Why are blatantly racist threads allowed?

With respect - you do not allow free speech.

Calling someone a 'liar' is not allowed...but THAT IS free speech (not that I disagree with the rule in the context of what this forum appears to be trying to accomplish).

So if calling someone a liar is censored...then why not the spreading of racist lies about entire races...many of whom make up the members of this board?

Accusing someone of lying is an insult.

So is belittling human beings due to race.


All I am asking for - at this point - is that threads with titles and/or initial posts with obvious derogatory racial overtones be moved to the Race Relations section...no exceptions.

Why can that not be a guideline?

Such as:

'Please limit the creation of race-based discussions to the 'Race Relations' Section?'

 

Because race can apply to many different subjects. For example, if there is an issue of "gay rights" in schools, that could either go in the "Education" section, or the "Gay rights" section.

Why should one subject (race) be treated any differently than any other political subject? Just because you disagree with it does not mean it should be treated differently. This forum is a place for many peoples of different beliefs to have a free discussion.

There is plenty of belittling of the poor in the rest of the forum, by those who believe the poor are worthless lazy drunks, who should be denied welfare, and die in the streets. Or belittling of the not fully developed baby (the "foetus" as it is called) in the Abortion section. These are really not any different from race.

If you want to prevent anything that could be disrespectful towards a certain group of people (or animals), there really would not be much left to discuss. But I agree that members should not go out of their way to be disrespectful, beyond what is necessary to advocate for their political point of view.

I believe members should be allowed to accuse other members of lying if they truely believe it. But again, if this applies to race, it should apply to all the other thread topics.

 

No it isn't.

Forum Rules and Guidelines

'Derogatory comments, insults, name-calling, etc. that are, or appear in the judgement of moderators intended to be, directed personally at other forum members are not permitted.'

http://www.politicalforum.com/latest-world-news/announcements.html


I do not disagree with these guidelines as this what makes this forum unique, but the fact that they exist means that there is not 'free discussion' allowed as certain parts of that discussion are censored.


And, I might add, you are INCREDIBLY biased (imo) on this particular subject.

I just read the following you typed:

'I believe interracial mixing will cause very long lasting, permanent problems in society.'

'(because black females are statistically less attractive)'

http://www.politicalforum.com/1060914951-post68.html

 

We do move them and I did move this one you mentioned. Oftentimes, it depends on what is in the title but no, we do allow free speech as long as it isn't flamebait or insults. We have a mission statement and we try to bring opposites together. It's our goal and we aren't perfect.

If you find a thread or post is racist, report it and if you don't see any changes, your report could have been missed or a number of things.

I guarantee you whenever a person's color is the crux of a thread, it never ends well. It can be something like; " Seattle has a black serial killer". With first look (being a current event), I would say to myself, this may be a current event but is this the title okay and how did this member present the news and did it open a door to civil debate. Next I would probably look and see how members have responded with reports. There is always reports on topics with color involved.

Race is a touchy subject but racism is generally acted upon. We could consider what you are asking if we see certain members continuously creating these types of threads. This would be done between a mod and the member.

Sorry, you do not agree.

 

I appreciate your response and the difficulty in policing this kind of subject.

And I am pleased that you felt the thread I mentioned above belonged in the 'Race Relations' section.

Like I typed, I find racism pathetic and offensive (and I am 'white').

And IMO these people do not generally dare spread this nonsense in public - but come to places like this where they can be anonymous and try and convert people to the cause. Stormfront is already the converted. They like to come here to prey on the young/ignorant and try and use 'reason' and biased statistics to change people's opinions.

And that IS what they are trying.

Either they are trying to get people to see their point of view about racism OR they are just trying to inflame people.

Neither is good.

And personally, those kinds of people are better left to the 'Stormfront'-type boards rather then cause trouble here.

PLUS - this kind of forum is doubly attractive to those types because they know that people are not allowed to insult them too vigorously. So they are more free to spread their messages without the normal amount of society negativity that they would have to endure.

A total free-for-all forum would have people letting them have it with every name in the book.

But that is not allowed here...so they are free to to 'promote racism' - so long as they learn to phrase it in such a way that remains within the rules.



However, there is one person off of the top of my head that spreads TONS of these threads...Zook.

Just a quick look at the threads he has created should leave no doubt in anyone's mind what his agenda is on here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/search.php?searchid=3436562

Here is just one example:

'The Majority Of Blacks Bring Racism On Themselves'.

And this is the first sentence of the first post:

'Racism doesn't happen to civilized races unless perpetuated by an uncivilized race.'

What he is saying - intentionally or otherwise - is that the 'white' (civilized) race have racists within them due to the actions of 'blacks' (the uncivilized race).

With respect---how is this not flame bait, please?

Is it that you have not seen this thread yet (understandable given the huge number of threads here) or that you have and have decided it is acceptable?



Whatever your answer - thank you for your attention and posts(s) on this.

 

Thank you for being civil in your response. I just ask one thing. If you have a problem with a particular member, please go to the suggestion box where only us moderators can see your concern, okay?

I will take a look at this thread. With myriads of reported threads/posts that get pages behind because of lack of help, we don't always catch threads like this. We get so many reports, plus private messages, and address other things with each other for the betterment of this forum. We apologize if a racist thread gets started and takes off and we don't catch them all.

Once again, if you have a concern about a particular member's thread, it's best discussed in the suggestion box, okay?

Thanks again,

Jiyuu

 

Okay and thank you.

 

I try to answer the best I can and help where and when I can.

Thank you too.

 

You are suggesting, as you too often and transparently do, that All Jews who support Israel's existence (zionists), are Nazis.
Probably well North of 95% of Jews support Israel's existence, if not all it's policies.

If you "just" hate 97% of Jews, the term of art would still apply.
That would go for others on this board as well who abuse 'zionist' or use it as a proxy word.

 

If anything suggests such, then it is Israel's PR strategy, which isn't giving Israel a positive reputation. Attempting to defame forum members with false claims in defense of certain faults with the government of Israel, is a lousy PR effort.

Being heavily critical of Israel's misplaced PR strategy does not mean that one opposes its existence. In fact, all of this existence chatter needed to fool gullible American Guilt Complex members into supporting Israel, can only work for so long.

Ah, the infamous ad hominem rebuttal.... that's so Israel (slang for insulting)! Expressing criticism of Israel's failed PR strategy does not prove that one hates anyone. I highly recommend that you encourage Israel to adopt a new PR strategy, because the current one is heavily self-damaging.

 

So let's cut to the chase and try and be responsive for a Change.

Do you agree with Iolo that all Jews who support Israel's existence (zionists), if Not all it's policies, are 'Nazis' .. or do you not?

Are you capable of a straight answer without any fallacious BS about "PR strategy"?
(No, you are not.)

 

Iolo argued that Zionists are not Jews, but rather a movement which harms Jews:

Most Zionists are actually Christians:

Falwell claims to be speaking for over 100 million Americans, the number is actually closer to 25 million.
http://www.christianzionism.org/Article/Wagner01.asp

Thus, based on the facts presented, your argument is a false misuse of the Holocaust since it doesn't hold Christian Zionists responsible for their faults.

Ah, ad hominems, racial slurs, anti-Semite hostility, unconditional hatred.... that's so Israel (slang for insulting)! Israel needs to modify its PR strategy to exclude personal assaults and Holocaust abuse.

 

So let's again TRY and cut to the chase and try and be responsive for a Change.

Do you agree with Iolo that all Jews who support Israel's existence (zionists), if Not all it's policies, are 'Nazis' .. or do you not?

Are you capable of a straight answer without any fallacious BS about "PR strategy"? (!!!!) (and now "holocaust", etc, etc)
You really are OUT of control. A Raging Jargonesque chip on your shoulder preventing any truly responsive answer.
Every post Gratuitously loaded with hang ups and extraneous bias.

As always, Last-Word away.
But we can be sure it won't be a straight answer.
I don't have the patience to play your bizarro semantic gibberish games.

 

Sorry, but the endless repetition of ad hominems, false claims and Holocaust abuse doesn't help your argument. That's so Israel (slang for insulting)! Try a different PR strategy. Facts have a better chance of fooling gullible American Guilt Complex members.

 

Read the link that I referenced. The thread was "Are Jews Becoming Even More Like Nazis". This was a Jewbaiting thread. Not an anti-Zionist thread (so no-one could hide behind different interpretations of the word "Zionist"). Iolo supported the OP. If you opposed this racist filth you were condemned as a Mossad agent by Iolo himself. It's all there. Read it. This explains why Iolo has problems getting banned from other forums, as he has stated. On this forum Jewbaiting is permitted. This thread is evidence.

My own belief is for a two state solution based around negotiating a settlement starting with the pre-1967 borders. I am certainly not an apologist for the IDF. But there are Jewbaiters on the Left and they should not be confused with legitimate critics of Israel. It is precisely the Right Wing extremists in Israel who want to cast critics of Israeli practices with those who want to destroy Israel's borders. A bit of analysis and thinking is in order here. One state solution on either side people are frequently racists and we should pull no punches in exposing their racism when they post it.

No pasaran.

 

Just so I do not seem like a hypocrite...Mods?

Now that I have my answer to my question - could you please move this thread to the Race Relations' section?

 

BTW - the above link is not working for me.

Here is a link to the above thread in question:

The Majority Of Blacks Bring Racism On Themselves

http://www.politicalforum.com/4782243-post1.html

 

His/her first post to the thread seems to be at odds with the OP:

Personally, I agree with the ADL on the issue of Nazi comparisons, but the ADL should be more specific that such criticism also applies to many Zionists who frequently accuse Arabs and Muslims of being Nazis. Iolo's Nazi comparisons are no better than the many made by many Zionists, but it would make sense to stress the ADL's position on the matter.

 

I didn't see this thread initially because I have DA60 on my ignore list... probably for posts like this thread. I was told about this thread in a PM and that my name was mentioned.

Racism is an ideology and a legit view that millions of people worldwide subscribe to... usually after vast experience with the race they dislike. Ironically, anti-racists are usually the ones who have very little experience with other races and prefer to ignorantly point their fingers at those on the front lines. Racism is a view that is neither right nor wrong, whether you personally disagree with it or not. No single person is important enough to say I have no right to dislike black "people." You cannot sensor a view that millions hold just because you personally don't agree with it. I don't agree with liberalism or liberal threads in this forum because most of them reek of idiocy and inexperience, but I wouldn't dream of running to the mods asking them to be banned.

Jiyuu, the thread in question has already been seen by moderators and has been deemed fit to remain. The proof of this is moderator posts within the thread. Not only that, but the thread has received 5 star ratings from other members and there is nothing in it that is designed to flame or bait anyone. It is a legit viewpoint that some people agree with and some don't. It also appears that no anti-racist has, so far, displayed the intellectual fortitude to refute the points I made and instead of being outsmarted they would rather the thread just disappear out of existence so they don't have to deal with it.

There's nothing in it that breaks any rules and I would thank you to make an unbiased decision when viewing the thread.

Thank you,
Zook.

 

Obviously not a mod, but to answer the OP's question about how insulting an aspect of somebody is not the same as a direct insult, it comes down to the notion of political free speech versus simple harassment/incitement. Telling somebody they're immoral/stupid is pointless, uncivil discourse, whose only purpose is to tear somebody down. Political and philosophical discourse is not always civil, especially when somebody happens to resemble the remark (like atheists/gays are immoral, mexicans are lazy, whatever) almost any political idea you have is probably offensive to somebody, but the purpose of political free speech is to openly examine all ideas, no matter how repugnant, so that we can know how we know what we think we know instead of taking anything for granted, or leaving disgusting ideas to fester in the shadows.

 

Saying someone is genetically inferior, the cause of violence and crime in society and that you dislike them IS personal...which is what Zook and others like him are saying.

And if you say every 'black' person is included in the above, then you are including every 'black' member of this forum.

Again, that IS personal.

You do not think so...you are wrong, IMO.


So, according to you, it's not okay to attack an individual.

But it is okay to attack every single individual in the 'club' they belong to.

Nice loophole there.

IMO, you should not have it both ways.


So is it okay for me to say (and I do not think this) that every woman is a whore, I dislike them, they are genetically inferior and are to blame for most of what ails society....EVERY SINGLE ONE...NO EXCEPTIONS?


You should not disallow personal attacks against members but then turn around and allow attacks against every single member of the 'groups' that you KNOW those members belong to.

Either allow both or neither.

 

Very well said. You are correct about anti-racists. The biggest anti-racists tend to live in the New England area where 96% of the population is white. It's easy to subscribe to the idea that everyone is the same except for skin pigmentation when they don't personally have to deal with the harmful effects of diversity and multiculturalism. Those of us who are outnumbered by minorities in our own towns are not going to be as quick to sing their praises. Societies simply work better when races are segregated (which happens naturally, anyway) and there is a common culture.

This business about removing certain threads because some people will have "an emotional reaction" is silly. Anyone can have an emotional reaction over anything, does that mean we should ban discussion of any potentially controversial topic? Somebody posting a thread about blacks committing a disproportionately high amount of crime relative to their population size, and uses statistical data to prove their claim, is much less like "flamebait" than someone who simply posts "(insert politician here) is a scumbag", which is similar to threads that exist right now in the political opinions section of the site.

It's really sad that people like the OP cannot simply ignore threads that they find offensive, if they don't wish to debate them. They have to run to the moderators and shut down the discussion for everyone. That's the nature of authoritarians.

 

You clearly exhibit hatred towards Zook for having an opinion that you don't like. How is his hatred worse than your own?

Yes, we know you'd unleash a torrent of insults and hateful vitriol his way. You've established that, already.

Zook isn't singling anyone out, you are. That's the difference. It's really sad that you didn't listen to what the moderator was telling you.

Good, I'm glad they allow him to speak his mind freely, even when annoying authoritarians are doing everything they can to silence people they personally don't care for. I'd rather this site stay more like America than Cuba, but that's just me.

More personal attacks. Pathetic. You're not really doing your cause any favors.

 

Is hating racism not allowed? Is being disgusted by an argument that black people are genetically inferior somehow against the rules? Hating neo-Nazism and hating tolerance are clearly not equivalent. Some hatred is approriate. Some isn't.

The question here is what hatred should be permitted. Nazi organizations sometimes look to recruit on forums. They also employ certain techniques which start off with low level prejudice and gradually extend to outright Nazism as they gather sympathizers. There is a big difference having odious filthy views and being part of an organized campaign to turn a forum into a Nazi Party recruiting ground.

Racists should be permitted to post their filth. Nazi organizations and their representatives, once it becomes clear they are engaging in recruitment attempts and organized baiting of anti-racists and blacks, should be banned. Otherwise PF becomes a hate site.

I think this is more or less the way PF is currently run.

 

There is scientific evidence that suggests that blacks have a lower IQ than other races, and statistical data that shows that blacks commit a disproportionately high amount of crime relative to their population size. Stating these facts is not racism, except to politically correct zealots. The reasons for these discrepancies is debatable, genetics being only one possible explanation. Another explanation is cultural. But, those are possibilities you'd rather not discuss, since you want to make the discussion illegal.

When did Zook ever say "every black person is included"? I've read many of his posts, and he is speaking in generalities. So please prove your statement or retract it, if you have enough integrity to do so.

And IMO, you are wrong. People criticize "liberals" and "conservatives" every single day here, and I highly doubt any of them literally include every.single.liberal and every.single.conservative in their generalization. I suspect Zook is doing the same thing when he talks about race.

It makes perfect sense. I'm truly sorry that you are not able to make the connection.

Again, please show where Zook has ever said "EVERY SINGLE ONE...NO EXCEPTIONS" in his posts. Clearly you are fighting strawmen at this point, most likely because your original argument is based on nothing but emotional ranting.

Then, by your tortured logic, people should not be allowed to criticize liberals, Conservatives, or any other "groups" as well because that would mean that every individual in those groups would be attacked as well.

If you don't like his views, and you can't argue against them, put him on your ignore list and move on. Problem solved.