Why are blatantly racist threads allowed?

[The Judge]

You should better say that this forum needs rules against whites who try to defend the white race against continuously bashing and insults of non-whites.
I can not remember that you were ever against the blatantly black racists here.

On the internet, we are all 1's and 0's... words converted into bits that travel through cyberspace. More about the messenger is only known when such is stated and believed, but more information is unnecessary. There is, in a sense, no "black" or "white". Only 0 or 1. Yet, the 0's and 1's are all mixed together, so we are more or less all a mulatto of 0's and 1's. One could ban the 0's so that there will only be 1's, but then the message would no longer be the same. Racism just does not work in cyberspace. Sure, one can talk bad about a group of people, without knowing that one is agreeing with them on certain issues. Your position is obsolete. It's no longer valid. Thousands of years ago, people didn't venture beyond the local hill, causing groups to be closely nit. Yet, these days, we travel beyond the hill without taking any steps, networking with everyone.

[cenydd]

The majority of topics are against one set of people. Institutionalised racism, Ray was refering to. Which if this forum is all about 'free speech' will take a huge effort to address.

We have opinions expressed regularly on the forum which are, or might be, considered by others as being 'against' a wide variety groups (racial, political and other groups). We even also others asking for those views which appear (in their opinion) to be 'against', or even supportive of, all of those various groups to be removed or 'silenced', and the members posting them to be banned. We don't censor opinion like that here, nor are we ever going to - and as long as they are just expressions of opinion for discussion and debate, and comply with the forum rules, that is fine. People are allowed to discuss any opinion here, even if others do not like them, as long as they comply with the rules - the forum's Mission Statement is very explicit on that subject (added bold):

PoliticalForum.com functions as a public forum website open to all individuals of all political persuasions that is centered on the discussion of politics in general. All walks of life are welcome to join the discussions in the tradition of vigorous respectful debate. The purpose of rules and guidelines for the forum is to help create an environment that is inviting to as wide a spectrum of people as possible from all parts of the world, but that does not restrict the ability of users to express their political views, even if those views are inflammatory or unorthodox. In a world often filled with intense political turmoil and polarization of beliefs, PoliticalForum.com attempts to bring opposites together to relate their views and learn from one another.

The forum rules exist to support the intentions of that Mission Statement, and the 'Flamebaiting' rule is quite clear about what is and isn't allowed when referring to any of those groups - expressions of opinion are allowed, simple abuse isn't.

If there appears to be a balance of opinions (and therefore threads and posts) on the forum at any particular time that seem to be on one 'side' or another, or aimed towards one 'group' or another, that is reflective of the membership and the number of members who hold those opinions at that time (and it certainly doesn't mean that those are the only opinions, or that those opinions are being expressed without being opposed by others, or even that it is always the same balance - that latter issue is a matter of wider political trends at any given time). We have no control over that, and it's not up to the moderators to prevent any opinion from being discussed, or to 'protect' any particular group from debate, or to make the number of threads equal between different topics, and certainly not to ban x amount of members so that the numerical balance between the various opinions are equal. We are only here to ensure that what is posted is opinion for discussion, not just nasty abuse.

If anybody wants the kind of forum where opinions that are contrary to their own, or that they do not like, or that they find personally (from their own political point of view) 'inflammatory' are automatically removed and deleted, or where members are banned for expressing opinions that some others find to be contraversial, this is not the place for them. There exist on the internet many forums which are run by and for particular political groups, according to their political agenda, where opposing voices are 'silenced' by deletions and bans. This is not one of those places. This is a forum which, as the Mission Statement clearly states, 'does not restrict the ability of users to express their political views, even if those views are inflammatory or unorthodox.'.

People are allowed to post their opinions here whether or not other members (or moderators) agree with those opinions, disagree with them, or find them to be 'inflammatory or unorthodox', as long as they do so in compliance with the forum's rules and the spirit of the forum's Mission Statement.

[Mr_Truth]

So with this flaimbait view,

The forum rules state that it is against the rules to offend an individual but it is perfectly ok to offend large groups of people in racism tirades?

Doesn't this view seem odd to anyone?

It certainly is just like in Der Sturmer and Storm Front who also claim to be promoting free speech.

[Joker]

Can we ban politics, too? So many offensive topics within that category, best to just ban them all rathering than weeding through all the crap just to find something that isn't going to make me cry a little.

[Polar Bear]

Liberals have over used their favorite word so much, lobbing the "racist" slur at anyone who disagrees with them. Now its overuse is coming back to haunt them, because firing a charge of racism no longer ends all debate like it used to.

Looks like you guys will have to invent another commie "-ISM" word to replace the one that you diluted through abuse and overuse.


Any thoughts?






.

[Iolo]

Liberals have over used their favorite word so much, lobbing the "racist" slur at anyone who disagrees with them. Now its overuse is coming back to haunt them, because firing a charge of racism no longer ends all debate like it used to.

Looks like you guys will have to invent another commie "-ISM" word to replace the one that you diluted through abuse and overuse.

Any thoughts?






.

Well. I suppose we could call you a nazi scumbag, but of course we'd never be so rude. Incidentally there are actually sane people here who have never even thought of being liberals, let alone two-headed reactionary republican nutters.

[Mr_Truth]

Liberals have over used their favorite word so much, lobbing the "racist" slur at anyone who disagrees with them. Now its overuse is coming back to haunt them, because firing a charge of racism no longer ends all debate like it used to.

Looks like you guys will have to invent another commie "-ISM" word to replace the one that you diluted through abuse and overuse.

Any thoughts?

The Truth is that nobody plays the race card more than does the far right. Clarence Thomas - Herman Cain - Alan Keyes are examples. In fact, Keyes played it so much that he has virtually dropped out of the political scene. Ditto for JC Watts who was at one time the poster boy for Republicans who wanted to use him as their Black role model - then when it was discovered that he fathered a child out of wedlock they dropped him like a smelly diaper.

[The Judge]

The Truth is that nobody plays the race card more than does the far right. Clarence Thomas - Herman Cain - Alan Keyes are examples. In fact, Keyes played it so much that he has virtually dropped out of the political scene. Ditto for JC Watts who was at one time the poster boy for Republicans who wanted to use him as their Black role model - then when it was discovered that he fathered a child out of wedlock they dropped him like a smelly diaper.

This is funny, since I'm still waiting for many on the far right to explain to me who I'm supposed to be racist against!

I'm supposed to be a racist? Who do you want for me to hate and how much will you pay?

[Cigar]

I have to admit this is the most fun I've had in my life watching politics and it's affect on race.

I think last 4 years has given us a lifetime of documented, YouTube and fist had evidence.

... and better yet ... you can search for yourselves on this Forum.

[HillBilly]

Ahem...whereas your comments regarding moderation are on the nail, your final comment would clear the forum and leave yourself and Jiyuu.

Why does no one pray for the members? Is this a class-based capitalist exclusive religion where you only pray for high achievers and the layman is less valued? I mean, some of those Mods are not even Christian. And us members are in 10 kinds of trouble every day, it's the less advantaged who need your prayers, along with the PF upper echelons who fight the good fight to encourage discussion and understanding between opposites.

Opposites still attract apparently, from the comments in Joker's post (if I were you I'd run for it.

Viv , I said I pray for PF , that includes everyone , I added the PF Staff to my post . I also pray for those that take me to task .

and that includes the Joker ...

when have you ever seen me run away ? I may be absent for a day or three , but I always come back , and I always will .