The casual racism in the conspiracy theories forum

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

What language, specifically? I thought it was just the general idea that so many threads on the subject existed which irked you. I certainly would agree with you about clamping down on racist language, but I honestly haven't come across much racist language in the forum and would imagine that the mods would deal with it accordingly.

They're not, as pointed out by humanji.

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

If the football forum had threads mocking the ethicist of players would that be tolerated. Or how about in the roleplaying forum, if someone started posting links to some depraved Gorean style campaign filled with misanthropic vile rape fantasies would your argument be, "hey don't visit the roleplaying or football forum?

We're told boards.ie is a community, well this community has a sub community that is coming off like boards.ie/stormfront, should the community not actively engage in fixing this?

Oh come on now.. you're likening someone posting a theory about Jews to posting about rape fantasies? Sorry but that's just emotive claptrap. And comparing the forum to Stormfront is ridiculous.. if there was anything nearly as hateful as what's on Stormfront posted in the CT forum then I would be on your side of this argument. Again, you're attempting to play on emotion rather than reason.

I've never seen you post in the CT forum while in agreement with any theory, and you have gone out of your way to flame the OPs of many threads. So to talk about the 'community' being engaged in fixing the forum is laughable. I suspect that you'd be quite content to see the forum shut down completely.

I'll try to reply to the rest later when I have more time.

Rev Hellfire

Di0genes wrote: »

If the football forum had threads mocking the ethicist of players would that be tolerated. Or how about in the roleplaying forum, if someone started posting links to some depraved Gorean style campaign filled with misanthropic vile rape fantasies would your argument be, "hey don't visit the roleplaying or football forum?

Should someone post such a thing in the roleplaying forum, I would (assuming I felt they where genuine) move their post to the S&S forum and direct them there.

The simple fact is that just because something is not tolerated in one (or the majority) of forums does not imply that it is not tolerated at all.

Di0genes wrote: »

We're told boards.ie is a community, well this community has a sub community that is coming off like boards.ie/stormfront, should the community not actively engage in fixing this?

Boards is a collection of communities, what is a valid viewpoint for one does not have to be valid for another.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

Oh come on now.. you're likening someone posting a theory about Jews to posting about rape fantasies?

Theres a thread suggesting that the IDF is intentionally creating an army of mind controlled psychopaths.

Sorry but that's just emotive claptrap. And comparing the forum to Stormfront is ridiculous.. if there was anything nearly as hateful as what's on Stormfront posted in the CT forum then I would be on your side of this argument. Again, you're attempting to play on emotion rather than reason.

Jews control the media, the US presidency, the Holohaox all these are active threads in the forum. There's a thread where someone said "The Jews killed Jesus," another where someone calls them the "most discipable (sic) race of people on the planet", posters demanding that Jewish owned media organisations are identified. I'm standing over
my comparison.

I've never seen you post in the CT forum while in agreement with any theory, and you have gone out of your way to flame the OPs of many threads. So to talk about the community being engaged in fixing the forum is laughable. I suspect that you'd be quite content to see the forum shut down completely.

I thought the mark of a good discussion is people who passionately believe in a subject, who hold differing world views. I don't think the forum should be shut down, I think it should be moderated more even handedly.

alastair

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Boards is a collection of communities, what is a valid viewpoint for one does not have to be valid for another.

Well, as has been established in this thread - there's an official acceptance of racist/bigoted posts in the context of the conspiracy forum. That's all well and good if that's the case, but what confused me is why that tolerance doesn't extend to those who highlight such racism/bigotry? It's alright to expound racist opinions, but not to call such opinions racist? And by any any meaningful measure, there no distinction (or degree of insult for that matter) between pointing to the active bigot or the active bigotry.

Rev Hellfire

alastair wrote: »

And by any any meaningful measure, there no distinction (or degree of insult for that matter) between pointing to the active bigot or the active bigotry.

I'll not disagree with you there, but its the culture here to not directly accuse someone of something but rather to do it implicitly through attacking their posts.

But those are the rules so work them, the end result is largely the same.

Di0genes

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Should someone post such a thing in the roleplaying forum, I would (assuming I felt they where genuine) move their post to the S&S forum and direct them there.

They argue that it's a roleplaying game and continue to post there.

The simple fact is that just because something is not tolerated in one (or the majority) of forums does not imply that it is not tolerated at all.

Could you perhaps point me in the direction of another forum on this site that tolerates racist language.

Genuinely curious I'd like to know.

Boards is a collection of communities, what is a valid viewpoint for one does not have to be valid for another.

I'm sorry thats a glib cop out. If there was a call for a paedophilia sub forum in sex and sexuality would the community stand for it? And don't tell that there isn't a campaign to have paedophilia recognised as sexuality ever heard of NAMBLA?

Don't tell me that having a forum on this site where jews are seen as controlling the media, the US presidency, creating psychopathy soldiers, and you just roll your eyes and say "hey we're a melting pot".

And keep in mind, the mods in this forum, aren't just allowing language that would not be tolerated on this forum, but actively banning posters on the forum when their reaction to this racist nonsense is to call it bigotry and racism, saying such language is against the boards.ie terms of service.

Thats just mental.

King Mob

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'll not disagree with you there, but its the culture here to not directly accuse someone of something but rather to do it implicitly through attacking their posts.
But those are the rules so work them, the end result is largely the same.

So what exactly is the difference that makes one acceptable and one not?

Seems a bit silly to hand out month long bans over wording when "the end result is largely the same."
Especially silly when racist bull**** is given special protection.

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

Theres a thread suggesting that the IDF is intentionally creating an army of mind controlled psychopaths

And yet that constitutes racism against the Jews? Suggesting that one of the most questionable armed forces in the world is actively engaged in something.. well, questionable is discrimination against an entire religion? Wow, the bar for what can be described as racism is considerably lower when anything Jewish or Israeli is being discussed

Yitzhak Rabin

Although Humanji has already made it clear, the reason the problems occur, is because you refuse to engage in attacking the post, and instead just attack the poster.

Take for instance your ban Di0genes. Had you said that you disagreed with Brown Bomber, because you think that by calling for transparency, it was leading down a similar road to the Nazi's where Jewish business were forced to identify as such. Instead you just said (paraphrase) "You are a Nazi". You had also picked up an infraction earlier in the thread, so you had fair warning. As for the length of your ban, you were just back from a 2 week ban for a similar offence, so you should have known better.

As for the CT forum allowing for racist language to be used, that is completely untrue. Lets just look at the thread in question. Here are two of the mod warnings:

Humanji wrote:

This isn't a political rally. Phrases like "The Jewish Problem" were fine in Nuremburg, but aren't welcome here.

yekahs wrote:

TMoreno, please refrain from using the phrase "holohoax" from now on. You are welcome to continue to discuss the topic, however that phrase is deeply offensive, inflammatory and insensitive and further use of that word, for which the only purpose is to inflame, will not be tolerated.

So we do not allow racist language to be used. However we do not censor viewpoints we find distasteful. We think that people should be free to air those viewpoints civilly, and in return people should be free to argue against those viewpoints, civilly. In fact I think you'll find that the mods were arguing against the OP from the start. The difference is we didn't resort to attacking the poster, and instead attacked the post, or the article contained in the post. For example:

Humanji wrote:

In fairness, it's pretty much a pile of coincidental, racist ****. The logic is just mental: Jewish people have succeeded in various areas, therefore they are evil and trying to brain wash us. Seriously, that is just a bizarre leap of faith to come to that conclusion.

You'd almost think that the guys who wrote the "article" were some sort of dis-info agents trying to discredit those who speak out against Isreal and the like, because it's just silly.

A robust criticism, that expresses the same viewpoint as yourself, but doesn't attack the poster personally.

Mods aren't the only ones either. I would say more than 2/3rds of the posts were criticising the theory. They all did so in a civil manner. They conveyed the same distaste as you, but crucially, they did so without attacking the poster.

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. I think that the only way to fight views you appose is with more speech, not censorship.

King Mob

yekahs wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. I think that the only way to fight views you appose is with more speech, not censorship.

That'd be great all and Yekahs, but that's not the issue.

On one hand you guys arguing that site wide rules must be strictly enforced in one case then they can be waved in another.
This doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why exactly do racist comments and opinions get special protection?
What other forum on the site offers them the same protection?

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

They all did so in a civil manner. They conveyed the same distaste as you, but crucially, they did so without attacking the poster.

On the basis that calling a racist, a eh, racist is 'insulting or 'uncivil', but calling their views racist is neither? That might wash for some, but to quote Humanji (and to adhere to site guidelines) 'Your post is stupid'.

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

Although Humanji has already made it clear, the reason the problems occur, is because you refuse to engage in attacking the post, and instead just attack the poster.

Personally speaking - I've no problem with attacking the post - problem is once you get to the crux of the matter - the bigoted posters don't care to defend the post - they have carte blanche to fall back on their kneejerk bigotry/racism. BB, for instance, might well play the 'zionist, not jews' veil dance, but his posting history speak for itself/him.

Yitzhak Rabin

King Mob wrote: »

That'd be great all and Yekahs, but that's not the issue.

On one hand you guys arguing that site wide rules must be strictly enforced in one case then they can be waved in another.
This doesn't make a lick of sense.

Why exactly do racist comments and opinions get special protection?
What other forum on the site offers them the same protection?

IMO, it comes down to the subjective nature of what is racist, and the objective nature of attacking a poster.

I think its better to allow discussion and for the reasons for why you believe a viewpoint to be racist to be pointed out, rather than us mods becoming the arbiters of what is and isn't racist.

Say for example, someone claims that for example, the US are controlling the oil industry of Venezuela, and go on to point out the heads of the oil companies in Venezuela are all Americans. The only thing linking the people is that they are Americans? Should we lock that because it is racist against Americans? Or should we allow people point out the plethora of other reasons why Americans would be in charge of the companies, and why it is inconsequential in the first place.

You can replace American with any arbitrary tag you want: Catholic, libertarian, LA Galaxy fan, etc. etc.

Yitzhak Rabin

alastair wrote: »

On the basis that calling a racist, a eh, racist is 'insulting or 'uncivil', but calling their views racist is neither? That might wash for some, but to quote Humanji (and to adhere to site guidelines) 'Your post is stupid'.

Perhaps I should have qualified that better. You should also explain why.

So that theory is racist because......

Yitzhak Rabin

alastair wrote: »

Personally speaking - I've no problem with attacking the post - problem is once you get to the crux of the matter - the bigoted posters don't care to defend the post - they have carte blanche to fall back on their kneejerk bigotry/racism. BB, for instance, might well play the 'zionist, not jews' veil dance, but his posting history speak for itself/him.

Well if you believe that is the case, then you let it speak for itself. No need for you to add your seal of approval and call him a bigot.

King Mob

yekahs wrote: »

IMO, it comes down to the subjective nature of what is racist, and the objective nature of attacking a poster.

I think its better to allow discussion and for the reasons for why you believe a viewpoint to be racist to be pointed out, rather than us mods becoming the arbiters of what is and isn't racist.

Say for example, someone claims that for example, the US are controlling the oil industry of Venezuela, and go on to point out the heads of the oil companies in Venezuela are all Americans. The only thing linking the people is that they are Americans? Should we lock that because it is racist against Americans? Or should we allow people point out the plethora of other reasons why Americans would be in charge of the companies, and why it is inconsequential in the first place.

You can replace American with any arbitrary tag you want: Catholic, libertarian, LA Galaxy fan, etc. etc.

Ok that doesn't answer my questions in the slightest, and the issue I'm having is with obviously racist opinions. I'm talking about the stuff like the things listed here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68760430&postcount=29
Both you and humanji have already stated in this and in other threads that you find many of these opinions racist.
If, to use your example, people where just to list off Americans with no other evidence or reason other than the fact that they are American and therefore must be working conspiring together, then that would be unquestionably racist.

And we've already concluded that it's not a matter of opinion if some is a racist when they make clearly racist comments.

So again:
Why exactly do racist comments and opinions get special protection?
What other forum on the site offers them the same protection?

alastair

yekahs wrote: »

Well if you believe that is the case, then you let it speak for itself. No need for you to add your seal of approval and call him a bigot.

Especially where highlighting the active bigot over the active bigotry earns you a month ban, while the bigotry retains a platform. Seems like a reasonable system to me - defend the rights of bigots and wrap the obvious implication of bigoted/racist views in a bogus 'insulting' status.

Di0genes

yekahs wrote: »

Although Humanji has already made it clear, the reason the problems occur, is because you refuse to engage in attacking the post, and instead just attack the poster.

Take for instance your ban Di0genes. Had you said that you disagreed with Brown Bomber, because you think that by calling for transparency, it was leading down a similar road to the Nazi's where Jewish business were forced to identify as such. Instead you just said (paraphrase) "You are a Nazi".

Thats the second time I've been completely misrepresented on this thread, Humanji says I suggested Brown Bomber wanted Genocide, and now you're saying I called him a Nazi.

I said in reaction to BB claim that there should be transparency over jewish media organisation, and I asked him sarcastically how this transparency would be enforced.

Alaistar is similarly banned for pointing out another comment was "bigotry"

Thats not the same as calling someone a "bigot" it's saying that the above comment is textbook bigotry.

You say that the conspiracy theory sub forum has a different standard to the rest of the boards when it comes to racist language. There's two points to address here.

A) Why isn't this put up in bold in the forum charter. I've look at it twice today and there's nothing there. Theres no forum specific charter, and if you're relaxing the conditions on the kind of racist language used on the conspiracy theory forum that would get you banned from any of the soc forums, but is considered acceptable on your domain, why isn't this at the forefront of your personal forum charter.

If you are allowing language that would earn an immediate ban on the grounds that it is racist, on say politics or humanities. Why are you being so incredibly strict on enforcing the civility rules. A poster suggests something that is quite literally part of the Nuremberg laws, and a mod bans someone for pointing out that this is exactly what the Nazis did.

If you're going to relax the rules about racist language on the forum, then you need to have a massive sticky on the forum (as I mentioned you don't have a forum specific charter) and you cannot expect that even if you do allow that the conspiracy theory forum allows language that would not be accepted on other forums, then some leeway must be given.

You had also picked up an infraction earlier in the thread, so you had fair warning.

I'm not complaining about the length of the ban I'm complaining about the inconsistency about the application of bans.

Apparently it's okay for you guys to call something racist but alaistar is sitting out a month long ban for calling something bigotry.

As for the length of your ban, you were just back from a 2 week ban for a similar offence, so you should have known better.

As for the CT forum allowing for racist language to be used, that is completely untrue. Lets just look at the thread in question. Here are two of the mod warnings:

King Mob

yekahs wrote: »

Take for instance your ban Di0genes. Had you said that you disagreed with Brown Bomber, because you think that by calling for transparency, it was leading down a similar road to the Nazi's where Jewish business were forced to identify as such. Instead you just said (paraphrase) "You are a Nazi".

I've just noticed another inconsistency.
Why is what you say Diogenes did is not acceptable but this:

Humanji wrote:

This isn't a political rally. Phrases like "The Jewish Problem" were fine in Nuremburg, but aren't welcome here.

seemingly the exact same sentiment and phrasing, is acceptable?

Di0genes

yekahs wrote: »

Well if you believe that is the case, then you let it speak for itself. No need for you to add your seal of approval and call him a bigot.

He didn't call him a bigot he called the language "bigotry" as I didn't suggest Brown Bomber wanted to carry out genocide or was a Nazi, I merely pointed out his claims about jewish transparency was akin to the Nuremberg laws.

As much as the inconsistency of the moderation of the forum bug the living hell out of me, the fact that you're completely inconsistent as to the reasons why these bans are handed out, annoy me even more.

alastair

Di0genes wrote: »

Alaistar is similarly banned for pointing out another comment was "bigotry"

Thats not the same as calling someone a "bigot" it's saying that the above comment is textbook bigotry.

Actually I was banned for stating the following in relation to a refusal of BB to acknowledge he was misrepresenting the facts about an Obama administration figure's actions during the gulf war in Israel. He said I was wrong (I wasn't), and I said:

"Fraid not - it's one of the benefits of not having bigoted blinkers on."

Now was I calling him a bigot? Sure - I'll stick my hands up to the intent. Was it a personal insult? Not really - the statement could be applicable to any bigot. Does it deserve a month ban in the context of what others get away with saying week after week? I personally don't think so. Seems like a double standard to me, and I'm not usually prone to paranoia or whinging.

And all of this ignores the most pertinent aspect of this 'personal abuse' rule - I don't know anything about BB aside from what he posts in the forum - I'm judging him purely on his posts, and engaging with the substance (and bias) of his opinions as posted - that this (and nothing else) leads to a conclusion that the guy is a bigot. But that's where the line is drawn - not at the vilification of an ethnicity or religion, but the sensitivities of someone expounding bigoted views being called a bigot.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

And yet that constitutes racism against the Jews? Suggesting that one of the most questionable armed forces in the world is actively engaged in something.. well, questionable is discrimination against an entire religion? Wow, the bar for what can be described as racism is considerably lower when anything Jewish or Israeli is being discussed

Not when you consider it as part of the overall tone of the forum and Brown Bomber's posting history, but way to pick at it in isolation.

My name is URL

Di0genes wrote: »

Not when you consider it as part of the overall tone of the forum and Brown Bomber's posting history, but way to pick at it in isolation.

Well you're the one that mentioned it.

The overall tone of the forum? The overall all tone of the forum is not one of racism as far as I can see, it's one of unrelenting bickering and 1upmanship. There's literally enough fingers on one hand to count the people who are fixated on Jewish matters in the CT forum. It's by no means indicative of the forum as a whole.

Di0genes

alastair wrote: »

Actually I was banned for stating the following in relation to a refusal of BB to acknowledge he was misrepresenting the facts about an Obama administration figure's actions during the gulf war in Israel. He said I was wrong (I wasn't), and I said:

"Fraid not - it's one of the benefits of not having bigoted blinkers on."

Now was I calling him a bigot? Sure - I'll stick my hands up to the intent. Was it a personal insult? Not really - the statement could be applicable to any bigot. Does it deserve a month ban in the context of what others get away with saying week after week? I personally don't think so. Seems like a double standard to me, and I'm not usually prone to paranoia or whinging.

This is my point an overwhelming frustration, the conspiracy theory mods have decided that their forum shouldn't be held to overall tone of language deemed unacceptable on other parts of this board, but at the same time keeping the forum held to the same standards as other soc forums.

Put simple language that would get you banned is acceptable but pointing out that it's racist or bigoted gets you banned, Unless you're a mod, at which point you can paraphrase the language that you banned someone else for, and get away with it.

And this confusing quagmire is all made clear by the concise and clear forum specific charter that er doesn't exist.

Di0genes

My name is URL wrote: »

Well you're the one that mentioned it.

I mentioned it alongside a half dozen others.

The overall tone of the forum? The overall all tone of the forum is not one of racism as far as I can see, it's one of unrelenting bickering and 1upmanship. There's literally enough fingers on one hand to count the people who are fixated on Jewish matters in the CT forum. It's by no means indicative of the forum as a whole.

Theres several I can think off the top of my head TMoreno, MC, Brown Bomber, I imagine I can get to ten if I unsub and check the thread.

We're down to number crunching here? Hey there's only a dozen guys in the CT forum who are vile racists, protected by the mods who can say whatever they like, whats the big deal?

gbee

Di0genes wrote: »

The forum is caked with vile abusive racist language,

I for one think you incited the issue and deserve the ban.

Also going on this post, you mention racism yet only highlight what could be called antisemitism issues.

I think you are trying to use 'the race card' to garner support for your views.

alastair

gbee wrote: »

I for one think you incited the issue and deserve the ban.

Also going on this post, you mention racism yet only highlight what could be called antisemitism issues.

I think you are trying to use 'the race card' to garner support for your views.

Anti-semitism being far more acceptable than other forms of racism?

Rev Hellfire

Di0genes wrote: »

They argue that it's a roleplaying game and continue to post there.

And either they'd temper the descriptions they've used or face the consequences. But such things are unlikely to occur in as extreme a manner as you have described and where possible I'd hope to find a compromise.

Di0genes wrote: »

Could you perhaps point me in the direction of another forum on this site that tolerates racist language.

Genuinely curious I'd like to know.

I'm unable to supply you with such information due to the fact that like others I limit myself to a small number of forums. But the existence of others forums is immaterial.

Di0genes wrote: »

Don't tell me that having a forum on this site where jews are seen as controlling the media, the US presidency, creating psychopathy soldiers, and you just roll your eyes and say "hey we're a melting pot".

By Jews from the little I can make myself read of the nonsense there its an elite cabal of Jews, hardly the Jewish people or nation-state described.

Di0genes wrote: »

And keep in mind, the mods in this forum, aren't just allowing language that would not be tolerated on this forum, but actively banning posters on the forum when their reaction to this racist nonsense is to call it bigotry and racism, saying such language is against the boards.ie terms of service.

Clearly it is tolerated there. My understanding is that they where banned for calling the posters bigots rather than saying their posts where bigoted.
For what its worth is a nonsense, but such is the etiquette on boards.

Brown Bomber

This is gas.

This was the whole post which Diogenes (over ) reacted to. Emphasis added:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1. There is no issue with Jews influencing the US media. However, a a potential problem is Zionists, Jewish or otherwise who have no or a lesser loyalty to the US.



What should be done:
Transparency.
Just that this fact shouldn't be off limits for debate thereby making people more aware of the fact which would in turn help the judge the material presented more accurately which hopefully would prevent some of them in the future from becoming sycophantic, bleating sheep brainwashed by their tv to become apologists for war crimes and humanitarian crimes.

Also snipped from that thread points by me:

Your not getting are you? Murdoch is leading Zionist, religion is not a factor.

It's not that they are Jews but any single interest group with disproportionate unfluence.

I agree - it's a circular argument and it's xenophobic to assume guilt based on religion or race, agree 100% but that is not what I am doing IMO..