[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Cooper
	Looking at the posts on this thread....it looks like racism is just fine with most people. I guess the Civil Rights Movement was a waste of time and lives.....

If we're going to hyperbolize, I guess that looking at the posts in this thread, all the people who've died for the ideals of the free exchange and discussion of ideas have thrown their lives away in a fruitless cause. Apparently.

[vampyroteuthis]

Originally Posted by stasis

It's currently a question of context. Identifying violations of this rule beyond the absolutely blatant is usually a matter equal in parts pattern-finding across the user's posts, awareness of common racist/antisemitic sentiment or propaganda (for which references like the SPLC become useful), and "hmmm" sounds. I can't give you a 'structural general case' because this would constitute a functional definition of "racism", which as I have pointed out is what we are currently lacking. It is currently conceivable that a user will be banned for a pattern of racial postings which, taken individually, might not otherwise be actioned at all.

Fair enough, and I appreciate the detailed response. That said, it still seems like even according to these standards a lot of outright racist crap gets a free pass. Would phoboser's repeated posts about racial pollution of white IQs and comparisons of nonwhite immigrants to Hepatitis C count as actionable? (It's like watching someone wring his hands and moan, "unclean, unclean".) What about Fecal McAngry's posts about black people being universally unintelligent and violent?

I am also still not seeing why the posts Distance quoted weren't deleted, or why HackerX's explanation of why they're racist doesn't suffice. I thought it was dead on.

	It may also be worth pointing out that forum rule 7 must regard particular posts on the forum. Determining whether or not Glen Beck is coyly suggesting something racist in an interview with Katie Couric is beyond the purview of the forum rules. That is for forum users to debate amongst themselves when someone links a news item like that.

I'm not as clear as I'd like to be today. Meant to say more about that video as an example of the coded racist discourse that's pervasive on Stormfront, side by side with the more flagrant racism. I read Stormfront sometimes and they keep banging on about "white culture in need of preservation" and "race realism", all of which seems to get a free pass here so far. Although the internet gives them some freedom to be blatant, they're also developing a discourse to use more pervasively and persuasively without flouting social taboos. If the goal is to ensure that INTJf doesn't become a safe haven for Stormfronters, I'm not sure it's working.

Originally Posted by stasis

Not at all. This is to argue that we can distinguish between words like nigger*, spic, gook and wop, which are necessarily slurs, and words like chinaman and colored and oriental and (American) Indian, which are not necessarily slurs but have fallen out of use and are now avoided in some places moreso than others. This is a distinction between political correctness and racism that needs to be addressed when stressing particular terms.

Not sure if that distinction between racism and political correctness is useful or a hindrance to precision. Seems more like different stages in linguistic shifts to me.

I like nowt's idea of extrapolating from the structure of anti-Semitic arguments, but would like to add something in there about arguments historically specific to other groups as well. Would an external referent be helpful? I looked around the SPLC website but couldn't find anything. I have to sit on this a bit.

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania
	More heavily moderating people who use terms that could be considered racist doesn't do jack for helping racism. You just make racists more careful about what they say and do.

As I said, the racism rule here isn't to prevent or do anything about racism. It's purpose is to stop the forum looking bad.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Moxiie
	Out of pure curiosity though, I'd be interested to know how many posting on this thread are people of color, who have real world direct experience in how the subtleties of racism can be affected in dialogue and what impact such dialogue and assertions have in such situation

I have lived in the southeastern US my entire life so far. I've seen racism in many different forms. I've also seen people who are genuinely baffled at the idea of inherent differences between races.

There's really a whole spectrum, and some people who say racist things don't mean them so or even understand that what they're saying is insensitive. Likewise, some people are so oversensitive that even innocent statements may be taken as racism.

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	As I said, the racism rule here isn't to prevent or do anything about racism. It's purpose is to stop the forum looking bad.

I think the explanations i've seen elsewhere have less to do with forum image (for the sake of image) and more to do with forum image as pertains to the kind of user base we want to attract.

Places online that are set up as racist havens tend to attract only racists (and repel non-racists), so the content ends up very homogenized. Just the way the racists like it.

Here, vigorous debate is almost assured any time somebody gives an opinion that others find reprehensible.

I think it also bears saying, for those reading the thread who aren't aware, that forum staff don't always agree on where to draw the line. Some statements are more open to interpretation than others, and it's this grey area where there's room for contention. Some posts are clearly fine, and some posts are clearly not. Reports are always welcome in helping us to monitor posting patterns, since as stasis said, posting patterns can be important indicators beyond what's readily seen in any individual post.

To the thread in general: if others have not noticed, stasis remains open to suggestion on how to handle the matter. I don't know of anybody on staff here who approves of racism, but the alternative (outside of wiping away egregious violations) seems to be nerfing conversation wholesale. We can use fluffier words and pretend they don't mean the same thing, but that doesn't really address the issue.

[RedOrange823]

	Originally Posted by Cooper
	Looking at the posts on this thread....it looks like racism is just fine with most people. I guess the Civil Rights Movement was a waste of time and lives.....

I really don't think it goes that far. I haven't seen anybody suggest people of other races be barred from posting in this forum or be segregated into a 'people of colour' subforum.

The way I see it is this forum tries very hard to be accepting of freedom of opinion and discussion, but in the interest of quality of discussion and forum experience, lines are drawn. I have no respect for people who are racist, but I also hold disdain for people who get their panties in a bunch over words written on the internet as if the world's gonna crash and burn unless justice is served or whatever. Name-calling doesn't bother me at all, really, so the reactions people display when being called a derogatory racial slur, are really foreign to me. I see it as being your choice to take it so harshly.

I do understand the censorship of racist propaganda as users who engage in it seem to band together and we can easily have 10 new members who's goal it is to inject a bit of racist commentary into every odd thread. We've seen that happen before with the anti-feminist stuffs and it was certainly experience-degrading.

I do remember a thread a while back where I got upset over a user claiming that black people in America, having been bred for strength as slaves, might be de-evolved. But, in retrospect, I understand that this is an acceptable form of discussion on race as it has a testable hypothesis, and while I still squirm at the "de-evolved" terminology, I like that this forum puts discussion on a higher pedestal than political correctness and that it does really well to promote freedom of speech and discussion that would easily be taboo on most other forums.

I don't want to see the forum start banning certain words, but I do understand the need for us to keep an eye out for people wanting to push the idea that a person is inferior or deserves less attention because they are of a certain colour. For instance, if someone wants to talk about, say, some new policy by Obama, I wouldn't like to see the discussion turn into a race debate, rather I'd like to see it be about the actual topic: his new policy. Or, if some user makes a post in a thread, I wouldn't want another user to disregard what they are saying simply because they're from another country or cultural background.

[Cooper]

	Originally Posted by Rudy
	If we're going to hyperbolize, I guess that looking at the posts in this thread, all the people who've died for the ideals of the free exchange and discussion of ideas have thrown their lives away in a fruitless cause. Apparently.

Racism is a completely different thing. Have you ever had to deal with it on a daily basis? When were we (Americans) given the right of free speech? When were people of some color other then white given the right to be equal? Let me correct that, to appear in some smoke and mirror way to be equal?

[Helio]

Guys, what you have to understand is, that once you allow people like all those racism censors in this thread to control what you say and what you think, things get ugly.

Let me tell you about the situation here in Germany, where it is exactly like vampyro and all the others would like to see it in this forum as well: 95% of the people even refuse to accept that different races even exist! If you come to Germany and say anything that's got to do with race, other than accusing somebody else of racism yourself, you are being criminalized instantly! No judge would even have a problem for throwing you into jail for sedition because of it.

That's what all this leads to, if you let it happen. Mindcontrol.

[larkin]

I'll add - not unsympathetic to concerns of the OP either, and it's an evolving issue in terms of moderation.

That said, often my default view is such:

Originally Posted by Undead Bonzi

At the end of the day you run up against the impossibility of moderating intent which can't be functionally done on a consistent basis. I would rather see such violations go unchecked so that the rules may remain straightforward and concise. [...] As a personal opinion I prefer racism out in the open where I can argue with it rather than hidden under the rug of PCism where it can fester and grow unnoticed.

If we delete the spectrum of views on the forum to the point where they're "acceptable", not only do some people come to (falsely) believe those views don't exist, the newly edited views of the poster gain more currency. I prefer to see the opinions expressed for what they are.

	Originally Posted by JTG
	I think the explanations i've seen elsewhere have less to do with forum image (for the sake of image) and more to do with forum image as pertains to the kind of user base we want to attract.

This is where the rule will be heavily moderated - that is, in the context of the quality/variety of the user contribution overall.

[FruitLoop]

It's in INTJ trait to mistreat hell out of the english language isn't it? I certainly do so, with the use of all sorts of profanity and excess quickly inserted into ordinary conversation, grippers know exactly what I sad, but wonder what on earth they just heard.

[mieu]

If we were to ban racism (short of personal attack), it would set precedent to ban all bigotry. If we ban bigotry this forum would be quite boring.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Cooper
	Racism is a completely different thing. Have you ever had to deal with it on a daily basis?

Exactly as much as you've had to deal with having your right to free discussion of ideas curtailed on a daily basis.

	Originally Posted by Cooper
	When were we (Americans) given the right of free speech? When were people of some color other then white given the right to be equal? Let me correct that, to appear in some smoke and mirror way to be equal?

When the constitution was ratified, in a technical sense at least. As for the other question, "the right to be equal" isn't a right. You're equal or you're not. Now, equal protection under the law is a right, and a very important one at that. The right to be treated equally by the laws and government of the land. That's a right.

To be viewed equally by the populace isn't a right; it's something that has to be privately fought for. And, don't get me wrong, it's a very important fight, and one that I support. Racism, though, isn't something that can be outlawed. You can stop people from acting in certain racist manners through legal restrictions, but you can't actually stop racism in that way.

My primary point was that it's a little absurd to imply that to allow discussion of race issues is tantamount to reversing the entire civil rights movement. This is a bit insulting to those that accomplished much during that movement, actually. No one's legal equality is being threatened by these exchanges, so let's discuss the reality of the situation, rather than bringing in extreme notions.

It can be upsetting to be confronted with the fact that racism is still around, but burying it under the rug won't help matters.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Would phoboser's repeated posts about racial pollution of white IQs and comparisons of nonwhite immigrants to Hepatitis C count as actionable? (It's like watching someone wring his hands and moan, "unclean, unclean".) What about Fecal McAngry's posts about black people being universally unintelligent and violent?

I went back and briefly looked at phoboser's posting history. The post I think you're referring to may very well violate rule #7. I reported it so that the moderators of that section can look at it more closely. Then I looked at the reports and no one has reported this or any other post of his in over a week. Moderators can't realistically be expected to closely read every single post in their sections. So if you see something you think is a violation, even if it's a day or two old, don't assume a moderator has already read it and rubber-stamped it, please report it.

[paleoeco]

While I have some sympathy for the OP, the moderation of racist remarks and commentary on this site is much more clearly defined than that of homophobia. At least we don't have threads about how "All Blacks are Mentally Ill". (And yes, that was a perfectly acceptable debate thread about homosexuality).

One of the first things we have to accept on INTJf is that we do not have a right not to be offended. Many of the posts and threads related to homosexuality are so offensive and clearly derogatory that it's physically painful. That being said, I still would not want words banned. "Faggot" and "fag" are words, and can be used in traditionally derogatory ways or satire or sarcasm or intra-group usage that actually strengthens membership.

Banning words is the wrong route. Words are symbols, and symbols only have meaning insofar as we assign it. And meanings can change. Banning words is no different than banning a particular cup because it's always used to serve poison. The problem isn't the vessel, it's the contents. That cup may not always have poison and a word may not always have the meaning you believe it to be.

And, btw, I'm a strong proponent of "reclaiming" and "appropriating" slurs for ourselves. I use "fag" and "faggot" all the time, sometimes on the forum. If I refuse to accept to the negativity with the word, then the word doesn't offend regardless if the user intends to offend me. "Fucking hell, you're a fag?!" "Yeah, why, what of it?".

[Uriel]

I oppose the banning of words simply because of the existence of a derogatory facet (out of multiple). Baby Bathwater.

Most idiotic idea ever.

Drink minuscule amounts of poison and suffer the uncomfortable side-effects over a certain period of time in order to eventually develop immunity.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Would phoboser's repeated posts about racial pollution of white IQs and comparisons of nonwhite immigrants to Hepatitis C count as actionable? (It's like watching someone wring his hands and moan, "unclean, unclean".) What about Fecal McAngry's posts about black people being universally unintelligent and violent?

phoboser has an edit, infraction, and suspension history for running afoul of rule 7 previously. He seemed to be making an effort to comply, but if these arguments are appearing in threads to which they are not topical or are still defining the user's posting habits, continue to report them and further action will be taken. Fecal McAngry is being watched, but he's still new.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	I am also still not seeing why the posts Distance quoted weren't deleted

1. Chinaman is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Chinese.
Chink is a racial slur. There is a distinction.

2. Oriental is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Asian.
Slope is a racial slur. There is a distinction.

3. Negro is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Black.
Nigger is a racial slur. There is a distinction.

4. Aryan is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Caucasian.
Ofay is a racial slur. There is a distinction.

Four sentences above contain racial slurs and do not consist of racism. Therefore the inclusion of slurs themselves is not a useful definition of racism. None of the statements of distinction above are politically correct. Therefore OP appears to not distinguish between vulgarity and malediction for political reasons, and also appears to suggest by means of vocabulary list that the forum rules ought not distinguish between racism and discussions about race or racism or cricket or takeaway or plates or politics or culture.

This is problematic because race and racism are evidently issues to be discussed. This is also problematic because political correctness of this kind seems beyond the scope of the function of the forum rules themselves; not only is it a diverse and contested subject, but it seems to have little or nothing do with facilitating the function of the forum. Any definition of racism that we end up with will deal with racism only. Therefore it appears indicated that racial slurs and politically incorrect terms can have no equivalence in the forum rules. Users adopt or discard political styles on their own.

That seems to do the OP's argument in particular, since it is about terms, unless something else is offered along those lines.

Which brings us to:

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	or why HackerX's explanation of why they're racist doesn't suffice. I thought it was dead on.

HackerX does not provide a useful definition of racism. The simple equation he cites will always fail to distinguish between the culture or corporate tendencies of a country and the supposed characteristics of a race, and when informing a rule would kill any negative generalization about social practices whenever the name of a country and therefore the designation of its citizens can also be used racially. Like China. And not like Han or Manchu. Like England. And not like America. See the problem?

Something better than that is required because debate forums breathe freedom of speech and it is so inconsistent that well-meaning users will be colliding with it constantly. Coming up with a good functional definition of racism is challenging because race is such an incoherent concept in the first place. It may be more to the point when considering this that the intent of the rule is to broadly exclude a particular type of user and a form of posting favored almost universally by that type of user, because an accumulation of such users is highly disruptive.

Which brings us to:

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	I read Stormfront sometimes and they keep banging on about "white culture in need of preservation" and "race realism", all of which seems to get a free pass here so far. Although the internet gives them some freedom to be blatant, they're also developing a discourse to use more pervasively and persuasively without flouting social taboos.

The first sounds exactly like a multiculturalist argument to me. Do you know of a way to distinguish it from that? The second contains not just the classic Stormfront types that we ban, racists, but also people who normally find themselves unable to discuss racial issues at all due to overbearing political correctness rather than progressive merit, and who are looking for a way to react to that. It makes sense that the far right would sympathize with and be interested in coopting those people via these race memes of theirs, because such people are excluded from the mainstream narrative and up for grabs, but that's something else too - propaganda starts to become a decent indicator there.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Would an external referent be helpful? I looked around the SPLC website but couldn't find anything. I have to sit on this a bit.

At times I've thought about adopting one of the euro-government definitions of racism and using that as our diagnostic tool. But that becomes problematic because it seems like these definitions usually identify racism in a manner intended to effect social change particular to the issues local to those governments, rather than to define what racism itself actually is.

[Integer]

	Originally Posted by davai
	Oh interesting, wasn't aware of that. Chinaman is also an alternative name for a type of bowl in cricket if that interests anyone, which I highly doubt :P

It's also the term for a political sponsor in Chicago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman_(politics) that doesn't have racial connotations now. I'm not sure how it started though.

btw I think the first quoted post was racist. The second probably not.

[holdyourhead]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	2. Oriental is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Asian.

Really? This one shocked me. I've used the term "Oriental" a lot and assumed it to be the most correct terminology. The thing I've noticed that in the U.S., when people use the term "Asian" they are nearly always referring to East and Southeast Asians, as in the Far East. When people in the U.K. use the term "Asian" they are nearly referring to South Asians. It is for that reason that I've regularly used the term "Oriental" as reference to people descended from the Far East region to differentiate from "Asian" which in the U.K. is taken to mean people descended from the South Asian region.

[Moxiie]

Originally Posted by stasis

1. Chinaman is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Chinese. Chink is a racial slur. There is a distinction. 2. Oriental is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Asian. Slope is a racial slur. There is a distinction. 3. Negro is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Black. Nigger is a racial slur. There is a distinction. 4. Aryan is a politically incorrect term, supplanted in some places by Caucasian. Ofay is a racial slur. There is a distinction. Four sentences above contain racial slurs and do not consist of racism. Therefore the inclusion of slurs themselves is not a useful definition of racism. None of the statements of distinction above are politically correct. Therefore OP appears to not distinguish between vulgarity and malediction for political reasons, and also appears to suggest by means of vocabulary list that the forum rules ought not distinguish between racism and discussions about race or racism or cricket or takeaway or plates or politics or culture. This is problematic because race and racism are evidently issues to be discussed. This is also problematic because political correctness of this kind seems beyond the scope of the function of the forum rules themselves; not only is it a diverse and contested subject, but it seems to have little or nothing do with facilitating the function of the forum. Any definition of racism that we end up with will deal with racism only. Therefore it appears indicated that racial slurs and politically incorrect terms can have no equivalence in the forum rules. Users adopt or discard political styles on their own.

In bold above - while I am well versed and trained within the realm of racial equity and race relations dialogues within my profession, I understand the quandary this dialogue presents to a moderator, again I echo that I do not envy the subjective value judgments that need to be present to determine racism within the context of the forum and rule #7.

However, in specific reference to the bold text, I do feel the need to assert that this sentiment: "Four sentences above contain racial slurs and do not consist of racism. Therefore the inclusion of slurs themselves is not a useful definition of racism" is practically (in the true essence of "practice") incorrect.

The usage of racial slurs is one of the very real and useful definitions of racism as applied in the real world. The conscious application of racial slurs is by definition the verbalization of racism. To not acknowledge that the usage of racial slurs is not racism is a willful disregard of how racism expresses itself in our culture. Language is one of many vehicles racism uses for expression.

I understand the underpinnings of its complexity as it relates to the notion of free speech, censorship and sweeping democratic dialogue under the carpet so to speak, in particular in relationship to the forum. Just felt the need to reassert that words are indeed one of the most powerful tools in the racism toolbox.

Dialogue however is essentially important and I am heartened to see this tough subject tackled on the forum. It's difficult but necessary, in my experience at any rate.

[Integer]

Originally Posted by holdyourhead

Really? This one shocked me. I've used the term "Oriental" a lot and assumed it to be the most correct terminology. The thing I've noticed that in the U.S., when people use the term "Asian" they are nearly always referring to East and Southeast Asians, as in the Far East. When people in the U.K. use the term "Asian" they are nearly referring to South Asians. It is for that reason that I've regularly used the term "Oriental" as reference to people descended from the Far East region to differentiate from "Asian" which in the U.K. is taken to mean people descended from the South Asian region.

Oriental has become unPC in the US when referring to a person, but OK to describe a thing or place. Asian is now the PC term for a person when not referencing their actual country.

This seems to me a generational thing. I was informed about this by my kids. A lot of older folk are still unaware of it. Also, when I've asked some older Asian guys about it, there response was "who gives a sh*t."

[Sinequanon]

I think the fool's errand here is looking for a grand unified theory that would explain or suffice for every condition that would exist. I recognize consistency is ideal, but we are dealing with the limits of free speech itself - basically playing Zeno's paradox with fire and theater. I think that people need to be willing to accept that there will necessarily be some subjectivity in these decisions as a practical matter.

[Subtle]

I find it disturbing that there are so many hyphenated Americans these days. A lot of them seem to have nothing better to do than whining about racism. The USA shouldn't be about that at all.

President Theodore Roosevelt abhorred hyphenated Americanism. Woodrow Wilson is not my favorite president, but he made a sharp comment about this phenomenon: "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."

The forum rules are excellent. It's ingenious to promote discussion and debate the way they do. Freedom of speech rocks!

That said, it is easy to see that the moderators have a tough job sometimes. However, if they get to be too picky, the forum will die or become pointless.

[Rho1334]

Yes but freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to belittle or offend others. There is blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, typism, etc. all over this forum. And as usual the Mods/Admins are using the guise of curbing discussion to do nothing. It doesn't matter if racism is directed at one person or not, by its very nature it is an attack...and because its an attack on what a person is...its personal. Whether or not you re offended doesn't matter, someone was and that's the point. This place is supposed to be for logical discussion. What is logical about people spouting hurtful things and discussing it?

[RedOrange823]

	Originally Posted by Rho1334
	Yes but freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to belittle or offend others.

Well actually, it does.

It's unfortunate that some people choose to abuse the right, but if everybody was PC all the time, the world would be kinda boring. And, if we were to delete all posts that offended people, this forum would be reduced to the Counting to 1,000,000 thread.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	Racism is one of the more difficult subjects to moderate in a uniform fashion, in large part because discussion about racial issues is not necessarily racist insofar as racial issues exist socially, and particular symbols are not necessarily examples of racism, as the OP itself demonstrates by containing slurs.

	Originally Posted by stasis
	What's needed to improve the application of this rule is a functional definition of racism

	Originally Posted by Storm
	Remember, the point of the rule is to prevent the forum from being overrun by racists, while also balancing it with the forum's goal of discussion, which includes topics that some might find offensive.

Is Storm correct that the point of the rule is to prevent the forum being overrun by racists? If so, then surely there's no need to have an exact definition of racism or to be concerned about whether or not something is a "slur" or offends someone. The relevant issue would simply be "To what extent is this post likely to encourage racists to overrun the forum?" Not that it would necessarily be any easier to decide on the answer to that question, but at least if that is the relevant question, then it is relatively clear that the answer must inherently be a matter for moderators' judgment rather than a cause for people to go scouring the web for definitions of "Chinaman" or whining about how offended they feel.

[holdyourhead]

	Originally Posted by RedOrange823
	...but if everybody was PC all the time, the world would be kinda boring.

Boring? I'm pretty sure there's a hell of a lot more to enjoy in the world for all tastes than a few handfuls of "offensive" labels and stereotypes...