[Storm]

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

If you do a search, there are numerous instances of users using the word "white trash" that does not violate the forums rule against racism. Context matters. Name-calling specific or identifiable groups of users on the forum would most likely be a rule violation, though.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	This would depend upon the context I think. I've never heard the first one before. The posts you've cited weren't directed at INTJf's userbase specifically. These users were discussing a news item.

So if it was used generally to describe all caucasians just like it was used generally to describe the Chinese which infers all Chinese, this would be acceptable to INTJf?

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?

How much more clear can anyone get beyond using racist terms? Maybe a drill bit to the head, to ascertain intent?

---------- Post added 05-08-2012 at 02:10 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Storm
	If you do a search, there are numerous instances of users using the word "white trash" that does not violate the forums rule against racism. Context matters. Name-calling specific or identifiable groups of users on the forum would most likely be a rule violation, though.

Refer to my response to stasis.

Now I'm going to use it as a general example:

'It's unfortunate that white trash can't understand or appreciate how visible minorities feel about racist terms and terminology.'

Would this be considered acceptable?

[Helio]

Distance what are you? The thought police? What gives you the right to criticize anybody for the language they wish to use?

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by Helio
	Distance what are you? The thought police? What gives you the right to criticize anybody for the language they wish to use?

Do you feel oppressed?

[Helio]

As a matter of fact I do, yes.

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by Helio
	As a matter of fact I do, yes.

But you don't see how someone could feel oppressed by the use of language that's been used to stereotype, demonise and marginalize them?

[Arcanist]

Welcome to the Internet.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Helio
	Distance what are you? The thought police? What gives you the right to criticize anybody for the language they wish to use?

I dare to criticise racism and racists.

[Helio]

No I don't. And neither do I feel attacked by terms like "White trash". I also can't see how a black person would feel discriminated against by being called a nigger, considering that most of them adress each other as niggers as well.

There is a big difference between whining about an insulting term "Mommy mommy the neighbors boy said I was stupid buhuhu..." and taking away somebodies fundamental rights. And whoever doesn't like that can go live in china, I heard they don't care so much about their personal rights

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Helio

No I don't. And neither do I feel attacked by terms like "White trash". I also can't see how a black person would feel discriminated against by being called a nigger, considering that most of them adress each other as niggers as well. There is a big difference between whining about an insulting term "Mommy mommy the neighbors boy said I was stupid buhuhu..." and taking away somebodies fundamental rights. And whoever doesn't like that can go live in china, I heard they are not so strict about their personal rights

I honestly don't give a flying fuck about rationalisations towards racist rights. Once they display their tendencies, they're open for criticism.

[Helio]

Feel free to criticize me for anything I say, but dare not try to restrict what I say in the first place.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Helio
	Feel free to criticize me for anything I say, but dare not try to restrict what I say in the first place.

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

[MechanicalSun]

Being intolerant works both ways it seems.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by MechanicalSun
	Being intolerant works both ways it seems.

Bringing a blatant violation of INTJf rules to light.

[MechanicalSun]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Bringing a blatant violation of INTJf rules to light.

Read better the forum guidelines.
Second line of thought.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	So if it was used generally to describe all caucasians just like it was used generally to describe the Chinese which infers all Chinese, this would be acceptable to INTJf?

I'm just saying, be precise. You cited an example with particular characteristics.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	How much more clear can anyone get beyond using racist terms? Maybe a drill bit to the head, to ascertain intent?

I don't see how use of racist terms (symbols) is a clear indicator of racism in and of itself. If it were, your original post in this thread would be a clear example of a racist post, anyone who discusses cricket strategy would be presenting clear examples of racist posting, professing affinity for the Cleveland "Indians" would be a clear example of racism, and so forth. When we use the terms themselves as a criterion, we effectively preclude any discussion of racial issues or racism at all.

What's needed to improve the application of this rule is a functional definition of racism, something that describes racism in a general case, and in such a way that it is not readily conflated with 'racially offensive', which is potentially anything regarding race (and therefore effectively everything), or 'politically correct', which would only work if the entire userbase were from a single country and cultural milieu.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by MechanicalSun
	Read better the forum guidelines. Second line of thought.

The violation is clear. Lawyering won't change the rules.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	How much more clear can anyone get beyond using racist terms? Maybe a drill bit to the head, to ascertain intent?

So you're originally post in this thread is racist and an indication that you are a racist? Right now racist slurs are one indication that a post might violate rule 7, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Do you have a suggestion how to tell the difference between racial terms like used in your OP, that used in cricket, and that used in other contexts? It's a conversation that's been ongoing with the moderation team, too. 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.

	'It's unfortunate that white trash can't understand or appreciate how visible minorities feel about racist terms and terminology.' Would this be considered acceptable?

This is completely void of context. If you were directing this at a particular person, it would be a violation. If it was part of a pattern, it would be a violation. Anything else is gray-area without context.

[Megalomania]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	But you don't see how someone could feel oppressed by the use of language that's been used to stereotype, demonise and marginalize them?

If Distance wants to refer to me as cockazoid (whatever the hell that is) or white trash she is more than welcome to. Taking offense at these sorts of terms is perhaps the best way to insure that they will continue to be used (see: insults).

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	I'm just saying, be precise. You cited an example with particular characteristics.

Precision isn't my expertise and frankly, not my interest. But I've made a precise query to Storm which included a concrete example. Please refer to my query to Storm which hasn't been answered.

I don't see how use of racist terms (symbols) is a clear indicator of racism in and of itself. If it were, your original post in this thread would be a clear example of a racist post, anyone who discusses cricket strategy would be presenting clear examples of racist posting, professing affinity for the Cleveland "Indians" would be a clear example of racism, and so forth. When we use the terms themselves as a criterion, we effectively preclude any discussion of racial issues or racism at all. What's needed to improve the application of this rule is a function definition of racism, something that describes racism in a general case, and in such a way that it is not readily conflated with 'racially offensive', which is potentially anything regarding race (and therefore effectively everything), or 'politically correct', which would only work if the entire userbase were from a single country and cultural milieu.

Nowhere does Rule 7 require a clear indication of racism or that the individual expressing it had racist intent or is/was a racist. It clearly states and governs 'racist material' of which racist terminology would fall within this category.

As far as the cricket term, if you review the thread where the two offending posts were linked from, you'll find that cricket wasn't the topic.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Bringing a blatant violation of INTJf rules to light.

Well, yes and no as has been shown. I don't wish to get into a debate about the intent of the examples you brought up, but you are forgetting cultural and more likely age differences in interpreting words/phrases. For my part, I can't see that I'd ever use that word outside of the context I've already explained, nor was I aware of the discriminative usage. Apologies for any offence caused.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Storm

So you're originally post in this thread is racist and an indication that you are a racist? Right now racist slurs are one indication that a post might violate rule 7, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Do you have a suggestion how to tell the difference between racial terms like used in your OP, that used in cricket, and that used in other contexts? It's a conversation that's been ongoing with the moderation team, too. 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.

Clearly sophism.

	This is completely void of context. If you were directing this at a particular person, it would be a violation. If it was part of a pattern, it would be a violation. Anything else is gray-area without context.

But based on your logic, how would it be a violation since you have no way to ascertain intent. Perhaps this was utilised to mock. Without the ability to mind read, how could this be considered a violation?

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Precision isn't my expertise and frankly, not my interest. But I've made a precise query to Storm which included a concrete example. Please refer to my query to Storm which hasn't been answered.

As has been said, the use of the term "chinaman" by itself doesn't indicate the post is racist. There is nothing else to indicate in the posts linked that they violate rule #7 or that they will cause the harm meant to be prevented by rule #7. The first post appears be an unfavorable view of Chinese medicine, the 2nd post appears to be a mockery of the person's attitude toward Chinese medicine.

Still open to discussion, though.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Precision isn't my expertise and frankly, not my interest. But I've made a precise query to Storm which included a concrete example. Please refer to my query to Storm which hasn't been answered.

It looks like Storm answered here. No?

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Nowhere does Rule 7 require a clear indication of racism or that the individual expressing it had racist intent or is/was a racist. It clearly states and governs 'racist material' of which racist terminology would fall within this category.

I'm telling you how Rule 7 works by explaining the way moderation is handled. I wrote this rule myself. Please do not attempt to make legalistic appeals to the language; they are written in this way so that such appeals can not be made in the first place.

[Distance]

Originally Posted by Storm

As has been said, the use of the term "chinaman" by itself doesn't indicate the post is racist. There is nothing else to indicate in the posts linked that they violate rule #7 or that they will cause the harm meant to be prevented by rule #7. The first post appears be an unfavorable view of Chinese medicine, the 2nd post appears to be a mockery of the person's attitude toward Chinese medicine. Still open to discussion, though.

Are we reading the same posts? I'm stunned that you're validating and enabling racist terminology.