Calling folks racist on this forum

I have a lot of respect for you - but this is wrong, imo.

Of course it is restricted.

free·dom of speech
noun
freedom of speeches, plural

'The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint'

https://www.google.ca/search?source....,cf.osb&fp=f541b9f27c213094&biw=1024&bih=653


There is no way (imo) that you can accurately say this board has unrestricted 'freedom of speech' when only a few moderators can decide what is and what is not acceptable speech for flamebaiting.

FLAMEBAIT
'1. flamebait
An email, usually to a message board, written with intent to offend\anger\enrage other persons, so that they will send a flaming email in reply.

2. flamebait
1) Flame bait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the "troll" (original poster provoking angry response) often has no real interest in, and finds humour, or entertainment in reactions.'flamebait'

https://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=freedom+of+speech

Notice the word 'intent'.

It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to know what someone's 'intent' is/was unless they admit to it.

A Mod can exclude ANY post they wish that they deem to be 'flamebaiting' - even though they have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY of knowing what the member's intent was.


I do not expect full freedom of speech on chat forums.

But to say this one does 'not restrict' freedom of speech with regards to flamebaiting is just not accurate, imo.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. It was certainly not my intention to "twist your meaning." A lot can be lost in the written word. If you would care to explain your position in detail I am certainly open to hearing your elaboration.

The one thing I will say at this point is multiple people independently arrived at the same conclusion after reading your post. That may indicate an issue with the way the post was written rather than the perception of an individual reader.

 

You answered your own question. Hell's angels were never as widespread or large in numbers as "street gangs." The Hell's angels were far more concentrated and better organized. When was the last time you saw a pack of 20 "street gangsters" rolling down an empty Arizona highway in a pack? The Hell's Angles were a bit easier to pick out.

I will not even touch the idea of the national guard doing wide spread law enforcement. A junior high school civics class usually covers all the reasons that is a TERRIBLE idea.

 

One obvious solution is for the government to stop mandating fatherless families.

 

This confuses a general definition of "flamebait" with the specific definition established by the Forum Rule of "Flamebait" as applicable to Political Forum.

There are two key differences between a general definition of flamebait and how it applies to Political Forum.

First, and most important, is the fact that the Mission Statement of Political Forum establishes that this is a forum for "vigorous respectful debate" which establishes a limitation. Respectful debate is not about "rants and raves" that is more appropriate on CraigsList. If people want to merely rant then they should be using Craigslist's "Rants and Raves" as their mediun of expression.

Next is the caveat that the determination on "flamebaiting" is at the discretionary judgment of the moderators. We are very well educated in this matter as it has commonly been a topic of discussion between the moderators and the "Formal Appeals" of infractions for flamebaiting have established precedent that we use in making determinations of flamebaiting.

One of the fundamental keys to our decisions is how the topic is addressed. If the OP, post or statements seeks to engage in a respectful discussion on a topic, regardless of how inflammatory that topic might be, then it is not flamebaiting. On the other hand if the OP, post or statement does not seek to engage other members in a respectful discussion or debate and is purely a rant that is highly inflammatory in nature then we judge it to be flamebaiting. It isn't the topic but instead the way the topic is addressed by the member which creates a situation of flamebaiting.

We don't need to know the "intent" of the poster but instead need to only to determine whether it seeks to engage in respectful discussion and debate or not. There is no "mindreading" involved in our determination related to the enforcement of the prohibition of flamebaiting.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

I appreciate the response.

But in regards to the highlighted words - you are again talking about determining whether the poster 'seeks a respectful discussion' or the 'intent' of the poster.

There is NO WAY POSSIBLE to determine what the poster 'seeks' or what his/her 'intent' is unless they make that publicly known.

You can look at what they typed and guess, assume, surmise or even hope what the poster 'seeks' or 'intends'...but there is NO WAY to know. None.

So what I said stands - free speech IS affected on this site in regards to flamebaiting since the mods are guesstimating the intentions of the posters.

I am not saying that is a crime or something - but, imo, it is a fact.



And btw - how is the following not 'purely a rant that is highly inflammatory in nature'?

'I bet those that want more black scumbags on our streets live nowhere near any blacks, however.'

'LOL... anti-racists/anti-White people are now advocating for more black trash/scumbags to be imported into America. There's simply not enough black scumbags for them.'

http://www.politicalforum.com/1061102252-post30.html


How on Earth is a 'black' person supposed to read that and not be 'highly inflamed' by it (I am not even 'black' and it 'inflames' me)?

 

I agree. The name "racist" is being thrown around much to often, in an attempt to stigmatise and silence conservatives that do not have socially progressive views.

But there are in fact a few racial separatists, and even racial supremacists on this forum. I suppose "racist" would not be an inappropriate word to describe these people. Just because the media has given it a deragatory connotation does not necessarily mean it is an inherently derogatory word, although it was originally used by a marxist to denounce slavic nationalists. But if these people can be called "racist", then all the progressives can be called "miscongenists" or "race-mixers".

 

Being called a racist is not something a normal person would welcome. There is only one definition of the word no matter how hard people try to spin it.

 

Freedom of speech IMO means you can express your views on matters of political or public interest.

It has never meant you have the right to say whatever you want or to defame without consequences.

 

Hard to prove a person is racist by one post, but lets say you are correct and that persons post was that much over the line,,,what about all the times the word racist is used just for the hell of it. The word is worn and has lost much of it's true meaning, I believe most would agree.

 

I find the application of racist to posters happening more and more to liberals, as opposed to the decades long application, (freewheeling application I might add), towards conservatives.

Perhaps the sting being returned...is producing the ouch we are hearing.

 

Thing is, racism is a very serious issue, even today.
But when one makes every perceived wrong into a racial issue, those who are actually suffering from the consequences of racism and bigotry are the ones who lose.
That's the absurdity of it all. So many don't even know they are kicking themselves in the keester.

 

Nah, it's just racists intentionally misusing the word to make them feel better about themselves.

 

Isn't that odd. Was thinking the exact same thing myself about the racism I see.

 

I think most of the racists would agree.

 

What are you doing? Trying to insidiously change the meaning of racist in order to avoid the label?

I don't understand why racists can't have the courage of their convictions and admit what they are. They fool no one, however they twist, their abhorrent views are blatantly obvious.

 

Great post.

 

Well there are certainly posters on here that report every post that doesn't agree with them as a "personal attack" but for the most part mods are able to pick out the BS from the actually attacks. There is no reason they can't do the same with racism and racists.