Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241445Certainly. By which reasoning, when the Germans and Europeans killed 6 million Jews, it wasn't racist.

Fuck me if Afolf didn't think they were a race....

QuoteIf the international Jewish financiers . . . should again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war the result will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race throughout Europe.

Adolf Hitler, Speech to Reichstag in Berlin January 1939

QuoteDon't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis.  This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst.

Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August 1920. (NSDAP meeting)

Quote"We won’t waste much time on the Jews. It’s great to get to grips with the Jewish race at last. The more they die the better… We want to put half to three-quarters of all Jews east of the Vistula. We will crush these Jews wherever we can. … Get the Jews out of the Reich… We have no use for Jews in the Reich. Probably the line of the Vistula, behind this line no more. We are the most important people here…"

Heinrich Himmler, 25 November 1939

Not need to mention the "purity" tests to join the party, which excluded those who had Jewish "blood".

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;241451I'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.

Yeah, I was about to reply to S'mon's BS but have decided not to. Of late I'm been cruising around OT too much anyway. I now know the douchebag for who he is. I'm not going to make the same mistake - thinking some guy is just making a joke -again.

I do want to acknowledge Spike for making me clarify my position about  my remarks about the social acceptability of certain kinds of bigotry/racism. I hope I have done so.

My next post will about my GMing style Edit: Apparently I don't have much to say about my GMing style....

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Spike;241395My 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.

It was my understanding that he was banned because he spewed nonsense in an effort to disrupt threads. Much like a spammer. I could be wrong. These are far from topics I keep track of.

Regardless, his first disappearance was of his own accord (according to Pundit) then he returned at which time he was banned.

Quote from: Spike;241395As 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.

And I have said, I do not approve or endorse RPG.Net's moderation methods.

I still think that "they will come for you last" arguments are weak in this case. I do not see official power being used in this mode here. I see people being beat down because they have poorly expressed thoughts in a venue unsympathetic to them. This is different from "forcing" people to silence.

Quote from: Spike;241395I've been avoiding touchier examples, particularly Real world ones, because at the end of the day we ARE talking about the internet here.

Good. I am talking about the internet and specifically this site. If we are to broaden the scope the discussion will have to change from my side.

Quote from: Spike;241395I'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.

WHOA TEX! That's community standards and it is not codified. What I was speaking of was the culture of the site you are posting to, not some rules list of imagined Decency. I am saying the culture determines what will be tolerated and it changes. There may be a point in the future where race hate speech is cool and accepted here. I wont know because I wont be here. That would not be my culture. So, today, they tolerate pika and game designers along with a lot of others. Boy lovers and racists not so much. Why? Because it is not a site about boy lovers and racism. It is not the cultural norm for this site.

Bill

Quote from: David R;241400That's why for instance, tossing around faggot jokes won't get one into as much trouble as tossing around nigger jokes.

Can someone please explain to me why it's acceptable to toss those terms around to make a point like this that could easily be made using other less inflammatory words?  And that question isn't just directed at David R but at the other people who have used those terms in similar contexts here and elsewhere.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;240396That's awesome! As in the "awesome stupid" way. I was just saying to a gamer friend yesterday that while I am greenish, action heroes are not very green, because being an action hero is all about killing people and blowing shit up, but that's all good. There's fantasy, and then there's reality, it's not good to have them overlap a lot.

You need to read Neal Stephanson's Zodiac.  Total green action adventure story, and it's really good.

Quote from: John Morrow;241498Can someone please explain to me why it's acceptable to toss those terms around to make a point like this that could easily be made using other less inflammatory words?  And that question isn't just directed at David R but at the other people who have used those terms in similar contexts here and elsewhere.

Because they are being referenced and not used against a person or race. Also, I imagine for effect. It is much more effective, rhetorically and at instigating an emotional response, to use those words than to say, for instance, "Throwing around scat jokes wont get you in as much trouble as pedophile jokes". Finally, it might have been as simple as the first thing to come to mind.

Bill

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...

I'm going to ask you the same question I asked in response to David R's message.  Is there a reason why you couldn't make this point without using that word?

Quote from: John Morrow;241507I'm going to ask you the same question I asked in response to David R's message.  Is there a reason why you couldn't make this point without using that word?

It seems to have quite the prominent place in music these days. Maybe he's listening to rap or something.

Quote from: gleichman;241176You want to be able to bash Christians and have it considered acceptable. But doing the same to Muslims is by far a greater wrong so you have to replace terms.

Yes, I can see now how enlightened and fair you are. Thinks for clearing that up.

Criticism of Christianity from people who have grown up in Christian societies and been affected by Christian supremacy is significantly different than criticism of Islam from people who have grown up in Christian societies and been affected by Christian supremacy.

Likewise, the grumbling and mockery of the super-minority of atheists in this country who have to live under the thumb of the Christian super-majority is really not at all in the same class as the grumbling and mockery of Christian super-power with the ability to crush the Muslim world under it's heel.

You speak of fairness, and compare actions to show how their is no fairness, but you refuse to consider contexts of those actions, and the real effects of those actions.

Quote from: Jackalope;241510Criticism of Christianity from people who have grown up in Christian societies and been affected by Christian supremacy is significantly different than criticism of Islam from people who have grown up in Christian societies and been affected by Christian supremacy.

Likewise, the grumbling and mockery of the super-minority of atheists in this country who have to live under the thumb of the Christian super-majority is really not at all in the same class as the grumbling and mockery of Christian super-power with the ability to crush the Muslim world under it's heel.

You speak of fairness, and compare actions to show how their is no fairness, but you refuse to consider contexts of those actions, and the real effects of those actions.

Ahh.. more of Jack's "bigotry is ok if you are on the right side". Coming from the guy who proposes racism to fight racism, it's not surprising.

PS: Someone remind him of just how powerful the "Muslim world" is.

Quote from: HinterWelt;241505Because they are being referenced and not used against a person or race.

I don't think those words (and words like them) can be used without evoking negative sentiments toward a group of people or a race.  That's their purpose.

Quote from: HinterWelt;241505Finally, it might have been as simple as the first thing to come to mind.

That's kinda my problem.  Those aren't words I use in any context and seeing people use those words like that makes me wonder how casually and often they use those words normally.

Quote from: CavScout;241511Ahh.. more of Jack's "bigotry is ok if you are on the right side". Coming from the guy who proposes racism to fight racism, it's not surprising.

And more disingenuous trolling from CavScout.

Get bored and go find some other forum to troll.

Quote from: Jackalope;241510Criticism of Christianity from people who have grown up in Christian societies and been affected by Christian supremacy is significantly different than criticism of Islam from people who have grown up in Christian societies and been affected by Christian supremacy.

How about Bruce Bawer's First They Came for the Gays?  Bigotry or legitimate criticism?

Quote from: Jackalope;241515And more disingenuous trolling from CavScout.

Better go back and read what you wrote. Criticism of Islam, bad. Criticism of Christianity, good.

No, I was right on target.

Quote from: CavScout;241519Better go back and read what you wrote. Criticism of Islam, bad. Criticism of Christianity, good.

This article sums up the problem pretty well:

   (4) The sense of not being entitled to criticize anyone else: how can we live in the United States, the richest, most powerful, and most privileged country in the world-and say anything critical about people who are poorer and weaker than we are? This was a major issue in the 1960s, when the New Left seemed to have discovered "oppression" for the first time, and we all enlisted on the side of oppressed men and women and failed, again and again, to criticize the authoritarianism and brutality that often scar their politics. There is no deeper impulse in left politics than this enlistment; solidarity with people in trouble seems to me the most profound commitment that leftists make. But this solidarity includes, or should include, a readiness to tell these people when we think they are acting wrongly, violating the values we share. Even the oppressed have obligations, and surely the first among these is not to murder innocent people, not to make terrorism their politics. Leftists who cannot insist upon this point, even to people poorer and weaker than they are, have abandoned both politics and morality for something else. They are radical only in their abjection. That was Sartre's radicalism, face-to-face with FLN terror, and it has been imitated by thousands since, excusing and apologizing for acts that any decent left would begin by condemning.

[...]

Not blaming anyone else: The world (and this includes the third world) is too full of hatred, cruelty, and corruption for any left, even the American left, to suspend its judgment about what's going on. It's not the case that because we are privileged we should turn inward and focus our criticism only on ourselves. In fact, inwardness is one of our privileges; it is often a form of political self-indulgence. Yes, we are entitled to blame the others whenever they are blameworthy; in fact, it is only when we do that, when we denounce, say, the authoritarianism of third world governments, that we will find our true comrades-the local opponents of the maximal leaders and military juntas, who are often waiting for our recognition and support. If we value democracy, we have to be prepared to defend it, at home, of course, but not only there.