Quote from: CraigLee;241339This is painted in broadstrokes and loses too much focus...calling out someone for being a bigot doesn't make you a bigot. If someone walks down the street shouting 'Nigger' and you call them a bigot, you are not suddenly bigoted against those who want to shout nigger...

You give that a good old America try when the guy shouting that is black and speaking to his buds. And yeah, you'd get slammed with the label Bigot mighty fast and hard.

Beyond that, it's not my fault that the term is too broad. It's the reason I don't care much for it.

Call someone racist. Call them anti-Islamic. Call them Anti-Semitic. That is- be specific. Don't use a half-baked term like bigot. It's lazy and non-descriptive.

Quote from: Spike;241293Hinterwelt: Do we not deny a voice to people we disagree with on the internet?  Where is Nox, then?  We have, by means of exclusion, disenfranchised them, removed their voice. In a way, we have killed the 'poster', if not the person who originated it.  Insamuch as we have the ability, we have done 'internet violence' to 'internet persons'... in the form of mob justice.

I disagree. You are forming a false and extreme conclusion and analogy. Nox could be here if he wants. He chose to come to a community that did not embrace his views and express. Part of being a member of a community is understanding what that community will and will not tolerate. Nox, when he spoke of games, was quite reasonable and fit well. When he spoke of matters of race, he deviated from the "norms" of this community and thus met with derision and scorn. These are forms of disagreement. He was not banned to my knowledge. Now, however tenuous, you could at least draw some sort of parallel to violence through banning although I would still disagree.

Again, I believe you confuse violence with disagreement. One can disagree without anger or offense. One can also disagree with plenty of offense intended. I am more of your view, if you want to do/worship/believe/hate someone in the privacy of your own home (with the conditions and possible consequences you mentioned) then go to it.

Quote from: Spike;241293Don't get me wrong. I don't miss Nox.  I didn't like him or agree with him.  Be can we honestly tell ourselves that we have the right to tell him he wasn't allowed to have those opinions? To force him to adapt or be exiled?

O.k. Watch that. You are confusing some important lines. Telling someone their opinion is not welcome, either in the community or to your own attention, is different from not allowing them to hold that opinion. Now, I will fully admit there are plenty of people, even on this board, that will tell you you are sub-human for the opinions/beliefs you hold. Some might even go as far as to say "Thou shalt not believe that" (see mythusmage).

Now, as to forcing them to adapt or be "exiled", well, yes. Most communities are that way. There is different tolerences but it comes down to "can you fit within the community or are you by definition outside the community". Some people can't. Some cannot help themselves. If you have a world view that does not fit with the group, is it fair to ask all of them to adapt to accept you and your views?

So, you could easily turn the above into "No tolerance !!!!!1!1!" but hopefully you will give me a more charitable read than that. Tolerance is important as well. I am not talking about a right leaning individual in a left of center forum. I am talking about the guy who preaches the inferiority of a race, relentlessly, to a muti-cultural multi-racial board. IMO, you can hold that view, be a valued member of a community, so long as you keep it to yourself (and yes, that means not acting on it).

Quote from: Spike;241293I know that there have to be confines on expression. You express it well by bringing up the cross burning.  This is why I point out the danger of too much like minded thinking, because it creates an air of permissiveness. If everyone agrees that Nox isn't allowed to hate, we are justified in destroying him.  If everyone agrees....

And I agree with your points on reinforcement of a thought/belief/hate. The last part is what I have issue with. We did not "destroy Nox". He exists somewhere on the ether. Perhaps he is happily posting at StormFront. Perhaps he was just a persona of Pundit. The point is, he is free to express himself. Heck, he was free to express himself here. He chose to leave. Why? Was it because we banned him? Or was it that he ceased to get enjoyment out of talking to people who did not share his views? We may never know but I can say with some confidence that it was his decision.

Quote from: Spike;241293... fill in the blank yourself. Its not hard, and history has given us any number of acceptable and unacceptable targets that have been harmed because everyone agreed they were bad.   No one wants to side with the bigots.  Not even when the bigots are the targets.  I don't want to side with the bigots... not even now. The problem comes when people start trying to parse out which bigots are 'okay'... or to put it another way: Who is it okay to hate?

Who am I not allowed to hate?

Well, now I hope you are speaking generally. You can hate whoever you want. Do not expect me to listen when you spew hate speeches about how the jew is using the black man as muscle. Also, fully expect me to mock you. Hell, I will mock Christian left and right. I would never ask them to stop believing what they do. I would fight, and yes, give my life for their right to worship as they please. That does not mean I believe their sky fairy and his hippie son are anything more than wishful thinking and a sad pathetic form of a crutch. It does not mean I will give them respect. It has never been earned in my experience.

So hate who ever you wish. Do not expect others to embrace your hate if you express it to them nor to validate your beliefs. It is enough, for me, that you are allowed to hate who ever you wish.

Bill

I find the issue of intolerance toward the intolerant to be a fascinating one, full of half-truths, self-deception, and a healthy dose of plain old hypocrisy. This thread, while seemingly a discussion of the principle, has succeeded famously in also being an example of the principle, and by that standard, I find it fascinating.

Oh, I agree that if I were to say something offensive to you, you have the right to hate what I said, or even hate me.  You even have the right to voice that hate.

That's the beauty of it.

We denied Nox his opinions by forcing silence upon him. Offensive as they were, they were his and he had the right to them.

I'm leery of 'community standards' for reasons I've go into in just the last couple posts.  We have, as a community, decided it is alright to hate bigots.  Not only is it okay to hate them (which, by my view is perfectly acceptable...) its okay to silence them.

Once we've done that to the acceptable targets (the bigots), who do we turn on next? The pundit hates Catholics, so he'd probably be okay with banning them eventually. Maybe the conservatives, they are sort of in the minority here...

Where does it stop? Community standards is a really shakey way to decide what's appropriate or not, because as you start weeding out the bad elements eventually the group thought gets narrow enough that... well... anything can be viewed as outside the 'standard'.

You don't have to go far. Most of us came here from RPG.net for a reason. Community Standards, after all....

Quote from: gleichman;241340You give that a good old America try when the guy shouting that is black and speaking to his buds. And yeah, you'd get slammed with the label Bigot mighty fast and hard.

Speaking in a non offensive way doesn't count. But I assure you there is a profound amount of black on black bigotry out there...

Holding one person responsible for the ills of another--whether it is creed, color of skin, sexual orientation? All that is just damn silly.  In the end, I find myself more likely to laugh and shake my head at someone holding my religious faith up as a reason not to talk with or interact with me. In the end, that is a sad loss, both to their benefit and mine, but it is NEVER my choice.

I've gamed with Wiccans, pagans, Christians, Jews, Hispanics, gay men, lesbian women, Indians, Native Americans, Canadians, Americans, Japanese and on and on. In the end, I think I just don't care. People are people. Who they are and how they act towards me, is what I try and deal with. Making choices based on things done by the person, will be where I stand (as best I can) rather than on the prior actions of others. It isn't always easy. I've plenty of reasons given to me to have prejudice, but I will fight tooth and nail against it.

Quote from: Spike;241355Oh, I agree that if I were to say something offensive to you, you have the right to hate what I said, or even hate me.  You even have the right to voice that hate.

That's the beauty of it.

We denied Nox his opinions by forcing silence upon him. Offensive as they were, they were his and he had the right to them.

I disagree. We did not "force" anything on him. We did not ban his account, we did not scramble or blank his posts. We disagreed with him. If you are going to respect his "right" to hate then why so hard to respect ours to hate what he professes to represent?

Fundamental here is that no one "forced" anyone to do anything. Heck, we did not even ignore him.

Quote from: Spike;241355I'm leery of 'community standards' for reasons I've go into in just the last couple posts.  We have, as a community, decided it is alright to hate bigots.  Not only is it okay to hate them (which, by my view is perfectly acceptable...) its okay to silence them.

Unless Pundit has changed his stance, no one can silence a bigot. If a bigot wishes to show up and begin professing his hatred of hair dressers and goes on in length in every post, people will most likely ridicule, argue, ignore and mock the individual but no one will silence him. They are free to speak their mind.

Quote from: Spike;241355Once we've done that to the acceptable targets (the bigots), who do we turn on next? The pundit hates Catholics, so he'd probably be okay with banning them eventually. Maybe the conservatives, they are sort of in the minority here...

Spike, you almost had me there. The slippery slope argument. Really, does that still work?

Look, no one is saying that we will be banning a group, bigots or otherwise. Just like everyone else, they need to defend their point. Most bigots have very convincing arguments to other bigots of the same ilk. However, as I have seen, most true hate groups come down to "We hate them! and you are against us if you do not hate them as much!"

So, don't worry, I will stand up for the Pika when the come for you if your will do likewise for the game designers.

Quote from: Spike;241355Where does it stop? Community standards is a really shakey way to decide what's appropriate or not, because as you start weeding out the bad elements eventually the group thought gets narrow enough that... well... anything can be viewed as outside the 'standard'.

You don't have to go far. Most of us came here from RPG.net for a reason. Community Standards, after all....

Sigh. First off, it is not Community Standards. There is no book here where "that which is appropriate" is written. By community standards I mean pressure from the community as to what they find acceptable. So, detailed accounts of child rape? Probably not going to get a warm welcome. Maybe on the NAMBLA site but not here. Talk about your latest Trav game? Yeah, you will get enthusiastic buy in.

Tolerance is good. I do not wish to paint a picture that it is not. However, to take the position to the absurd is a childish view on life. We do not tolerate child molesters, both legally and socially. Why? Is it our need to tell someone how to think? Is it that we are prudish and intolerant of their needs? Or could it that we believe such individuals to be harmful to our young, to our society? I believe int he last one.

Now, if you want to talk about RPG.Net. Yeah, this is a good example of an attempt to codify Community Standards. I do not endorse that.

Bill

My understanding is that we topic banned him, and in fact banned him from off topic all together. Therefore, yes, we silenced his opinions we didn't like.

As for the slippery slope arguement: I knew that would come up, but there are plenty... in fact sadly too many... examples of this.exact.slope. in recent memory.

Thus I brought up RPG.net.  They didn't start out trying to silence all dissent to any given point of view, but at their worst that was exactly what happened, and to an extent still happens there. There is a single 'community standard' that you cannot stray to far from before you are warned, then banned... and even insiders are not immune.

I've been avoiding touchier examples, particularly Real world ones, because at the end of the day we ARE talking about the internet here.

I've been a part of one community that used Community Standards as a reason to target 'acceptable hates'.  I'm not TOO worried about here, but I AM worried about the overall trend to think there is something valid to legitimizing targets.

I should point out that YOU are the one who brought up Commmunity Standards as an excuse, not I.

Quote from: Spike;241247I think thats an untenable position, Davy boy. At a minimum its hypocritical.
Who decides, David? Who are we allowed to hate and who gets to decide that?

Of course it's hypocritical....I was not endorsing it. Just stating a reality. That's why for instance, tossing around faggot jokes won't get one into as much trouble as tossing around nigger jokes. Again I'm not endorsing this kind of behaviour and it certainly is not my position. Will asnwer S'mon later.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;241400Of course it's hypocritical....I was not endorsing it. Just stating a reality. That's why for instance, tossing around faggot jokes won't get one into as much trouble as tossing around nigger jokes. Again I'm not endorsing this kind of behaviour and it certainly is not my position. Will asnwer S'mon later.

Regards,
David R

If you are willing to tolerate misogyny while calling S'mon on his Islamophobia, or even just to insist that Islamophobia be lumped with Racism while allowing misogyny be given a pass (or lumped with the slightly less egregious sounding bigotry) then, in essense, you ARE endorsing that hypocracy.

I HOPE I've never called anyone out on behavior like this. I will certainly condemn, in blanket terms, just about any form of bigotry, but I don't think I've ever tried to really establish a merit list for tolerableness, not even to point it out.

I think he's wrong, but I think a lot of people are wrong on a lot of things.  I'm the only perfect person I know. Its a bit lonely sometimes, but once you learn to tolerate other people's failings it gets easier.

Quote from: Spike;241407If you are willing to tolerate misogyny while calling S'mon on his Islamophobia, or even just to insist that Islamophobia be lumped with Racism while allowing misogyny be given a pass (or lumped with the slightly less egregious sounding bigotry) then, in essense, you ARE endorsing that hypocracy.

Exactly my point. We should not accept any form of bigotry but we do. I speak out when folks - Jackalope for instance goes on about women (and he admits he's misogynist) - but we still allow him here ,while Nox was topic banned. So why is it acceptable ? That was my whole point. Attacks against certain groups are excluded from sanctions, because the bigotry expressed aginst them are not considered as vile as some. It's tolerated.

Regards,
David R

Well, my position, rough as it can be at times is to allow people to believe, and say what they will, no matter how offensive.

I certainly won't allow them to act on it... not unopposed.  I don't call Jackalope on a lot of shit other than to poke fun at him, I won't call S'mon on his crap either, though I disagree strongly.  The Pundit's screeds against Catholicism irritate me just as much, and I keep my mouth shut for the same reason: he's entitled to his ideas, and the right to speak his mind, regardless of my appreciation, or lack.

Obviously I wouldn't want this place to become a haven for NAMBLA types, or closed minded bigots, but there has to be a middle ground between dogpiling on those we disagree with (approved or not) and...er... 'making them feel welcome'.

I find simply acknowledging that there is more approved forms of bigotry to be actually encouraging rather than discouraging this sort of behavior.  When the misogynists can say 'well, at least we're not racists and Islamophobes' you've started down a dark path.  

BUt I'm not doing as well at this as I'd like so I'll leave it at that.


EDIT::: Added a few missing words to clear up a line

Quote from: Spike;241417I find simply acknowledging that there is more approved forms of bigotry to be actually encouraging rather than discouraging this sort of behavior.  When the misogynists can say 'well, at least we're not racists and Islamophobes' you've started down a dark path.  

BUt I'm not doing as well at this as I'd like so I'll leave it at that.

Exactly, I feel the same way, now fuck off, I don't want to be seen agreeing with you in public anymore.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David R;241066Well that's a nice technicality that racist normally hide behind when expressing their racism.

Certainly. By which reasoning, when the Germans and Europeans killed 6 million Jews, it wasn't racist.

Ahem.

Quote from: David RBecause surely the distinction between religion and race of the various communities that practise Islam are observed by these racists.

Exactly. Those bigoted against Moslems are commonly unaware that not all Moslems are Arab, for example. Ethnic and religious background are commonly muddled in the bigoted person. In any case bigotry tends to run together; we do not often find that a rabid Protestant anti-Catholic has no negative views about gender or race, that the UDA received funds from the Nigerian Anglican Church; nor do we find that one asserting a world Jewish conspiracy is rather keen on affirmative action for women. Bigotry tends to run together.

Quote from: Spike;241407If you are willing to tolerate misogyny while calling S'mon on his Islamophobia, or even just to insist that Islamophobia be lumped with Racism while allowing misogyny be given a pass (or lumped with the slightly less egregious sounding bigotry) then, in essense, you ARE endorsing that hypocracy.

I've done my best to mock all bigots equally. I'm sure I've missed quite a lot, but in the end I'm here to post my own nonsense rather than sort out other people's nonsense.