Protecting Racists

[PhilFish]

1. Shielding racists from being publicly identified.

2. The act of shielding racists is an ugly form of racism.



I sense a lot of friction and hostility from both mods on this thread, and it appears that both are evading discussing the topic by putting up a strong defensive wall of authority in lieu of objectively discussing the topic.




I still sense a lot of defensive friction. Do you think that the topic of shielding racists from being publicly identified can be objectively discussed? Do you feel like you have what it takes to discuss how racist it is to shield racists from being held accountable?

[/QUOTE]


I guess it's all in the delineation..

Feel free to identify those posting lynching photos, klan propaganda, Nazi indoctrination and so on.

If your way of identification cascades into something less conspicuous...I guess we'll take a wait n see..

 

[EvMetro]

I've already suggested that you contact the site owner.

Are you uncomfortable answering the questions that you quoted? By default, the unnecessary friction about the topic paints a picture and answer worth a thousand words, but you could also engage in objective debate where you dismantle the premise of my thread with superior arguments and logic.

 

[PhilFish]

Are you uncomfortable answering the questions that you quoted? By default, the unnecessary friction about the topic paints a picture and answer worth a thousand words, but you could also engage in objective debate where you dismantle the premise of my thread with superior arguments and logic.

Let's play.


Who is a racist?


Good luck.

 

[ObamacareForever]

Let's play.


Who is a racist?


Good luck.

Right-wingers.

 

[PhilFish]

Right-wingers.

Could be.

 

[ObamacareForever]

The use of such labels is a judgement call and not always accurate nor supported by evidence. I believe the intent is to prevent this site from descending into name calling instead of debate. Too often labels like communist, nazi or fascist are thrown around, but it seems the owner of the site decided racist was across the line.

It already is mainly name-calling. The mods love when you report every single instance of name-calling.

 

[PhilFish]

It already is mainly name-calling. The mods love when you report every single instance of name-calling.

Love it.

Then we miss people greatly

 

[ObamacareForever]

Love it.

Then we miss people greatly

The only people who get temp banned for name-calling are the ones who use the R word.
Of the all things to call people, racist is not the worst, it's not even the worst on the site. The rule never made sense.

 

[EvMetro]

Let's play.


Who is a racist?


Good luck.

I think I could enjoy the thread that you are suggesting here, but this thread is about shielding racists from being publicly identified and the notion that it is actually quite racist to shield a racist from being identified. Do you agree that it is an act if racism to provide aid and support for racists?

 

[PhilFish]

The only people who get temp banned for name-calling are the ones who use the R word.
Of the all things to call people, racist is not the worst, it's not even the worst on the site. The rule never made sense.

People are banned for varied things.

 

[PhilFish]

I think I could enjoy the thread that you are suggesting here, but this thread is about shielding racists from being publicly identified and the notion that it is actually quite racist to shield a racist from being identified. Do you agree that it is an act if racism to provide aid and support for racists?

Is it? Do tell what racists are being shielded and by whom?

 

[ObamacareForever]

People are banned for varied things.

But not name calling.

 

[ObamacareForever]

I think I could enjoy the thread that you are suggesting here, but this thread is about shielding racists from being publicly identified and the notion that it is actually quite racist to shield a racist from being identified. Do you agree that it is an act if racism to provide aid and support for racists?

I got my pitchfork and my torch, I totally ready for this.

 

[PhilFish]

But not name calling.

That depends on the severity

 

[ObamacareForever]

That depends on the severity

Racist- not the worst name to be called, but here on PJ it is treated as such.

 

[EvMetro]

Is it? Do tell what racists are being shielded and by whom?

Are you uncomfortable answering if it is racist to provide aid and support to racists? It shouldn't really make any difference who provides the aid, it just matters that aid was provided. I am personally comfortable answering this question with my personal opinion, and I am comfortable answering first, since you are evading it. I hereby assert that it IS in fact racist for ANYBODY to provide aid or support to racists. How about you?

 

[ObamacareForever]

Are you uncomfortable answering if it is racist to provide aid and support to racists? It shouldn't really make any difference who provides the aid, it just matters that aid was provided. I am personally comfortable answering this question with my personal opinion, and I am comfortable answering first, since you are evading it. I hereby assert that it IS in fact racist for ANYBODY to provide aid or support to racists. How about you?

That's not really how racism works. Nobody is guilty by association.

 

[EvMetro]

This dude is a rabbit hole poster.He wants to call other posters racists and he can't do it here and he doesn't like the explanation given. This is gonna go on and on, but I'm done.

You are asserting that I have interest in calling "people" racists, in a context that would have me calling ALL people racists. Have you seen anything in this thread that suggests I have any interest in publically naming anybody a racist besides racists?

 

[EvMetro]

That's not really how racism works. Nobody is guilty by association.

Are you saying that it is not racist to support or assist racists? That providing comfort and aid to racists is not racist?

 

[PhilFish]

Racist- not the worst name to be called, but here on PJ it is treated as such.

Probably not, but then again the rule resulted from the behaviors of the posters