[RedOrange823]

Can't appreciate the good without the bad.

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by nettneu

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.

Correct, this is what I meant. Ultimately, we're going to come back to a subjective standard, and we're going to struggle with it, and not everyone will be happy. Such is life.

[JTG]

	Originally Posted by Rho1334
	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.

If i'm reading correctly, this argument states that members may sometimes use racial insensitivity to make indirect personal attacks, and it is a valid point i think. It's very helpful to file reports on posts which are suspect. If i get a report on something that either i have not yet read or that seemed inconsequential, then i can go back and look at it with an eye for context within the thread.

	Whether or not you re offended doesn't matter, someone was and that's the point.

Whether somebody was offended does not matter either. I mean, in some ways offense does matter, and the forum rules have been arranged to take the some of the edge off when such an edge would be destructive to discussion, but i don't think the admins want discussion blunted, either.

Somebody will almost always take offense. We can't delete everything that somebody may find offensive. This forum really would not be the same place it is currently. We could easily cut out a quarter of all posts and still have stuff left over that might bother some people.

[Rho1334]

Originally Posted by JTG

If i'm reading correctly, this argument states that members may sometimes use racial insensitivity to make indirect personal attacks, and it is a valid point i think. It's very helpful to file reports on posts which are suspect. If i get a report on something that either i have not yet read or that seemed inconsequential, then i can go back and look at it with an eye for context within the thread. Whether somebody was offended does not matter either. I mean, in some ways offense does matter, and the forum rules have been arranged to take the some of the edge off when such an edge would be destructive to discussion, but i don't think the admins want discussion blunted, either. Somebody will almost always take offense. We can't delete everything that somebody may find offensive. This forum really would not be the same place it is currently. We could easily cut out a quarter of all posts and still have stuff left over that might bother some people.

Its a two meaning statement. Yes people do use those remarks as a indirect personal attacks. The second meaning also just the nature of these remarks is so offensive because they hit an emotional personal code. For example: I'm Jewish, if someone made a vulgar Jewish joke, it would be offensive even if they person had no personal connection to me. The reason being is you are attacking indirectly what I am. hope that makes sense. Another example is if someone dismissed my argument because I'm a feeler. And yes this has happened many times here.

As for the deleting posts, i would never ask for that. It's not a practical solution. I would proposed stricter regulation and awareness of how to report it and community participation. I would also recommend stricter then usual punishment, something that would stop it in its tracks.

[Storm]

You want "regulation" (forum rules?), and punishment, but no post deletion? I'm not really following, if something is a rule violation than it gets removed so that it doesn't muck up the discussion.

The forum rules also aren't meant to make people feel better. There are lots and lots of threads which make women out to be less than men, and those aren't deleted either.

Now, if someone is saying that you can't post or have an opinion due to your race or sex or type, then that's very likely a rule violation and should be reported.

[stasis]

	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.

Yeah. This seems a pretty good example of the difficulties resulting from failing to distinguish between slurs and preferred terminology, or 'political correctness', when going about identifying racism using "racist terms" as the definition. The latter seems to vary by place, by education, and even by age. Instead of being a clean indicator of racism in an international, intergenerational venue like this one, it appears to be more of an indicator of certain geographical, cultural, and political demographics that needn't necessarily have anything to do with racism.

You don't seem like a racist to me. At all. And yet if you were to come to the US and publicly refer to who we now call "Asians" as "orientals", or idly discuss your affinity for a local takeaway chef called "the chinaman", you would easily be mistaken for one. I initially found this language conspicuously odd when I began encountering it online myself.

	Originally Posted by Moxiie
	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 don't entirely disagree with what you're saying there. I found writing that post an uncomfortable exercise just because of the block of slurs it contains. It bothers me. And certainly racist terms have broad use as instruments of racism; and such use is one of the behaviors that rule 7 must prohibit and exclude from the forum. But part of my purpose was to demonstrate that statements containing slurs are not necessarily instruments of racism - such that the inclusion of "racist terms" does not necessarily characterize a post as presenting a racist message, and thereby precludes using lists of terms as a means of identification by themselves.

For example, a list of disallowed terms may consist almost entirely of these very terms themselves, but the meaning of the terms is lent to communicating a prohibition of their normal meaning rather than communicating that meaning. In other words, the meaning is actually modified. This is something about the English language that I think we can see in sarcastic statements and euphemistic statements as well. Allegory itself appears to be predicated upon this mechanism. So it seems like the meaning of any non-technical term is significantly derived from the context in which it is placed rather than arising mostly or entirely from an intrinsic quality of some kind. I suspect it is this that allows terms such as "fag", as paleoeco describes, to be appropriated and disarmed by the gay rights movement. Or, and I may be behind the times on this so please let me know, is it no longer understood that appropriation and disarmament of this type occurs?

Originally Posted by nettneu

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.

Storm is correct. And I think focusing upon what you suggest may be a better way to go about improving the functioning of this rule as well.

[nowt]

Are infractions due racism weighted more heavily?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by nowt
	Are infractions due racism weighted more heavily?

Currently infractions all carry the same point-weight and suspension regimens are handled on a per-account basis, given infraction history and other factors. But egregiously violating 7 is one of the faults that I have instabanned accounts for, whereas, to contrast, the most blatant violation of rule 1 typically results in an infraction process if the user's post history warrants it.

[vampyroteuthis]

Originally Posted by Storm

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.

Ah, thanks. I was late to the Hepatitis party and assumed it must have been. I'll be more lavish with the report button in the future.

	Originally Posted by stasis
	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.

Good to know. Thanks. Given phoboser's posting history I highly doubt he will but I will hold out hope. Also seems like assessing effort ventures into "intent" territory.

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. ... 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.

Agreed as far as operationalizing goes. I think it's more that the use of terms you're calling "politically incorrect" and that I just think of as shifting are no more or less a filter for assessing racism on their own than are outright slurs (since, defanging, Subgenius, etc.) So I would still consider them worth scrutinizing. No idea if that's the current approach to moderation or not. I guess I worry that classifying something as "politically incorrect" rather than "possibly racist" blunts scrutiny, and hope that's not the case.
I'm also curious about how satire is handled given the rule about not moderating for intent. I like Subgenius's posts, he makes me laugh, and in his case it seems obvious because his more earnest sounding posts are often anti-racist. I also have lingering doubts about thod. But my personal enjoyment doesn't change the fact that it does seem murky to me.

The post by Delarge that Distance quoted seems outright racist to me, so much so that I can't wrap my head around how it could be seen otherwise. I can also see the difficulty with moderating it. Is the operative difference that he's suggesting universality but not making explicit claims about inherence? Or is the distinction between terms? Would it have counted as racist if he'd used a globally known racial slur?

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?

I do. Seems a problem tied to the classification of race itself and its history of being tied to national origins. I'd like for there to be a way to take that into account in contextual assessments.

	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.

Understood. That was my intent in flagging the rhetoric of "race realism".

	The first sounds exactly like a multiculturalist argument to me. Do you know of a way to distinguish it from that?

No. And while I'd be happy to throw all arguments under the bus that reify "culture" as monolith rather than dealing with practice, belief, and archiving, I see why you can't.

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.

Going back to your point and Sinequanon's post about the difficulty of formulating an axiomatic approach to moderating for racism, I'm left with a piecemeal sort of suggestion myself: maybe just more vigilance around the memes?

	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.

I haven't seen those. Maybe an amalgam?

I do appreciate the detailed response, and am not looking to be difficult. I share the worry about the forum enabling/attracting a particular profile of user and Delarge's post seems to me not just racist and ludicrous, in my own assessment, but consistent with -- and typical of -- Stormfront discourse.

Added: The fact that this discourse gains traction outside explicitly hateful groups too is why I'm not arguing that something should be banned just because it's seen on Stormfront. I'm just saying maybe it deserves more scrutiny or an expansion of what Sinequanon called "some subjectivity in these decisions as a practical matter".

[Maedhi]

How about a username? Would InsipidChinaman or InsipidNigger be removed, or would it stand until/unless the posting pattern proved problematic?

[Uriel]

	Originally Posted by Maedhi
	How about a username? Would InsipidChinaman or InsipidNigger be removed, or would it stand until/unless the posting pattern proved problematic?

No posting pattern required, context of username alone betrays racist connotation. I suspect instaban.

[Maedhi]

We do have a user called InsipidPariah.

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by Maedhi
	We do have a user called InsipidPariah.

Yes, why ever would there be a problem with a self-deprecating name?

[Maedhi]

Pariah is the name of one of the five untouchable castes.