[Distance]

I've seen racist terms utilised on INTJf which include chinamen, niggers, etc. Is usage of these terms considered a violation of Rule 7?

[Storm]

Depends how they are being used. Links to specific examples would be needed to assess if they violate rule #7. You can also use the report function for anything you think might violate a forum rule.

[Distance]

7. Post With Quality In Mind Although there is nothing wrong with being succinct, terse, or directly to the point, we ask that you try to avoid one-lined irrelevance. Chitchat and goofing around are welcome, but try to keep it to the appropriate threads and subforums and don't bombard those users who do not wish to participate. Do not dump excessively lurid content into existing threads or create threads for that purpose. Do not post racist or antisemitic material anywhere on this forum.

Rule 7 isn't specific about the usage of racist material in that it doesn't specifically state that racist material cannot be a personal attack, otherwise it's fine if used in a general sense.

[Storm]

You're right, rule 7 doesn't just apply to personal attacks. But that doesn't mean that certain words are de facto breaking rule 7 either. Links to examples please.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Delarge
	The Chinaman will seemingly ingest anything in the name of health, including placentas, the flesh of aborted babies, animal penises and God knows what else. As for your question, the consumption of powdered infant strikes me as more appalling.

	Originally Posted by Subgenius
	Any funny in there? +2 points for 1950s school film narration style. I love "The Chinaman".

Here are the exact posts from today which include links to the posts. These aren't the only ones I've seen on INTJf.

[vampyroteuthis]

Also curious about why pictures of the Nazi swastika are allowed.

[davai]

Chinaman [insert alleged traits], doesn't sound bad to me. This can always be refuted with evidence if wrong. It's no different to saying Englishman [insert alleged traits], which I can't imagine offense being taken to.

Perhaps context/intent has escaped me on this one. Though judging that seems fairly subjective business.

[deconspire]

I use "nigga" a bit here. Example. I don't find it racist. OP is probably not referring to me, but I have kinda wondered if that was against the rules myself.

[stasis]

As Storm points out, the context in which words are used is deterministic. We don't have a banned words list. Citing the particular example given, "chinaman", I gather that this is more of a politically incorrect term in the US than it is in the UK. We need to be cautious about expecting everyone to be familiar with the nuances of American English.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Also curious about why pictures of the Nazi swastika are allowed.

When topical to a discussion, say, about Greek Nazis being elected, why wouldn't it be?

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	When topical to a discussion, say, about Greek Nazis being elected, why wouldn't it be?

I was under the impression a while ago that swastikas weren't allowed. Something about avatars. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

Would linking to an article by Don Black or quoting Stormfront FAQs (without a link) be acceptable if topical to a discussion? For example, in calling out coded discourse of "race realism" through reference to the contexts in which that term is used.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	I was under the impression a while ago that swastikas weren't allowed. Something about avatars. Perhaps I'm misremembering.

Nah. A couple of years ago, a bunch of the mods - I think this may have been related in some way to April fools - simultaneously changed their avatars to various dictators and fascists, parodying some of the dialogue in the S&F subforum at the time. Most of these were fictional characters but one avatar was a photoshopped picture with a backwards Charles Manson-style swastika scribbled onto the forehead. Although it only lasted a day or so this was enough to rile a handful of people. But we haven't actually ever banned swastikas from the forum.

If someone were to use a swastika to express neo-nazi sentiment or something similar (perhaps in a way indistinguishable from neo-nazi sentiment), we'd treat that as a violation of the rule and remove it.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Would linking to an article by Don Black or quoting Stormfront FAQs (without a link) be acceptable if topical to a discussion?

No, the posting of racist propaganda is prohibited. INTJf isn't going to generate traffic for or serve the contents of any of those initiatives. We don't even allow links to VDARE and they deny being a hate group. You could always reference the SPLC or an analogous body of research to make this same point, though if it's listed on the likes of the SPLC it is usually egregious enough to remove from the forum in the first place and the report button might be a better option.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	Citing the particular example given, "chinaman", I gather that this is more of a politically incorrect term in the US than it is in the UK.

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

[Distance]

Sincerely disappointing how racism is viewed on this site but it comes as no surprise. Thanks for your time.

[stasis]

Sorry.

I am earnestly open to suggestion on the subject though. 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. So unless the matter is relatively blatant, which it is sometimes, moderating for racism comes down to context, and this is a routinely a judgement call having to do with patterns of behavior.

Regular use of the report button assists in that.

[Distance]

The usage of chinamen is blatantly derogatory since it's well known it's a racist derogatory term globally, regardless of what racists wish it to be.

What's even more disturbing is the usage within this thread by members, gloating about the term being acceptable within the confines of this site. Just...unbelievable.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	The usage of chinamen is blatantly derogatory since it's well known it's a racist derogatory term globally, regardless of what racists wish it to be.

I have encountered non-racist users from the UK on this and other sites who do not recognize this term as a racial slur. For instance, if you google 'Chinaman US' you will find a large number of results dealing with racial derision, whereas if you google 'Chinaman UK', most results have to do with cricket and the others are predominantly the names of businesses operating there today - which you wouldn't expect to find in a country with hate laws like the UK's if this term were really as unacceptable there as you suspect.

Use of the word seems more analogous to use of the word "negro", which wasn't originally a slur, but gradually became unacceptable in a political sense. See: Englishman.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	What's even more disturbing is the usage within this thread by members, gloating about the term being acceptable within the confines of this site. Just...unbelievable.

Was Subgenius commending the user or was he mocking the user? Or both, in a way? Have you read his other posts? That's something the user seems to tend to do.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by stasis

I have encountered non-racist users from the UK on this and other sites who do not recognize this term as a racial slur. For instance, if you google 'Chinaman US' you will find a large number of results dealing with racial derision, whereas if you google 'Chinaman UK', most results have to do with cricket and the others are predominantly the names of businesses operating there today - which you wouldn't expect to find in a country with hate laws like the UK's if this term were really as unacceptable there as you suspect. Use of the word seems more analogous to use of the word "negro", which wasn't originally a slur, but gradually became unacceptable in a political sense. See: Englishman.

Some people in Britain do think using "Chinaman" is acceptable, but then they're also the sort of people who use slang terms for all sorts of people of other nationalities and skin colours, regardless of whether the people involved find the terms insulting or derogatory. "Chinaman" is definitely not "perfectly okay" in Britain. You'll never hear the word used on the BBC or in polite, educated society in Britain. As for people being too sensitive, that's a matter of opinion. If you, for example, were descended from people who emigrated from Italy to the country you now live in, some people might think you "too sensitive" for getting annoyed if someone called you a Wop. However, most educated people would consider you quite right to object to being called that. It seems to me that the point is that it's disrespectful, insensitive and basically demonstrates our ignorance if we use terms other people are uncomfortable with when we refer to them.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6233156AAUcsUx

	Was Subgenius commending the user or was he mocking the user? Or both, in a way? Have you read his other posts? That's something the user seems to tend to do.

It's not up to me to define intent. What I object to is the usage of the racist term.

I'm also objecting to the continuous usage of the word within davai's posts within this thread.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	It's not up to me to define intent. What I object to is the usage of the racist term. I'm also objecting to the continuous usage of the word within davai's posts within this thread.

So you don't think words should be used at all if they are considered racial slurs in certain contexts? Davai has only posted twice in this thread, once to say he didn't think it was a racist term, and twice he used "Chinaman" to refer to a piece of sporting equipment. Under that logic, your OP should be deleted as racist. I'm unconvinced having a banned word list is going prevent racism (racists will just use another word), but will instead stifle perfectly fine discussions.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6233156AAUcsUx

	You'll never hear the word used on the BBC or in polite, educated society in Britain.

Not true. It's a valid cricket term and I've heard it loads of times from commentators. You only have to do a quick search on the BBC sport website to see the term brought up in relation to cricket. Fact is, chinaman is not necessarily a racist comment. It may be where you are but not here. Intent is important, don't forget.

And actually, while browsing the BBC sport website, the term is also used to describe people of Chinese descent which is unrelated to cricket. The Yahoo answer was wrong basically.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Storm

So you don't think words should be used at all if they are considered racial slurs in certain contexts? Davai has only posted once in this thread and used "Chinaman" to refer to a piece of sporting equipment. Under that logic, your OP should be deleted as racist. I'm unconvinced having a banned word list is going prevent racism (racists will just use another word), but will instead stifle perfectly fine discussions.

I see. So if we stifle a racist term, it will stifle discussion. Got it.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...6233156AAUcsUx

That sounds in keeping with what I was saying; although it's not a politically correct word it is not a racial slur there. Your reference takes it a bit further by comparing the word to a racial slur on the grounds of sensitivity.

http://www.thechinaman.co.uk/page.asp?id=about
http://www.thankgoditstakeaway.co.uk...man/menu1.html

How do you explain the above given their hate laws? What do we do if someone wants to discuss cricket, which clearly has nothing to do with racism? Identically, how about baseball? That mascot seems like a racially insensitive characterization to me. And your original post, is it racist? How about posts that attempt to appropriate racist terminology in a way that defangs it, such as what deconspire describes?

The thing about attempting to moderate for offensiveness or political correctness is that it's not actually the same thing as moderating for racism. It's racism that's problematic.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	It's not up to me to define intent.

You just defined it "gloating", like, 'ha-ha I can say racist stuff here, woo'. Is that really what we're reading in Subgenius' post? Are you sure? Have you read this user's post history?

[Cooper]

I have a hard time with what I see as racism here. It seems what I have seen, and been subjected to throughout my lifetime is no longer considered racist. I honestly do not understand how some things can be "okay".....

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	The thing about attempting to moderate for offensiveness or political correctness is that it's not actually the same thing as moderating for racism. It's racism that's problematic.

So I can use the terms cockazoid or white trash when describing all caucasians on INTJf?

	You just defined it "gloating", like, 'ha-ha I can say racist stuff here, woo'. Is that really what we're reading in Subgenius' post? Are you sure? Have you read this user's post history?

Once again, it's not up to me to research the history of subgenius to ascertain his intent. But if someone's using sarcasm, they'd best be very clear or they will be considered racists for enabling the usage of a racist term.

[Helio]

What is this? politicallycorrect.com? wtf? The whole point of the internet is that people can say what they think without having to fear oppression because of it - and you want to ruin all that by telling people what they are allowed to say and what not?

If you don't like the way a person in this forum talks then walk away, but do not try to take away their freedom of speech just because you can't take what they have to say!

Oh and by the way:

"The belief that race accounts for differences in human character."
That's the definition of racism. Which person with a brain could actually refuse to acknowledge that this is the truth??? "Only difference is the skin color... blabla" Ever read a book on anthropology?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	So I can use the terms cockazoid or white trash

This would depend upon the context I think. I've never heard the first one before.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	when describing all caucasians on INTJf?

The posts you've cited weren't directed at INTJf's userbase specifically. These users were discussing a news item.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Once again, it's not up to me to research the history of subgenius to ascertain his intent. But if someone's using sarcasm, they'd best be very clear or they will be considered racists for enabling the usage of a racist term.

Being clear about anything is a challenge on the internet. But it is up to the moderators to discern racist material from other discussion, which means that in order to move away from the pattern-based identification of racism, we would need a clear, functional definition of racism itself that is not identical to the definition of 'racially offensive', because that is potentially anything involving race, or 'politically correct', which varies from time to time and place to place. That's really the issue. Have any ideas?