Banning Sean1916

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
How?

So you'r telling me that everytime someone says "I hate ****" someone else goes, "hmm he's right lets kill us a ******" that basically amounths to what your saying. There are many levels of racism and racists. If what you say is true then how can the children of racists ever not be racist themselfs.

flogen

in·cite
tr.v. in·cit·ed, in·cit·ing, in·cites
To provoke and urge on: troublemakers who incite riots; inciting workers to strike. See Synonyms at

You dont have to convert to incite. Someone saying they hate **** is inciting hatred, it may not make the people who hear it agree with it, but it is inciting hatred towards black people.

flogen

Boston

Originally posted by flogen
You dont have to convert to incite. Someone saying they hate **** is inciting hatred, it may not make the people who hear it agree with it, but it is inciting hatred towards black people.

flogen

Key word there is "To provoke" its not encitement unless you provoke someone into doing or thinking a certain way. People can express entolerance without provoking others. This thread is a perfect example of it. Sean expressed his intolerance, but did not incite anyone into hatred or violence. He was banned for expressing intolerance, he would be arrested for provoking it.

Boston

O and you would have to show that there was a direct link between the things expressed and the actions caused, to arrest someone for encitement.

flogen

Originally posted by Boston
Key word there is "To provoke" its not encitement unless you provoke someone into doing or thinking a certain way. People can express entolerance without provoking others. This thread is a perfect example of it. Sean expressed his intolerance, but did not incite anyone into hatred or violence. He was banned for expressing intolerance, he would be arrested for provoking it.

No, you're using the word provoke out of context. By someone making a racist comment with the intention of provoking and urging people to feel the same (which is a hatred for another race), you are inciting hatred. You do not have to succeed in your attempt, but the intention has to be there. Now granted, it can be difficult to prove the person making the comments intended to provoke and urge people to feel the same, sean1916, IMO was certainly trying to incite hatred, by attempting to convice us the holocaust did not happen, and linking it with the idea that Jewish people control the media, and the world for their own good and to make money. He was certainly pushing the politics people to feel a hatred towards Jewish people, making them out to be power hungry, greedy and liars.

flogen

Victor

Originally posted by flogen
Now granted, it can be difficult to prove the person making the comments intended to provoke and urge people to feel the same,

The only proof needed is for a reasonable man (or rather a reasonable judge / jury) to believe that there was incitement.

Boston

Originally posted by flogen
No, you're using the word provoke out of context. By someone making a racist comment with the intention of provoking and urging people to feel the same (which is a hatred for another race), you are inciting hatred. You do not have to succeed in your attempt, but the intention has to be there. Now granted, it can be difficult to prove the person making the comments intended to provoke and urge people to feel the same, sean1916, IMO was certainly trying to incite hatred, by attempting to convice us the holocaust did not happen, and linking it with the idea that . He was certainly pushing the politics people to feel a hatred towards Jewish people, making them out to be power hungry, greedy and liars.

flogen

Well there you go, you would have to prove intent. Also if its the truth then is it racism? I haven't read the thread in question, but I'm sure their are Jewish people who control certain elements of the media, and the world for their own good and to make money, in the same way I'm sure there are catholics/protestants and whatever else doing the same thing? The point I'm getting accross is replace Jew with American, and look at the amounth of hatred incited towards them on the politics board! I suppose however its enciting hatred of their actions but not them, but that to is a fine line of arguement. I'm not arguing that the guy shouldn't have been banned, merely that an automatic system shouldn't be in place, where by if you make comments that could be taken a certain way you get banned. A big bucket of salt and a whole lot of judgement should be used, even in the interest of debate, which is what politics is for. I wouldn't like to see people banned for beign racist, but being banned for being abusive.

Boston

Originally posted by Victor
The only proof needed is for a reasonable man (or rather a reasonable judge / jury) to believe that there was incitement.

He says it like its the most common thing on earth, like it's an extra half hour for lunch. To incite something and intend to incite something are two very diferent things. A moment of stupidity, a slipped word, and careless statement from the right people can incite the masses to do insane things. Is it reasonable to believe that the someone will kill someone because of something said on the internet, of course not, but it happen's, and when it does is it reasonable to hodl the person accountable? I think not... maybe you do, but thats a difference of opinion.

flogen

Originally posted by Boston
Well there you go, you would have to prove intent. Also if its the truth then is it racism? I haven't read the thread in question, but I'm sure their are Jewish people who control certain elements of the media, and the world for their own good and to make money, in the same way I'm sure there are catholics/protestants and whatever else doing the same thing? The point I'm getting accross is replace Jew with American, and look at the amounth of hatred incited towards them on the politics board! I suppose however its enciting hatred of their actions but not them, but that to is a fine line of arguement. I'm not arguing that the guy shouldn't have been banned, merely that an automatic system shouldn't be in place, where by if you make comments that could be taken a certain way you get banned. A big bucket of salt and a whole lot of judgement should be used, even in the interest of debate, which is what politics is for. I wouldn't like to see people banned for beign racist, but being banned for being abusive.

If it is the truth, well then it can not be considered racist, however, there is no evidence to prove seans statements were true (no real evidence), and even if they were, it is racist to hold an entire race responsible for the actions of its minority.
I also have no doubt that there are Jewish people at the top of big business and media, but no more than there are christians, athiests and pagans, however, using your comparison between feelings towards America and feelings towards Jewish people, I would not hold the entire Christian community responsible for the actions of George Bush.
Continuing with your comparison, I have no hatred for American people, but I do have a hatred for their leaders. Obviously these are the minority (although may be supported by a majority of people), and like the Jewish businessmen who are only interested in their own personal gains, I have a problem with them and not their race/religion.

I do agree, however that there should be no automatic bannings made to people, and debate should come first. If the person is unwilling to follow a polite debate, or begins to get unquestionably racist and blatantly attempts to incite hatred, then bannings should become an option.

To incite something and intend to incite something are two very diferent things

Yes, but when I spoke of ones intention to incite hatred, I did not mean it in the sense that they plan to but didn't, I meant it that they made certain comments with the intention of inciting hatred. This makes intentional incitment of hatred, and the incitement of hatred the same thing. To suggest that someone who mistakingly incites hatred should not be held responsible is also wrong IMO. If one of these 'right people' (and I assume by this you mean a high powered person, for example a politician or something) is to speak to the public, he or she must take responsibility for everything they say. If they are unable to articulate themselves properly, they should not hold such high powered positions.

flogen

Boston

should a people not be held responsible for the actions taken by their elected leaders, in their name? Thats the basis for democracy. I don't hate Jews, but I've a serious problem with most isreali's, does that make me a racist... I think not.

it is racist to hold an entire race responsible for the actions of its minority.

one could argue all Germans where held accountable for the actions of the Nazi's was this acceptable

I would not hold the entire Christian community responsible for the actions of George Bush.

True, but I could hold that particular style of Anglo protestant extremism responsible for at least that attitude. In the same way I could hold catholic and protestant dogma responsible for alot of the trouble in the north, and by proxy all those that buy into it and support it.

flogen

should a people not be held responsible for the actions taken by their elected leaders, in their name? Thats the basis for democracy. I don't hate Jews, but I've a serious problem with most isreali's, does that make me a racist... I think not.

Well, I would disagree with anyone who supports someone like Bush, and Sharon, but that is not the entire population of the US, or the entire population of Israel. As for your problems with Israel, you would not be racist for hating a country, just xenophobic, and it depends on your reasons for disliking a country. If you dislike Israel because it mainly consists of Jews, then I would say you were xenophobic and racist, if you disagree with their policies and have good reasonings behind that, then you are just giving an opinion.

one could argue all Germans where held accountable for the actions of the Nazi's was this acceptable

One could, but I wouldn't. Without getting too deep into a debate not suited for this forum, it is a fact that Hitler was never elected by the people, he never had a majority and he took his power by force and intimidation. given Nazisms use of propoganda, its shielding of the truth from its people and its lies, I dont think many Germans knew alot of its countries actions. If you can show me evidence to say all of 1930's/40's Germany knew and condoned the actions of their leaders, then I would hold them equally responsible, until then, I wont.

True, but I could hold that particular style of Anglo protestant extremism responsible for at least that attitude. In the same way I could hold catholic and protestant dogma responsible for alot of the trouble in the north, and by proxy all those that buy into it and support it.

Yes, and? While there may be extremist factions of all religions, I am talking about the mainstream sections. I do not think the Jewish faith encourages its people to be greedy and heartless, and to take over the media and manipulate facts. I am as sure that whatever sub-section of Christianity Bush follows is the same. I do however, hold responsible anyone who follows and supports religious extremism of any description. If the church itself is the one pumping out these extremist ideals and attitudes, they should be held responsible, if it is the people taking their teachings in the wrong way, then the people are the ones at fault.
Again, the catholic and protestant 'dogma' does not support a religious war, like what has happened and does happen in the north, but some people to percieve it that way, and sadly some priests and reverends to teach it that way.

flogen

RicardoSmith

I was more thinking thats what you could be charged with for making racist comments. Also the person being provoked might be the person against whom the racist comment is directed against.

DapperGent

When Boston tries to make a point it causes my brain to bleed.

hostyle

Originally posted by Boston
... There are many levels of racism and racists. ...

I'd have thought you had enough practise trolling after all these years, but you're starting to slip.

Many levels of racism? There are apparently many levels of retard too. I think you've reached a new one.

CuLT

Originally posted by hostyle
I'd have thought you had enough practise trolling after all these years, but you're starting to slip.

Many levels of racism? There are apparently many levels of retard too. I think you've reached a new one.

Steeeeeee-rike! you're outta here.
You should have tried an argument rather than an insult hostyle.

DapperGent

I thought it was pretty funny.

Boston

Originally posted by hostyle
I'd have thought you had enough practise trolling after all these years, but you're starting to slip.

Many levels of racism? There are apparently many levels of retard too. I think you've reached a new one.

Sorry who are you.

DapperGent, I found your reply funny.

hostyle

OK then, I'll try the polite approach. Would you mind clarifying your statement: "There are many levels of racism and racists."

Boston

Well I think it's pretty obvious what I mean. Also being a racist isn't that much lower then being discriminative against handicapped people, and yes there are many many levels of retardation.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Boston
Well I think it's pretty obvious what I mean. Also being a racist isn't that much lower then being discriminative against handicapped people, and yes there are many many levels of retardation.

I don't. I reckon thats going off on another tangent. Can you not just answer the question and stay on topic of Racisim. I also asked about the "levels" earlier. I say you're either racist or you're not. I don't see what "levels" there are.

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
I don't. I reckon thats going off on another tangent. Can you not just answer the question and stay on topic of Racisim. I also asked about the "levels" earlier. I say you're either racist or you're not. I don't see what "levels" there are.

you could argue that hte attitiude and mentallity is the same, but not all racism go around attacking people/firing people/making peoples lifes hell. Alot of the time that put it to one side and get on with doing there job/whatever.

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Boston
you could argue that hte attitiude and mentallity is the same, but not all racism go around attacking people/firing people/making peoples lifes hell. Alot of the time that put it to one side and get on with doing there job/whatever.

If a tree falls in a wood....

How does that relate to Sean1916

Boston

Originally posted by RicardoSmith
How does that relate to Sean1916

Ha you make me laugh, your in the good book now.

Bee

The banning of someone due to racist remarks etc is a bad idea. O.K. the civil liberties luvvies may get all upset but if you don't tackle racism head on in a discussion forum how can anyone make progress and expose racism for what it is?

Remember when RTE was banned by the Goverment from talking to the Shinner's God I would have loved to get on Live Line et al when they were slaughtering folk in my name and fouling the word Republicism!

Bee

RicardoSmith

Originally posted by Bee
The banning of someone due to racist remarks etc is a bad idea. O.K. the civil liberties luvvies may get all upset but if you don't tackle racism head on in a discussion forum how can anyone make progress and expose racism for what it is?

Remember when RTE was banned by the Goverment from talking to the Shinner's God I would have loved to get on Live Line et al when they were slaughtering folk in my name and fouling the word Republicism!

Bee

Thats only valid if the person is engaging in debate, and not avoiding answering the questions put to them, and just posting linkz and comments out of context. Which was happening.

hostyle

Originally posted by Boston
you could argue that hte attitiude and mentallity is the same, but not all racism go around attacking people/firing people/making peoples lifes hell. Alot of the time that put it to one side and get on with doing there job/whatever.

rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.


There you have it. Racism is discrimination towards a person or persons of another race because of their membership of that race. Violence on the other hand is attacking people, etc. Racism can lead to violence, but violence (even racist inspired violence) is not racism. A person is either racist or they're not. There is only one level of racism.