Question: Why is casual racism allowed in the JC?

I did not start this thread.

To answer your question, though... had I said that Black (Asian, Lesbian, Latino, Gay, handicapped, etc...) people were not "decent people," (which I would never do), the resulting ****storm would not be a surprise, you know?

 

I edited in a response.

Unnecessary.

 

I suppose this is an example of why longer edit times is a terrible idea.

 

And could everyone take a deep breath and step back from the keyboard?

Now, specific examples were asked for so we cannot complain that they have been brought up, but given that (unless I'm missing something here) those were not a recent posting I would also think that they are not a hot-topic that brought all of this about. The initial question was about an over-arching feeling about what was being seen and honestly I am not seeing a large amount of discussion that isn't based around a single incident, which changes the entire nature of the discussion.

Intentionally or not, DG's thread in the JCC actually highlighted the nature of the difference and line in the sand of what is being discussed here. It isn't just because of an "extreme" nature to the comments or post, it's because the whole post itself was essentially one large bait for a response. As has been said, the line in the sand that we have to draw here is over whether the post was a flame/bait or not because that is all that we can accurately determine. The simple fact that the internet removes a lot of the other cues that will allow us to determine more regarding intent and any true vehemence behind the statements being made means this is where the limit has to be.

 

My opinion was censored.

 

To be perfectly honest, some of the things that get said and not edited about Muslims and other minority groups in the Senate have seemed pretty borderline/over-the-line to me, but I guess that's a separate issue from "casual racism" in the JCC.

 

Guys I think you should chill out, I think this thread sets a precedent for us to all make really dodgy remarks about other people, which can only be a good thing?

Although that would require consistant moderating, so yeah no such luck...

 

To be honest, I was quite surprised that thread was allowed to desend into a discussion about gypsies, because the orignal post - Which was to do with banking and the recession and I thought was very interesting - had nothing to do with Gypsies. It was a real shame how that thread got side-tracked, IMO.

 

Yeah, I know YJCC has its own unique style where threads will go wherever they may. I just thought it was shame how that thread went off on the tangent it did.

 

Commenting as there's a bit Senate-related, but I'd say that, yes, there is a border often approached, but that it's not strictly minority groups.... Christians come to mind as well, offhand. That said, if there's a particular one that gets noted, that's what PMs are for, to either bring it up if it's been missed, or to find out why it is being allowed to stand. (There have also been some cases where I outright wasn't aware of what a comment meant to see it was more offensive than face value that get covered in PM)
Largely though, it follows the same thing of what Dingo discussed in if it's borderline/over the top to get a reaction versus being what appears to be someone's beliefs.

 

I don't really understand why the absurd, hateful, bigoted, vile belief being genuine make it any better. It provokes the same reactions either way.

 

I understand that we're no longer to discuss specific incidents, but I can see little way of making my point without making at least oblique reference. Taking what happened as prototypical, I think there is something of a compromise between the two positions that this thread has seen advocated. I'd agree that once discussion is allowed to turn towards an individual explaining/defending their objectionable views, it would be unfair to ban them. It would seem odd, after all, to fault someone for honestly answering a question that was asked of him or her. I would personally view an unedited question as implicit permission to continue down a line of discussion, and be disoriented if that expectation was later over-turned.

On the other hand, the title of this thread does get at a unique, separate phenomena: casually racist remarks. In an online community as small as ours, we often tease each other mildly, or make reference to long-running arguments or big threads. This sort of thing is normally allowable, because the content of the argument itself is innocuous. However, with potentially problematic issues, I feel the standard should be different. If, in allowing some level of hate speech, we hang our hat on the potential for earnest discussion, it should only be allowed where there seems to be a sense at that sort of serious, well-intentioned exchange of views. So, for instance, the original comment that sparked the most oft cited incident in this thread would be edited. Someone making "joking" reference to their previously outlined and substantive dislike of a certain religion or ethnic group shouldn't be allowed the same leeway, as, say, someone's joking reference to their dislike for Lady Gaga.

 

How do you stop a Polish army on horseback?

 

the thread was at the very least interesting, and should never have been locked. which was what my "protest" was all about.

Mar isn't racist, despite what a multitude of Americans with their historical attitudes regarding racism would have you believe, and it would've been nice to fully come around to deciding whether that viewpoint was or was not valid. but nah, it gets locked because apparently the THREAD CREATOR decides so. which is another discussion altogether.

 

You're wrong: since people started abusing what used to be a non-written rule, I tend to ignore user requests to lock their own threads unless they have some merit and yes, I considered this was one of these cases. That thread got locked because it had become just a public lynching of Mar.

Sorry you missed the discussion, though.

 

As one of the people whose points of view were changed in one of said discussions(and we all know which one), I agree emphatically with this post. I am incredibly grateful that my breathless rants were engaged and challenged by those who disagreed. Had some of my more ignorant comments been summarily dismissed and I banned, I might still be on my idiotic crusade. Who knows. I became a better person because of that particular discussion.

Even the gypsy discussion, which I wasn't really a part of, yielded a few posts that made a huge impression on me and I have taken to heart as far as my outlook towards what "racism" entails goes. I don't know what Mar ultimately got out of the discussion, but I got a lot out of it. Obviously, the thread could have taken an ugly turn from the very beginning("shooting out stereotypes right and left") but it didn't, really.

I think the current policy of leaving it to the moderators to discern whether comments are made in the honest spirit of discussion or only to provoke in an insensitive and derogatory manner is a solid one.

 

At the end I managed to have a civil discussion with d_b. The end of the world must be nigh...

 

How? I'm waiting for a punchline here.

 

The accepted answer* is "Turn off the carousel"

*the humour or lack thereof of the answer is not necessarily indicative of this poster's views. The post accepts no liability or responsibility for reposting information gathered by a simple google search