Question about the rules
- Thread starter Arkady
- Start date
marvin martian
Emperor
I'd suggest appraising why you're perceived that way first. Not quoting Himmler in your diatribes against the millions of people you hate is probably a good start.
You:
Your forebear:
We shall take care that never again in Germany, the heart of Europe, will the Jewish-Bolshevistic revolution of subhumans be able to be kindled either from within or through emissaries from without.
- Heinrich Himmler
Arkady
President
I'm sure I'm not. But the question is whether the rule against name-calling is narrowly about the term "racist" or whether similar insults are also off limits. For example, when discussing your Jew-baiting attacks on Jon Stewart, would it be OK for me to call you an anti-Semite? Would it be OK to call Barbella a "black-hater," and Dawg a "Hispanic hater," so long as I avoid the word "racist"? Or is it a more widespread rule requiring that we not highlight those personal defects in any terms, and instead just stick to discussing the issues at hand?
marvin martian
Emperor
You've called all of us that, and worse. Why don't you just man up instead? That way, I wouldn't need to keep embarrassing you like this.
Also, editing other peoples' words because they hurt your feelings is cowardly and dishonest. Again, man up.
The site forbids racism....which the owner and mods interpret as "calling someone a racist." How ignorant is that?
They're blind to what actually IS racist so I spell it out when I tell a poster that what they wrote, be it direct or in dog whistle, that the CONTENT of their post is racist.
In turn I'm called a racist, but they don't get banned for it....like you and I have.
Arkady
President
There's a new item that was posted on December 23 saying that calling another poster a racist will get someone an automatic suspension. Certainly there are a large number of people here who have called other posters that in the past without a suspension. So, I'm trying to nail down whether this new policy applies narrowly just to that word, or to equivalent personal attacks as well.
marvin martian
Emperor
You can hear dog whistles? Why am I not surprised?
marvin martian
Emperor
Stop editing my posts when you quote them. It's completely chickenshit, and I'm not going to reply to you with anything other than mockery and derision when you do it. It's my new year resolution.
Arkady
President
Mine involves self-improvement. Good luck with yours.
marvin martian
Emperor
Treating you like the mangina you are may be the impetus for improvement you need. I'm helping.
Arkady
President
You're having no impact one way or the other.
marvin martian
Emperor
I disagree.
Emily
NSDAP Kanzler
https://www.politicaljack.com/threads/pj-forum-rules-as-of-feb-2014.65849/
RULES:
1. PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSULTS
Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated here.
When replying to a post, your own post must be about the post to which you are replying, not the poster themselves.
Any personal remark about another poster that - in the judgment of a moderator or administrator - could reasonably be regarded as an intentional insult in the context of that discussion will be subject to infraction.
RULES:
1. PERSONAL ATTACKS AND INSULTS
Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated here.
When replying to a post, your own post must be about the post to which you are replying, not the poster themselves.
Any personal remark about another poster that - in the judgment of a moderator or administrator - could reasonably be regarded as an intentional insult in the context of that discussion will be subject to infraction.
Caroljo
Senator
Crap....I'd be reporting certain people here ALL THE TIME if I followed this! Lol!
I think you're okay on calling yourself a Jew-hater. Everyone already know you are, so I don't think you will have to provide evidence.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Regardless of board rules, you are what you are that will not change whether or not the person is ban. If I call you a racist you are a racist if I call you a nazi you are a nazi. me being banned doesn't change that fact. you are what you are, it is pointed out is what needs to be done.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
So arkie using nazi propaganda wouldn't that make him a NAZI?
Arkady
President
Interestingly, there’s been no actual response to this inquiry. I still want to know: is the only disallowed name calling the word “racist,” or are equivalents also off limits? It would be helpful do know if I’m OK, say, calling you a bigot who hates black people because of your prejudices about their ancestry... so long as I avoid the “r” word.
Emily
NSDAP Kanzler
Yeah. Me, too.
I don't feel it's as big a deal as some are making it out to be. If all a poster has to offer in a discussion is name-calling, it says more about that poster than about the target. Anyone with something substantive to say ought to be able to say it politely. Besides, most of the people here aren't going to report others for every little thing, the mods aren't repressive, and there's an ignore function for the snowflakes and the easily cowed.
Perhaps you have me on ignore but this, which I copied from the rules for post #13, addressed the inquiry: "Personal attacks and insults are not tolerated here. When replying to a post, your own post must be about the post to which you are replying, not the poster themselves.
"You're a bigot who hates black people because of your prejudices about their ancestry" - violation.
"That post was bigoted; it displayed hatred of black people because of prejudices about their ancestry" - not a violation.
No, you'd be expressing an opinion and hurling a personal insult.
But can't it be done with a modicum of civility?
Arkady
President
Thanks. However, it seems there's now a special zero-tolerance rule when it comes to calling people "racist." That gets an automatic suspension. By comparison, I receive a dozen replies a day, here, which are about me, personally, rather than about the post, and those seem to be tolerated.... in fact, I've experienced such replies from the site owner and the moderators. Generally the form it takes is for me to make a point about some subject (e.g., Nikki Haley's lack of success in her prior jobs), and a reply to change the focus to my standing to post on the topic (e.g., suggesting that I'm not qualified to comment on it, because, supposedly, I had no issue with Obama's performance as a Senator). It appears that is regarded as appropriate, while the "r word" is treated as a special case. That strikes me as odd -- especially since actual racism is treated as fully acceptable discourse here, while merely calling attention to the fact the poster is a racist is out-of-bounds. Oh well.
