rasist is a meme.... I forget who it was, but there was a poster who used it instead of racist.
Read this before you post
- Thread starter ainwood
- Start date
The only times you'd need to point out that something is racist is when it's not already obvious to others. If it's not obvious to others, then the chances are you're imputing a meaning that isn't actually there (possibly because you know the poster's history and what they might be hinting it, even if they haven't actually said anything that is racist in itself). Labelling a post racist is making a pretty hefty accusation; one that's inflammatory and isn't going to be conducive to civil or productive discussion. I don't think it would be a good idea to declare open season and allow people to label the posts of others racist (in the Debating Chamber, as it's currently called), because it could easily just become a standard debating tactic to derail a thread--> "I'm losing this argument so I'll just make an accusation of racism to switch the focus".
And if we were to try and allow you to call a post racist just in the cases where it actually is, though that's fine for the obvious cases (where there's no point in labelling it racist in the first place, given everyone can plainly see that), for other cases, where you might feel a need to point out racism where you see it because it's not plainly obvious to others, we're going to have to take a side of contentious arguments. You'd then be asking us to adopt your opinion. I might think one side is right and the other isn't, but that shouldn't influence moderating.
And if we were to try and allow you to call a post racist just in the cases where it actually is, though that's fine for the obvious cases (where there's no point in labelling it racist in the first place, given everyone can plainly see that), for other cases, where you might feel a need to point out racism where you see it because it's not plainly obvious to others, we're going to have to take a side of contentious arguments. You'd then be asking us to adopt your opinion. I might think one side is right and the other isn't, but that shouldn't influence moderating.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
So should I be of the understanding, then, that labeling someone's position as racist is not de facto trolling, and also that it's part of the debate, and is debating the point and not the poster?
C'mon, Cheesy.... You know it's more complicated than that. You know it's not only what you say but how you say it as well.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I just want it to be clear that, in theory, someone could perform labeling in the above nature and not fear an infraction for doing so.
And I just want it clear that in reality it doesn't always work that way.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
So whether or not it's possible - in theory - to make such a statement is determined by...what? It's very simple, either it's possible to make that statement in some way, shape, or form, or it isn't. "In reality it doesn't work that way" sounds like "whether a moderator at that specific moment wants to infract me or not," which is no sound basis for any rule system.
No, it means there are many ways in which a word can be used. 'Racist' and 'racism' are not on the autocensor list, so yes, there are obviously ways in which you can use them. It is conceivable that there may be circumstances under which, if you were very careful, you could in a polite, civil and noninflammatory manner label a post as such. But in the vast majority of cases, that's not going to happen, so you do so at entirely your own risk.
If you want to contend that it's very simple and not complicated or dependent on context, then your answer is no, it's not okay.
If you want to contend that it's very simple and not complicated or dependent on context, then your answer is no, it's not okay.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
No, I wanted approval for the possibility that - in theory - one could say that and not be guaranteed an infraction. Turner's answer only made clear the subjective nature with which it would be prosecuted by a moderator.
What you're saying, Camikaze, is that there is a specific context and situation, both of which, if met, would allow for an unprosecutable labeling of something as racist? That doing so is not, independent of context, trolling?
What you're saying, Camikaze, is that there is a specific context and situation, both of which, if met, would allow for an unprosecutable labeling of something as racist? That doing so is not, independent of context, trolling?
I'm aware you wanted that, and what I was saying was that you aren't getting any such guarantee. We're not going to give you a ticket to label things racist. If you insist on an answer, the answer is 'no'.
There may be a situation in which we feel you labelling something racist meets the criteria of conduciveness to civil and productive discussion. That is not a definable context. What this means is that the rule is that you cannot label something racist, but the reality is that there are circumstances under which we will choose not to infract. That's entirely up to moderator discretion. You label something racist at your own risk.
There may be a situation in which we feel you labelling something racist meets the criteria of conduciveness to civil and productive discussion. That is not a definable context. What this means is that the rule is that you cannot label something racist, but the reality is that there are circumstances under which we will choose not to infract. That's entirely up to moderator discretion. You label something racist at your own risk.
Cheezy the Wiz
Socialist In A Hurry
I just wanted you to admit that you all rule by fiat and that the rules you supposedly enforce are a masquerade for this, and do not govern your decision making. Thank you for making this clear.
I don´t see any problem with labelling the Republican McCain campaign as implicitly racist. Some points would - and could - not have been raised if Obama had been white. (Like the whole ridiculous birth certificate thingy. It actually came to the point that McCain - a longtime collaborator with Obama in the Senate on many issues - had to explicitly confirm that Obama was indeed a US citizen, and culminated in the ´You lie!´ incident. And then ofcourse the filibustering began, but let´s not get into that.) From the Republican view it probably was very cleverly done - and utterly pointless -, but I can see how a man who made his career through white institutions would have no trouble keeping his cool.
@Cheezy- that's exactly what it states at the top of the rules section on trolling:
If you'd like to think that means we moderate via random number generator, you're free to do so. But pretty obviously the rules do govern how we apply our discretion and judgment and come to decisions. I'm not sure what you're finding so hard about this concept of moderators applying rules.
@JEELEN- labelling a public figure racist is completely different to labelling another poster or their post racist.
If you'd like to think that means we moderate via random number generator, you're free to do so. But pretty obviously the rules do govern how we apply our discretion and judgment and come to decisions. I'm not sure what you're finding so hard about this concept of moderators applying rules.
@JEELEN- labelling a public figure racist is completely different to labelling another poster or their post racist.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
So you're saying that you don't care about racism at all, as long as you can score points in a debate?
We're saying that being trolled is not an acceptable defence for flaming.
Actually, it is. But if you think something is racist, then report it with the reasons why, and we will deal with it.
mayor
Heart & Mind
Of course we care and you know that very well.
This is not about "scoring points" in a debate. This is about the freedom to call something what it is.
So in the case that a fellow poster makes a racist post and I call him out on that, I'm flaming? wow.. just wow..
ehm, no... You're opinion/voice has more weight on this site, which is only logical, but it is definitely not more authoritative unless one of you is a judge/lawyer, specialised in discrimination.
But to combine your first accusation with your last sentence. We care about racism however we do not care that someone is infracted for it or not, as long as we are allowed to call it as we see it.
I can understand that a post saying only "that is racist" without further argument is infracted, as should all accusations without argument in 'The Chamber'. Such a post would be useless and wouldn't contribute to the debate.
However a post saying 'Because this and that I conclude that you post is racist, do you agree and if not why?' you make a well funded statement and leaving the other space to make his own case on the issue. Allowing this sort of posts, and not just for racism but also for misogynysm, homophobia, anit-semitism etc, gives the opportunity for 'The Chamber' to reach debates with more depth which was the purpose if I recal correctly.
I love our moderators.
Agreed on the second part - I haven´t labelled any public figure racist. If you are calling something racist, you should make very clear why - as I tried to illustrate in my post.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
By using cunning colour codes I crafted my conclusion on what's acceptable and what isn't (within reasonable limits) on this here forum.
How did I do?
Similar threads
