How many racist/flamebait posts do you need to post to get yourself banned ?

OK, so one question...

In reference to one poster in particular...

Said poster constantly refers to Black people as monkeys, baboons, and such, and yet, none of their posts are removed...

Is this not racist, or flamebaiting at the very least?

Just one example...

 

K... there ya go... yer colored.


Is funny yes? Cause... the thread...

no?

 

I see what you did there...

 

Remember... liberal talking points.

It's ok for a poster to refer to Bush as a monkey/chimp, but if one refers to Obama as a monkey/chimp, it's racist.

 

There just seems to be a lot of hate and anger here over all. It's almost impossible to post and not have some dimwit (term not directed towards anyone, just using it, see gotta be careful!) trying to pick a fight with you.

I'd be interested in knowing how PF's penalty system works. Is it a point system where an infraction is worth a certain number of points, and certain amounts equal certain meanings.......or something completely else. Is it posted anywhere???

 

I'm not going to comment on any specific cases here, but if posts contain things which are simply extreme abusive and offensive comments directed towards a race (or similar group), then they are certainly likely to be considered as flamebait and treated accordingly if and when moderators come across them (remember - we don't see every post that is made). Such things are not 'debate' or 'discussion', or even 'expression of an opinion' in the manner of 'respectful debate'. It is simply abuse intended to do nothing but inflame others, and that is 'flamebait', which is against the rules.

To repeat, in simple terms, 'racism', or expressing 'racist' views, is NOT against the rules. Posting simple extreme racial abuse to inflame others IS against the rules. It is the difference between 'posting opinion which some might (or will) find offensive or inflammatory' (which is allowed) and 'posting deliberately offensive and abusive language just to inflame people' (which is not).

 

Language is not a simplistic tool, and some rule violations are worse than others. People are not simplistic tools either, and the point of infractions (and other mod tools) is to get people to change their posting behaviour to comply with the rules. Taking those two extreme variables into account, we need as a group to be able to judge the seriousness of offenses (on an ongoing basis) and the ongoing intention of a member to make serious efforts to take note of moderator actions and comply with the rules, so we don't use a simplistic, mathematical, points-based formula to 'calculate' what actions are going to be taken.

 

Hmmmmm...

Seems to me that referring to Black people as monkeys, etc. in every post would be flamebaiting, but, I guess that's not the case...

 

As I said, I'm not going to comment on specific cases here. However, based on my previous post, I would say that it would be relatively difficult for someone to refer constantly to black people using deliberately abusive and offensive language without crossing the line into flamebait at some point!

 

Just use the "report post" button. Moderating an online discussion board is a community effort. If you see something and you think the mods missed it, which is very possible with a site like this that has thousands of posts every day, report it!

 

Been done by multiple posters...

It just concerns me, is all...

 

More liberal double standards. No surprise.

 

See, this is some more BS...

If you don't agree that Black people are monkeys, you're a liberal apparently...

Way to go, jthorp...

Wave your racist flag...

 

Please show me where I made one racist post. Also, show me where I said black people=monkeys.

You wont be able to.

I'm just pointing out the liberal double standards. It's alright to refer to Bush as a monkey, but not Obama.

 

You didn't...

But, you seem to think it's OK, sooooo...

Also, regardless of the seeming need to pretend like things are not what they are, calling a White person a monkey is not the same as calling a Black person a monkey...

 

Well, lets take a look at that shall we. I for one think that allowing uncivilized terms like that just breeds disrespect and trolling. Its insult by coy, and it does nothing to foster debate.

For example, who the hell wants to have adiscussion about say ... the benefits of solar energy verses the economic costs and how best to infuence policy on it when you are constantly running into posters who will say:

"Well, that is just because you are a *******! (Or conservatard!)"

The site struggles to try to find balance between an ideology of free speech and one of actually fostering civil debate. I mean tell me, what exactly does a one liner like, "Muslims deserve disresepect" add to anything?

Why is "Jews deserve disrespect," or "blacks deserve disrespect," or, "homosexuals should are evil," somehow more appropriate? What do things like that add to an actual discussion?

And quite frankly, the site says that is ALL within the rules - but then, in some cases we acknowlegde that this trollish behavior only breeds emotional responses, and they get deleted - in others, even as they do nothing but stir up problems, they are left alone.

Tell me, can you discuss Islam without insulting ALL Muslims? Can you discuss the docrtinal basis for and against Islam without emotionally impuning billions of people and their character? Can you discuss Juddaism without impugning millions? Can you discuss Russian policy without insulting ALL Russians? Chinese? Indian? Science without impunging ALL scientists?

I fail to see what benefit allowing deliberately disrespectful commentary fosters on this sight.

Indeed, having been met with it, and indeed dealing it out (its in the rules and I play by the rules), the fact that it is allowed usually just allows posters to hurl prejoratives rather than actually debate.

Threads like this serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever:

http://www.politicalforum.com/political-opinions-beliefs/228636-how-i-view-liberals.html

Tell me, what rousing intellectual response is supposed to follow - LIBERALS SUCK! If it were conservative it would be no different. If it were Jew, Muslim, Christian, Homosexuals ... whatever ... SUCK! Would there be any reason to think that the antic was aimed at debate rather than just eliciting emotional responses?

I don;t understand why deliberately disrespectful language is allowed at all, and those who defend this practice usually seem quite tolerant of the disrespect aimed at others, but angry when that same mannerisms are returned back at them.

What is the point of allowing it? Free speech? Is teh intent saying anything you want - or is the intent actual debate?

 

liberals or conservatives are not races, it is not the same thing.

 

What are you talking about?

 

when liberals attack whites they don't refer to them as whites but conservatives so its not a double standard

when conservatives attack liberals they like to mention blacks alot.

 

No. Liberals like to bring up blacks as a rebuttal or to play the race card.

 

They sure do.

 

Yes, as Righties play the "everyone who's not a rabid racist is a librul and that's an offensive term here" card.

I've never voted liberal in my life, but I've never been called anything but a liberal on this forum.

 

It's simple. Would you make it to where a comment like "Nazis are evil" is verboten, an infractionable offense? If yes, then there can't be much debate on that topic since you've essentially put that ideology off limits to criticism. If no, then you run into the problem of having the mods decide exactly which groups can be badmouthed and which can't, which will inevitably be highly subjective.

I get annoyed by those empty and ignorant comments just as much as you do but the people who make those sweeping generalizations usually do so because they want attention and they inevitably get it because their comments are responded to more readily than well reasoned and measured comments. That is why you have posters that essentially post nearly the exact same comments in every one of their posts (just look at any posts from Surfer Joe or LibHater for example, they are opposite sides of the same coin). If, instead of giving people the reaction to their vitriolic posts that they desire (and I admit that at times I'm as guilty of giving them attention as anyone else), rational posters were to ignore their comments then eventually they would find someplace else to spread their hate filled rhetoric. The only other option would be to leave it up to the subjectivity of the mods which I think would be a nightmare, both for the mods and the posters.

So, basically, I'd like to rid the forum of these vacuous comments but I don't see any viable way to do that other than to ignore them. If you have some policy in mind that could be objectively administered to deal with the problem then I am all ears. What rule would you institute to change the situation?

 

I wasn't directing my post at you. Liberal in your country is very different from what I understand though.

 

How are these people "equal" by your definition...





[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpva_iit-8"]Crazy Christian Lady, Marguerite Perrin on Trading Spouses. - YouTube[/ame]