Calling Some One a Racist or Bigot

[Guest American Woman]

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?

It wasn't MY thread. And how many times do I have to point out, as you keep repeating the "personal insult" excuse for that title being edited, that the rules clearly state:

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

Furthermore, I've not criticized the editing of that thread. I've pointed out that titles have been edited for breaking the rules, while others have not. This is what I question; why all are not edited. I'm not asking for your "what next" titles to be allowed, I'm questioning why, for example, "Islam, the sneaky buggers" IS allowed.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[betsy]

It wasn't MY thread. And how many times do I have to point out, as you keep repeating the "personal insult" excuse for that title being edited, that the rules clearly state:

Insults levelled at third-parties (companies, political parties, nationalities) are also forbidden in the forums.

Furthermore, I've not criticized the editing of that thread. I've pointed out that titles have been edited for breaking the rules, while others have not. This is what I question; why all are not edited. I'm not asking for your "what next" titles to be allowed, I'm questioning why, for example, "Islam, the sneaky buggers" IS allowed.

Well it doesn't matter whether it is your thread or not! For the sake of clarification, I am asking a legit question! After all you are using that title as a comparison.

What is that FAT SLOB thread all about? Or at least direct me to that particular thread.

I have already explained as to how the Islam title is not racist, imho.

I am assuming that it all boils down to the forum's definition of the word, "insult."

Edited October 14, 2007 by betsy

[Guest coot]

I have already explained as to how the Islam title is not racist, imho.

I am assuming that it all boils down to the forum's definition of the word, "insult."

Or your definition of the word "racism." According to the American Heritage dictionary, racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement." Based on that, how, iyho, is that thread title not racist?

[bush_cheney2004]

Or your definition of the word "racism." According to the American Heritage dictionary, racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement." Based on that, how, iyho, is that thread title not racist?

Ah, but what does the "Canadian Heritage Dictionary" say?

[betsy]

Or your definition of the word "racism." According to the American Heritage dictionary, racism is "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement." Based on that, how, iyho, is that thread title not racist?

I've already explained why that imho that title is not racist.

I went beyond the title. I entered the thread.

I had read the initial post that explains what Scott was trying to say.

Have you?

[Guest coot]

I've already explained why that imho that title is not racist.

I went beyond the title. I entered the thread.

I had read the initial post that explains what Scott was trying to say.

Have you?

But I'm not talking about the thread, I'm talking about the thread title. It's clearly racist by any definition of racism, so in effect the mods are saying, go ahead, spew racism all you want, but beware if you try to identify it as such.

[Guest American Woman]

But I'm not talking about the thread, I'm talking about the thread title. It's clearly racist by any definition of racism, so in effect the mods are saying, go ahead, spew racism all you want, but beware if you try to identify it as such.

And the mods are saying this as they say you can't title a thread referring to Harper as a "fat slob." Makes you wonder if the Muslims have no recourse for what's said about them while Harper does, and that's the reason for the selective enforcement of the rules.

Edited October 14, 2007 by American Woman

[Moxie]

Could some of the naysayers calling Scot a racist please explain how a religion is now a race? Islam is made up of many races. Next on to bigot, so calling someone a "Sneaky Bugger" means you are a bigot? Well I've called Politicians on the left, right and center that many times so now I'm a bigot? People who try and control the words of others SCARE me, Scot doesn't. He has every right to his opinion, whether I agree on not. It's just words, unlike those who want him silenced, I believe in freedom of Expression not oppression under the guise of Racism and Bigotry because that line of thinking is negated by the fact Islam isn't a race and "Sneaky buggers" is a phrase that is commonly used in CANADA perhaps it's to harsh for sensive Dems from the US? His critics scare me, their voice is often shrill in screaming Racists, Bigot followed by why the FEAR and now their favorite? Who knows what shall offend the easily offended this week, I'm glad my spine is intact I'd hate to be that easily offended by mere words.

Tissues for the crybabies in isle four. Careful it's crowded by the snot and bawlers on the left/left.

[Guest coot]

Yet another example of poor debating is to take a debate completely out of context and make up points that were never said. I never called the op a racist; I said the original thread title was racist by the American Heritage definition of the term racism. No one can provide a coherent argument as to why it would not fit that definition. I don't particularly care that it's racist, other than it didn't provoke my interest to explore the thread further. I'm not trying to silence the poster; rather, I am questioning why anybody would want to silence the mere identification of racism. My guess is that crying "racist" at every opportunity gets in the way of reasonable debate, but if you ask me, using terms "crybabies" when no one is crying about anything brings this forum down to the piss-poor quality it is currently at even more.

[bush_cheney2004]

But I'm not talking about the thread, I'm talking about the thread title. It's clearly racist by any definition of racism, so in effect the mods are saying, go ahead, spew racism all you want, but beware if you try to identify it as such.

No, the title is not racist for the very reasons you cited. It does not meet the test for "belief" or "doctrine". It is merely a thread title with a hook.

[Guest coot]

You're saying he doesn't believe what he writes? A belief is an opinion. He stated an opinion in the thread title. You can get into what the definition of "is" is, I suppose.

Edited October 15, 2007 by coot

[bush_cheney2004]

You're saying he doesn't believe what he writes?

Not relevant....the title of the thread stands on its own as not meeting the definition you have proposed, let alone a far better one. Does the thread title exercise power over individuals or groups? Does the title oppress any class or group? Would the title still be considered racist if positive adjectives/nouns were used? [e.g. "intelligent little rascals"].

You may not like the thread's title, but that does not make it racist. Journalism would be hogtied if it had to meet your standard.

[Melanie_]

Moxie - calling an individual a "sneaky bugger" is not racism, particularly if their actions warrent the label. Calling everyone who belongs to a particular group - say, Islam - a "sneaky bugger" is meant as an insult to the group, which is clearly against the forum rules.

I don't really want to see Scott's words, or anyone else's, controlled, though, as long as they can be civil and contribute to respectful debate. We each need to have the freedom to express ourselves, simply because it gives everyone else a clear picture of how we think and what we believe in. I rarely agree with anything Scott has to say (although it has happened, from time to time), but part of the beauty of a forum like this is it makes us rub up against thought processes that are diametrically opposed to our own, and makes us really think about what we hold to be true. I can't think of a single person who has been banned since I started here 2 years ago who I was glad to see go, even when I thought they were wrong in every way.

[Guest coot]

You may not like the thread's title, but that does not make it racist. Journalism would be hogtied if it had to meet your standard.

How did the title of the thread not meet the definition I provided? It didn't say racism requires oppression. I think racism can still be racism with postive adjectives. Saying all Blacks have rhythm and Asians are good at math are racist statements. But I still don't get how the technical identification of racism silences anyone, or if indeed journalism is inherently racist why it would be hogtied because of that. If someone were to call you racist, would you immediately scurry under the rug and feel like you were prevented from saying anything further? I wouldn't.

[jazzer]

I can't think of a single person who has been banned since I started here 2 years ago who I was glad to see go, even when I thought they were wrong in every way.

But there has to be rules. I'm sure those folks were warned and/or suspended a few times perhaps before banning.

[ScottSA]

How did the title of the thread not meet the definition I provided? It didn't say racism requires oppression. I think racism can still be racism with postive adjectives. Saying all Blacks have rhythm and Asians are good at math are racist statements. But I still don't get how the technical identification of racism silences anyone, or if indeed journalism is inherently racist why it would be hogtied because of that. If someone were to call you racist, would you immediately scurry under the rug and feel like you were prevented from saying anything further? I wouldn't.

You are entirely confused as to the content of what you posted, and continue to be confused as to what "racism" means. You are even misusing the concept of "race." How do you expect to have your opinions of racism taken seriously if you don't even know what race means? Is attacking Christianity "racism?" If not, why not, and if so, why?

[bush_cheney2004]

How did the title of the thread not meet the definition I provided? It didn't say racism requires oppression. I think racism can still be racism with postive adjectives. Saying all Blacks have rhythm and Asians are good at math are racist statements. But I still don't get how the technical identification of racism silences anyone, or if indeed journalism is inherently racist why it would be hogtied because of that. If someone were to call you racist, would you immediately scurry under the rug and feel like you were prevented from saying anything further? I wouldn't.

You fail to see why your definitions do not apply to the thread's title...to this specific instance. I don't care if someone calls me racist or not, as it is merely an opinion. The title of the thread could apply to any group or individuals...which "race" would that be. Muslims certainly are not of one "race".

If you attempt to label member's posts or thread titles as "racist", you are invoking a protocol that is particularly quirky in hyper-sensitive Canada. Only "child molester" would be worse!

[Guest coot]

You fail to see why your definitions do not apply to the thread's title...to this specific instance. I don't care if someone calls me racist or not, as it is merely an opinion. The title of the thread could apply to any group or individuals...which "race" would that be. Muslims certainly are not of one "race".

If you attempt to label member's posts or thread titles as "racist", you are invoking a protocol that is particularly quirky in hyper-sensitive Canada. Only "child molester" would be worse!

The definition of "race" is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity" as well as "an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups."

Regardless of the fact that muslim people themselves do not form a race, modern DNA evidence has shown that genetically there are no racial distinctions and the physical characteristics we've used to define race are arbitrary and largely based on the people's environment. So race in itself doesn't really exist anyway. But racism still does.

Because the modern concept of racism is more culturally based (i.e., we don't want Mexicans living among us). Mexcians in and of themselves are not a race either, but contempt and hatred for the Mexican people would still qualify as racism.

As for your idea that racism in Canada is beyond the pale, I would disagree. Again, your knowledge of Canadian culture is quite limited. Racism is rampant in Canada, and largely accepted. There is a great amount of accepted racism against Aboriginal people among others, and its prevalence can be seen by reading this forum, which provides countless examples on a daily basis.

[Argus]

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

Yes, that was my point the last time I sent in a complaint about your name calling.

[Argus]

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

Actually, people blamed the American militia movement, which was swamped by FBI investigations thereafter, many of its leaders arrested on various pretexts, especially illegal possession of firearms.

The problem was not simply McVeigh or bin Laden, it was their followers and those who, while never having met them, admire them for their behaviour. There are many, many, many such people among Muslims.

[Argus]

I agree that it's strange that something so prominent as a thread title expressing racist ideas would be tolerated, but there would be a problem with calling it racist. Makes you wonder.

Islam is not a racist, therefore, implying Muslims are "sneaky" cannot be racist.

[Argus]

Yes, and generalizing a whole tribe of people and calling them sneaky buggers is racism.

Isn't calling Muslims a tribe racist?

Or at least dumb?

[Argus]

I rarely post here because the moderators seem to have a high threshold for the "We pay while Indians live in luxury" type of threads. This warning to avoid criticizing these posts is just the icing on the cake.

Yes, if it offends you and disagree - well then, absent yourself. Don't try to thoughtfully and logically rebut the opinion. That's too much work. Your head will hurt.

[Argus]

The difference, of course, is you would have nothing to back up your claim about the constitution of Higgly's head. You don't know him, nor have you sampled his brain matter. You have nothing to go on but pure speculation. In terms of calling you a racist, however, one often needn't click beyond the thread title to have ample evidence for that claim.

Given that Higgly posts what is in his head and given what he posts could be fairly well summed-up by referring to various animal forms of excrement I would suggest that logical deduction could give you the excuse to use the term "poopy head".

[Argus]

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.

Then leave. Please leave. I haven't seen a thoughtful or intelligent post from you yet.

The intelligent response to opinions with which you disagree is to rebut their points, not to go on a whiny shriekfest against the author of the posts. Apparently that is beyond you. Therefore, this really isn't the board for you.