Is it acceptable in the rules to accuse other members of lieing?

Many supremecists and the like don't last very long, because usually just simply can't help themselves from resorting to simple abuse of other races (or even threats towards them, which is obviously taken very seriously), and straying therefore into the territory of 'flamebaiting'.

Any that remain do so because they are actually able to post their potentially 'inflammatory opinion' without resorting to the abuse or threats, and in a way that their opinions and claims can actually be responded to and/or repudiated by other members in the manner of a discussion or debate (which is what the forum is all about, of course).

 

If someone can't tell what is a blatantly racist post they are not fit to function in human society unsupervised.

 

I totally agree. The Mods have made the arbitrary decision that calling out someone who is lying about you is against the TOS but starting racist flame bait threads is perfectly okay. This policy results in a lot (the majority?) of threads particularly from those on the far right being lies. And many of them being racist flame bait threads. This policy accelerates the transformation of the forum into a harbor for sociopaths who need an outlet for views they cannot express openly in any civilized or decent society.

 

It would appear my assessment of the state of affairs around here is shared by others.

 

The rules are clear:

Personal attacks directed towards other members are NOT permitted (for any reason, whether or not you believe the attack to be 'true')

Flamebaiting (i.e. posting things not to discuss them as actual debate topics which can be responded to and debated, but constructing them specifically just to inflame others, or to just abuse or threaten racial groups and so on) is NOT permitted.

Posting an opinion that other people don't agree with, don't like, or personally find 'inflammatory' or 'offensive' in some way, or even consider to be based on 'racism', IS permitted.

We have people expressing 'radical' opinions on all sides of every argument, and all of them have 'opponents' on the other side who find their opinions 'unacceptable' to them in some way. It is not up to the moderators to determine who is 'right' or 'wrong', or which of their opinions are 'allowed' or 'not allowed'. We do not censor opinions here, we merely ensure that the expresson of them in posts is in compliance with the rules which exist to support the spirit of the forum's Mission Statement, and it's clearly expressed principles of 'respectful debate' between members and the freedom to express any opinions, even if other members don't like them.

 

???

Really?

I think it the great philosopher Carlin who said "there are no bad words, just bad intentions."

If I can use the "***** in the armor " uproar as an example.

If Lin were not Asian would this phrase have been given even a second's thought? After all, the announcer was not discussing Lin's race or Oriental people in general, he was talking about Lin's penchant for turning the ball over.

Personally I have never heard the phrase "***** in the armor" used in any context except to describe a weakness. Never, ever, heard the phrase used in any racial context till after the ESPN story broke.

Seriously though, does anyone really think this was a racist remark? Does anyone really think the announcer was reflecting on an Oriental preponderance to committing turnovers? Seriously?

When all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like nails. Sometimes a "coon" is just a furry critter, "queer" just means strange and "Aunt Jemima" is just someone's relative.

 

One could think so, but it's not that black and white. Does one know if the intent was a racist one? One can easily construct a racist sounding post without intending such. I have seen non-racists post racists posts simply to counter what appeared to be racists posts. Other times, one may be supportive or defensive of one type of racism while condemning another form of it. Or, one's peers, connections or political interests discourage one from opposing racists posts. Some posts may appear racists, and yet are not racist at all.

 

That sounds much better than what I said and certainly corrects or improves what I wrote.

 

I didn't say anything about "bad words." Someone can say, you look f'ing great! This is a compliment. Someone can say, all f'ing black people are inferior to whites. This a blatantly racist remark. Where do "bad words" come into this? The intent is all we are talking about.

The "***** in the armor" uproar as you put it is a gray area issue. I could say have a nice day and someone somewhere on the planet would think I was being, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. That is not what we are talking about. That is why I used the word "blatant." There are a small fringe group of people that think everything is racist. And there are a small fringe group of people that think saying things like, all black people are criminals, is not racist. Hopefully the mods don't fall into either group and can easily police blatant racism without too much trouble... if they ever decide to.

 

Blatant racism is obvious to anyone with half a brain and a proper upbringing. What I mentioned was blatant racism. As I stated before there is gray area. I am not discussing the gray area. As with ANY rule there will be a gray area.

In addition to the blatant nature of the racism the overall posting history of the poster should be taken into account. If the poster constantly posts inflammatory race based posts particularly outside of the race portion of the forum then they should be given less benefit of the doubt.

 

Here is a perfect example of the above. Plenty of posts that are trolling, flaming, and discussing the poster not the subject:

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...arity-spends-lots-money-just-not-charity.html

 

And also an example of what happens to an entire thread if people start responding to a single post which violated the rules!

That issue has been addressed, and since the question raised in this thread have been answered, I'm going to close it.