quote:

Originally posted by Big Ass Panda:
I agree with you on that one for the vast majority. Although I am currious how you would fight the indoctrination.

In the one case that I dealt with personally, it was simply a matter of increasing exposure to new ideas in slow increments. In that case, I started by giving the kid articles about some of the fabulous wild and different African and South American tribes, articles that were all about tattoos and piercings and stuff, then worked up to articles about what that body art represented culturally, and then stuff about how modern Brazillians and African-Americans are still basically those same cool tribespeople, just with a different education and different kinds of body art.

He balked occasionally when he realized what I was trying to teach him, but he was so fascinated by the body art that he just couldn't look away.

Am I the only one who saw this thread title and found it was a funny attempt to de-dramatize the debate?

As a matter of fact, no, but it was not a majority viewpoint.

That's absolutly fantastic Dweller. I wonder how I could try something like that with my nephew and his homophobic kick. Although I'm probably just over reacting with that in all likely hood.

So yeah, handling things Dweller's way is vastly superior than just silencing a voice. When you prevent them from talking out in public, then you just make others more currious about what they're saying.

It's like killing someone to shut them up! And we all know how well that turned out

quote:

Originally posted by cloverheart:
Am I the only one who saw this thread title and found it was a funny attempt to de-dramatize the debate?

no....no, it really wasn't. And if it was, it didn't do a very good job, on everyone's end.

It was purely someone who was upset at the world in general lashing out at whatever he could find.

*pats Tongster on the head and consols him*

I dunno. To me it was also clear, at the very least from the poll, that this was not meant as a serious attack. Whether it was in good taste or not is a different issue, but the way you're presenting this as a blotch on the board's history of good conduct is, frankly, rather silly.

well, judging by what has been posted in the other thread, at least one other person feels the way I do about it.

hehe... I like when people try to pass judgments on others and just make themselves look stupid. it's fun

Panda, what's the cause of the homophobia? Is he weirded out by homosexuality, or being exposed to anti-gay ideas at school or in the home? How is he acting out the homophobia? I'll help as I can.

quote:

Originally posted by Thirith & His Enormous Tibia:
Nope, sorry, don't buy it. I agree with you, but that's not what you've been saying in the past. Unless I completely misunderstood your earlier posts, Fallen, you've always argued that in a system that advocates free speech, you don't have to censor hate speech because people are free to counter it. You are free to speak against what people are doing in this thread, and you're doing so, but your call to have it closed is hypocritical. I'm sorry, but I can't see it any other way.

Because a slanging match is no longer a debate. It's not an exchange of views with the aim to persuade the other person but an escalating conflict that can only end with one party disappearing or going into lurker mode and I don't like the idea of us becoming a self-censoring 'community' that only tolerates a certain spectrum of acceptable views and turns on those who voice unpalatable sentiments. I've always opposed hate speech laws because they are a ban on the expression of ideas and that's dangerous in a free society, but I always made the point that free speech does not cover threatening language and behaviour.

Were I to threaten your life – as opposed to disagreeing with you politically - I can be charged and sent to jail for it and rightly so. I don't like the idea of closing threads but if I see a friend being beaten up then I'm going to wade in with my fists no matter what he's done. Such bullying is the act of a pack of moral cowards, not people who purport to hold the moral high ground.

quote:

Originally posted by Thirith & His Enormous Tibia:
And I definitely find it hypocritical to talk about the right to express an idea with respect to racism and anti-semitism (not what you said explicitly, but that's how it comes across in your direct reply to what I say) and then to say that this is somehow better than the direct abuse of a particular person. "Niggers and Kikes don't deserve to live!!! But of course I don't mean any particular person." How's that any better or more acceptable than "You there, Frank Bloggs, you're a jerk and a racist and I hate you!"? Why should the former be protected under free speech and the latter be censored?

The point is that once you descend to the level of personal attacks you are no longer attempting to counter the other person's 'racist' arguments. You've given up on any hope of dialogue, of trying to win them round to your way of thinking and you are now trying to silence them. It's become an effort to censor people through peer pressure rather than make a positive case for racial tolerance. That kind of informal coercion is almost as objectionable to my thinking as using the machinery of the state to do so as is the case vis-a-vis Holocaust denial laws in much of Europe.

The heart of our disagreement is that you believe groups have rights that ought to be protected and I say they don't, that only individuals have rights. That to suppress free speech in the name of a group is a denial of the rights of all individuals not just those likely to voice the sentiments some find unacceptable. This because to censor on one group's objections opens the door to anyone who sees themselves as part of an aggrieved group to do the same until we all left unable to say anything for fear of prosecution.

quote:

Originally posted by Thirith & His Enormous Tibia:
You talk about standing up for the underdog, yet you're naive if you think that free speech always favours the underdog.

Only if you confuse freedom of speech with winning the argument Thirith. A lot of people have taken great risks to speak out against the majority and have failed to gain support, or even respect, for having done so. The flipside of being free to say what you will is that other people have the right to ignore what you are saying and to walk away. Still it is better to be a Jeremiah or a Cassandra with an outside chance to convince than to be gagged and your view not heard to begin with.

I see what you mean now, but it still fails to make any sense to me. For one thing, I don't see anyone being beaten up in this thread - but much more importantly, I don't see anything right in an attitude that thinks you should be able to keep a man from saying: "I hate you nigger/kike/derogatory term for any minority, and yes, that means you right there!" while at the same time thinking it's good and right that this man should be able to say "I hate niggers/kikes/derogatory terms for any minority!" I may see what you're saying, but I don't get it. But that's so often the case with people who have principles - whatever world they live in, it doesn't seem to be the one I live in. And beyond that, you still seem to be saying: "Absolute freedom of speech! Except in this case." Sorry, but I don't see much of a point in discussing this further, because I seem to be incapable of really getting what you're on about.

Probably not as I very much view this thread to be not so much an expression of speech but an attempt to shout Panda down. It's very easy to be a dittohead and join in with the crowd but it's much, much harder to stand up and be counted. The 'beating up' in this case is metaphorical and the fact it's been done through mockery doesn't disguise the fact that Panda is being put firmly in his place. There's also a big difference between "I hate you" and "I want to see you all dead". The former is distasteful, and the latter an incitement to violence.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Schrödinger's Cat,

So, all someone needs to do to get a thread deleted is to call someone a "filthy Jew"? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

And once again we have a need for a modifier. If threads like this can "only" end in one or the other of the posters going into lurker, why are rather concilatory posts from Tongster and Panda within a stone's throw of your post?

All right, who threatened to kill the Panda?

Yeah, I'm very much struggling to see where Fallen is getting his comparison to threatening Panda's life out of calling him a racist.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Ass Panda:
well, judging by what has been posted in the other thread, at least one other person feels the way I do about it.

Yes, because one person agreeing with you makes you right.

Because he was being singled out as a target because certain people objected to his arguments. Now I acknowledge that it was done in a light-hearted tone but when it comes to a point of principle I prefer to fight my corner to the bitter end. If Panda doesn't then that's fine by me but if I don't think this was right I've every right to say so. Supersnazz, I was employing a metaphor to describe a not too subtle (And thankfully failed) attempt to intimidate a fellow poster.

quote:

It's very easy to be a dittohead and join in with the crowd but it's much, much harder to stand up and be counted.

*Checks the book of self righteous cliches*

Ah, number 2,671. That's a good one.

Except, Fallen, that once against you're misconstruing Tongster's aims. Rather than try to reason why a thread was started, you invoked a higher power to eliminate the appearance of a problem which, first of all, wouldn't have eliminated the problem at all and, given that we know have a lot more information about the motives of all parties involved, calling it a "problem" is an overstatement.

You made a request out of ignorance in a situation that didn't require you to even speak, let alone offer advice. You know that corner you fight back to? You're in it. Now shut up.

You know, Panda, I’m getting the impression that although you’re forgiving people for thinking badly of you, you aren’t considering why people are doing so.

It seems like you’re approaching this on an emotional level, and as such, I’d just like to talk about how your initial post made me feel.

Let me take you back a few days to when I first read your post – “Racism in the Sexes” sounded like an interesting topic, and I opened the thread

quote:

So I was sitting here thinking to myself, wow, certain sexes of certain races are treated differently. Now, I know that racism is a bad bad thing, but it is interesting how it occurs.

People of different races are treated differently – I agree with that. I also agree that racism is a bad bad thing, and not like the Harry Conick Jr. song. It’s interesting how it occurs? You’re going to go into centuries worth of race relations, immigration policy, institutional nepotism, and people’s isolated experiences being used as blanket stereotypes for whole races in one post? How does this tie in with the two other subjects you brought up? Reading your post, I expect that you’re going to talk about how inaccurate stereotypes are founded – but it also looks like you could be about to explain why all racist statements are true.

I’m feeling worried about where you’re trying to go with this.

quote:

Take for instance Asian women vs. men.

I’m guessing that you’re talking about how they are treated and how the stereotypes around them were created.

quote:

Asian women have it much much easier in American culture. Every day you see white guys walking with an Asian girl on his arm. Seeing Asian guys however with a white girl on his arm is very rare.

No, you’re making a blanket assertion that everyone thinks Asian girls are hot, which makes me feel offended for the Asian girls who are being over-sexualized (cutting off other aspects of their personality). It makes me puzzled about if I should feel de-sexualized as a white woman, or just like all the (more desirable? From your viewpoint in this post?) white men are being taken by my Asian counterparts. Wow, either way, I’m feeling pretty offended. Oh, and apparently the interracial relationship that I’m in is “very rare.” Hold up, is this implying that I’m with Tongster because I have no better, whiter, options? I’m spitting mad about that!

quote:

I've also heard that the reverse is true for Jews (although I totally disagree and think Jewish girls are hot!). That Jewish guys are generally fairly attractive while Jewish girls are not so much.

First of all, aren’t you Jewish? Is this a ploy to get us to tell you that you’re hot? And AH-HAH! You put in a parenthetical saying you disagree with the stereotype about Jewish girls! That means you think the rest of the stereotypes listed here are true!

Maybe I should calm down, if Panda was that much of an ass, he’d have gone away a long time ago. One assumes. I haven’t been checking the boards much lately; maybe he’s posting thinly veiled racist propaganda all the time and I just haven’t noticed. I’m feeling distrustful, but I’ll read the whole post before I assume that he means to be offensive, and just be pissed about his inept handling of the English Language right now.

quote:

Think about how often you see a black guy with a white girl, how often is that in reverse?

I’m feeling very offended for all the outstandingly beautiful black women I’ve known – is Panda implying that they’re totally undesirable because both black guys and white guys won’t date them? Why is he ignoring all the Black/Hispanic, Black/Asian, and Black/Indian couples that I’ve known? Surely White/Other Color and Gender isn’t the standard we should be using to measure diversity. For that matter, I’ve known a lot of mixed Gay couples.

Leash on temper failing. I’m getting so angry, I’m losing the ability to think clearly.

quote:

Are these products of our standardized concepts of beauty? While you might disagree with specifics (as do I) it is hard to disagree that there aren't trends that take place. Is it a product of fear? Are Asian men seen as a threat to our western culture while women are not? This to some extent happened to the Irish and Polish in the US during their imigration preiods to here. Similiarly Jews have experienced similiar hatred for being different and having a percieved notion of success.

Oh, a three word paranthetical disavowing all the stereotypes he so freely espoused in his earlier paragraphs. And what a weasely disavowal that is, too. This is looking more and more like Panda’s saying “Racists are bad, but do you think they have a point?” Why on earth would Asian men be a threat to “white society” and Asian women not? Is he saying that “white society” felt like Irish and Polish men were a threat when their women were not? I don’t think I’ve seen anything supporting that. And I have no idea what he’s driving at with the thing about Jews being hated because they’re different and successful. How is that similar to men of different ethnic backgrounds being shunned and (presumably) having their desirable women stolen by white guys?

What the hell is going on here? What is he talking about?

quote:

This post is designed to engender questions on the topic rather than promote it or any thing of the sort, so please approach it as such! You can only conquor something by fully understanding it. Forced ignorance of a topic only makes it stronger.

Well, if I weren’t so pissed off after reading the above, I’d agree. But right now, I’m thinking that Panda’s saying that if I learn more about the underlying causes of racism, I’d be racist too. What the hell is he thinking? If he actually wanted to people to talk about how racism and sexism and sexual attraction intersect, he’d have phrased this very differently. I think I’ll find the most well-reasoned offended posts other people have written and agree with them, because I surely don’t want to punish myself by reading through this pile of garbage again and trying to figure out what it would say if it were well written, and/or written by someone decent.

…..

So that’s what I did, and that’s why I didn’t respond with actual thoughts on the subject until Gal re-phrased the question. I felt like any answer except “ew” validated the question, which I found both badly reasoned and offensive.

I didn’t talk with Tongster about this post at all – my reactions didn’t influence his actions in any way. His idea of what constitutes racism is much more warm and fluffy than mine, and he’s a lot more willing to call people on their behavior (if he’d say something behind your back, he’ll usually say it to your face first; I, on the other hand, just stop paying attention to whatever you post because you can’t express yourself clearly and/or can’t think clearly). So my reactions only go to show why I reacted the way I did, and say nothing about why he reacted the way he did.

Panda, when people were offended, you discussed some of your thoughts behind what you posted, but mostly you were just outraged that people would think you were racist. Before you dismiss everyone who is criticizing you, you might want to look at that original post and think about how it would read if you didn’t know the background and motivations of the person who wrote it. Jena has pointed out that we’re all guilty of posting “off the cuff” but there are some topics where you really do need to lay out your moti