Question: Why is casual racism allowed in the JC?

Discussion in 'Communications' started by Lord Vivec, Feb 6, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
  1. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    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?
  2. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Oh, so you have free rein to do whatever you want because you didn't start the thread? Let's not be facile here: you were talking about posts in two specific threads by one specific user, suggesting that you thought it fair that individual's posts be subject to review in Comms by the userbase at large. You weren't the only one doing this, but since I was replying to this, we'll go with that. We can dispense with PMing complaints to mods and make straight public threads where we talk about the various ways in which we think people deserve editing.

    Except we won't because that's a really bad idea. So let's stop it and discuss the issue as a whole, which the thread author made a pretense of doing and then quickly abandoned.
  3. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    I edited in a response.

    Unnecessary.
  4. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Yes: two minutes after my post, you edited in a response that continued to discuss specific posts by a specific user.
  5. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    I suppose this is an example of why longer edit times is a terrible idea.
  6. Dingo Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2001
    star 5
    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.
  7. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    My opinion was censored. :(
  8. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Specific examples plural, Dingo; yet it's plain we're talking about one user this entire time, and two threads. The initial question was not brought up over an over-arching feeling. We don't need to pretend that we were born yesterday and don't realize that people make threads about general issues when they're referring to one thing in particular. Nobody's talking about a larger issue here, or they'd have brought up different examples. The question was answered a minute after Grimby posted.

    Discussing a specific user's behavior is not what this place is for. We've already outlined and demonstrated what the lines are, and then we're called back to the same sets of quotes over and over again. How long must we dance this dance?

    No, we're not editing the gypsy thread. There, it's done. Let's move on.
  9. AaylaSecurOWNED Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 6
    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.
  10. darth_boy Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 1, 2001
    star 7
    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...
  11. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    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.

  12. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Back to specific instances, I see. I'll discuss it in the context of general policy, then. :p

    I can't speak for the other JCC mods (but we're usually of the same mind on things like this), but I usually let discussions flow where they may in JCC. We don't have long term topics like the Senate: a thread comes up, inspired by whatever (in this case, a news event) and the conversation flows where it may. It's only when a discussion becomes counterproductive or actively interferes with a thread author's purpose that I'm inclined to intervene.

    In general, I don't like to disrupt the flow of discussion.
  13. G-FETT Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2001
    star 7
    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.[face_peace]
  14. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    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.
  15. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    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.
  16. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    For me it's the genuine nature of the belief combined with a capacity for discussion. If somebody's just spouting hate, I'd get rid of it: the costs outweigh any freedom of speech benefit, to the extent we even have such a thing. But if it's in the context for a discussion and if it'll get someplace meaningful, I'll condone it. Like I've said, the ability of people to respond strongly to that sort of thing might well promote a change of heart.

    It's a tough thing to balance the two, and sometimes we might wish it went the other way in hindsight: but there's no hard and fast rule about it.
  17. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    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.
  18. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    So what you're saying is that we should disallow stand-up comedy style racist jokes?
  19. FlareStorm Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 13, 2000
    star 6
    How do you stop a Polish army on horseback?
  20. epic Ex Mod / RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 1999
    star 7
    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.
  21. JoinTheSchwarz Comms Admin & Community Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2002
    star 8
    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.
  22. JMJacenSolo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2006
    star 4
    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.
  23. Mar17swgirl Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Dec 26, 2000
    star 7
    At the end I managed to have a civil discussion with d_b. The end of the world must be nigh... :p
  24. Mortimer_Snerd Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2004
    star 6
    How? I'm waiting for a punchline here.

  25. halibut Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 27, 2000
    star 8
    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
Moderators: JoinTheSchwarz, LAJ_FETT, Ramza
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.