Calling folks racist on this forum

And I have 'zero desire' to be or have others be denied free speech.

 

Since when is it only freedom if it serves some greater good? ​

 

I would like to see the context where it is NOT flamebaiting!

Just out of curiosity where you go to school/work/grocery shop is there some circumstance that you've been involved in where saying "blacks are idiots" is in any way acceptable? Is there any time at your school/work where you are having a discussion with a small group of people that contains African Americans you don't agree with where you can say, "blacks are idiots?"

Talking to a small group of people which includes African Americans that you don't agree with and blurting out, "blacks are idiots" is personal and very insulting. Seriously outside of the bizarro world that has been constructed on this forum and Stormfront who honestly thinks that type of thing is okay or conducive to "civil discussion?!"

So telling a black person, "blacks are idiots" totally okay (depending on "context"). Calling a forum member a "conservative" infracted and banned?!

I know. I know. I just like going through these logic thought exercises. If people were straight up with me and said well it's that way jus' 'cause I would actually accept that. We aren't debating the law here. We are just talking about some arbitrary rules for an internet forum. Just don't tell me saying "blacks are idiots" to a black person you are debating isn't a personal insult.

 

If you think a forum where a moderator strongly discourages people from using the word "you" is giving even five milliseconds of thought to "free speech" I have a bridge to sell you. The "free speech" meme is only trotted out here when people get fed up with racist posts and demand an explaination. If you want to call someone a "conservative" or use the word "you" you could get banned. "blacks are idiots" no problem (depending on "context")

 

A privately owned forum doesn't allow absolute freedom of expression on it's board. That doesn't seem like a compelling reason to argue it should disallow any choice that fails to serve the common good.
​

 

Again, the distinction you are making is both artificial and inaccuarte one.

If someone knows I am black and says "blacks are idiots" it is absolutely a personal attack/insult.

How are "*******s are idiots" posts any different?

 

Well then what should be the driving principle when writing rules? If you are going to abandon free speech shouldn't the greater good of the forum be what determines what speech is allow or disallowed?

 

Well, that comment was a generalization more than likely. But is there a kernel of truth in there somewhere? We see in the media and in home towns that Black culture of teens to somewhere in the early thirty-somethings things like gansta lifestyle, flash mobs, drug dealing, and crime. Right or wrong, people get the sense that there's more of that among Blacks than any other racial groups, with Hispanics coming in second (MS13, illegals and illegal commerce, etc)
Why do people think that? Is it all perception? No.
Older generations of Blacks and Hispanics are afraid of these individuals too.

These guys look scary to me...









Btw, look at the fingernails on that last guy. Eeeewwww.

 

Yes, Trinnity it was a "generalization." That's the problem.

Trinnity we also have a Harvard educated Black President. The gentleman is far more visible in my life than the people depicted in your pictures. All the government statistics I've seen show crime is in a multi year down trend even in spite of a terrible recession. I work with people of many races and ethnicities. Just because some yahoo on the other side of the country does something dumb I'm not going to go into work and call every single person of that race/ethnicity an "animal." What kind of thought process is that?

No Trinnity! There is no "kernel of truth" to the statement all black people are "just animals!" If I had the free time and desire I could dig up pictures and stories of people of every race and ethnicity doing horrendous things. That wouldn't make whatever race I hated at the moment "just animals."

How many world wars have black people started? How many atomic bombs have black people dropped? How many totally phoney oil wars have black people started? How many people died horrific deaths in those disasters? I'll tell you, a heck of a lot more than have EVER been killed by black gang members. Do we tolerate people saying white people are "just animals?" I don't. Do you?

 

'Blacks' and 'Hispanics' have higher crime rates because they are poorer...period.

Anyone that thinks there is ANY other substantial reason is an ignoramus on the subject...period.

 

that you would even ask such a question is an indication that you have racist tendencies, or are just plain ignorant.

The majority of black people I have met, in many different countries, do not fit those facile stereotypes. I have also worked on a programme with violent offenders, most of whom were white.

if a group of young black people in the US show anti social/criminal tendencies, it is probably for much the same reason that the young white males I worked with did - not because they are black.

 

so what you are saying is that on this forum, an accuate description of what a person chooses to be is not ok ...

so in that case ... why are people allowed to call each other "leftist", "conservative", "liberal," "christian", "atheist" etc?

 

Good question.

Racist isn't an insult like calling someone an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). It's a description of their behavior and views. So why should racists get special discompensation and protection?

For the record, any person who calls or refers to me as a leftist, socialist, marxists, communist, lefty, jealous, *******, child killer, pro-abortionist, intellectually dishonest, or any related name or discription will be reported as violating the rules.

 

to call someone a leftist, socialist, marxists, communist, lefty may be regarded as an insult if this description is incorrect. I can wear lefty, but socialist, communist or marxist is inaccurate, and these are labels are clearly used for the express purpose of insulting me. and this is often the case on this forum.

to someone is jealous ... its a descriptive. people claiming that you are jealous should be able to provide a basis for presenting that argument. if its just "because you wannabe like me" it is intended as a put down, and therefore should not be permitted.

to call people ******* - obviously an insult.

to call someone a child killer because they are pro choce is definetly a far worrse insult than calling someone a racist.

to call someone a "pro- abortionist" is probably an insult. it would be more accurate to say they are pro choice, or even pro abortion, and that would be acceptable.

to call someone intellectually dishonest may well be true in some cases, but even then is still more questionable than calling someone who is OBVIOUSLY racist a racist.

so, if the forum rules persist in singling out terms like "racist" as an insult, you are right Iriemon, we should be reporting a lot of other things as well.

 

Not that they're animals. I did NOT mean that.
Reread my post.
http://www.politicalforum.com/1061096698-post108.html

You twisted my meaning and that is underhanded. I won't be discussing this with YOU any further.

 

well what did you mean when you said

when you say is there a kernel of truth in there somewhere? you are implying that the generalisation has a basis in fact.

your post still implies that "blackness" is somehow significant in these young people being "animals".

what would be more relevant is to consider what factors might be influencing young black people in certain places, and why these young people adopt values and attitudes that are anti social.

what seems to happen on this forum is that if this problem is seen among some, it is then generalised to ALL young black people globally.

that is racism.

 

I would say that there are anti-social cultures in this country that contain young people who have supplanted their lack of a father with that anti-social culture.

 

I think the police are afraid of the black and Hispanic gangs, and that infuriates me! If the MS-13s of the world are as bad as the news makes them out to be they should be destroyed. If the feds can slow the hells angels down by massive take down efforts why cant the street gangs which are FAR FAR more dangerous than the HAs or other outlaw bikers get the same treatment enhanced by the national guard if need be? Most gang bangers do not fear Jail because jail is run by the GANGS! Its business as usual from inside jail. The bangers order hits and make major decisions from inside the walls! They have access to dope money and weapons along with an army to do their bidding inside and out! All that said, its similar to the RADICAL MUSLIM TERRORISTS. When a group attacks the USA and kills more people than was killed in pearl harbor with one attack I am sorry, no I am NOT sorry, that we profile. We should profile and deport ALL illegals post haste even if emergency measures must be implemented.

Street gangs such as MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia should be destroyed at all costs. If the police cant do the job sick the outlaw bikers on em' ha ha...no however the national guard might be a idea as long as they are kept on a very short leash for a short period of time. At least if a firefight ensues the feds will be armed as well as the thugs are~ If the national guard or the outlaw bikers cant handle them send the gang bangers to these hills, I am sure we could make them an offer they could not refuse ha ha (anyone gonna watch the Hatfields and MccCoies?).

History Greenlights 'The Hatfields And McCoys, An American Vendetta'
tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/...hatfields-and-mccoys-an-american-ven...
May 24, 2011 – via press release: HISTORY GREENLIGHTS PRODUCTION OF SCRIPTED MINISERIES ABOUT AMERICA'S MOST INFAMOUS FAMILY ..



reva

 

I agree Trin', that the statement was a nasty attempt at character assassination which is business as usual for some, especially for what I call the usual suspects. I get the same treatment en' (organized) masse! Don't worry I have your back...but beware an endorsement by me might bring unwelcome comment by the usual suspects etc...Hang in there Trinnity, you are an asset to this forum IMO.

reva

 

Racism is far less prevalent than it was in the US, clearly. The problem is that the 45%-or-so scumbags remaining, who could have belonged to the original Ku Klux Klan, are so numerous that the others have to pretend they have the right to (*)(*)(*)(*) on the murdered and rant about how non-racist they are. It must be very confusing for the civilized people, indeed it must.

 

I would say that there is a lot of truth in that.

which is not to say that ALL young males (and it is usually males) without father figures end up taking a wrong turn, but the significance of having suitable role models should not be underestimated.

if young boys grow up with anti social "heroes" in a culture where violence, and solving your problems through violence is glorified, then there is every chance that they will use those strategies.

attitudes to women might also stem from resentment towards their mothers who are often trying to take on the role of both parents - something they usually can't manage. sometimes this manifests as being over authoritarian, but it can also manifest through being too permissive - especially as male children get older.

single mothers with teenage boys usually have a hard time, unless they have strong family support, or are exceptionally strong women.

I don't think it has to be that way, but its hard enough for two parents to compete with outside influences - it is much harder for single parents - especially mothers of teenage sons.

 

Amazing how Americans so seldom discuss the gross racism which causes all the problems but love to discuss feasible (and feeble) excuses!

 

<Bolding mine> Quite correct. I couldn't agree more.

 

I don't see that statement as necessarily referring to all blacks. It is ambiguous and "they" could mean those who engage in violence.

While the post could be read either way, I don't see the basis for presuming racist intent from it.

 

Freedom of speech is very important on Political Forum and the limitation imposed against personal attacks does not adversely affect it. In prior posts the term "moron" has been used and people can make moronic statements and those statements can be addressed as being moronic. Many very intelligent people make moronic statements but are not morons. We cannot assume something about a person based solely on what they might say but we can specifically address what they say. The statement may well be moronic and that can be freely and openly addressed by a response.

A perfect example of this is the racist reference to statements made by Dr Watson, a Noble Prize winner in genetics, where he made several completely unsupported racist statements about Africans and he was discredited by the scientific community for them. He had no clinical research to support his statements and, as such, his statements were moronic. Pointing out that his statements were moronic and why is an excellent rebuttal to them. We, using freedom of speech, can attack the statements without directly attacking the person.

Let us remember one simple fact. It isn't the "racist" that is the real problem. It is what the racists says, advocates, represents and does that is the problem in America and around the world. Attack what the racists says, advocates, represents or does because that is what the real problem is. The limited prohibition against personal attacks does not limit any of us from addressing the problem related to racism or any other problem we can identify.

Additionally there have been comments related to flamebaiting which is also prohibited. These often relate to stereotyping in such statements as "blacks are idiots" and we do enforce the flamebaiting rule related to that. As I've stated those three words as expressed are probably flamebaiting some have asked what possible contect would they not be considered as flamebaiting. Obviously I've used them in this paragraph were they are not so that is an example of when they wouldn't be flamebaiting. A member making the statement, "Some claim that all blacks are idiots and that merely represents bigoted racist stereotyping" is not a flamebaiting statement. Moderators always look at the context of any statement.

I have to check out of this for awhile as I've got things to do this morning but will continue to try and address this subject later if more concerns are raised. My main point today is that freedom of speech is not restricted because of the prohibitions against personal attacks and flamebaiting.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator