Racial, ethnic, homophobic, gender, or religious slurs>>MOD WARNING<<

Amongst extremists, paranoia abounds.

Whether it's the sinister intrigue of the world's climatologists or the clandestine agenda of the "New World Order," conspiracies fester on the fringes.

 

The preamble:

(emphasis added) There's one word above that pretty much says it all. The owner of this forum clearly wishes it to be a place of respectful debate, not a no-holds-barred, anything goes kind of place.

Rule #7 is specifically talking about slurs. That hardly means any particular group is shielded from any and all negative criticism.

 

groups. Homophobic is not a group and obviously the moderators are not trying to protect &#8220;homophobics&#8221;.



Homophobic is intended to modify the word slur. Now if you can tell me a slur used to describe all heterosexuals and point to a post where a gay person got away with using this heterosexual slur then I would take your position seriously.

 

I have completely embraced my life of disappointments, & find a strange comfort in them..

 

The word was 'respectful'. But therein lies the rub. One man's respectful is another's censorship. Slurs, too. What is an 'acceptable' slur? Can you say 'denier' as a slur? How about 'whitey'? Is 'thug' a slur, now? Birther? Welfare Queens? Christian? Religious nut? Is any word used in a form of ridicule or demeaning conversation a 'slur?' It seems to me you could exhaust yourself running around worrying about who might be offended by a term. It is just a slippery slope, & no forum can be perfectly moderated, as [MENTION=63923]Hotdogr[/MENTION] pointed out.

The deeper problem is the unrecognized bias from a mod. When they see someone they agree with battling the evil opposition, they cheer for the good points, & overlook any less than civil remarks, because the stupid opponent obviously deserves it, being an idiot and all. But if the opponent says something similar, or responds in kind, then they get infracted for 'slurs' or 'insults'.

It is just a no win situation. You cannot legislate civility. Especially in an open forum, passions flare & keeping an appearance peace & harmony is an impossible task.

 

Hummm, let's look at it again shall we?

A "slur" could be "Homophobic" in nature, that being a slur against homosexuals. Surely you can see that.

On another note, it would seem the mods are reasonably forgiving, as they could apply rule 8 to this post and have not chosen to do so.

 

Until further notice, you are welcome to discuss the TOPIC, making sure you aren't violating rule 8

Thank you for your cooperation
Shangrila
Moderator

 

This seems like a reasonable rule to me. Political forum owners are surely aware of the negative consequences and scrutiny of being identified as a "hate site" or "hate group" today and it's completely reasonable for them to seek to prevent this with rules. In addition, slurs are usually part of trolling or flaming agendas that ruin the discussion on forums like this. They add nothing to any discussion, just derail and inflame. Finally, most people don't use or like such slurs, find them offensive, and this isn't public speech here, but a privately owned space where restricting generally offensive things is the owners' right.

However, the other side of that coin IMO is that threads such as "The tea party are bald faced racists," (para) "Conservatives, tired of being called racist?" " especially stuff like, "replies so far are what one would expect from the RW racists on PF," "what this one guy said out there somewhere is indicative of conservative or GOP racism as a whole," or "PF is just like stormfront with all the racists here," and frequent estimation of groups of posters here or political groups generally as racists, is the exact same thing, just not as "protected" culturally or in media, an attempt to use race (or gender or sexual preference) to deflect from topics, troll and flamebait. It adds nothing to any discussion, and should not be allowed on PF. Members should have a right to post what they like without being called racists, homophobes or misogynists directly or by implication, provided they don't post -specifically- racist statements or sentiments.

Rule 7 should be strictly interpreted to forbid any poster from stating or even implying that a particular poster is racist unless that poster posts clearly racist statements. Groups of posters, or political groups in general, should never be blithely characterized as "racist," not only because doing so is trolling, derailing and flamebaiting, but because it's logically indefensible. If there are individual acts of racism, then the individuals or groups are responsible, not millions of other people who had nothing to do with the event or incident in question merely due to political or whatever affiliation.

For example, IMO, posting things like "not all conservatives are racist, but all racists are conservative," and the like, should be restricted as violations of the rules. Not doing so lends significant credibility and strength to OP's claim that the forum is being governed in a biased way.

EDIT Same analysis applies to "homophobic" and "misogynistic."

 

How about "slur roulette" where we post possible slurs until someone is banned.

Just kidding.

I think Brit is OK, but I had a post removed for a similar term for East Asian countries. Negroid is also OK, and a science term.

 

Question to Mods: is it OK to determine which slurs are OK in this thread?

 

Lmao. Call me a few and we will see whats removed.

 

We can't address them to posters. But at public figures/groups.
But if I go to far I'll get an infraction.
I think nitwit should be fine.
Not sure of the first part of homosexual. Or Japanese.
I hope we can get permission to test some slurs.

 

Take a look at rule 7 and rule 2.

My reading of 7 is really just as an extension of rule 2, made for clarity. If I post a racial slur insulting an individual poster, then it would be fairly considered an insult, right? And so if I used a racial slur to describe a group of people, then it would be a "group insult", right? So rule 7 is just an extension of rule 2.

 

It doesn't seem like any "personal" or directed comment at a poster or group of posters is required for Rule 7, just general slurs. It seems that 2 applies only to groups as "groups of posters," which is different from general free-floating slurs.

To reiterate, tired of threads like "The Tea Party is bald faced racists," and "As a conservative, are you tired of being called racist?" as a transparent rule-bending platform for trolling and flaming via straw man are allowed to go on for 20+ pages, and posts amounting to "just shows how many racists are here on PF" are allowed. Why is this allowed? It's nothing but pure flamebait and logically indefensible. It's not OK to call people racists without specific evidence of it, yet it goes on here constantly.

 

And again, those slurs are an insult to a group. They are called derogatory for a reason.

 

why is 'homophobic' not a slur? Or 'racist'? They are used as such, They are not dependent on it being factually correct. They are used to demean & discredit someone. They are just as negative & unfair as their counterparts used to demean them. Why is it PC to call someone homophobic without any evidence, but not ok to call them a 'f*g', for example?

 

If there's a difference, it's that words like 'racist' and 'homophobic' are not necessarily slurs by themselves, whereas 'f*g' pretty much always is (apart from alternate, unrelated slang uses, such as it's use in British English to mean a cigarette.)

 

Isn't 'intent' the bigger factor here? Blacks can call each other the N word, & it is not a slur, but often used affectionately. Gays do the same, hijacking slurs & importing them into their common vocabulary. I would not even consider using the N word toward a black person. But i also would not call a gay a 'f*g'. To me, those are demeaning slurs, & their use would be insulting. But why is it ok for a progressive debater to call me a 'racist!' when i obviously am not? I have debated with real racists.. nazis, & others who show real racism in their ideology, but if i cross some liberal sacred cow, the 'racist' slur is immediately used. I don't get drawn into all the race threads, or the gay ones, but anyone who does & makes any non PC comment or analysis is immediately branded with the slur.
Is that not a double standard? Why are the slurs 'homophobe!' or 'racist!' ok, but others are not? Their intent is not to describe, but to demean & discredit.

 

What is a liberal sacred cow? Do tell.

 

"Race does not exist", "All races are equal" [see 1 ] etc.

 

Are you sure thats what usfan meant? Why use that terminology?

 

No and to express my meaning.

 

Got it. Ive just never run across that term used in such a manner.

 

MOD EDIT - Reply to Deleted

What are the definitions off homophobic and racist?

 

http://i.word.com/idictionary/homophobe

One.

- - - Updated - - -

http://i.word.com/idictionary/racism
Two.