Stormfront Advisory - A Moderator Perspective

Bigotry & Racism comes from Left leaning & middle left Posters here also & to poo poo their contributions is un american , The Anti-Semitic /Anti-Zionism from the left & Anti- ChristianAnti- Conservative Bigotry from the Middle Left deserves it's place in any light shed on Racism & Bigotry here.

 

Yeah, anything to point fingers in the other direction, any direction...

 

Racism & Bigotry is not only the domain of Faschist & Far Right .

 

Opposition to the policies of the Israeli government, makes me about as antisemitic, as my opposition to the government of Zimbabwe makes me a racist!! Israel does some terrible things(that does not mean I don't understand that Palestinians do as well), to recognize that is shows cognitive awareness, NOT antisemitism. To say otherwise is nonsensical gibberish!!


Next up, again you are equating opposition to action with bigotry. I do criticize irrational and extremist religion of all stripes, but that is a question again of simply recognizing bad and opposing it, it has nothing to do with bigotry. I do not think badly of all Christians, I think badly of certain Christians, with certain beliefs, who take certain actions. That is simply sensible, and it has nothing to do with prejudice or bigotry. If you oppose Obama, that doesn't make you a racist!!

 

Well, that rules out about 99.999999999% of the active membership, doesn't it?

For the record: If you've ever remotely thought about asking me to be a moderator - don't. I did it for HFMedia at Car & Driver, and will never do it again.

BTW -- On a personal note, I just donated over $400 to your local government thanks to the WSP scalehouse on I-5 and the Cascade District Court. Please spend my $$ wisely.

 

In the last 10 years of discussing middle-east politics, I've been threatened with physical violence, with death threats, called every name you can think of, insulted in every way possible, accused of all kinds of evil doings, my writings have been wrongly modified by a moderator (in one forum), I've been banned from many forums and I'm still attacked on almost a daily basis by some right-wingers.

And yet, my position over the last 10 years has remained unchanged. I support a two-state solution. I support Palestine and Israel. I believe that everyone has the right to be treated equally. I feel that it is wrong to hate Semites. I am pro-America, pro-West, pro-Africa, pro-Asia and pro-Aussie, and I believe in "Never Again" and "Enough is Enough".

It is possible that some on the left are racist, but such would be an untypical behavior that is very uncommon. I have absolutely no interest in being right-wing, but I like small governments, low taxes and civil liberties.

 

Yes, there are many subjects where individuals have emotional rather than logical responses. The Middle East, religion and racism in America all have these attributes where discussions tend to devolve into personal attacks and flamebaiting. My concern with this thread was only one of those which is how members might respond to bigoted racism. Some can handle it well and work within the Mission Statement of Political Forum. Others are more likely to respond emotionally against the member.

Overall the same concern applies to all of those topics which tend to generate emotional responses as opposed to discussion and debate based upon logic, reason and facts.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

I haven't read thru the entire thread yet but thank you for the explanation of the mechanics of moderating on this forum. It really shows that the staff isn't as arbitrary and random as some claim. I have been a moderator on another forum where anyone could delete a post for any reason and they didn't have to give an explanation or report it to anyone. THAT was a rough forum to post on if you got on the outs with a mod.

Sounds to me like you have a very organized and logical process that has some protection for the members. I appreciate that.

 

The entire staff has been very proactive in trying to ensure fairness in our actions. Our Formal Appeal Process is an example of that where any member can dispute any infraction they receive. It is reviewed by an independent panel of moderators and a decision is reached related to the post and the infraction that was issued. The issuing moderator is excluded from the decision by the Appeals Panel. We also have safeguards related to the banning of a member and a member can also dispute any ban with the moderators.

The ultimate goal is completely unbiased moderation based upon the Forum Rules. We admit to not being perfect and have made mistakes over time. The only way to avoid mistakes though is to do nothing and that isn't acceptable. We would have absolute choas like CraigsList Rants and Raves. That is not the purpose of Political Forum. As the Mission Statement says we're dedicated to respectful discussion and debate of all political issues. That is the ultimate goal of all the Forum Rules.

Respectfully,
Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

Frodly of course anyone can criticise any government without being racist, anti-semitic or islamophobic. However those who are any of the aforementioned reveal their true colours over time, typically because they are always emphasising those very characteristics in such criticised party. This forum may be called Stormfront lite, and it is not only due to racism.

BTW bigotry exists in persons on the left and right.

Often I have noticed that those who claim to be the ones being attacked, are often - quite unconsciously - the attackers themselves and are not reflecting on their contribution to the drama.This is a painful process so I can understand why many avoid doing so. However it is advisable so as to avoid being a victim. My two cents.

 

Liebe I highly appreciate your brave post. I previewed stromfront and while they are certainly racist they do have a strict policy not to threaten any thing remotely close to violence. Racism is somewhat subjective eh?. I feel we are all racist to a extent even if it's ever so slight. So are rules that disallow flame baiting. If I were a mod I could probably infract a good percentage of our members for flamebaiting including myself! I will say the mods do a good job in my opinion when it comes to handing out infractions and warnings.

Anyway and this is simply a guess; I think stormfront members may post at PF due to it’s fairness in allowing free speech, and PF's policy of being not too far left or right wing. This is a huge reason I donate and am a member. Some might say 'why worry this is just the internet'. No, I say these forums are far more important because they allow the airing of ideas and allow for the most part free speech, which, as a precursor of freedom is a guiding principle in my life. Be they KKK or the NBPP ie the New Black Panther Party or just regular Joes or Joan we all have a natural right and freedom to speak IMHO.


Rev A

 

Is determining where a post is flamebait subjective? To some extent yes but we do have two parts of the Forum rules upon which moderators make a determination.

First is the Mission Statement of Political Forum and the second is the specific Forum Rule on flamebaiting:

The Mission Statement sets the overall tone of Polical Forum and as a moderator in addressing potential flamebait or other rules violations I make every attempt to apply objective criteria to my decisions.

First and foremost is the criteria of "respectful debate" and whether it's being followed by the member. Inflamatory political issues can be presented in a respectful manner but we find a failure of many members to do so. We see it all to often in many threads and posts most of which are not addressed by the moderators. We tend to allow freedom of speech except in aggegeous situations which often allows many of these post and threads to continue when, in fact, they shouldn't be allowed.

"Michelle Obama has a fat ass" or "Sarah Palin is a whore" are statements that are purely inflammatory and are not addressing a political topic or social issue in a respectful manner. We allow attacks on public figures (not members) but that attack still needs to be presented based upon a valid issue and presented in a manner conductive to respectful discussion and debate.

I recently deleted a thread that was a listing of crimes committed by blacks as being flamebait. Statistically blacks are convicted of more crimes than whites based upon percentage of the populations in the United States but simply listing individual crimes was not addressing this issue. It was purely racist slander because it did not address why there are a disproportionate number of blacks being convicted in the United States. Instead of addressing the issue of black crime in America in a respectful manner for discussion and debate it was an attempt to establish a stereotype of blacks that was purely inflammatory. There was really no subjectivity related to my decision as it was explicitly based upon the Mission Statement and the Forum Rule on flamebaiting.

The Middle East forums were mentioned previously and I find posts such as "Jews are scum" or "Muslims are pedophiles" to be equally inflammatory without foundation as a political or social issue being addressed in a manner conductive to respectful discussion or debate. On the flip side addressing the actions or policies of the Israeli government is not a racist attempt to stereotype all Jews nor is addressing the cultural heritage of Muslims that allowed child marriages which were common in many cultures historically and is even allowed today in the United States with certain limitations (e.g. Jerry Lee Lewis, with parental consent, married his 13 yo cousin once removed ). Both issues can be inflammatory but it depends on whether the matter is being addressed as a topic for respectful discussion and debate.

So some can say these decisions are "subjective" but I would be more inclined to state that they merely require considerable review and consideration by the moderator making the call. If we find that a post or topic, while inflammatory, is presenting a ligitimate opinion for respectful discussion and debate it is not flamebaiting. If it's inflammatory but fails to provide a foundation for respectful discussion and debate then it is flamebaiting. If in doubt then we allow the post or thread.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

now that is an intelligent response.

I visited storm front back when, and find the people are pretty tough. The majority are religious wingnuts within the christian group and quite rude in many frames of reference.

But i have observed more mention of stormfront on this site, than any place on the internet. Me personally, i dont like bigotry, no matter the flavor.

ie..... try walking thru compton as a white person and you will experience bigotry to the extent of being in personal danger. Likewise, to visit this site and not approve of israel and you will be attacked as a anti semitic by the bigots here

I come here because i am learning how to deal with hypocrits on many fronts.

If the moderators could do anything for the good of an argument, then require that honesty is the bottom line and if a person labels another with a bigot slur, make them evidence it or put them on a shelf for a period.

This site has allowed people to hide behind the 'politically correct' avenue and that is why some of the debates get to hot.

 

With all due respect it seems to me that when a moderator begins using his or her judgment on a specific subject ie black vs. Jewish vs. whatever Nazi vs. USA, white vs. black situations etc they are using personal prejudice’s etc to sway the decision to infract, delete or otherwise act on a members post or him personally (by banning warnings etc). What may constitute a flamebait to a KKK member may be righteous statements to a New Black Panther member. Of course those are extreme examples to get the point across. What I mean is if I were a little pro white I might not see the statements about Obama’s wifes butt being big flamebait. So I must conclude that the flamebait decisions are subjective by default. One should not make aplogies for being prejudice, (I wouldn’t) because it’s the nature of the beast. Which brings me to another point! (yes I hear the groans)

It’s the disrespect of religion. If someone calls God a big tooth fairy that is flame bait. Everyone knows the euphuisms that range from the mild to the truly poke in the eye with a sharp stick insult flame bait. However these are nearly never seen as flame bait. Or maybe if they are addressed as such I havent seen it. Of course I am prejudiced because my life revolves around God. When someone insults God its worse than calling my mom a whore (that may sound horrible to a non religious person, but trust me Mom would agree with me, because she is a tee totaler Christian!).

Anyway, just some thoughts. To close I will say Moderators are asked to do a lot with a little. I have always thought there should be a public panel of moderators like a court and a Judge maybe the owner or a veteran moderator, or even a jury of peers to resolve violently disputed decisions, especially banning a member. That may be the fairest way to decide all issues.

Also I would like to thank ALL the moderators and staff for the often thankless job they do, it does not go unnoticed by myself or the rest of the membership I am sure.

Rev A

 

There is some truth to this. Bullies tend to become the victims of their hostility. In the beginning, they enjoy the fruits of their hostility, only to slowly realize that such eventually gets twisted around and redirected back to its origins to suffocate its cause, causing the attacker to become the victim of their own attacks. Justice always wins. It may take some time, but the clock is ticking.

 

You misunderstood me. My point is that it makes little sense to call another the attacker. It is far more valuable to look at one's own role and the attacks one is engaged in oneself. This has nothing to do with justice, but with growing up.

 

Great contribution Rev.

I agree with you on the matter that no one can decide on whether a topic is flambait without engaging his own world view. There is nothing wrong with it and I do not say so to attack the mods. It is just a fact that we have to use our own frame of reference.

So like you say a non-religious mod will not consider any discussion on God inappropriate as you would.

I would judge things insofar as racism is concerned exactly the way that Shiva describes, but that us because I too would also insist on rationale and reasons being provided to account for crime levels in black communities, perhaps falsely.

 

I wonder how Holocaust victims feel about this concept of "growing up" instead of attacking the Nazi attacker or seeking justice. Wouldn't it be more fair to argue that he Nazis were the problem and not the victims of such racism?

 

This is so true. Unfortunately, it's always open season on God, so most of us avoid the Religion section altogether. The 'respectful discussion' requirement doesn't seem to apply in religious topics. A Believer's gotta be tough to set foot in that haven for atheists!

 

It's hard for an atheist to post anything there without a barrage of slurs being hurled at them.

 

So if I am understanding this correctly, they are racist and hate atheists too? Why would anyone want to be a member there? It sounds nasty.

 

They would love me over there, being a gay atheist...LOL!

 

Maybe too much. You just stay put. Hear?

 

I am not talking about war and violence here but discussions among posters.

There is a huge difference between being the subject of attacks in the real world and feeling like one is being "attacked" on a forum for one's political views. In the latter case, self-reflection makes a lot of sense.

 

Monderators imposing "honesty" would be an impossibility. We're not the "Truth Police" as the truth is far more subjective than determining if a post is flamebait or a personal attack.

As for "political correctness" there is apparently a misunderstanding. Political Forum is about discussing political topics and opinions that are expressed in statements made by members. It is not about discussing the members. The members are fundamentally irrelevant to the political topic or opinion being addressed. Any post directed at or about a member is off topic related to the political topic or opinion. A person can be as politically incorrect as they choose so long as they are expressing a political opinion as opposed to an opinion about another member.

If we go back to the beginning when I started this thread it was about members not getting suckered into making personal attack because of potential flamebait. That was and remains my primary concern.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator