the very idea of 'racism' - what it is, what our response should be, how to deal with it - is a very important topic today, and absolutely needs to be discussed on a board like this. I would like to be able to discuss such things openly without feeling like I'm calling someone a name, or have them feel that I'm name calling either.

As such, I suggest that the current discussions continue, but removing our personal points of view on the topic. If another member, for example, believes in deporting all members of a certain religion, I will refer to that opinion only and not to the person who holds it.

I hope this helps.

[trex]

If another member, for example, believes in deporting all members of a certain religion, I will refer to that opinion only and not to the person who holds it.

I hope this helps.

i am all for having a more civilized discussion, but its just not possible here, it seems. certain people get away with posting messages continually, that are in direct conflic with said "forum rules", yet they dont seem to be held accountable for it, by virtue of the fact that they can continue. i wonder, in the many months before i came here, how often this has gone on without interuption, where childish people are constantly overlooked while others simply have to put up with it? in my first few days i was continually attacked,

yet the administrator only comes out when said individals views are called bigoted,,, how about all the other stuff that leads up to it, mr. administrator. how many more chances, just for the sake of keeping members whose worth of contribution is questionable?? so i as new member am asking myself the same question, why bother at all.

dont tell me to fill out your report, if you dont see it already, you are the problem.

[Michael Hardner]

Tbud, I don't think you're being fair. It's a thankless job policing a web forum.

I myself have successfully moderated several forums, (that included forums where I had to wrangle very pesky little rascals such as Morris D. and ScottSA) so I know whereof I speak.

MapleLeaf does simply the best job at keeping a certain level of decorum, and yet still allows raucous discussion. It also has a pretty even balance of voices here.

Have patience. If you don't have patience, then have a look around the web and you'll see that I am right.

[trex]

Tbud, I don't think you're being fair. It's a thankless job policing a web forum.

I myself have successfully moderated several forums, (that included forums where I had to wrangle very pesky little rascals such as Morris D. and ScottSA) so I know whereof I speak.

MapleLeaf does simply the best job at keeping a certain level of decorum, and yet still allows raucous discussion. It also has a pretty even balance of voices here.

Have patience. If you don't have patience, then have a look around the web and you'll see that I am right.

i would have more patience if this "reminder" was not so specific, as it seems to reinforce the idea that you can go ahead and insult whole groups of people, so long as its not a specific member of the forum. the fact that it only mentions "racist" or "bigot", not, "retard", "ignoramus", "pothead", etc is not fair either. i think it sends the message that its ok for these people to continue the way they do.

and i know they are volunteers. i am a leader myself in many things and what i see here is a failure of leadership, there will always be antagonists who dont listen to reason, they enjoy being unreasonable and they should simply be ousted at some point if the problem continues. to me thats leadership, you only get so many warnings and then its bye bye.

or do they perhaps intend to actually allow these on-going racist bigotted views,

and the idea of having to rat somebody out continually, doesnt appeal to me. epscially if nothing is going to be done about it

[Guest American Woman]

tbud, I'm in agreement with you. If there are to be rules, seems to me they should be enforced. If they are not to be enforced, it would be nice to know so one could chose to post here or not post here accordingly. For myself, I doubt I'll be sticking around much longer. It boggles the mind that one can call for killing specific groups of people, or beating another group, etc., yet one cannot call them on their comments for fear of insulting them. Yet one cannot call Harper a "fat slob" while the comments I mentioned go unedited, and the poster(s) remain members.

I doubt it's any easy job to moderate this board, but IMO it would be a tad easier if those who constantly break the rules were not allowed to continually break the rules. In other words, it would be easier to moderate if the rules were enforced.

[Moxie]

The left leaners use bigot and a racist like dog and cat. It's the only verbal tool they have left to silence those that don't mirror their ethos and beliefs. Is this another example of them winning by using words that aren't applicaple.

It's sad that freedom of expression is dying in Canada, because the socialist lose every debate they stagger into they demand special RULES to "Reasonable Accomadate" them.

Whens the last time a right winger went crying to a mod demanding punishment for anti-Christian sediment and hatefilled posts? I just made my point.

[Canadian Blue]

When other posters went on rants about Christianity I have responded to their ignorant claims. It's the same here, a certain member likes to make posts depicting all Muslims as terrorists, I like to refute it.

The left leaners use bigot and a racist like dog and cat. It's the only verbal tool they have left to silence those that don't mirror their ethos and beliefs. Is this another example of them winning by using words that aren't applicaple.

The words were applicable.

Whens the last time a right winger went crying to a mod demanding punishment for anti-Christian sediment and hatefilled posts? I just made my point.

I'm not sure but I believe that this will more or less benefit the certain right winger making inane posts.

[Visionseeker]

I want to clarify the rules on insults. Lately a few forum members have resorted to calling other forum members "racists" and or "bigots" in response to certain opinions.

Use of either of these terms in relation to another forum member will be considered an insult and a warning will be issued. If someone posts a comment that you feel is ignorant and or racist/bigoted, we ask that you simply ignore the post altogether or reply with a comment that refutes the original posters opinions/facts.

If you feel a members comments do not encourage "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion" then please use the report the post button to report the offender.

Thanks,

Calling some a racist or bigot when they express racist or bigoted views is no different than calling someone a conservative, liberal or socialist for having done likewise. If any such label is considered inappropriate by its recipient, they have every right to contest the accusation and defend their own arguments. They might also choose to report the supposed slander for further enquiry by the moderators.

I would hope that the arbitrating body would have the capacity to recognize when a label is well-earned and caution the plaintiff instead of the accuser.

And yet, by the tenor of this announcement, my confidence is somewhat shaken.

[August1991]

I agree with Hardner.

I do think the very idea of 'racism' - what it is, what our response should be, how to deal with it - is a very important topic today, and absolutely needs to be discussed on a board like this. I would like to be able to discuss such things openly without feeling like I'm calling someone a name, or have them feel that I'm name calling either.

As such, I suggest that the current discussions continue, but removing our personal points of view on the topic. If another member, for example, believes in deporting all members of a certain religion, I will refer to that opinion only and not to the person who holds it.

Because of political correctness, or anyone who must seek advertising revenues or answer to a government/union master, there is a group-think that makes expression of some thought difficult.

Thankfully, we have now the Internet. Ordinary people such as myself can say what I think, freely.

Greg, as Michael Hardner has stated, please allow discussions of 'racism' to remain free.

To be cruder, and in the spirit of free speech, it is difficult to deal with cockroaches if the word 'cockroach' cannot be used.

----

With that said, I will defer to your discretion in banning idiots. I have no desire to flip through threads about Bush's plan to destroy tall buildings in NYC.

This forum should be a place where different but intelligent posters can discuss Canadian politics, or World Politics from a Canadian perspective.

If idiots can post here - and there are six billion people in the world, and several hundred million added each month with Internet access - then this forum will soon become utter nonsense.

Greg and Charles, make this club a good place to post. Keep your reputation.

Edited October 5, 2007 by August1991

[FTA Lawyer]

I agree with Hardner.

Because of political correctness, or anyone who must seek advertising revenues or answer to a government/union master, there is a group-think that makes expression of some thought difficult.

Thankfully, we have now the Internet. Ordinary people such as myself can say what I think, freely.

Greg, as Michael Hardner has stated, please allow discussions of 'racism' to remain free.

To be cruder, and in the spirit of free speech, it is difficult to deal with cockroaches if the word 'cockroach' cannot be used.

----

With that said, I will defer to your discretion in banning idiots. I have no desire to flip through threads about Bush's plan to destroy tall buildings in NYC.

This forum should be a place where different but intelligent posters can discuss Canadian politics, or World Politics from a Canadian perspective.

If idiots can post here - and there are six billion people in the world, and several hundred million added each month with Internet access - then this forum will soon become utter nonsense.

Greg and Charles, make this club a good place to post. Keep your reputation.

I don't think that Greg's original position has to be at odds with Hardner's. If someone makes a racist comment (in your view) you should certainly be able to write, "I find that to be a particularly racist comment" and that person can either defend or retract or re-state. If Greg's intention is to block such discussions, then I simply cannot agree with that.

However, if what Greg does intend to block (which I suspect is the case) is the person who takes offense to a comment and writes, "You would say that you stupid rascist!" then I support him all the way.

You can freely debate the origins and appropriateness of the word "nigger" for example without ever calling someone by that term. If just typing that word gets me turfed, well then I don't want to be here anyway. If I use it against a poster on the other hand, then I ought not be allowed to stay.

FTA

[Higgly]

So if I understand the rules correctly then, I cannot call someone a racist, but I can say that I think an opinion he expresses is racist? Just want to be clear.

Moxie, I think of myself as a left-leaner and I have been called a racist.

Right-leaners seem to get away with a lot more than left-leaners. I am thinking here of a particular right-leaner whom I have reported a number of times for name-calling, and whose posts have been removed, but who is still here playing the role of repeat offender.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Higgly

[kuzadd]

The left leaners use bigot and a racist like dog and cat. It's the only verbal tool they have left to silence those that don't mirror their ethos and beliefs. Is this another example of them winning by using words that aren't applicaple.

It's sad that freedom of expression is dying in Canada, because the socialist lose every debate they stagger into they demand special RULES to "Reasonable Accomadate" them.

Whens the last time a right winger went crying to a mod demanding punishment for anti-Christian sediment and hatefilled posts? I just made my point.

how about this post, it is positively filled with labels with negative intonations particularly here, in this forum "left leaners ", " socialist". These are tossed around quite liberally as insults. As we can see.

So is it ok, to use these terms constantly along with all other names, such as "retard", "ignoramus", "pothead", , but not racist or bigot?

[kuzadd]

tbud, I'm in agreement with you. If there are to be rules, seems to me they should be enforced. If they are not to be enforced, it would be nice to know so one could chose to post here or not post here accordingly. For myself, I doubt I'll be sticking around much longer. It boggles the mind that one can call for killing specific groups of people, or beating another group, etc., yet one cannot call them on their comments for fear of insulting them. Yet one cannot call Harper a "fat slob" while the comments I mentioned go unedited, and the poster(s) remain members.

I doubt it's any easy job to moderate this board, but IMO it would be a tad easier if those who constantly break the rules were not allowed to continually break the rules. In other words, it would be easier to moderate if the rules were enforced.

I am with both t-bud and AW on this, rules, since we have them ,are not enforced in an across the board kind of manner. AW is correct, a poster can sit here and call for genocide and mass killings/deportations, but don't dare point out the inherent racism in doing that? Is this a joke?

Did we not learn a darn thing from history? The promotions of these types of ideas?

sad.

Let's look at the forum we have numerous threads, look at the titles

"Islam, the sneaky buggers "

Insulting, with intent, defintely, but totally acceptable.

Personally if specific posters hold these PERSONAL beliefs,whatever. But I am seriously wondering how it is the discussion can be considered "intelligent" and "responsible" when such nonsense as the promotion of mass deportations and killings is acceptable.

Edited October 5, 2007 by kuzadd

[Michael Hardner]

I think the point is that name-calling isn't productive, and doesn't lead to good discussion.

As I stated in another thread, dealing with views that you see as racist is best done (on this board anyway) through rational discussion. We are taught that in polite society we should never bring such topics to light, but I believe that on boards like this it is important that we do so.

[kuzadd]

I think the point is that name-calling isn't productive, and doesn't lead to good discussion.

I agree name calling is not productive, and does not lead to good discussion.

So exactly what is the point of a title of a thread

"Islam, the sneaky buggers "

How is this topic, which is name calling/labelling of an entire religion "sneaky buggers" going to lead to intelligent or reasonable discussion?

[scribblet]

I agree that the terms racist and bigot are more often used to silence debate and end a discussion that someone doesn't agree with. It is a very effective tool.

[ScottSA]

As the major recipient of the hoots and hollers of "racist" and "bigot," I for one don't mind being called silly names for raising subjects that are at odds with the Church of Political Correctness. What I have found, after rather more experience with swarthy folk than the average poster hereabouts, is that swarthy folksare not the ones who object to disussions of immigration or race so much as their lilly white liberal self-appointed guardians. For the most part, and excluding from this characterization certain communist and nationalist post-colonial revisionist historians, the people who imagine that colonialism was unmitigated horror, and in particular British colonialism, are those same lilly white liberals who feel they need to protect little brown folk from the minstrations of opposing viewpoints.

That to me is far more egregious racism; to posit a people or a race as morally innocent by virtue of largely fabricated historical wrongs. What does it say about Muslims when I attack them? It means that in my opinion they are thinking, responsible human beings who believe in a deathcult, and are wrong to do so. But what does it say about them when they are blindly defended by lilly white liberals, who twist reality with transparent nonsense like the claim that Islamic terrorism has "nothing to do with Islam?" What does it say about them when they are painted as victims who must be protected from brutes like me who criticize them?

I have always felt that it's the ultimate in racism; that they are being "protected" because they can't really be expected to live up to the same standards as we first world folk. Witness the hellfire and brimstone called down on Christianity as a matter of course, juxtaposed against the cries of "racism" from the very same people when Islam is criticized. Witness the apologists of terrorism, who prefer to blame some fabricated excuse for killings and maimings all over the globe in the name of Islam, even though the perps are loudly and proudly confessing, often on camera, that Islam is the sole reason for their act.

No one blamed America for Timothy McVeigh. People quite rightly blamed Timothy McVeigh for Timothy McVeigh, and some even tried to blame Christianity. But let some Islamic thug kill a few thousand people, and the same people who are ready to convict Christianity on the most tenuous of evidence fall all over themselves to blame...well...anything except Islam. That's what people do to protect puppydogs from larger dogs when the puppy innocently trots along and steals the larger dog's bone. That's not what people do to equals. I strongly suspect that the reason for this behaviour on the part of lilly white liberals, somewhere in the back recesses of the liberal mind, is an unrecognized belief in their own ethnic superiority. That would perhaps also explain why they are so vocal about the topic coming up...it probably creates severe dissonance for them. Sort of like a well-bred nosepicker's secret shame when the topic of nose-picking comes up.

Swarthy folk are responsible human beings able to defend themselves, make their own choices, and live their lives without babysitters. So, for that matter, am I. If someone wants to call me racist, I couldn't care less...the trouble is that the usual suspects have developed a habit of shouting 'racism' and immediately reporting my scoffing reply, secure in the rather bigotted opinion that they are morally right for defending the puppydog.

Edited October 5, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

I myself have successfully moderated several forums, (that included forums where I had to wrangle very pesky little rascals such as Morris D. and ScottSA) so I know whereof I speak.

What a load of horse manure. Can you go a moment without being a liar?

[ScottSA]

What a load of horse manure. Can you go a moment without being a liar?

Yeah, I was a bit stunned at that one too. Sort of like Napoleon claiming he successfully invaded Russia.

[M.Dancer]

Yeah, I was a bit stunned at that one too. Sort of like Napoleon claiming he successfully invaded Russia.

The Titanic's iceberg identification voyage.......

[Michael Bluth]

If you feel a members comments do not encourage "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion" then please use the report the post button to report the offender.

Thanks,

We have seen repeated use of 'Steve' to refer to the Prime Minister.

He has publicly stated that he now prefers to use Stephen and the only time Steve is used is by posters out to denigrate the man, his party and/or his positions.

How does allowing the ongoing use of 'Steve' encourage intelligent, honest and responsible discussion?

[Guest American Woman]

No one blamed America for Timothy McVeigh. People quite rightly blamed Timothy McVeigh for Timothy McVeigh ...

So why don't YOU do the same? Why don't you "rightfully" blame bin Laden, et al? Why do you blame Islam?

You are totally contradicting youself with that statement and you don't even realize it.

[ScottSA]

So why don't YOU do the same? Why don't you "rightfully" blame bin Laden, et al? Why do you blame Islam?

You are totally contradicting youself with that statement and you don't even realize it.

Not at all. I blame Islam because it was done in the name of Islam, and continues to be done, every day, in the name of Islam, often by Muslims who may never have heard of bin Laden. McVeigh, on the other hand, did it because he disagreed with the Federal government, yet people still want to blame Christianity.

I'm afraid your logical comprehension is off today.

[Guest American Woman]

McVeigh, on the other hand, did it because he disagreed with the Federal government, yet people still want to blame Christianity.

Here's what you said: "No one blamed America," yet now you're saying people want to blame Christianity while earlier you said "some even tried to blame Christianity." Now you're saying he did it because he disagreed with the government, yet accoring to you, repeating again, "no one blamed America." Again according to you: they rightfully blamed Timothy McVeigh. So according to YOUR logic, you should be blaming bin Laden, not Islam.

There's nothing wrong with my comprehension. As I said, your statement contradicts yourself.