I think we all know the rules and regulations around personal insults.
Perhaps we could have clarification on the other guidelines? Specifically the criteria and moderating threshold for the following phrase would be most helpful;
"Content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance"
|
Surely within the realms of chance that no mod has been around so far this evening?
On the only occasion I flagged a post as being offensive it disappeared fairly fast.
One of our resident xenophobes' "Oh look the {insert minority group here} are at it again" posts.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 15 Dec 14 at 21:53
|
Well within the realms, I should think.
Thus, a little more clarification and understanding will help us in their absence.
|
>> Well within the realms, I should think.
>>
>> Thus, a little more clarification and understanding will help us in their absence.
If you want anything removed just re-quote it
|
>> >> Well within the realms, I should think.
>> >>
>> >> Thus, a little more clarification and understanding will help us in their absence.
>>
>> If you want anything removed just re-quote it
See? I told you! I quoted something in that thread and the whole lot disappeared.
Megalomania, thats all it is Megalomania.
|
>> Surely within the realms of chance that no mod has been around so far this
>> evening?
>>
Or that some posters time zones do not match the mods hours of vigilance?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 09:17
|
>> Or that some posters time zones do not match the mods hours of vigilance?
You seem to refer to perhaps Chile there.... but that timezone is not that far behind GMT/UTC. It's only 3 hours behind us.
|
There have to be rules.
But it's tiresome to be censored without explanation. Controversy is entertaining, sail as close to the wind as you can without luffing (if that's the word). Then a moderator sinks you without trace... it comes hard sometimes, in a trivial sort of way.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 00:41
|
The key word is 'incite'. There's plenty here that expresses unsavoury opinions, but precious little that's powerful enough or even well-enough expressed to incite such feelings in others.
There's a Terry Pratchett line I can't quite drag up verbatim but it's along the lines of 'stupid people are not a problem, but stupid and dogmatic is a hard combination to like'.
|
I don't know what's prompted this thread because as usual it all seems to happen after my bedtime! At least that means I'm not a part of it.
It got me thinking though.
The only time I have ever asked for clarification of the rules is when faced with a situation I didn't like, wasn't getting my own way and was looking for a way to circumvent the rules and quote them back to them.
It seems to me this is just the same.
Pat
|
So, you have no idea what went on, weren't involved and werent even around.
But you still feel able to comment on what went on and the reasons behind it?
The only time I jump to silly and baseless conclusions about stuff of which I know nothing, its because I'm obsessing about people who dismiss my views as silly and so I'm trying to show them how clever I am.
It seems to me this is just the same.
|
So it WAS you then, how did I manage to guess that one!
Being pedantic >>>weren't involved and werent even around. <<,
I could be wrong, and I'm sure you'll soon put me right, but that doesn't read right to me.
Pat
|
>>So it WAS you then
*WHAT* was me Pat? Because if you think I used any bad language, used *any* personal insult, or anything else similarly abusive then you'd be very wrong - although that never usually stands in your way.
Isn't your overwhelming obsession for me getting just a bit unhealthy? Its certainly a little "odd". Its been there for a long time, but just lately it seems to be getting a bit overpowering.
Perhaps some other interests would help?
|
>>Isn't your overwhelming obsession for me getting just a bit unhealthy? <<
You ain't half got a bob on yourself Mark!
My super detective work is based entirely on this:
'thou doth protest too much'
=
Overly insistent about something, to the point where the opposite is most likely true.
Pat
|
|
Let it go Pat. I'm not interested. Move on, it'll fade.
|
Trying to patronise me doesn't work either....annoying, aren't I?
:)
Pat
|
|
Pat, why are you so worried about causing emotions in me? Surely you can see that this isn't healthy for you?
|
Now you are making yourself look a complete and utter idiot.
But from where I'm sitting it's really quite funny.
Pat
|
>>But from where I'm sitting it's really quite funny.
Then you need to get out a*LOT* more.
However, that website says I have to stop encouraging you in order to avoid you getting mixed messages.
|
So pleased you read the link, I was sure you would find it helpful:)
Pat
|
>> The key word is 'incite'.
It's very curious wording. It doesn't condemn words liable to incite violence, or hatred, or offend, only the very specific crime of inciting "intolerance".
There has to be an audience who might be liable to being incited. So spouting hatred and bigotry to a group of people already inflamed by racial or religious intolerance would be OK.
A bit like using rude words to a policeman - they know them all already so are unlikely to be shocked.
|
We are governed by rules and regulations it is the way our society works.Tolerance to each other and except the difference which makes us the human race.
Incite stirring up trouble?
|
"Tolerance to each other and except the difference which makes us the human race."
But should we be tolerant to the intolerant? Really don't know the answer to that.
|
>> But should we be tolerant to the intolerant? Really don't know the answer to that.
>>
We seem to tolerate a few here, even me!
|
"Content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance"
Anyway, back to the question;
It seems to me that some clarification around the intentions of the statement "Content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance" and some guidelines to go by would be helpful
Perhaps there is some reason that the moderators prefer not to be more specific? in which case even a comment stating that the moderators have no intention of dealing with it would also be helpful.
|
The policy seems pretty clear to me, even if it is partly implied - i.e., likely [in the opinion of a reasonable person]...
|
Presumably a policy needs enforcing. And since comments are acceptable here that I think ought to be excluded by that phrase, I either have not understood it proprely, or i have not understood the moderating intention behind it.
"No insults" is a rule, and it is backed up by action in such a way that even I understand the threshold and the intention.
I cannot same the same for this rule, can you? The phrase seems to say that something is not acceptable, but the moderating position would seem to be that it is indeed, as a minimum, acceptable.
Now, perhaps that is simply that such a proportion of the membership here support such sentiments, that the official position is to accept racism rather than lose membership.
Or perhaps there is a good reason that has not occurred to me.
|
I would like to think I speak for the majority of regular forum posters when I say this.
If not, please feel free to say so.
I think most of us greatly appreciate this forum, we enjoy using it.
We recognise the site owner doesn’t make any profit from it and the moderators are all volunteers.
We would all like to see a minimum of rules and regulations in the hope they would never be needed.
Most of us are self- moderating and prefer not to look a gift horse in the mouth.
There are a few who seem to have difficulty doing this and don’t seem to consider this could get the facility withdrawn for all of the rest of us.
If those few could exercise some self-moderation all of the time, the forum would thrive.
Pat
|
Do you think personal insults are acceptable?
Do you think content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance is acceptable?
Do you think that one of the preceding is more important that the other?
Why do you think that those two statements would be handled differently other than that one was more or less acceptable than the other?
|
>> Do you think personal insults are acceptable?
Yes, up to a point, if couched in courteous terms.
>> Do you think content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance is acceptable?
That's a sort of police-style cliché, 'likely to incite...'. Actually racism and sexism don't need to be 'incited'. People are or aren't racist and/or sexist already, and these prejudices are hard to shift. Conversely, it would take a pretty convincing few paragraphs to turn a non-racist into a racist, seems to me.
What I find less acceptable though FMR is you and Pat bickering like a bad-tempered, broke married couple over the breakfast table on a rainy Monday with nothing amusing in prospect. Takes up a lot of space that one just has to scroll through without reading it.
No offence though. Carry on if you feel like it. You're both better than OK in my book.
|
>>though FMR is you and Pat bickering
point taken.
|
>>
>> That's a sort of police-style cliché, 'likely to incite...'. Actually racism and sexism don't need
>> to be 'incited'. People are or aren't racist and/or sexist already, and these prejudices are
>> hard to shift. Conversely, it would take a pretty convincing few paragraphs to turn a
>> non-racist into a racist, seems to me.
>>
That was my point really. Preaching hatred to the converted can't by definition be inciting them to hatred, and if the preaching is outrageous but not very convincing than it's not going to incite the others.
So if none of the likely audience is inciteable, then the words can't be liable to incite?
|
>> That was my point really. Preaching hatred to the converted can't by definition be inciting
>> them to hatred, and if the preaching is outrageous but not very convincing than it's
>> not going to incite the others.
>>
>> So if none of the likely audience is inciteable, then the words can't be liable
>> to incite?
>>
The other problem is... some people get all worked up about it and it leaves others (me for example) wondering what all the fuss is about.
At its extremes I think we'd all be in agreement or I hope we would.
At the lower reaches of it e.g. humour, I couldn't give two hoots and suspect there are many that think likewise.
The bottom line is IMO a 'cry wolf' syndrome..you bleat on about it too much and for trivia, it switches people off .. when there are times more awareness is needed.
Same for all the 'isms'.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 17 Dec 14 at 12:28
|
The idea that you can perfectly or easily codify what is and what is not likely to incite racial or religious hatred is mistaken.
A person with a strong religious faith could take great exception to the use of terms such as "sky pixies" for deities, as used by some of our most PC* contributors.
*wrong term, but I can't find the right one. YKWIM.
|
>> I would like to think I speak for the majority of regular forum posters
>>
>> Pat
As one who posts very infrequently but reads daily I for one would agree with you.
Could someone explain what caused this latest complaint about comments / views?
Bill
|
Actually not very much.
a thread existed about the hostage situation in Australia yesterday and much was made of the culprit's supposed/claimed religion.
A paragraph was posted which I felt was offensive.
I didn't respond directly, but I did publicly ask if the moderators found it acceptable. I was careful to be polite.
Some time later, and after quite a lot more discussion, the thread was hidden without comment.
I asked again for guidelines about what is or is not acceptable.
S'bout it, I think.
Oh, there was an insult, but not particularly bad and not made either to me or by me.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 18:21
|
>> I didn't respond directly, but I did publicly ask if the moderators found it acceptable. I was careful to be polite.
>> Some time later, and after quite a lot more discussion, the thread was hidden without comment.
So you interfered in a faffing sort of way and got a whole thread suppressed. What an incredibly annoying thing to do.
'Sir! Sir! They're saying things that may be unacceptable under the rules Sir! Shouldn't you do something about it?'
The class sycophant, running to teacher. Tchah!
|
So I'm a leftie (according to I forget who) and a sycophant (according to AC)?
Really? I mean *REALLY*?
|
>> So I'm a leftie (according to I forget who) and a sycophant (according to AC)?
>> Really? I mean *REALLY*?
I don't really think you're a sycophant FMR. Rather the opposite as a rule. It was just that post saying you had got a thread removed. I couldn't resist jeering a bit in a regressive way.
But you're a bit of a lefty all right. What would you call it, emotional centralism or what?
:o}
|
>>But you're a bit of a lefty all right
I am most certainly not. Margaret Thatcher did very little that I disagree with, except mismanage her cabinet in later years.
The one thing that Bromp and I would have to avoid talking about in a pub would be politics just *because* of how far apart we are.
Now he's a bloomin leftie!!! (Sorry Bromp, but you know you are, I've tried to help you).
>>emotional centralism
Myers Briggs INTJ, if that means anything to you. (where the "I" is marginal, 49%)
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 20:26
|
>> Myers Briggs INTJ, if that means anything to you. (where the "I" is marginal, 49%)
Did a whole 2 day course on Myers Briggs and management about 8 yrs ago at Civil Service college in Surrey. I think I came out, with one other in group of 25 as ISTP but would need to dig out paperwork. Unlike you I'm I by a considerable margin (and proud of it!).
Cost my employer about £1500. My then boss was an ex-trainer and maybe had a higher opinion of MB than I do*. It was a nice trip out apart from when the Brompton, trying for trick that broke my hip a few years later, flick rolled under me and dumped me on Sunninghill's main St when I nipped out for supplies. I don't think I learned anything but I ate and drank well for a couple of nights.
*IMHO it's about same level as voodoo.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 20:47
|
>>*IMHO it's about same level as voodoo.
I worked with an MB consultancy in Chicago for quite a long time. Its very, very good. Really good. But often misused and misrepresented.
|
>> I worked with an MB consultancy in Chicago for quite a long time. Its very,
>> very good. Really good. But often misused and misrepresented.
And I'm prepared to believe that the course tutor misused/misrepresented. If their pronouncements over coffee were anything to go by people far more academically etc qualified than I thought him not up to snuff.
It's also possible that people who fall in my personality type are too practical, quietly analytical or exact to get value from it.
|
>>people far more academically etc qualified than I thought him not up to snuff.
In this stuff instincts are more likely to be accurate. Its essentially self-fulfilling; within reasonable limits if you think he isn't very good then by definition he can't be.
>>are too practical, quietly analytical or exact to get value from it.
You can't be too "anything" to get value from it. Quite the opposite.
One should regard it like body language, a hint rather than a statement in and of itself.
i.e.
The man opposite you has crossed his arms and legs, is looking up and to his left, and failing to meet your gaze because he is a lying, disinterested, closed git who has no interest in what you're saying and is trying to work out how to manipulate you.
Or:
If he finds it a comfortable way to sit and can't believe how much his neck hurts after driving that go-kart at the weekend.
If your case Bromp, if I can be so presumptuous, it may well have helped you better understand and manage the relationship between yourself and either a subordinate or a superior of a different personality type. Its like a translator. Its not so much that your personality is of one type or another, but the fact that whatever type it is, it is a well-defined personality with well defined borders.
"Quietly analytical" in particular, is frequently and inappropriately misunderstood. This stuff could help you manage that.
Or it might not. Its a tool, and at times useful and at times not. But its always the bigger the toolbox the better, isn't it?
|
>> *IMHO it's about same level as voodoo.
I'm a fan of MB. INFP myself. That doesn't mean I have to act that way, just that it gives a very strong clue to my most natural or comfortable behaviour. Understanding even just that leads you to be interested in how other people work, and spending a bit of time working that out can make them much easier to deal with and keep you much less stressed.
I can do most styles when I have to, with the great glaring exception of the strong leadership role - I am generally thought to be good at what I do, and as a result I am sometimes offered jobs that involve setting up a business unit or function, selecting and installing a team - I just decline them. I'd be second rate at it. I don't like being strongly directed, and I think that makes that makes me uncomfortable doing it to others.
On the other hand, if somebody else wants to be the charismatic leader, I can be part of that team and tell them what I think they should be doing, and take chunks away so they don't have to worry about it. In fact they can't stop me and on a couple of occasions when I have worked for one of those people who always has to be right, and wants everybody else to do things their way, it hasn't lasted very long.
In a work situation there's immense value for me in trying to understand people's motivations and preferred behaviours. I have spent a lot of time negotiating and drafting contracts over the last 25 years. I always take things steadily at first so that I can get to know the other parties (on both sides) - then I can start to work out what they really need (rarely is that the initial demands), and how I can give them enough of it to get to an agreement. I won't say it never fails, sometimes there just isn't a deal to be done, but if there is I'm pretty confident of finding it. Sometimes the people I am working for have the view that empathy and understanding have no applicability in negotiations, which should only be about demands and concessions, logically argued. They are idiots.
You can't fit everything into a formula; rules and regulations are never enough. Hence the value in the often misunderstood quotation "rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools".
|
>> Myers Briggs INTJ, if that means anything to you.
Psychometric questionnaires for categorizing personality types and characteristics are more or less meaningless. Fashionable in market research for a while, very expensive, no use at all.
You may well have an INTJ score like Genghis Khan, Professor Moriarty and Steve Jobs. But from your posts, which have a soppy side, I'd say with some approval that you were a bit of a lefty.
Don't argue because I can't be bothered with this crap.
|
Am I misunderstanding "lefty"?
Is it not an assessment of political orientation?
And as for a "soppy side", not really. I wish I was (so do my family, I think). I try to be fair and honest, and I try to be consistent and objective, but I'm not very good at emotions, particularly other people's.
|
>> I'm not very good at emotions, particularly other people's.
The fact that you say that suggests that you worry about it, and wish it wasn't so. You're soppy all right.
I did tell you not to argue.
|
This is probably very off topic but..
"Content likely to incite religious or racial intolerance"
I don't like it and hope I never post something which is seen as being along those lines.
But sometimes..............
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/11295865/Taliban-kill-at-least-100-children-in-school-attack-in-Pakistan.html
But I guess the poor kids/adults killed are of the same religion and "race"?
Yet adverse comments about the perpetrators could be taken as "likely to incite religious or racial intolerance"???
I have to say also that the word "race" seems to have come to mean the same as "nationality"
From what I understood from a few lectures attended many years ago, there are only a few races (3???) - Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid. So most Indians/Pakistanis/Arabs etc are Caucasoid like most Europeans except the Lapps who may be Mongoloid!(I've probably been racist there!). Native North Americans (not Red Indians!!)are Mongoloid.
Colour of skin has nothing to do with it. Religion has nothing to do with "race".
How do you define "racist"? How is it legally defined? Should it be "nationalist"? Is it naughty to be a "nationalist"? Am I very confused??!!
Please ignore this post if it's b*******ks!
|
Phil, it has to be more complex than that surely. Using the term Caucasian (I think) puts white Britons like you and I in same 'club' as Asians from (say) India or Sri Lanka. Doing no more research than a quick Google/Wiki the term seems to use the sort of classification techniques around noses and lips that defined race in apartheid SA. On that basis I'm suspicious of it.
Surely in context here it's about ethnicity; partly a more refined definition of race and partly about culture including religion. In fact, if one extends nationality, and I would say race too, to include clan or tribe you're not far from the mark.
Interesting to note that white Australians being held hostage by a brown man in Sydney got a thread started here in short order. Mass murder in a near civil war in Asia OTOH scores only a passing mention to justify a misconception about religion and race.
|
>> Interesting to note that white Australians being held hostage by a brown man in Sydney
>> got a thread started here in short order. Mass murder in a near civil war
>> in Asia OTOH scores only a passing mention to justify a misconception about religion and
>> race.
>>
I would imagine it's because mass murder in the ME is a fairly common, hostage situations in the oz far less so.
|
Brompt
"Phil, it has to be more complex than that surely. Using the term Caucasian (I think) puts white Britons like you and I in same 'club' as Asians from (say) India or Sri Lanka"
I'm sure it is more complex!
However, from what I remember being told (and reading - wish I could find one of my books on the subject - it's in a bookcase somewhere among several hundred other books!!) this is actually (?) the case.
Bear in mind I am talking about something I studied 40 odd years ago but in simple terms:-
1."man" evolved in a heartland probably in E Africa at least 200,000 to 1m (or more) years ago.
2. From there, migrations occurred to a Middle East "heartland"
3. From the Middle East further migrations occurred about 50 - 100,000 years ago. This after further "characteristics" had evolved (lighter skin, narrower head, straighter hair and longer narrow noses.
4. Some migrated west towards W Europe following the riches of the Loess deposits from the last ice age for their "agriculture" and in moving west over thousands of years developed even lighter skin, lighter straighter hair and narrower heads and long narrow noses! (Not as much heat and sun?)
5. Some migrated east to a heartland in N India with some same characteristics as "Europeans" (straighter hair, narrow , long noses) but retaining the dark skin (in the case of Tamils very dark skin - but still essentially "Caucasians" in contrast to the "Negroids" who remained in Africa and spread throughout tropical Africa, and, in very recent times to Southern Africa.)
6. The "Mongoloids" migrated early to somewhere in China where another "heartland" developed and they developed their characteristics over thousands of years. From there the Mongoloids also spread in some cases via land bridges during the last ice age to the Americas where the slightly different characteristics of the Native North and South Americans developed.
7. I think that (when I heard these things) there was still considerable debate about the origins of the Polynesians (though at that time they were classed as Caucasians) and the Australian Aboriginals (who, we were told were Negroids who again had migrated across land bridges during the Ice age).
None of this negates your point about ethnicity and religion which I think is similar to my point about "race" being an incorrect term for "nationality".
I have always thought that I am in the "same club" as "Asians from (say) India or Sri Lanka" - as you say " it's about ethnicity; partly a more refined definition of race and partly about culture including religion."
"the term (race?) seems to use the sort of classification techniques around noses and lips that defined race in apartheid SA. On that basis I'm suspicious of it."
But, as I understand (understood?) it, that is how the "experts" define (-d) "race". It's only suspicious surely in the way the S Africans misused it to discriminate.
Anyway, I'm no "expert" it's just that I think that most discrimination has little to do with "race" as I see it - it's to do with misplaced nationalism, religion, bigotism etc.
Quite prepared to be re-educated by people who know more and who are more up to date on the subject!
Sorry for long post, best wishes to all for Christmas of whatever race, nationality, creed, sex etc!
|
Inciting racial hatred is against the law. Whether online or in the streets.
Calling you idiots knobheads is not, which is why I can see Mark's frustration.
[insert smiley of your choice here]
>>Yet adverse comments about the perpetrators could be taken as "likely to incite religious or racial intolerance"???
Only where one falsely proposes that the activities are typical of a race/religion, and are thus being discriminatory, or where the sole point of your message is to highlight the race involved.
A thread titled - "Pakistani men are at it again" with reference to child grooming and sex offences is racist in my view.
A thread titled - "What social/cultural factors enable some groups in society to become child abusers?" is markedly less so, as it encourages discussion, debate and reasoned comment - if someone was to say in the thread "It's normal for Pakistani men to want to abuse children" (or similar inflammatory rhetoric) then that would again fall foul of the racism card unless they had some serious evidence to back up their claim, capable of standing up in court if they were prosecuted for the statement.
|
Whilst we're on this subject (and NO, I'm not going 'there').....what do we all make of the mass killing of children in a school in Pakistan today? Words fail me, I struggle to comprehend.
MD
|
>>Words fail me, I struggle to comprehend.
It is beyond belief. Who knows what type of person can rationalise that.
|
>> It is beyond belief. Who knows what type of person can rationalise that.
I guess people can rationalise it where there is what amounts to a war on.
|
|
Which brings us back to the justification of enhanced interrogation right or wrong?
|
Used liberally by the Karachi Kops and Armed Forces/Intelligence.
Working a treat, eh?
|
|
Torture is wrong.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 16 Dec 14 at 20:31
|
|
Ask the mods to add it to the regs then :-)
|
|
They're not talking to me.
|
...but to go in knowing that you are going to shoot children. Anybody, you, me, sit down in a darkened room or indeed in any room and just concentrate and visualise that scenario. I struggle to do what I have just suggested.
I collected my Grandson today from his Mother who went to work struggling with her 2nd 'Bump', due early January. He is 'mine', so I would say that he is delightful and clever and all of that stuff and he genuinely is, but he was so unwell. He fell asleep between his Home and here, unheard of. We care for him and would do anything to protect him as would you all for yours.
How could any Human being carry out those actions today? The perpetrators should be put in the ground. Quickly painlessly or slowly suffering or any other combination I would care not. I treat dogs I dislike better than they have behaved. When I heard the news I was driving home, I presumed it was true.........I was close to tears.
|
>> Whilst we're on this subject (and NO, I'm not going 'there').....what do we all make
>> of the mass killing of children in a school in Pakistan today? Words fail me,
>> I struggle to comprehend.
>>
>> MD
Indeed its terrible, but its a common thread throughout the world, especially where guns are easy to get.
|
>> Some time later, and after quite a lot more discussion, the thread was hidden without
>> comment.
Wasn't me (for a change) and if it was I would have made a comment why.
Bet I'll still get the blame though.
|
Rules and Regulations - Lygonos
