Racial Slurs

[Mr. Flopnuts]

We're having some posts being reported for the use of racial slurs in this forum. While it is widely known that there is some racism that goes on in this forum, those users have found a way to dance around the issue enough that the majority of moderators of this website have deemed the behavior fine for now.

It's really not okay to me at all. I don't believe that people of color should be subjected to that shit over political affiliations. That said, I'm a firm believer in a majority consensus so it is what it is at this point.

That said, overtly racial slurs will result in bannings. It is a bullet point in the TOS of this website, and not much is out of bounds. One user has already been banned, and another one has been warned. If you insist on trying to dance around racist comments, please be prepared for a vacation if you use a term that is deemed racist by the moderators. Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Phobia

I see what you did there. Trying to take this thread about racial slurs and Roy and Zach off course?

Nobody can stop this crazy train.


Nobody.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by J Diddy

Could you please show me the rule that was made making it okay to use a racist tone, just as long as you don't actual use name calling to do it? I didn't get to vote on that one and I've been here just as long as you.

I don't know what a "racist tone" even means. Something is either racist on it's face or it's not. You could say that you really hate Jamaal Charles and it might be completely based on your racist beliefs, but I have no way of knowing it unless I can read your mind.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

The only tradition that is held up on ChiefsPlanet 100% is you loving...encouraging...and aligning yourself with racists and hateful people.

Big fan of yours though keep up the good work.

You're a moron on a pretty consistent basis so we've got that too.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Many but not all. For example I don't remember voting about bumping old threads = ban

or word filter evasions

or Rude comments in prayers threads

or being respectful to Mods

I agree. This place isn't a pure democracy, but for bowser to act like it's never been democratic at all is ridiculous. We're becoming less and less community-driven and more and more driven by moderator pet peeve over time though.

[durtyrute]

One big bowl of
"I want to say racist shit."

"No, you can't say racist shit."

"What about @#$%^, is that racist?"

"Yes, that is racist"

"But, I REALLY want to say racist shit"

"Okay, you can say #$%"

"That's not good enough, I want to say @#$%%^&"

"Okay, you can say that"

"Really"

"No"

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by WoodDraw

LOL - you need a list of what not to say?


I'll never understand why the anonymity of the internet makes people feel like it's okay to be assholes. Or perhaps it makes them feel that it's okay to act how they wish they could in real life.

What's so difficult (or offensive to you) about having a list (and possibly even a filter) for words that have been deemed offensive by the board? I'll never understand why people think it's better to have vague and amorphous rules when it's so simple to have bright line rules.

For your information, I don't use these words so I don't need a list. But given the nature of the board and the fact that many offensive words and phrases ARE tolerated, a list is the only way to put everyone on notice. Flopnuts put Roy and anyone else who happened to read that thread on notice about "raghead", but most of our membership didn't read that thread.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Reaper16

Also, no one should care at all if white people are insulted. Anytime someone has said something racist against Anglo-Saxons I just laugh it off. Why am I able to laugh it off? Because I am white and I have it so, so, so good in this life.

The majority can use racism as a tool to keep others down, to diminish them and control them. Minorities aren't able to do that same thing with racism.

This is a patronizingly racist attitude.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by ROYC75

Hot damn baby, I said IMHO, if ........ What's this crap about being a progressive?

Thinking we need to handle "terrorists" ( as a generality ) by remaining for generations in Muslim lands is very much a progressive idea. It's social engineering the planet. This is not defending the country from AQ, originally a small group. You're not going to change "chaostan" by bombing them. It makes more terrorists.

And at the same time by not being there we are not ready to help our troops and allies of need when needed.

My point was to stop interfering in the disputes of other countries as much as we are today.
Conservativism advocates a less interventionist foreign policy aka a "humble" one. Even the foreign policy Realist camp doesn't advocate what we're currently doing.

What is the best approach?

Does anybody really know ?

See above. Less intervention aka stay the hell out of other places. Let them fight their own battles. If we do, don't leave military bases on the lands of these people who don't want us there.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

What's so difficult (or offensive to you) about having a list (and possibly even a filter) for words that have been deemed offensive by the board? I'll never understand why people think it's better to have vague and amorphous rules when it's so simple to have bright line rules.

Why should it be simple? Some issues fit better with a standard, rather than a bright line rule. With standards, we can have room for the acceptance of N****r Jim in "Huck Finn" but the prohibition of say, "Shut up, you stupid n****r."

I'll never understand why some people think standards are so difficult to cope with.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Phobia

Basically it's not against the rules to be racist. Be racist all you want. You can technically say I am part of the KKK and I hate black people without fear of being banned. But start slinging racial slurs and you got trouble.

We can't possibly filter all racial slurs. It's impossible because many of them are perfectly acceptable words used in correct context.

The reason DC is largely ignored is because we found that it's impossible to moderate closely without being accused of bias or taking a side. The only time we swing the mod stick in this forum is when posts are reported.

Nothing has changed with Flop's announcement here. He's just reminding everybody of the rules as a courtesy because it has been a trending issue here in D.C.

It seems to me that you moderators have a duty, especially in this supposedly lightly moderated forum, to account for the fact that one side (the politically correct side) is going to report a lot of... let's call it borderline stuff... that the other side (the speech tolerance side) wouldn't report in reverse. If you only take action when posts are reported, especially in the absence of any clearly defined rules as to what words will trigger action, you're inevitably going to be acting in a biased manner.

And it's not a solution to just encourage the other side to do more reporting to even up the score.

A better solution, IMO, is to take action against the people who report posts when you decide the post isn't worthy of action itself to discourage over-reporting. For example, if someone reports one of the leaf blower posts from Vailpass that have a clear history of being acceptable here, that person should get the temp ban that they were trying to call down on Vailpass.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

Why should it be simple? Some issues fit better with a standard, rather than a bright line rule. With standards, we can have room for the acceptance of N****r Jim in "Huck Finn" but the prohibition of say, "Shut up, you stupid n****r."

I'll never understand why some people think standards are so difficult to cope with.

Having a list doesn't prevent you from allowing people to use ****er in the context of huck finn. In fact, the word ****er is already one of the few explicitly bannable words here, but that didn't prevent either of us from using it in a clinical context.

Having a list does prevent people from saying they had no notice, though. There's simply no justification for preserving this level of vagueness.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Having a list doesn't prevent you from allowing people to use ****er in the context of huck finn. In fact, the word ****er is already one of the few explicitly bannable words here, but that didn't prevent either of us from using it in a clinical context.

Having a list does prevent people from saying they had no notice, though. There's simply no justification for preserving this level of vagueness.

Right, that was a good example of the standard in action. Under the standard, everyone should be able to come up with a partial list in their head of things that would be considered racial slurs when used in context. If you can't work with the standard of not using racial slurs (in a derogatory manner), then you're probably not responsible enough to use the internet, anyway.

The list of racial slurs is long and unbearable to detail for these purposes; if the moderators were to set out a detailed guide with a list, they are bound to miss some. And then the argument becomes "Well, you didn't list [porch monkey, mud shark, someother vailpass favorite, etc.], therefore, I didn't have notice."

Let common sense be your guide. Anyway, there's no vagueness doctrine to chiefsplanet rules. We aren't interpreting your Constitution. If someone has trouble with this, perhaps a different forum will suit their purposes.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

Right, that was a good example of the standard in action. Under the standard, everyone should be able to come up with a partial list in their head of things that would be considered racial slurs when used in context. If you can't work with the standard of not using racial slurs (in a derogatory manner), then you're probably not responsible enough to use the internet, anyway.

No, it's an example of an explicit list not being the impediment to a standard that you're claiming it would be. It's got the benefit of being a standard PLUS the benefit of being an explicitly disapproved word.

Originally Posted by Literature

The list of racial slurs is long and unbearable to detail for these purposes; if the moderators were to set out a detailed guide with a list, they are bound to miss some. And then the argument becomes "Well, you didn't list [porch monkey, mud shark, someother vailpass favorite, etc.], therefore, I didn't have notice."

Let common sense be your guide. Anyway, there's no vagueness doctrine to chiefsplanet rules. We aren't interpreting your Constitution. If someone has trouble with this, perhaps a different forum will suit their purposes.

As offensive words are identified, people can be warned and the words can be added to the list. Roy was warned about raghead and the word can be added to the list. You don't have to anticipate every word in advance because you're not suffering any serious harm by having to issue a warning the first time the issue comes up instead of being instantly able to drop the ban hammer. And, of course, if the message is offensive enough, you can ban someone the first time anyway (although IMO that wouldn't have been at all justified in Roy's case).

Common sense can't be your guide when words like pillowbiter, redneck and whore are allowed. There's no real rhyme or reason involved. It's all based on moderator whim at this point (except for words like ****er, pillowbitergot, person of Hispanic heritage, and to a lesser extent raghead which have been identified).

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by patteeu

As offensive words are identified, people can be warned and the words can be added to the list.

That's operating on someone's standard. It just gives the benefit of a warning. I'm okay with a warning for questionable uses. And words like whore and pillowbiter aren't racial slurs. Redneck isn't derogatory.

I bet the moderators wouldn't have a problem if you kept track of every single instance someone used a racial slur and got the handslap. It sounds like you'd be a perfect candidate for Official CP Racial Slur Tracker.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Literature

That's operating on someone's standard. It just gives the benefit of a warning. I'm okay with a warning for questionable uses. And words like whore and pillowbiter aren't racial slurs. Redneck isn't derogatory.

So are you suggesting that slurs against gay people, women, and country hicks are OK in a way that racial slurs are not or are you being hypertechnical about the thread topic?