Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[Guest coot]

I find it kind of amusing that many who claim calling some racist is intended to shut down debate are the same posters who, for lack of a better argument, often call their opponents "haters"--as in Harper-haters, Bush-haters, et cetera. This would appear to be exactly the same thing, though racism is usually much more obvious and easily identified.

[Moxie]

I find it kind of amusing that many who claim calling some racist is intended to shut down debate are the same posters who, for lack of a better argument, often call their opponents "haters"--as in Harper-haters, Bush-haters, et cetera. This would appear to be exactly the same thing, though racism is usually much more obvious and easily identified.

Your desire to silence an opposing voice speaks volumns Coot, when is the last time a Con wanted to shut you up-tuning you out doesn't count buttercup? Bush is an idiot and Harper well cough, I need to be careful lest I offend him and be labeled a terrorist. Then again it was the liberals that instituted new legislation to silence Canadians in the name of Terror not the Cons. Sadley Harper is following suit. I see no line of demarcation between either party. Only it's blindly loyal followers pontificating their party policies.

[Guest coot]

I don't want to silence anyone, and to be honest I don't even understand how identifying racism silences anyone. There is obviously no rule on this site against stating racist opinions (seeing as it's filled with them), nor am I saying there should be. I don't believe I've ever called someone a racist. I believe you've accused Canadians of hating Americans. How is that different than calling them racist?

I just find it odd that identifying racist opinions is what is considered unacceptable and what is actually being silenced.

[ScottSA]

Given the number of people who seem to need the words "racism" and "bigot" holstered within easy reach in order to debate folks with opinions they don't like, perhaps it would be helpful if Greg clarified what he actually meant. His first sentence says:

"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."

That's easy enough to understand, and it explicitely pinpoints the insult as a noun, when used against another. From reading the directive in this sentence, one assumes that it'll carry on to prohibit simple name calling, giving anyone who cares about being called the dreaded word a fair amount of protection from being directly assaulted by it. However, the second sentence is not as clear:

"Use of either of these terms in relation to another forum member will be considered an insult and a warning will be issued."

I'm not sure what that means. Is it simply a restatement of the prohibition in the prior sentence, with the first step of discipline outlined? Or does it go further and prohibit one from claiming that an expressed sentiment is "racist" or "bigotted?" I really don't care, since I'm not likely to be banned - for this crime at least. Just thought I'd help out in formulating the thoughts of folks who haven't really figured out how to articulate their issues.

[Guest American Woman]

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,

Greg,

A few forum members have resorted to accusing other forum members of having BDS in response to any post they make about Bush, too. Is the use of that term considered an insult? If not, I'd really appreciate an explanation as to why it's not ok to call someone a racist but it is ok to accuse someone of having BDS. I fail to see how the latter fosters the"intelligent, honest, reasonable" discussions that the rules call for.

Thank you in advance for your answer.

Edited October 12, 2007 by American Woman

[geoffrey]

What is BDS?

[betsy]

Making statements like this with no evidence to back up the assertions is hateful.

Greg, I think what people are saying in response to this topic is that posts like scott's poison a board.

People don't want to be associated with those views. In my opinion it is my responsibility to label such posts as undesirable. There are boards for posts like his. It comes down to whether the rules for this "mapleleaf" are consistent with majority Canadian values where denigration of a group of people is unacceptable.

I know I am looking for some clarification of that.

That's your view. I, on the other hand, think that persistent petty complaints and open aggression that only enocourage and incite others to gang up on a target poster is what is poison to a board.

And that includes anyone who persistently clamor for censorship!

If anybody has serious complaints about a fellow-poster, you should complain in private.

The fact that you do not agree with how the moderators respond to your complaint is not an excuse to gang-up and attack anyone.

You have your freedom to choose. Why don't you exercise it?

Edited October 13, 2007 by betsy

[capricorn]

What is BDS?

I beleive it means Bush Derangement Syndrome. I find the term quite amusing and not at all offensive.

[jefferiah]

I don't always agree with the tactic of calling someone a racist or a bigot because they disagree on certain matters. I know on Rabble you can be called a bigot for disagreeing with anything, and then promptly banned. But personally I support the right to be able to call someone a bigot or a racist, if that is a person's assessment(whether I consider their assessment reasonable or not). Not my forum though, but I think people should be allowed to scream "bigot" and "racist" with or without reason, and then in turn the so-called bigots and racists ought to be able to reason with them. This just sounds to me like more Political Correctness....albeit a new variety, and from a different angle perhaps, but as my grandfather used to say----"the same difference".

Sticks and stones, folks. Playground words to live by.

There are people who will call you a racist or a bigot for not agreeing with the position of a minority on an issue. Seriously. I have argued with such people. And it seems that if this is their opinion, then it is basically the same as saying a minority can never be wrong, and the only possible reason anyone would ever disagree with them on any issue is because they are racists. Now while I disagree with this logic, I would like to be able to hear them call me a racist in such a situation, if that is indeed what they think. This at least gives me the opportunity to address an opinion that they have about me or my position. And explain why I feel it is not racist to disagree with them.

Edited October 13, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest coot]

I beleive it means Bush Derangement Syndrome. I find the term quite amusing and not at all offensive.

But it's a crutch for poor debaters to shut down argument when they don't have the skills to use real debating tactics. Much like calling you a "Harper-hater" for disagreeing with CPC policies, or saying you want to destroy Israel because you disapprove of one of their defence initiatives, or calling you an al-Qaeda sympathizer for opposing Iraq or Afghanistan. I have no problem with eliminating such crutches to improve the quality of the forum, but it should probably be applied across the board.

[jefferiah]

But it's a crutch for poor debaters to shut down argument when they don't have the skills to use real debating tactics. Much like calling you a "Harper-hater" for disagreeing with CPC policies, or saying you want to destroy Israel because you disapprove of one of their defence initiatives, or calling you an al-Qaeda sympathizer for opposing Iraq or Afghanistan. I have no problem with eliminating such crutches to improve the quality of the forum, but it should probably be applied across the board.

I agree with your logic about Harper-haters or BDS, but I think people should be allowed to say them, poor debate tactic or not.

[Guest American Woman]

I beleive it means Bush Derangement Syndrome. I find the term quite amusing and not at all offensive.

Wow. A Canadian Conservative Party voter who voted for Harper thinks the term BDS is "amusing." Who'd a thunk?

With all due respect, it's not your opinion I'm looking for here. It's some consistancy in enforcing the rules. Being constantly accused of having BDS is, as coot said: ...a crutch for poor debaters to shut down argument when they don't have the skills to use real debating tactics. Much like calling you a "Harper-hater" for disagreeing with CPC policies, or saying you want to destroy Israel because you disapprove of one of their defence initiatives, or calling you an al-Qaeda sympathizer for opposing Iraq or Afghanistan. I have no problem with eliminating such crutches to improve the quality of the forum, but it should probably be applied across the board.

Furthermore, as an American I'm damned if I don't criticize Bush/current American policies by the 'America sucks' crowd while accused of having BDS by the 'Bush can do no wrong' crowd when I do. It makes coming to the board (that has rules to foster "intelligent, honest, and reasonable discussion") a lesson in futility.

So. Since posters who have "certain opinions" are being 'protected' by the rules, I think everyone who is similarly constantly "insulted" should enjoy the same consideration; ie: enforcement of the rules.

So I'll continue to wait for Greg's response.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[betsy]

Some people had used Scott's "Islam, The Sneaky Buggers" as an example. Some of those people criticizing it had admitted that they did not even go beyond reading the title!

If you disagree with Scott's claim about those sneaky buggers....then, refute him!

Scott had given some sources backing up why he called them sneaky buggers!

Well, provide some sources backing up your counter-claim and give your argument why you think he is wrong!

Screaming bigotry and racism at Scott for the title that he'd used - detracting from a topic - only shows that one could not refute the opinion that was said.

That's not how you debate in a mature forum.

Personally, I think we should be able to say bigot or racist....and back up our name-calling with sensible reasons.

However, if the rules says no, we can't do that on MapleLeaf Forum, then I think we should respect that rule whether we agree with it or not.

Edited October 13, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

If you disagree with Scott's claim about those sneaky buggers....then, refute him!

Scott had given some sources backing up why he called them sneaky buggers!

Well, provide some sources backing up your counter-claim and give your argument why you think he is wrong!

Screaming bigotry and racism - detracting from a topic - only shows that one could not refute the opinion that was said.

That's not how you debate in a mature forum.

Let me rephrase that:

If you disagree with people's criticisms about Bush....then, refute them!

Posters had given some reasons and sources backing up why they are critical of Bush!

Well, provide some reasons and sources backing up your counter-claim and give your argument why you think they are wrong!

Screaming BDS - detracting from a topic - only shows that one could not refute the opinion that was said.

That's not how you debate in a mature forum.

So. Seems we're in agreement. As I said, I'm only looking for consistancy; for the same consideration given to others.

I'll repeat again so my question/concern doesn't get buried: I'm waiting for Greg's response.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[betsy]

So. Seems we're in agreement. As I said, I'm only looking for consistancy; for the same consideration given to others.

I'll repeat again so my question/concern doesn't get buried: I'm waiting for Greg's response.

If we truly want to be petty, we can go through each and every thread with a fine-toothed comb and I bet we'll both find numerous examples coming from practically everone (including me!) that would have everyone screaming "inconsistensies!" Shall we do that?

Not that I'm calling your concerns petty. But singling out one member publicly like this is quite ugly....after all, there are others we could also mention.

It seems that this particular topic raised by Greg is being exploited and used to get back at Scott.

It seems to me, it has the undertones of a personal agenda. And it is not right.

Edited October 13, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Get over your 'scott is being persecuted' complex. You are the one singling him out, not me. Others here have come back with the BDS comment and I was referring to all of them.

Furthermore, asking for consistancy is not being "petty." So once again, I'm addressing GREG about this. Unless you are in the official capacity of screening post/concerns for him, I'll thank you to let him reply.

Edited October 13, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest coot]

Some of those people criticizing it had admitted that they did not even go beyond reading the title!

If you disagree with Scott's claim about those sneaky buggers....then, refute him!

Screaming bigotry and racism at Scott for the title that he'd used - detracting from a topic - only shows that one could not refute the opinion that was said.

That's not how you debate in a mature forum.

I am the one who never bothered to read the thread because I'm not interested in debating whether muslim people are "sneaky buggers". I also didn't call him a racist, as you imply, nor did I detract from the topic of the thread--I didn't even read it, remember?

I think how you can debate on a mature forum is also by ignoring things that might annoy you. Not by accusing people of "screaming" or "whining" whenever they say something you disagree with.

[betsy]

So once again, I'm addressing GREG about this. Unless you are in the official capacity of screening post/concerns for him, I'll thank you to let him reply.

Am I stopping Greg from replying????

Now we're talking more than petty here with your last statement. You're being childish!

By all means you can wait for Greg's reply to your heart's content for all I care. I'm not stopping you....and I can assure you I don't have Greg all tied up and gagged!

And btw, you're the one who directly replied to my post!

My statement above was not exclusively for your eyes alone. There are others here on this board other than your royal self.

[Higgly]

...I think people should be allowed to scream "bigot" and "racist" with or without reason, and then in turn the so-called bigots and racists ought to be able to reason with them.

I disagree. Public racist statements are a crime in Canada. If you have accusations of racism they should be taken to the moderators. This is a label that is all too often abused.

[betsy]

I am the one who never bothered to read the thread because I'm not interested in debating whether muslim people are "sneaky buggers". I also didn't call him a racist, as you imply, nor did I detract from the topic of the thread--I didn't even read it, remember?

I think how you can debate on a mature forum is also by ignoring things that might annoy you.

I agree that ignoring something that annoys you is a way you can debate maturely.

However, you did not really ignore the thread. You simply refused to read beyond the title because you've already decided to label it the way you want. That would've been fine if you've kept your opinion to yourself. But you did not.

I agree that it's strange that something so prominent as a thread title expressing racist ideas would be tolerated,

You passed judgement on a thread based on the title alone....without bothering to read even just the opening statement of Scott. That's not how a proper debate is done.

Furthermore, you are participating in a Scott-bash fest on this thread....wherein that controversial title of Scott is being skewered and used. One of you told him to get lost, while another referred to him as the "poison" on this thread. I take it this is the subtle pressure some people are putting on Greg.

So if we want to get someone banned, we gang up and raise hell until the moderator complies?

We issue subtle threats about leaving this forum in a huff?

Gee...this kind of blackmail tactic is giving me goosebumps. Deja vu. Kinda similar to something we read in the papers.

Edited October 14, 2007 by betsy

[Guest coot]

Another example of a crutch--accusing someone of "bashing" something or someone just because they disagree with them. I don't think I had much to say about Scott at all. I commented on the thread title alone, which is all I read. Perhaps he had lucid, rational, reasonable arguments inside. If so, perhaps he should have advertised them better with a thread title that wasn't clearly intended to offend.

Again, I fully accept the mods' discretion to limit lame debating crutches for those who can't complete a thought without resorting to name-calling. Therefore, calling, say, anti-war activists "terrorism supporters" should be banned. Reference to the "loony left" should be banned. et cetera. et cetera.

[jazzer]

Some people had used Scott's "Islam, The Sneaky Buggers" as an example. Some of those people criticizing it had admitted that they did not even go beyond reading the title!

The trouble with Scotty's title is that he brands ALL Islam. So if even one Muslim is not a "sneaky bugger" (whatever the hell that is), then he is not only a hypocrite, but a r------ as well.

[betsy]

The trouble with Scotty's title is that he brands ALL Islam. So if even one Muslim is not a "sneaky bugger" (whatever the hell that is), then he is not only a hypocrite, but a r------ as well.

Well I don't agree. And I've given samples of politically incorrect book titles that had been deliberately titled in such controversial manner so as to grab the interest, to titilliate or be talked about.

If we are in an elementary schoolroom, perhaps our titles should not cause confusion and angst.

But we are supposed to be mature.....and supposed to be open-minded.

[Guest American Woman]

Another example of a crutch--accusing someone of "bashing" something or someone just because they disagree with them. I don't think I had much to say about Scott at all. I commented on the thread title alone, which is all I read. Perhaps he had lucid, rational, reasonable arguments inside. If so, perhaps he should have advertised them better with a thread title that wasn't clearly intended to offend.

Again, I fully accept the mods' discretion to limit lame debating crutches for those who can't complete a thought without resorting to name-calling. Therefore, calling, say, anti-war activists "terrorism supporters" should be banned. Reference to the "loony left" should be banned. et cetera. et cetera.

I agree with you completely; that's exactly what I've been saying. Not only are the examples you gave insults, but they don't foster intelligent, honest, reasonable debate AND they clearly are inflammatory remarks meant just to annoy. So in effect, three rules are being broken. I can't stand the "lame debating crutches" (that's a good way of putting it) too many use. It either stops the discussion or leads it in another direction, especially when others join in to 'high five' the poster using the lame debating crutches. Furthermore, forums that are full of such posts/posters are a dime a dozen. This board has decent rules/guidelines, which is why I chose to register here.

The trouble with Scotty's title is that he brands ALL Islam.

Exactly.

I've given samples of politically incorrect book titles that had been deliberately titled in such controversial manner so as to grab the interest, to titilliate or be talked about.

And as I've already pointed out, such titles have (selectively) not been allowed here. I gave the example of referring to Harper as a "fat slob." That thread title was edited.

[betsy]

And as I've already pointed out, such titles have (selectively) not been allowed here. I gave the example of referring to Harper as a "fat slob." That thread title was edited.

I haven't seen your thread at all...what was the exact fat-slob title you gave?

what is it called now? What is it all about?

I can only assume the reason it was not allowed was due to the fact that not only considering his position but it was a very personal insult.

What next? A title about your own Democrat's Bitch? Bill's Cow? Kerry's Mile-Long Chin?

The NDP's Lard-Ass Cabal? The Liberal Gimp?

Edited October 14, 2007 by betsy