Is PF overrun with Racists?

I have been posting here for a while, as well as on several other message forums. And one thing that strikes me is what seems to be the number of racists I see in here. I am not sure why, but it seems that every other time I turn around there is somebody in here making racist remarks, or expressing racist views. This group should be destroyed because they deserve it, That group should be destroyed because of their religion. That individual was great because he killed lots of these other groups.

And it has got me to really wonder, am I being oversensitive, or is there really something there? Does this forum have more then the usual number of racists in it?

 

They seem to have caught scent that this board is wide open to them and are starting to circle.

And their Fascist buddies are starting to swarm too.

 

As much as I do not agree with racists, I respect their free speech. I ignore them if I have to.

 

Good question. How are you defining "racist" here?

 

uh... people who don't believe all races should be treated equally socially and by law...

 

Racists should be free as me to go where they want on the internet but i feel I should atleast be able to call them out on it which is currently not allowed under the rules.

 

Why would you treat people equally? People behave and look differently and are treated differently accordingly. Race doesn't even have to come into it, the requirement is simply impossible on its face. Are we supposed to keep some some sort of scoreboard where the only criteria by which we decide to "treat people" is maintaining "equality" between racial groups?

 

Why would you need a score board if you treated every one equally?

 

In what reality would you ever treat everybody equally? Do you not realise how nonsensical that is?

 

You are being somewhat oversensitive if. If you are using the dictionary definition to define 'racism'. First, from what I could determine from prior discussions/debates here at PF, racism is not clearly defined (what an understatement). Some members here at PF have a difficult time with the reality called Webster’s. They reject the dictionary and make up their own definition of many words not just racism. Terrorist is another word that for most people and Webster’s is easy to define. But ask someone that supports terrorists actions (as defined by a dictionary etc) to define terrorism and you will get a fabricated definition. There are many other words such as Zionism etc that share that same problem here at PF. So before the question of the OT i.e. 'Is PF overrun with Racists' can really be answered, the word 'racism' and 'racist' should be clearly and precisely defined.

reva

 

No I don't.

May be you treat people by what you feel is their worth, I don't treat the cashier at Walmart any different then I would treat our Mayor. Is that really that hard of a concept for you to understand or are you simply a respecter of person. Give people of wealth or fame more respect then the working class? Enlighten me on this.

 

I'd say there are only about half a dozen regulars, if that (and that assumes each username is really a separate person and that none of them are long-term trolls). There are a couple of very vocal ones and they often support each other's racist threads and comments but it's hardly overrun. They're perfectly easy to ignore if you wish to. I've no doubt you could find much, much worse in the depths of the internet.

 

Racists are getting the appropriate replies , those replies are great material for those unfamiliar with the subject to learn how to trash racists.

 

No, I think you would treat the cashier at Walmart differently to how you treat the Mayor, if only because the Mayor would "treat" you differently from the cashier at Walmart. Do you "treat" highly attractive members of whatever sex group you are attracted to the same as unattractive ones?

"Treat" is an incredibly broad term encompassing all aspects of behaviour and setting up a definition including "treating equally" and then specifying two groups is a priori impossible.

 

Perhaps you keep a score board but I am pretty sure most people do not. I certainly don't.

Certainly if I meet an attractive woman I might get a little star struck, may be for a minute. Attractive men have no effect on me.

When I say treat every one the same I mean with the same common courtesy and respect, as we like to be treated.

Really a simple process, no score card needed

 

I thought I would critique your post to demonstrate what I mean in post # 10 of this thread by using excerpts.

In my opinion (and encardas) those (above) are not racist comments. Those are bigoted comments. So the commenter or members that suggested such things were bigots not racists. If they would have said; ‘all the black people are monsters they should be destroyed because of their race’. That would be a racist comment by a bigoted racist. See the difference? Racism is a biased opinion of a group because of their race, not because of their religion (unless the religious group is a race of people).

So I would say that this forum has a lot of members that are bigoted against Christians and Jewish people as well as moderate Islam. However the majority of members are not racists, bigots yes true racists no. Now I am no English grammar expert but I believe it is acceptable for an author to use artistic license to use racist in a not strictly dictionary defined way. However the author should clarify why he is misusing a word unless its brutally obvious. Here are the definitions of bigot and racist ;


ra·cism [ráy sìzzəm]
n (disapproving)
1. animosity toward other races: prejudice or animosity against people who belong to other races “I am a Muslim and … my religion makes me against all forms of racism.” Malcolm X Speech, Prospects for Freedom 1965
2. belief in racial superiority: the belief that people of different races have different qualities and abilities, and that some races are inherently superior or inferior

big·ot [bíggət]
(plural big·ots)
n
intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to accept different views.

I for one would be happy if members used correct definitions of words, (unless otherwise specified) it would improve our forum and the quality of debate.


reva

 

If someone jumped out at you in the street in the night and attacked you, would you treat them with common courtesy and respect?

 

The definition as given by the OP remains "people who don't believe all races should be treated equally socially and by law" where "treat" is defined as "with the same common courtesy and respect, as we like to be treated."

I maintain that it is impossible to treat races "equally" with "the same" courtesy due to inherent racial differences in appearance and behaviour.

 

You are not talking about racism but rather racial profiling. There is a difference. If a certain race commits more crimes this does not mean the race is predisposed to committing crime rather that poverty contributes to crime. So it is racist to say that a certain race commits more crime due to their race, unless there is scientific evidence that supports the claim, ie not crime stats but biological evidence that directly points a finger at the genetic make up being different in the race accused of being more libel to commit a crime.

“ the law in all its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread and sleep under bridges”

reva

 

That's different and I think your intelligent enough to understand that. If you don't understand that then perhaps I gave you too much credit.

 

That defination (treating everyone equally) has to do with ethics not racism. It becomes racist/racism when someone treats another RACE differently specifically because of race.

reva

 

Well that's a different definition from the OP. Is that what you're going with?

 

No I'm not. I'm talking about the fact that you treat everyone differently, and it would therefore be inherently impossible to treat two racial groups the same, which is the OP's definition.

Why are you talking of evidence? Where is your evidence racial disparities in crime are due to poverty? Perhaps you are the racist.

 

When there is a disagreement about what a word means, I go with the 'Webster’s definition'. You see I feel if we can fabricate the definition of words by calling a bigot a racist that invites confusion. Why not call a murder a....well you get the pic eh?

reva

 

delete double post~ reva