PPR Rules/Etiquette

Post Reply New Topic

I'm with Dox47 on this.

Consider the implications of that. Dox47 and I demonstrate, I think, two very different poles of political thought. Yet, here, in this forum, we can manage to have a mutually respectful, knock-down, drag out debate over the merits of any number of topics.

That is the inherent strength of this forum. We come in here not simply to espouse our own firmly held beliefs, but also to be the audience while others espouse theirs. I will articulate my disagreements with the beliefs that they espouse, understanding that every other member is equally likely to express their disagreement with mine.

Out of this chaos, many things can arise: a change of view; consensus; agreement to disagree. Sometimes offence is taken, and sometimes posters cross the line from the principled to the personal. But there is no place where people gather together that such mistakes occur. We grow by learning from those mistakes, not by legislating them out of existence.

A free society is often not pretty. But to paraphrase Churchill--a free society is the worst way to well order a civilization, except for all the others.

Dox47 i apologize fo implicating you as the person who posted a link back to the mod thread. my mistake. i am not oversensitive (have you actually seen me debate?) and i do love a good argument. but denigrating entire groups of people is not acceptabl in the forum rules, and honestly it is not acceptable IRL either. p.s. dating a black person does not give you any true understanding of racism, just like voting for someone black does not.

also, (ran out of space on my phone) a n00b's opinion should not necessarily be discounted, because we bring fresh eyes and a fresh perspective. this is not the forum of the veterans - it is for all members to post and feel welcome. in no way am i advocating an iron fist oF moderation. i am advocating that we protect the basic and most important rules of the forum. there is no reason for racist statements (i.e.) to be allowed because that protect the racist's rights above those of the subject.

You're right, however a white person's opinion should necessarily be discounted, not a n00b's opinion though. Particularly those white Americans! If you are a white American, then I am sorry, I cannot listen to you.

(Warning video not appropriate for all viewers. Please exercise personal discretion due to language use in video.)
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsbZ2C9bH1k[/youtube]

If I understand correctly, the "racism" in question had to do with the Muslim attacks on 9/11. The issue as I see it has nothing to do with race but more about the legitimacy of a religion. In the "real world" all religions have to live according to the laws of the country within which they reside. Christianity acknowledges that. Islam acknowledges that. Most other major religions I'm aware of remains neutral in relations with ruling authorities--the religion is more personal than political. Christians at times have been encouraged to stay out of politics where Christianity is seen as a problem or potential threat. In the USA, Christians rather have a duty to be involved because we have the freedom to influence decisions which affect us. We have procedures in place through which our interests are represented. In fact, all religions who choose to get involved have this avenue available to them, not JUST Christians.

Part of what makes Islam what it is, however, is the extent to which its adherents are encouraged (in their holy text) to use a show of force against those who are not among them--the "infidels" and "hypocrites." We have a word for people like that: "Criminals." In our system of justice, criminals forfeit most of their rights. If you are a sex offender, in effect you don't even have the right to choose where you live after you've "paid your debt to society." Saying that a group of criminals should be wiped out is NOT a racist statement.

If THAT is a racist statement, then I need to go to the mods about every time MY views have been attacked because Christians as a "people-group" have the right to live free of harassment--to express our views completely free of any opposition. Sorry--but any forum that seeks fairness in expressing various viewpoints simply doesn't work that way!! !

Ruveyn MIGHT have been wrong, or he MIGHT have been right. He MIGHT be hateful or simply angry. It's not about whether racist language (it's NOT) should be "protected," but rather that a person has the right to express his views. Something that really upsets me personally is how many things are becoming classified as "hate speech" when hatred or motivations to inspire others to hatred have nothing to do with it.

He has a point, though. "Jumping up and down... with candy canes..." Yeah. But to be honest, I've seen increasing involvement of "white" fraternities participating in "step shows." Good for interracial dialogue, I guess. Personally, I've never understood step shows! And what IS with the canes?

Wait... Does that make me racist? Somebody better go get the mods!! !

i am not following your peculiar logic.... you think it is okay to support a racist as long as they didn't ask for your support?

i did not claim to be personally hurt by racism. where would you get that idea from? it is not an 'offensive opinion'... it is hate speech. hate speech is realy indefensible IRL, and it is indefensible here.

are you truly not able to understand that, when a poster in PPR makes racist comments (or other hate speech), they are speaking about REAL PEOPLE who have just as much right to be in the forum as anyone else. there is no valid reason for them to be insulted or degraded because of the colour of their skin or their religion.

again, i make the distinction between arguing the philosophy behind a religion or policy (acceptable), and the poeple themselves who live with that colour of skin or prescribe to that relisgion.

they are people, and deserve respect.



so, being called names (personal attacks) is acceptable to you as well? that explains a lot, now that i know your position. if you feel that kind of behaviour is permitted, then of course it would not be any problem in your perspective.

i don't know if you are pretending to be completely unaware of what a forum dogpile is, but just in case you really don't know:

www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog+pile

well, it's what you are trying to do with this thread. you are trying to lead a movement that institutionalize the position that racism (et al) are permitted.


maybe YOU ought to think about being more openminded to the views from n00bs. just because something like PPR has evolved to a certain form or state does not mean it is the best possible state in which to exist. you would be well-served to to rise above the rampant racism and anti-islamic attitudes in PPR and truly face that you are protecting an aspect of the forum that, by its very nature, should not be allowed. you are entrenched and are demonstarting a certain closedmindedness to change within the PPR forum, inless that change serves your own agenda... please explain how that is a positive stance to take, or how PPR really benefits from an attitude like that.


did i mention anything specifically about men? no, i did not. perhaps the male-dominated aspect of the forum is something that you want to preserve? i hadn't even considered that perspective, so thank you for bringing that to my attention. i am not at all vindictive about the dogpile in the moderator thread - these posts represent my stance on the issue of racism in PPR (or else why would i have flagged the thread in the first place?), but really your opinion on my motives does not matter. i can see what you are doing

the widest field of subjects should include people of other races and religions. that means that they should be protected from attack based on the colour of their skin or their religion. it is one thing to argue a philosophy underlying a religion, it is entirely another thing to

i do think that, if a sticky is posted with guidelines, no exceptions to the actual rules should be included.[/quote]

Rules can be changed.[/quote]

are you arguing that stating that all members of a religion be killed is NOT hate speech? really?

The racism on the board recently is an aberration from the normal workings of PPR. I think Dox and the rest of the veteran posters on here understand that at some point the racism will blow over and PPR will move on to other things. Cracking down on PPR with harsh moderation would be an inappropriately excessive response to a temporary issue. Already the racist posts are starting to recede—I haven't seen Hanotaux posting in a while, and codarac and ascan have left for now (they'll be back for another handful of racist posts at some later date, as they always are). The issue is the idea that no topic of discussion is taboo here. This is a politics board, and people will discuss and advocate a lot of views that are likely to be seen as extreme.

just because it may blow over does not make it okay in the first place.

the subject of race or religion should not be taboo, of course. in no way do i advocate that certain subjects should not be discussed. in fact, i was quite vociferous on a thread involving the possibility of reverse racism.

however, actual disparaging statements (such as referring to all members of a race as 'tree-dwelling', is not discussing race or racism... it is a racist remark in and of itself, which is distinct from the discussion of race.

why do you suppose that the racist comments have decreased? i really doubt it is due to any natural evolution or change. anyway, if you think that the decrease in comments is a good thing, then it should not be a problem to have moderators step in when comments like that are made. especially if it is a problem taht ebbs and flows - it's not like the mods would need to babysit, they could just step in when such comments are made.

What if it is collateral damage?

ruveyn

i don't understand the question.

i am not arguing about whether war is right or wrong, i am arguing that making racist statements, or ones that advocate that all members of a religion be killed for instance, is not acceptable on WP as per the rules posted at the top of the forum.

Ruveyn did make some very interesting posts later in the thread but the OP still sounds like hate speech to me.

The translation sounds more like a command rather than an expression of opinion or feelings.

If the intention was not to cause mischief the post could have been put in a better way.

It seems that the site rules do not apply on this board.

It seems that the top rule of this board is "Don't talk about PPR (to the mods)!".

If you want to complain you can... um... only complain to those people that you were complaining about.
That sounds kinda familiar.

I guess that is consistent with Dox47's zero government approach.

No. I'm arguing that criminal activities be suppressed by reasonable force. Anyone who steps onto my property who has no business being there at a time during the day they have no business being there and who poses a visible threat to me and mine, they should not be surprised if their backs get pumped full of shot. If they get away, then it's only a matter of time from the moment I call 911 to report vandals and the time they show up at the hospital due to a "hunting accident," which the hospital is obligated to report to the authorities. By the time the last piece of lead is removed from their skin, there will be a sheriff's deputy already waiting at the door to take them to the county lockup. "Well, son, exactly what function do eggs and paint balls serve while hunting?"

That said, if neighborhood kids cross through either my back yard or front yard in transit from another kid's house, I don't have a problem with that either. There's nothing dangerous on my property, and I don't even have a problem if they want to use my back yard to play football. But if I wake up after midnight hearing strange noises and see someone with what looks to me like an assault rifle, what do you THINK I'm going to do? They should count their blessings I didn't happen to have slugs in the barrel or a high-powered rifle (or worse, an AK47).

What am I getting at here? The law gives me the right to protect my family from criminals at all costs. My family has fallen victim to bullies enough we had to install security cameras where we used to live. In the same way, our government has the duty to protect us as its citizens by using reasonable force, i.e. no more or less what it takes for effectiveness. But what about when a "religion" is used as an excuse to justify criminal activity? If that is the case, and you can read the Koran yourself if you don't believe me, then the religion cannot be viewed as such, but rather a criminal organization.

Look what happened in Waco, Texas. David Koresh separated husbands from wives and fathered children through those wives. They amassed an arsenal of assault weapons in anticipation of the apocalypse. Koresh was molesting children. All under the rubric of religion. Was it handled badly? Obviously, or so many people wouldn't have died. But the plain fact is that if Koresh hadn't acted as a criminal, there would have been no cause for alarm, absolutely no intervention on the behalf of the government at all.

What about the Manson "Family"? They believed Charles was the messiah and that their actions were justified. All in the name of pseudo-religion. Within a few short years of prison, most of them changed their tune. Said that Charles brainwashed them. Said it wasn't their fault. Susan Atkins converted to Christianity and did a lot of nice things for bad people. Do you think they let her go? No. They kept her behind bars until she rotted. They wheeled her into her last hearing on a gurney when she was too sick to even move, and they STILL told her she was too dangerous to be released.

Suppose a known sexual predator moved right next door to you, fresh out of prison and trying to start his life over. You'd honestly be comfortable with that? It has become widely accepted that there is no rehabilitation for sex offenders, so you'd have to accept that this is a person who very likely poses a real threat to you and your family. Would you honestly suppress the voices of others who do not want him in the neighborhood because to say he can't live there is "hate speech"? What if it's his religion to have sex with 6-year-olds. Should he be protected, allowed to invite little 6-year-old girls into his house so he can "give them some candy" or "show them some pictures"? Most people find this disgusting. What you're saying is he should not be denied access to little girls because telling him so is "hate speech."

If that's NOT what your saying, then you can't honestly say that a religion that promotes gross criminal activity shouldn't be eradicated. If the religion promotes crime against those who disagree with it, then two things follow: Adherents should recant their faith, or those who knowingly persist in committing crimes should be punished. The Koran teaches that those who are able to carry out jihad but refuse to do so are "hypocrites" and worthy of the same end as "infidels." If Islam is to be a peaceful religion, then it has to recognize that Mohammed wasn't always right and key parts of the Koran are to be discarded.

It wouldn't exactly be the first time religious adherents have been forced to confront something inherently flawed in a religion. In Japan, the shinto belief that the emperor was the descendent of the sun goddess had to be outright discarded by the emperor himself after World War II.

We Christians, time and time again, have had to learn some really painful lessons throughout our long history.

So if the shinto Japanese had to make changes, if Christians have had to make changes, what makes Muslims a protected people group? What is "hateful" in asserting that criminals be treated as such?

This has nothing to do with racism or "hate speech" and everything to do with global crimes against innocent people.

I agree, and I was the first to point it out as blatant racism.


Racist posters likely realized that they had an unreceptive audience and gave up.


Incorrect. I do not subscribe to a "by any means necessary" mentality in accomplishing certain things. There is a right way and a wrong way to go about doing things. Censorship is always the wrong way.