Saying "i think that view you espouse is steeped in a historical racism', is very different than saying "I think you are racist Lucky for espousing that view for discussion and debate'.


On this forum we have two posters in particular who would instantly label you racist, or any other form of "...ist" FIRST before even asking you to clarify your view and what exactly you meant.


If one of those two people, in good faith now, is saying he will stop firing with his assumptions first and "engage in good faith debate" then I am in agreement with him and all for it and I think the mod's work here is done.

Those people fortunately have their own forum that they created for such purposes.

I used an extreme example to make it easy to see what the procedure is, not to suggest that is how I see the world. But again to use your example of subtle racism, you would be the one making the initial call, not me. So no one is swooping in to stop it. The act of discussing racism is not the same as posting racist views. Racism can manifest in many ways. There is no problem discussing those and whether it really is racism. It's the discussion of the underlying racist views, ie the views that denigrate other groups that are prohibited.

I really think people will see that discussions will continue as they have without additional restrictions (minus the insults). So post whatever you would have posted. If it obviously violates our policies it will be deleted. Short of that we will take them as they come if something seems close to the line.

That was supposed to be subtle?

There is plenty of subtlety involved in calling Robin DiAngelo types racist.

By the way, don't worry about giving me a hard time. I was a poker dealer for five years. I routinely had to deal with angry players when I had to enforce a rule on them. Not only did I have to absorb their angry comments, I had to tell them they were wrong and do it in such a way that they tipped me afterwards.

Is there? It looks like the same ham-fisted "the libruls are the real racists!" nonsense that I've been hearing from AM radio for decades.

My suggestion is to not listen to AM radio.

It's great for picking up on right-wing tropes.

There are easier ways to do that than subjecting yourself to AM radio.

Podcasts?

I wish you great luck here. I mean that. You seem to have the right attitude.

I don't care what the rules are tbh, as long as they are applied somewhat consistently. I absolutely believe forums like this need some rules and some from of gatekeeper and while it is never perfect it is better than the opposite which ends up being forum anarchy where only extremists want to post, aka 8chan.

If we can cut back the slanderous labeling of others because they hold views we do not or discuss topics some think should not be discussed, all the better. Debate will get 1000 times better here with that simply removal.

As I said, and people tire of hearing Rotten Tomatoes had one of the biggest chat communities back in early 2000's and it was almost lost to CT's, Trolls. People who had very little interest in actual topic debate and only wanted to spam conspiracy theories or troll others for fights. They instituted 3 key posting rules which cleaned up most of the issues. 'No CT's', 'no gratuitous insults' and 'no empty posting'.

the last, if you do not know what that means is just posting a link or video or meme without any original comment from yourself. You had to provide some POV or at least a synopsis of what was being provided. A random insult not attached to something was also 'empty posting' which means you could reply to a post 'it was dumb' in debate but you could not randomly say certain people were dumb, or pedophiles, or bigoted, without any reference to why that was being leveled.

I mean, yeah, that's half the reason I come in here.

I guess if the moderator is persuaded that the very act of discussing a topic is a form of bigotry, then he can take action, but if it doesn't pass that threshold for him, then posters who feel that it nonetheless does can enjoy debating about why it does ad infinitum and perhaps be satisfied that they are educating people on such matters. They can see it as an opportunity. But if someone is offended by the discussing of a certain topic to the point where it causes them displeasure, they can always remove themself from the discussion or just ignore specific posters and posts for the necessary duration.

And of course, as per usual, if posters disagree with the moderator banning discussion of a particular topic, they can plead their case in this very thread.

Browser2920 is soliciting opinions right now. Nobody is "pestering" our new mod, and if someone starts pestering him I'm sure he can deal with it just fine.

Most large metro areas have a 24-hour all-news station.

I've listened to KNX-1070 AM in Los Angeles off and on since the mid-1970's.

Then my time here hasn't been in vain after all!

What is the standard of racism? I think the choice is between a generally American liberal notion of racism and a conservative notion of racism. There's not really a center of moderate racism there. In the past, I think this forum has been moderated with an implicit standard that racism is mostly what liberals think is racist. I don't see anything here that suggests that will change.

Third party critiquing of posters and third party trolling.

I've deleted a few post where in the remarks I put something like "critiquing other poster" or words to that effect. Here's what I'm referring to:

Two posters are having a back and forth discussion. It may get a little heated (which is fine when it's not insulting). Let's say poster one says something like "why can't you admit you're wrong on this?" OK so far.

But then a poster not involved in that discussion jumps in from the cheap seats and says "yeah he never admits when he's wrong". That's a third party critique of another poster. Please don't do this. When you enter a discussion it should be to contribute to the topic at hand. It's not appropriate to insert yourself just to take a dig at another poster. So if you're not going to add to the topic stay out. Likewise inserting yourself as a third party just to drop a troll line is not nice and needs to stop.

So just ask yourself why you are about to post in a thread. If it isn't to add something constructive don't do it. And in particular, there are very few reasons to mention other posters by name as a third person observer.

I've seen a lot of these types of posts so please work with me to get them cleaned up.
Thanks.

As this particular personal attack against me was not among the above ones deleted, let me be clear that I have never done what is asserted here, nor is my motivation what is asserted here.

I searched for "really meant" as it was claimed I said and in fact I have never said this phrase before on the politics forum. However, perhaps it is a paraphrase and I welcome Cuepee to provide a direct quote of me saying something analogous to it, but I doubt this will manifest as I am quite confident I have never said something similar to the narrative contained in this personal attack against me. Personally my belief is that if one ought not cast aspersions at the character of another forum member based on vague allusions to unquoted prior arguments.

As one who has been guilty of what you describe above, I will endeavor to straighten up and fly right.

I would say the previous standard of moderation was far more aligned with a "conservative" notion. One had to go pretty far and egregiously to actually eat a ban for racism/sexism/homophobia/etc.

During MrWookie's Reign of Terror, the "liberal" definition of racism/sexism/homophobia was clearly in play.

So what is this conservative definition and how does it differ from a liberal definition?

I only borrowed that framing and wouldn't advance it myself, but loosely speaking conservatives in the context of US politics are far less likely to claim something is racist than liberals are. For example, many liberals think that Trump is racist, and many conservatives deny it. This mostly serves to point out there is a wide political difference in what is or is not considered racist, underscoring my previous points about the bedrock importance of allowing substantive debate in this forum over whether a particular statement made by a poster is racist or not.