i am not sure if you are referring to bells but my observation of her a lack of proportion. her shit seems to come out of left field
she is still bashing you
and i wonder why
Should Racism be tolerated in these forums?
- Thread starter Stryder
- Start date
- Status
i am not sure if you are referring to bells but my observation of her a lack of proportion. her shit seems to come out of left field
she is still bashing you
and i wonder why
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
The question, "Should racism be tolerated in these forums", is a rather tricky one to answer. If you answer, no, you are safely a member of the group. If you answer, yes, you risk being considered a racist.
Despite that risk, I say, yes racism should be tolerated in these fora. I don't say that because I support racism but because I totally and unequivically support freedom of speech other than speech that endangers lives, ie. yelling fire in a crowded theater.
It is easy to tolerate speech that falls within the norms and parameters we have set up. It is much more difficult to tolerate speech that does not fall withing these norms and parameters. However that is exactly the speech that we must tolerate, not support but tolerate if freedom of speech is to be defended and insured.
It is easy to defend popular or neutral speech. It is much more difficult to defend odious or hateful speech or speech we feel is inherently wrong but that is exactly the speech we must defend if freedom of speech is to mean anything.
I have noticed quite a few anti-theist statements posted with no attempts at censorship. It seems that there is a fairly large contingent of non-theist so such speech is tolerated. How can posters justify allowing one form of speech that denigrates a segment of society while forbidding similar speech that denigrates a different segment of society? Is it because anti-theism is more popular than racism? Is it because there are more anti-theist than racist in the fora? Is is a perception that those who believe in a deity are considered fairer targets for insults?
I personally find such anti-theist posts to be hurtful and hateful. I still support the right of people to make them. Free speech is far too precious a gift to be endangered by censoring speech or posts we do not like.
Despite that risk, I say, yes racism should be tolerated in these fora. I don't say that because I support racism but because I totally and unequivically support freedom of speech other than speech that endangers lives, ie. yelling fire in a crowded theater.
It is easy to tolerate speech that falls within the norms and parameters we have set up. It is much more difficult to tolerate speech that does not fall withing these norms and parameters. However that is exactly the speech that we must tolerate, not support but tolerate if freedom of speech is to be defended and insured.
It is easy to defend popular or neutral speech. It is much more difficult to defend odious or hateful speech or speech we feel is inherently wrong but that is exactly the speech we must defend if freedom of speech is to mean anything.
I have noticed quite a few anti-theist statements posted with no attempts at censorship. It seems that there is a fairly large contingent of non-theist so such speech is tolerated. How can posters justify allowing one form of speech that denigrates a segment of society while forbidding similar speech that denigrates a different segment of society? Is it because anti-theism is more popular than racism? Is it because there are more anti-theist than racist in the fora? Is is a perception that those who believe in a deity are considered fairer targets for insults?
I personally find such anti-theist posts to be hurtful and hateful. I still support the right of people to make them. Free speech is far too precious a gift to be endangered by censoring speech or posts we do not like.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
lol So what's the risk, everyone can safely say 'no'.
I think you are full of it and sugarcoating your real opinions. You probably are a racist and a thiest. LOL.
Till Eulenspiegel,
Please take your hate speech elsewhere.
Please take your hate speech elsewhere.
The understanding of Freedom of Speech has obviously been lost over the years, I'm not an American and I can't say my perception of where it's occurrence in history is accurate however this is what I believe.
When the subset of Rules was written during the Declaration of Independence, a number of ideals were set forwards to try to remove concerns of corruption in regards to what to expect from a new Governments ideology. One such thing was the "Freedom of Speech" where no man should be silenced if they had a view or opinion that could aid in regards to development of the new found freedoms and what rules bind it all.
Freedom of speech was meant as "Don't censor feedback" because things can't evolve and move on without feedback. Racism and Hate speech are not "constructive Criticisms", They do not aid in the Evolution of ideas or worked towards a utopian dream of ergonomics and policy building, they are in fact destructive and disruptive. Therefore I do not term someone's Hate Speech or Racism as being truly "Freedom of Speech" material.
When the subset of Rules was written during the Declaration of Independence, a number of ideals were set forwards to try to remove concerns of corruption in regards to what to expect from a new Governments ideology. One such thing was the "Freedom of Speech" where no man should be silenced if they had a view or opinion that could aid in regards to development of the new found freedoms and what rules bind it all.
Freedom of speech was meant as "Don't censor feedback" because things can't evolve and move on without feedback. Racism and Hate speech are not "constructive Criticisms", They do not aid in the Evolution of ideas or worked towards a utopian dream of ergonomics and policy building, they are in fact destructive and disruptive. Therefore I do not term someone's Hate Speech or Racism as being truly "Freedom of Speech" material.
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
peta9
I think you are full of it and sugarcoating your real opinions. You probably are a racist and a thiest. LOL.
Today 10:33 AM
DeepThought Till Eulenspiegel,
Please take your hate speech elsewhere.
Peta, while not a racist I am a theist. I have a strong and abiding belief in God. I still support the right of people to submit posts that I personally find hurtful and hateful concerning God.
Deep Thought,
You are illustrating one of the dangers of posting in fora. I in no way defended racism. I defended freedom of speech. I find racism odious but I find censorship even more odious. You, either through a lack of understanding or an overconcern with being politically correct have accused me of posting hate speech.
Either point out where I posted hate speech or apologize for your false accusation.
I think you are full of it and sugarcoating your real opinions. You probably are a racist and a thiest. LOL.
Today 10:33 AM
DeepThought Till Eulenspiegel,
Please take your hate speech elsewhere.
Peta, while not a racist I am a theist. I have a strong and abiding belief in God. I still support the right of people to submit posts that I personally find hurtful and hateful concerning God.
Deep Thought,
You are illustrating one of the dangers of posting in fora. I in no way defended racism. I defended freedom of speech. I find racism odious but I find censorship even more odious. You, either through a lack of understanding or an overconcern with being politically correct have accused me of posting hate speech.
Either point out where I posted hate speech or apologize for your false accusation.
Bells
Staff member
Ya, me corrupt. Yep. You know all. Next time I won't even bother trying to stop you from festering.
Bashing? Uh huh. Man I give up.Gustav said:
Damn it, if I wasn't breastfeeding I would be downing a bottle of red wine.:bawl:
3 Votes have been removed from 'Yes' due to the question of 'Sockpuppet poll voters' being raised (And three posters being banned).
I think you misunderstand.
I'm all for your opinions and think you'd make a great moderator here.
My comment was sarcastically aimed at the mods because of my own experience.
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
I obviously misunderstood and I hope you will accept my apology.
Certainly!
And allow me to apologize for making a comment which could be so easily misconstrued.
Perhaps room could be made for these theories on the pseudo science section.
Racist theories were once supported by many of the intelligentsia, and the majority of the aristocracy, who saw the increasing power of the masses as a possible threat to their well-being. Not without justification, because of worldwide revolutions.
Now racist theories are in the hands, mainly, of the skilled or manual working class, who see foreigners as a threat. Again not without reason, because an immigrant may work cheaper and harder than you do.
Racist theories were once supported by many of the intelligentsia, and the majority of the aristocracy, who saw the increasing power of the masses as a possible threat to their well-being. Not without justification, because of worldwide revolutions.
Now racist theories are in the hands, mainly, of the skilled or manual working class, who see foreigners as a threat. Again not without reason, because an immigrant may work cheaper and harder than you do.
I agree you should hear others opinions that differ from you because shutting it out doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's better to know the true opinions of others and what thier concerns are even if they don't coincide or agree with yours. It's all a learning process.
Till Eulenspiegel
Registered Member
There is a difference between directing racist comments toward another poster and posting comments that might be construed as racist in a general sense.
The first would be a direct, ad hominem attack and thouse things are usually covered in the terms of use for a forum. The second would be a general opinion that while unpopular still deserves discussion if only to refute it.
Hiding or forbidding repugnant views does nothing but send them underground. The only way to refute them is to publically air them and then counter the racism with reason and facts.
The first would be a direct, ad hominem attack and thouse things are usually covered in the terms of use for a forum. The second would be a general opinion that while unpopular still deserves discussion if only to refute it.
Hiding or forbidding repugnant views does nothing but send them underground. The only way to refute them is to publically air them and then counter the racism with reason and facts.
That's a useful recommendation for running, say, a country. But SciForums is not a nation; there is no "undergound" society here. You're either posting here or you aren't, and the people who aren't have no impact on the discourse. Bigots who are intent on spreading racist propaganda will simply find some other outlet, and it's naive to think that tolerance and reason will overcome their inclinations, or that the discourse here will be better off for their presence. The choice is between empowering bigots or banning them; there is, unfortunately, no third way where we can keep them around and still avoid the corrosive effects of their behavior.
Note, however, that my position is limited to activist types who don't behave in an intellectually honest manner. We must be careful to narrowly define the sorts of racism that are not allowed. Everyone is at least a little bit racist on some level, and if we're going to ban people for any expression of that unfortunate fact we're not going to be left with much. The point is to prevent committed (and often organized) ideologues from subverting this site.
- Status