Bigotry

[kentington]

No this is not a topic to discuss what we all consider bigotry.

I was reading a post by Woodruff and Symmetry where they mention that Scotty has gotten away with bigotry in the forum.

scotty, why don't you just unambiguously state your thoughts on homosexuality so that there's no confusion?

I have said many times, what makes peoples pecker hard or ginies tingle is none of my business. To each their own. I neither condemn or condone it, I accept that it is what it is, and I support that a person can love whoever they want, regardless of the sex. I realize I am nobody to tell another how to live their lives (if only I could ask to be respected similarly in turn).

Lovely, might even save you from the ban hammer if peeps ignore the rest of the stuff you said and did in this thread.

I'd call you a little Hitler, but apparently you don't have the testosterone to man up and grow a pair of balls, let alone the 'tache required for the job.

As is, you will remain a cowardly homophobe, lurking wherever gay bashing might go unnoticed or excused for your opportunity, and ready with an excuse- "Not me, officer, I love gay people".

If Phatscotty doesn't troll, then there's no way he's getting a ban-hammer for bigotry either.

I don't want this to be a discussion on who is a bigot here or why they said what they said.
Question: What is considered ban-able bigotry vs. un-ban-able bigotry?

I say this because there is bigotry all over and it happens from all sides all crazies and all sanes.

Would it be safe to say something intolerant if you are sharing your opinion on the topic but not attacking anyone personally?
Where is the line drawn?

[Woodruff]

No this is not a topic to discuss what we all consider bigotry.

I was reading a post by Woodruff and Symmetry where they mention that Scotty has gotten away with bigotry in the forum.

scotty, why don't you just unambiguously state your thoughts on homosexuality so that there's no confusion?

I have said many times, what makes peoples pecker hard or ginies tingle is none of my business. To each their own. I neither condemn or condone it, I accept that it is what it is, and I support that a person can love whoever they want, regardless of the sex. I realize I am nobody to tell another how to live their lives (if only I could ask to be respected similarly in turn).

Lovely, might even save you from the ban hammer if peeps ignore the rest of the stuff you said and did in this thread.

I'd call you a little Hitler, but apparently you don't have the testosterone to man up and grow a pair of balls, let alone the 'tache required for the job.

As is, you will remain a cowardly homophobe, lurking wherever gay bashing might go unnoticed or excused for your opportunity, and ready with an excuse- "Not me, officer, I love gay people".

If Phatscotty doesn't troll, then there's no way he's getting a ban-hammer for bigotry either.

I don't want this to be a discussion on who is a bigot here or why they said what they said.
Question: What is considered ban-able bigotry vs. un-ban-able bigotry?

I say this because there is bigotry all over and it happens from all sides all crazies and all sanes.

Would it be safe to say something intolerant if you are sharing your opinion on the topic but not attacking anyone personally?
Where is the line drawn?

I didn't necessarily think that Phatscotty was being a bigot in that thread (I've actually largely ignored the hate-fest between the two of them). Rather, I was taking a shot at the moderators apparent view that Phatscotty is too important to the site to be considered a troll.
In other words...I was saying "I don't think it really matters what he says, from a moderatorial standpoint".

However, to answer your question, this site has a thoroughly unviable stance on bigotry. It stupid and ridiculous. And there appears to be no interest on the part of the site to change it.
http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=171522

[DiM]

Where is the line drawn?

wherever the moderator pleases.
if he likes you you can get away with almost anything.
if he doesn't, then you're screwed.

and this isn't restricted just to bigotry it's basically anything on this site.
the rules are purposely ambiguous and give the moderators the power to twist the words in a manner that suits their needs.

try to change the rules and make them clearer and you'll hit a brick wall of indifference.

[Symmetry]

Meh, the dude skirts a line, and he crossed it in this case, then spent several pages lying about it, Scotty is a bigot. It ain't even about gay marriage- he lied to J9Blue, who isn't exactly my greatest friend on this site at the mo, but who sympathised with the general stance of the thread prior to Scotty trolling him.

I don't call Scotty a bigot because of his opposition to my stance, I do so after his comments, his arguments, and his lies with reference to exactly what he said in terms of quotes (though he edits them), links to his previous posts in the same thread, and time stamps that show he's been dishonest.

Now I also do so in conjunction with other posters.

I've suggested that Scotty walk back his claims, but instead he doubles down. I'm not sure what could be needed unless you want me to provide evidence that he said "I hate homosexuals".

If that's the standard, why have a rule against homophobia at all?

[kentington]

Meh, the dude skirts a line, and he crossed it in this case, then spent several pages lying about it, Scotty is a bigot. It ain't even about gay marriage- he lied to J9Blue, who isn't exactly my greatest friend on this site at the mo, but who sympathised with the general stance of the thread prior to Scotty trolling him.

I don't call Scotty a bigot because of his opposition to my stance, I do so after his comments, his arguments, and his lies with reference to exactly what he said in terms of quotes (though he edits them), links to his previous posts in the same thread, and time stamps that show he's been dishonest.

Now I also do so in conjunction with other posters.

I've suggested that Scotty walk back his claims, but instead he doubles down. I'm not sure what could be needed unless you want me to provide evidence that he said "I hate homosexuals".

If that's the standard, why have a rule against homophobia at all?

This wasn't actually about the specific event. I didn't see all of it but I am curious because of what I have seen on this forum. I guess it is like they say depends on the mod and the topic. Whether you get lucky or not.

I don't want this to be a discussion on who is a bigot here or why they said what they said.
Question: What is considered ban-able bigotry vs. un-ban-able bigotry?

This is what I wanted to discuss. I would like to know where you think the line is drawn.

Where would you guys prefer the line to be drawn if you had a choice? I know some people think that there shouldn't be any bans.

[Symmetry]

Meh, the dude skirts a line, and he crossed it in this case, then spent several pages lying about it, Scotty is a bigot. It ain't even about gay marriage- he lied to J9Blue, who isn't exactly my greatest friend on this site at the mo, but who sympathised with the general stance of the thread prior to Scotty trolling him.

I don't call Scotty a bigot because of his opposition to my stance, I do so after his comments, his arguments, and his lies with reference to exactly what he said in terms of quotes (though he edits them), links to his previous posts in the same thread, and time stamps that show he's been dishonest.

Now I also do so in conjunction with other posters.

I've suggested that Scotty walk back his claims, but instead he doubles down. I'm not sure what could be needed unless you want me to provide evidence that he said "I hate homosexuals".

If that's the standard, why have a rule against homophobia at all?

This wasn't actually about the specific event. I didn't see all of it but I am curious because of what I have seen on this forum. I guess it is like they say depends on the mod and the topic. Whether you get lucky or not.

I don't want this to be a discussion on who is a bigot here or why they said what they said.
Question: What is considered ban-able bigotry vs. un-ban-able bigotry?

This is what I wanted to discuss. I would like to know where you think the line is drawn.

Where would you guys prefer the line to be drawn if you had a choice? I know some people think that there shouldn't be any bans.

Fair enough, and I apologise if I de-railed this a bit. To be fair, you were quoting me in the OP without the context of how the thread got to that point.

I'm pretty hardline on bigotry, as you may have guessed. I have a degree of tolerance for it that I can say is just a back and forth matter of opinion.

I think it's kind of easy to see where a line has been crossed from opposition into bigotry. Sometimes that line is drawn on traditional boundaries- blood libel against Jewish people, or accusations of mental illness and perversity against homosexuals.

Generally people know what is completely unacceptable, but some know what is bigoted and push boundaries while thinking themselves brave.

I don't think I've come across a case of someone saying something bigoted for any reason beyond narcissistic bravado.

[kentington]

Fair enough, and I apologise if I de-railed this a bit. To be fair, you were quoting me in the OP without the context of how the thread got to that point.

No problem. I wasn't sure of the context that thread has accumulated posts at a faster rate than I had time to read, but you bringing up that point made me think about the question.

I'm pretty hardline on bigotry, as you may have guessed. I have a degree of tolerance for it that I can say is just a back and forth matter of opinion.

I think it's kind of easy to see where a line has been crossed from opposition into bigotry. Sometimes that line is drawn on traditional boundaries- blood libel against Jewish people, or accusations of mental illness and perversity against homosexuals.

Generally people know what is completely unacceptable, but some know what is bigoted and push boundaries while thinking themselves brave.

I don't think I've come across a case of someone saying something bigoted for any reason beyond narcissistic bravado.

Yes, I have seen your posts about my next point. I have seen a lot of posts with bigoted hate toward religious people. Sometimes a specific religion and sometimes all religious people. I have seen you step in against people who were doing this to Muslims and I think there was a post regarding Christians as well.
I have seen it in other areas as well but not as much as those.

Yeah, it is very easy to see completely unacceptable but those middle lines especially in regards to just opposition or stating ones beliefs may be harder to tell.

[Symmetry]

Fair enough, and I apologise if I de-railed this a bit. To be fair, you were quoting me in the OP without the context of how the thread got to that point.

No problem. I wasn't sure of the context that thread has accumulated posts at a faster rate than I had time to read, but you bringing up that point made me think about the question.

I'm pretty hardline on bigotry, as you may have guessed. I have a degree of tolerance for it that I can say is just a back and forth matter of opinion.

I think it's kind of easy to see where a line has been crossed from opposition into bigotry. Sometimes that line is drawn on traditional boundaries- blood libel against Jewish people, or accusations of mental illness and perversity against homosexuals.

Generally people know what is completely unacceptable, but some know what is bigoted and push boundaries while thinking themselves brave.

I don't think I've come across a case of someone saying something bigoted for any reason beyond narcissistic bravado.

Yes, I have seen your posts about my next point. I have seen a lot of posts with bigoted hate toward religious people. Sometimes a specific religion and sometimes all religious people. I have seen you step in against people who were doing this to Muslims and I think there was a post regarding Christians as well.
I have seen it in other areas as well but not as much as those.

Yeah, it is very easy to see completely unacceptable but those middle lines especially in regards to just opposition or stating ones beliefs may be harder to tell.

Thanks for the reply, I didn't respond lightly, but did so after a fair amount of provocation, with all the evidence I could muster.

But, yes, your point is an important one. I'm an atheist, but sometimes I feel conflicted when I see posters attacking Christianity, or other religions.

I try to step in where I feel things have gone into Bigotry.

[BigBallinStalin]

Question: What is considered ban-able bigotry vs. un-ban-able bigotry?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176144&view=unread#p3845792

DiM's answer is the most accurate.


And bigotry is best viewed in two forms: good bigotry and bad bigotry.

Lootifer and I expanded on this--with some imaginary help by AoG:


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=175364&hilit=bad+bigotry&start=30#p3832900

show

[kentington]

Thanks BBS. Consider all of mine good then.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's difficult to blame the moderators on implementing the law which is too vague and allows the mods to use their discretion.

As woodruff said, it's a problem with the laws, but codifying a law that covers "bad" bigotry is probably impossible. Maybe someone ITT can do that?

[yang guize]

maybe 'bad bigotry' is when someone says something very offensive in real life and makes you lose face in front of your peers ;_;
and 'good bigotry' is when someone says something stupid on an internet forum and you don't care because it's text on a screen
^.^

[natty dread]

The bigotry rules of this site are enforced inconsistently.

The rules say bigotry is not allowed. But this is not enforced as the rules say. Rather, the moderators have agreed on a few common derogatory words against race, sexual orientation etc. that are forbidden to use. If someone calls someone "f*g" or "n*gger" it's considered a violation, but using derogatory slurs against lesbians, transsexuals, asians (for example) is brushed aside.

I've actually reported posts where people have used such slurs which are clearly against the bigotry rule, but the moderators have simply responded that since none of the designated "forbidden words" were used, it's "not bigotry". This is plain idiotic.

[natty dread]

maybe 'bad bigotry' is when someone says something very offensive in real life and makes you lose face in front of your peers ;_;
and 'good bigotry' is when someone says something stupid on an internet forum and you don't care because it's text on a screen
^.^

Just because your communication takes place in written form instead of spoken doesn't excuse acting like an asshole.

Also, if your peers think less of you because some asshole says something offensive to you, then you should get some better peers.

[PLAYER57832]

I've suggested that Scotty walk back his claims, but instead he doubles down. I'm not sure what could be needed unless you want me to provide evidence that he said "I hate homosexuals".

If that's the standard, why have a rule against homophobia at all?

I am not going to get into the specific Phatt issue here, but I will say that ironically enough, someone saying "I hate xyz" in a discussion is not necessarily bigoted in a negative way. NOw, calling everyone they dislike a "f***ing N***r and/or dismissing everything they find out to be black, IS certainly negative. People have a right to feelings, and as long as its done as conversation and back and forth, even aberrant ideas should be discussed. In discussion, they can be countered. If we cannot discuss them, then they remain hidden in dark allies and flourish more. Whether that should happen in the big open forum or in side forums (in some cases perhaps not on CC at all).

[puppydog85]

Considering how open ended bigotry is, I think they do a decent job. Some people are flaming bigots with regard to certain groups and obviously no one wants them banned for it (ie. n00bs, other clans, grammar nazis). The rule obviously is in place to enforce the current cultural mores against blatant name calling.

On the other hand, there is also this thing called free speech that they want to also have, which makes it difficult to draw the line.

[PLAYER57832]

Fair enough, and I apologise if I de-railed this a bit. To be fair, you were quoting me in the OP without the context of how the thread got to that point.

No problem. I wasn't sure of the context that thread has accumulated posts at a faster rate than I had time to read, but you bringing up that point made me think about the question.

I'm pretty hardline on bigotry, as you may have guessed. I have a degree of tolerance for it that I can say is just a back and forth matter of opinion.

I think it's kind of easy to see where a line has been crossed from opposition into bigotry. Sometimes that line is drawn on traditional boundaries- blood libel against Jewish people, or accusations of mental illness and perversity against homosexuals.

Generally people know what is completely unacceptable, but some know what is bigoted and push boundaries while thinking themselves brave.

I don't think I've come across a case of someone saying something bigoted for any reason beyond narcissistic bravado.

Yes, I have seen your posts about my next point. I have seen a lot of posts with bigoted hate toward religious people. Sometimes a specific religion and sometimes all religious people. I have seen you step in against people who were doing this to Muslims and I think there was a post regarding Christians as well.
I have seen it in other areas as well but not as much as those.

Yeah, it is very easy to see completely unacceptable but those middle lines especially in regards to just opposition or stating ones beliefs may be harder to tell.

Thanks for the reply, I didn't respond lightly, but did so after a fair amount of provocation, with all the evidence I could muster.

But, yes, your point is an important one. I'm an atheist, but sometimes I feel conflicted when I see posters attacking Christianity, or other religions.

I try to step in where I feel things have gone into Bigotry.

Bigotry is sometimes very easy to see when you are the target.. and harder when the target is someone else, particularly a group with ideas you disdain/dislike.

I will say, that my experiences here is that most of the regular posters are pretty decent, even if we all get a tad overzealous about a few topics. (and yeah, my tolerance in some cases has gone way down here)

Having a few who are not sort of keeps us on our toes, I suppose.

[yang guize]

Also, if your peers think less of you because some asshole says something offensive to you, then you should get some better peers.

maybe it is unclear. lost in translation LOL

'losing face' is being dishonoured, someone making you look bad. if they embarrass you, make you look foolish, they make you 'lose face'. ;_; so i mean that if they say something dishonouring about you in front of your peers, they make you look bad. i think you have a saying about dragging someone's name in mud? LOL. it is like that.

[natty dread]

Also, if your peers think less of you because some asshole says something offensive to you, then you should get some better peers.

maybe it is unclear. lost in translation LOL

'losing face' is being dishonoured, someone making you look bad. if they embarrass you, make you look foolish, they make you 'lose face'. ;_; so i mean that if they say something dishonouring about you in front of your peers, they make you look bad. i think you have a saying about dragging someone's name in mud? LOL. it is like that.

Why do you care so much about what other people think of you? If your peers think you're "dishonoured" because of something someone else says about you, then they're not very good peers.

[PLAYER57832]

Also, if your peers think less of you because some asshole says something offensive to you, then you should get some better peers.

maybe it is unclear. lost in translation LOL

'losing face' is being dishonoured, someone making you look bad. if they embarrass you, make you look foolish, they make you 'lose face'. ;_; so i mean that if they say something dishonouring about you in front of your peers, they make you look bad. i think you have a saying about dragging someone's name in mud? LOL. it is like that.

There is an old saying.. "no one can make a fool of you unless you give them permission to do so"

I think of pictures of both old American Indians, Jews in Europe.. other members of oppressed groups standing tall and walking through insults, garbage being thrown, etc. Repeatedly these always represent pictures of pride and honor. The dishonor is to those who hurl the insults.

[yang guize]

Why do you care so much about what other people think of you? If your peers think you're "dishonoured" because of something someone else says about you, then they're not very good peers.

don't be stupid. if newspapers reported 24/7 that you are a rapist, you would consider yourself and your name dishonoured. although according to your logic, this is only something that 'someone else says about you'. but you would care, i think. and i think your friends would care.

or if someone plain insults you to your face. they clearly don't respect you enough to treat you with respect. they are happy to insult you. this shows people who witness this insult that people do not respect you. it makes you look foolish.

"no one can make a fool of you unless you give them permission to do so"

Jews in Europe

wow. i suggest you live in a country where people like you are being murdered in their millions before you make out as if it is so easy as 'refusing to be made a fool of'. i think being made a fool was the smallest worry of the jews in concentration camps.

[Symmetry]

Why do you care so much about what other people think of you? If your peers think you're "dishonoured" because of something someone else says about you, then they're not very good peers.

don't be stupid. if newspapers reported 24/7 that you are a rapist, you would consider yourself and your name dishonoured. although according to your logic, this is only something that 'someone else says about you'. but you would care, i think. and i think your friends would care.

or if someone plain insults you to your face. they clearly don't respect you enough to treat you with respect. they are happy to insult you. this shows people who witness this insult that people do not respect you. it makes you look foolish.

"no one can make a fool of you unless you give them permission to do so"

Jews in Europe

wow. i suggest you live in a country where people like you are being murdered in their millions before you make out as if it is so easy as 'refusing to be made a fool of'. i think being made a fool was the smallest worry of the jews in concentration camps.

You are incorrect, the demonisation of Jewish people was a key part of the Holocaust. Being made into a fool, or essentially being dehumanised was a major part of the Final Solution.

Player is quite right to point it out as a major part of the system. The Nazis clearly thought it important. You would be actually foolish to dismiss it.

[yang guize]

there is an enormous difference between being embarrassed in front of your friends and being gassed in a concentration camp. comparing the two is ridiculous.

[Lootifer]

The bigotry rules of this site are enforced inconsistently.

...

This is plain idiotic.

Yeh but 99% of posts on this forum contain some form of bigotry by definition.

You're being intolerant of the moderators' inconsistent enforcment of a rule, and im being intolerant of you having that opinion. We're technically both bigots according to the definition; of course that is actually absurd in practice.

So like it or not, there are shades of grey.

As far as I can tell they enforce direct bigotry; but are very lenient on implied bigotry.

That is you say something like "Being a fag is a disease and they should all be locked up" is going get you a pretty long vacation. However you say something like "I strongly oppose homosexual marriage" and you'll probably not get a ban.

The problem arises when we all have differing views so often we only see implied bigotry when it personally offends us. You, Sym and even myself see quite clearly all PS's implied homosexual bigotry, and the same can be said when NS/PS see us laying into the church.

I personally think the moderators do about as good as you can do...

The reason I say this is you dont want a nazi forum. Many forum boards have been wrecked by overzealous moderators.

[BigBallinStalin]

Nonsense! We need more DISCIPLINE!!

I wanna hear those whips CRACK!!