[Booko]

	Originally Posted by 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.

Historically "Chinaman" was insulting, though it was milder than one alternative term.

And using Englishman as a comparison is probably not the best, since the English have not been looked down on here, culturally speaking. Well, other than during the Revolutionary War perhaps, but even then it was a love-hate relationship.

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

It's possible the person who used the term initially was unaware of the historical use as well. Still, it would be odd to use the term nowadays...why depart from the everyday term of Chinese"?

[Storm]

The issue of words themselves being violations of rule #7 has been covered many times in this thread. Do you have any suggestions or comments beyond the outright banning of certain words?

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	It looks like Storm answered here. No?

She posted after my query to you.

	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.

So what you're saying is that interpretation of the rule is based on the writer of the rule's intent (which is yourself), that only if anyone can prove racist intent which can never be proven unless you can mind read, regardless of what's written by the offender, that rule 7 will never be applied.

Not even sure why I bothered raising this issue, stasis. But yeah, the ball's been dropped on racism one more time.

[Storm]

Several posts have been deleted for racism and several users have been banned for racism. Rule #7 is not just window dressing.

[MechanicalSun]

I would like give and example.

"I say: I am a Chinaman and a Nigger at the same time. Hell yeah! Pride in my veins."

Would it be a bannable offense for you Distance?

Note: last intervention

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by Distance
	So what you're saying is that interpretation of the rule is based on the writer of the rule's intent (which is yourself), that only if anyone can prove racist intent which can never be proven unless you can mind read, regardless of what's written by the offender, that rule 7 will never be applied.

I'm saying that the spirit of the forum rules is the predicate of the wording of the rules and that making legalistic appeals to the wording of the rules that part from the spirit of the rules is not a valid interpretation. I am also saying that since I wrote the rule in question myself, I have defined what the spirit of the rule is and can therefore convey this to you authoritatively such that you can work from that point.

Enforcement of forum rule 7 depends upon the way we define "racism". We do not have a good functional definition at this time and must instead rely heavily upon context and individualized posting patterns. It would be nice to have a functional definition of racism because that would increase the effectiveness of the rule. But 'racist terms' does not itself suffice as a functional definition for the reasons I've already set forth; it is not a clear or reliable indicator. It can be relevant, and we do look at that, but it is not always, which brings us back to the manner in which the rule is currently enforced.

As Storm points out, posts are deleted, infractions are issued, and users are in fact banned in appeal to 7. And there is room for improvement.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	Not even sure why I bothered raising this issue, stasis. But yeah, the ball's been dropped on racism one more time.

I am not unsympathetic.

[davai]

	Originally Posted by Booko
	Still, it would be odd to use the term nowadays...why depart from the everyday term of Chinese"?

Well that's certainly what I'd say, and as I've already said I would only use it as a cricket term. Still, the BBC website even uses chinaman as a name for a chinese man, so you can't really blame the English for using it also. But yep, not aware of the history of it, so I've definitely learned something there tonight.

[holdyourhead]

I had no idea of the history of the term myself. I suppose it's not exactly the same as "Englishman". The real equivalent would be "Chineseman", whereas the equivalent of "Chinaman" would be "Englandman"...

I didn't even know of the cricket thing... (yeah, I'm British but definitely not into cricket), but I've seen Chinese takeaways called "The Chinaman", which is quite suprising considering what I've learnt here. I'm pretty sure I've also seen stores selling crockery called "The Chinaman" over on these shores...

[vampyroteuthis]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	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

Ah. I think that was before my time, though I do remember the rabbits.

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.

This makes it harder to point out the context behind coded language, as SPLC gets dismissed as a liberal/"multiculturalist" organisation. But I do understand the reasoning. Will try to find safer sources.

This is where I'm confused:

	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.

I can readily imagine examples structurally akin to "kill all X" being a clear violation but what about more ambiguous statements like, "the Nazis had the right idea", or "Obama is a threat to white culture"? Are these violations? What if they are accompanied by a swastika avatar? Is it a question of degree?

I realise this wasn't in response to me but I'm going to take a stab at these questions anyway:

	Originally Posted by stasis
	What do we do if someone wants to discuss cricket, which clearly has nothing to do with racism?

Permit it. But I notice that, while davai was unaware of the historical context, when he did become aware of it he apologised for any offense caused. The forum isn't free of cultural specificity anyway, so why not allow some room for learning and smack down if it becomes clear that someone is consistently using racist language/imagery even after having been made aware of it?

	Identically, how about baseball? That mascot seems like a racially insensitive characterization to me.

Depending on what's being said about it, similar to how you might moderate neo-Nazi sentiment accompanied by a swastika avatar.

	And your original post, is it racist?

Clearly not.

	How about posts that attempt to appropriate racist terminology in a way that defangs it, such as what deconspire describes?

Despite my username, I'm all for defanging.

	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?

It took me a while to understand the satire, after reading enough of his posts to notice a pattern.

All my answers above involve an appeal to context and patterns of repetition, but it seems like some of your questions do too. Imperfect as it is, could that be a consideration in moderating for racism, rather than what you call "sensitivity"?

Right now, what does 'racist material' cover other than Stormfront and VDARE?

[BlSH0P]

dude who cares. If you honestly let that bother you, then you don't have the perseverance to deal with anything controversial on the forum. There is no reason that the forum discussions should be stifled because you can't just deal with it.

I'm white, and people make fun of me for being literate and having a small penis, but you don't see me complaining.

Stop letting the world bring you down. If you can't handle something like racism then you can't handle reality.

..|.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Is it a question of degree?

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.

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.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	I realise this wasn't in response to me but I'm going to take a stab at these questions anyway:

These were rhetorical questions. They describe the problem that arises when one attempts to use the 'racist words' cited as the definition of racism.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	All my answers above involve an appeal to context and patterns of repetition, but it seems like some of your questions do too. Imperfect as it is, could that be a consideration in moderating for racism, rather than what you call "sensitivity"?

That's what Distance's reference called it. Assessing context and individualized posting habits is currently the way we go about identifying violations of the rule.

	Originally Posted by vampyroteuthis
	Right now, what does 'racist material' cover other than Stormfront and VDARE?

At the moment the publications of a number of racial hate groups identified by the SPLC are covered and/or in the URL filter. This includes David Duke's videos, Jared Taylor's writing, certain sites dealing with crime statistics that are affiliated with these individuals and so forth.

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	It's currently a question of context.

I'm going to side with Distance here in that I would interpret, contextually, the quotes he references as racist. It's more than just a culturally acceptable thing, the first quote is intentionally derogatory.

The argument that "chinaman" referencing to the cricket term is irrelevant. Perhaps Distance isn't arguing his case properly with regards to racist terms. It's certainly not my intention to claim that terms/words should be banned outright or not discussed. But I do agree with Distance that contextually the term chinaman as used here is racist*.

	Originally Posted by Booko
	Historically "Chinaman" was insulting, though it was milder than one alternative term. And using Englishman as a comparison is probably not the best, since the English have not been looked down on here, culturally speaking. Well, other than during the Revolutionary War perhaps, but even then it was a love-hate relationship.

It's easy to claim no offense when you're in control, no?

*Here in Australia, that chinaman, in this context, is racist is explictly defined in law as such.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	The argument that "chinaman" referencing to the cricket term is irrelevant.

In the UK it is used for more than just that, as I've already indicated.

How about post 11 in that thread. Racist? If not, what is the distinction between the offending post and that one other than the word "chinaman"?

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	In the UK it is used for more than just that, as I've already indicated.

Isn't how it's used elsewhere in the UK just as contextually irrelevant? All that matters is how it's used in that post.

And certainly "acceptable" racism is still racism, of which I'm sure a number of examples from the UK are. Chinaman, in reference to the cricket bowling term certainly fits this "acceptable racism".

	Originally Posted by stasis
	How about post 11 in that thread. Racist? If not, what is the distinction between the offending post and that one other than the word "chinaman"?

Arguably yes. It's a derogatory stereotype.

Have fun trying to moderate it though, you're right though in that's difficult to draw a line as to what is acceptable to continue the discussion and what isn't.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	Isn't how it's used elsewhere in the UK just as contextually irrelevant? All that matters is how it's used in that post.

Well, the claim was made that this is a globally recognized universal taboo racism word. But it isn't. And notably, not in a central English-speaking place that cares about that kind of thing in a civic respect and has hate laws on the books. The cricket reference was simply part of a refutation of that claim.

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	Chinaman, in reference to the cricket bowling term certainly fits this "acceptable racism".

Perhaps. This word was not originally a slur and we have examples of it being used without such connotations today. What is your definition of racism? What definition should we be using here? Clearly we can't use "posts containing offensive words" or something to that effect, which is what was originally proposed.

I've solicited suggestions for a functional definition of racism a few times, but thusfar nobody has volunteered anything like that.

[nowt]

Godwin's Law as filter, where the use of racism then creates avenue to argument Holocasuistry [and the like] ?

[Undead Bonzi]

Originally Posted by stasis

Well, the claim was made that this is a globally recognized universal taboo racism word. But it isn't. And notably, not in a central English-speaking place that cares about that kind of thing in a civic respect and has hate laws on the books. The cricket reference was simply part of a refutation of that claim. Perhaps. This word was not originally a slur and we have examples of it being used without such connotations today. What is your definition of racism? What definition should we be using here? Clearly we can't use "posts containing offensive words" or something to that effect, which is what was originally proposed. I've solicited suggestions for a functional definition of racism a few times, but thusfar nobody has volunteered anything like that.

As long as the forum doesn't become a haven/posting ground for racist organizations I don't see why it matters. The forums intent is to bring users together for discussion. Last time I checked there were no pre-existing conditions those joining users had to meet outside of agreeing to follow the rules and being an adult. Users will often times bring opinions that are racist or offensive in some manner. As long as it is not a personal attack or a spamming/advertising of racist organizations this does not conflict with the function of discussion or debate. If someone says, 'that fucking chinaman in the news was an idiot', there is room for debate regardless of that users personal opinions.

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.



P.S. I was the one who drew a swastika on Rudy's avatar pics forehead.

[deconspire]

	Originally Posted by Megalomania
	Taking offense at these sorts of terms is perhaps the best way to insure that they will continue to be used (see: insults).

Absolutely. Although I would say "Getting defensive" instead. It just gives the symbol more power, and in a way, is as harmful long-term as creating a derogatory meaning for it is.

Really, if admins create a blocked word list, it's gonna become never-ending and petty.

[HackerX]

	Originally Posted by stasis
	Well, the claim was made that this is a globally recognized universal taboo racism word. But it isn't. And notably, not in a central English-speaking place that cares about that kind of thing in a civic respect and has hate laws on the books. The cricket reference was simply part of a refutation of that claim.

Which argues that "nigger" also isn't racist in any context because some african american's consider it acceptable to reference themselves that way. Strange argument.

	Originally Posted by stasis
	Perhaps. This word was not originally a slur and we have examples of it being used without such connotations today.

I'm not sure how what happened in the past is relevant. Slaves, paedophilia et al.

I'm less concerned about the explicit term (chinaman) than the fact that it was used in a racist way. My argument isn't that the term chinaman is always racist but that the quotes that Distance references are.

	Originally Posted by stasis
	What is your definition of racism? What definition should we be using here? Clearly we can't use "posts containing offensive words" or something to that effect, which is what was originally proposed. I've solicited suggestions for a functional definition of racism a few times, but thusfar nobody has volunteered anything like that.

Racism is a statement(s) which identifies an race, and then associates (e.g. implies) a derogatory context with it.

In the case of MrFlaneur:

	Originally Posted by MrFlaneur
	Eating babies just aint natural, and knowing the chinese, who knows where the dead babies come from.

He identifies a race (chinese) and associates an (overly broad), derogatory sterotype with them. Racist.

"Chinese" isn't racist. Derogatory stereotype isn't racist. "Chinese" + derogatory context (i.e. stereotype) is.

	Originally Posted by Undead Bonzi
	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.

Oh indeed. I'd rather be free to disprove MrFlaneur's stereotype as being false than shuffle it under a rug. It's still racist though. That was always the issue with the anti racist rule, while other types of negative view points were left free to be argued down, racism was always a blanket rule intended to prevent an overwhelming influx from racist forums and the negative effect (rather than to prevent racism explicit). The anti racism rule isn't to prevent racism, it's to stop the forum from looking bad.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	Racism is a statement(s) which identifies an race, and then associates (e.g. implies) a derogatory context with it.

I think this might be too broad. The thread in the OP that began this discussion is pretty much people just expressing ethnocentric culture-shock at Chinese medicine. With a global community, your going to find people shocked or morally outraged or disgusted by the practices in another culture.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	Which argues that "nigger" also isn't racist in any context because some african american's consider it acceptable to reference themselves that way. Strange argument.

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.

*arguably, the appropriated "nigga" isn't a slur at all.

	Originally Posted by HackerX
	He identifies a race (chinese) and associates an (overly broad), derogatory sterotype with them. Racist. "Chinese" isn't racist. Derogatory stereotype isn't racist. "Chinese" + derogatory context (i.e. stereotype) is.

If someone says all Chinese rockets suck or remarks that the Chinese don't give a fuck about the lives of girls, they are making derogatory, hasty generalizations that invoke the word "Chinese" in the order you've specified. But the former refers to technology and the latter refers to politics and culture.

How about "Americans are stupid"?

China is a country. The definition of racism that you seem to be appealing to here would make it difficult to disdain that country's policies and/or aspects of that country's culture without also automatically falling afoul of the racism rule. Which isn't going to work in this venue because we include the discussion and debate of politics and culture here.

	Originally Posted by Storm
	I think this might be too broad. The thread in the OP that began this discussion is pretty much people just expressing ethnocentric culture-shock at Chinese medicine. With a global community, your going to find people shocked or morally outraged or disgusted by the practices in another culture.

Right.

	Originally Posted by nowt
	Godwin's Law as filter, where the use of racism then creates avenue to argument Holocasuistry [and the like] ?

That is a good start.

[JTG]

Beat all the niggers
Beat whoever you see
Don't need a reason
L.A.P.D.

The chorus from "L.A.P.D." by the Offspring, released 1992. Is this racism or social commentary?

	Originally Posted by Distance
	'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?

An interesting comparison. I certainly see how the term could be viewed as a "nigger" equivalent, but this is a case where the word itself is commonly understood to describe a certain subset of white populations, while "nigger" is rarely used at all in this way and is preferred instead either as a tool of commentary (including satire) or a slur against people who are certain shades of brown. Ultimately, this is more a result of social climates than anything else. There are no objective criteria for word connotations; they're entirely subjective and culturally dependent.

Ironically, the chorus of the song quoted above alternates between "niggers" and "white trash" on each repetition. I think in some ways they are comparable terms, but as others have pointed out, it matters who's saying it and under which circumstances it's being said. If we had an "african nation" member who was always going on about honkey mafahs keepin a brotha down, then that would be a problem.

Users have been infracted, suspended, and banned for proselytizing, including the racist variety. It's definitely not something that's acceptable here.

	Originally Posted by Distance
	I dare to criticise racism and racists.

As well you should. I find racism particularly abhorrent. However, i also find censorship pretty unforgivable as well. It's often difficult to find a balance between allowing fair discussion and still curtailing the kinds of behaviors and posting patterns that destroy participation by making the forum into "one of those" kinds of places.

Ultimately, if we completely put a ban on anything that could be interpreted as racist, then we shut down very wide avenues of discussion. Then any thread that revolves around race becomes a circle jerk of "yes, i agree!" rather than a real debate. There has to be some leeway, because the alternative is willful ignorance of reality.

[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.....

[Moxiie]

It strikes me that a lot of dialogue here is being focused on semantics (e.g. which words are being used), which in the context of administering rules is at best tricky at worst totalitarian.

Words have power, anyone who doesn't recognize that is delusional. Race in the Western world, and specifically within America is a complex, layered, entrenched and nuanced issue.

I might imagine in the final analysis, it will a value call made by the administrators and moderators of INTJf who will make a determination on what's considered "racist" dialogue.

In my estimation, if words or ideas are directed to reaffirm the notion that one race is superior to another that, by definition, is racism and shouldn't be allowed by the moderators. Obvious hateful racism is easy enough, it's when you start getting into the subtleties of racism, it get significantly more difficult for the mods.

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 situations.

Ugh. Racism is still very much alive in the U.S. and indeed in many other places around the world.

I don't envy the mods this particular determination.

edit: I understand the fundamental basis for the thread is dealing with specific words and terms, my sentiments arise from the context and intentionality behind certain words. Context is everything.

[Megalomania]

	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.....

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.