Why is Zone 1 protection given to a racist thread?

[BackAgain]

It is odd to me that Zone 1 protection is given to a thread in the forum for discussion of “racism” when the OP is, itself, engaged in racism.

I’m wondering why a racist OP should be granted such privilege from appropriate rejoinders just because the OP places its racism IN the protected forum? How does that serve any logical purpose? Why should an OP which is itself racist get any special protection?

 

[Slade3200]

It is odd to me that Zone 1 protection is given to a thread in the forum for discussion of “racism” when the OP is, itself, engaged in racism.

I’m wondering why a racist OP should be granted such privilege from appropriate rejoinders just because the OP places its racism IN the protected forum? How does that serve any logical purpose? Why should an OP which is itself racist get any special protection?

Perhaps your accusation that the OP is racist is not seen as that by others

 

[BackAgain]

Perhaps your accusation that the OP is racist is not seen as that by others

Sure. And that would itself be a matter of debate about what does or does not constitute racism.

And just to clarify. “OP” does not mean the original post-ER. It means the original POST. If the author of the OP is a well known racist pig dog, that doesn’t mean his OP is necessarily racist.

I’m not talking about the author. I’m talking about the content of the OP. If I see it as racist, and you don’t then the discussion would be about what constitutes racism. And if I see the pattern that the posting member bases most of his comments on racist assumptions, then sure — I can label his reasoning as flawed by his racist presuppositions, too.

Either way though, the discussion would be addressing racism and it would be discussing the very merits or the underlying fallacies of the argument presented. But this can’t happen under zone 1 rules which ironically then serve to protect the initial racism.

 

[Slade3200]

Sure. And that would itself be a matter of debate about what does or does not constitute racism.

That’s a good question. I’d imagine tone and substance would be a factor

 

[BackAgain]

That’s a good question. I’d imagine tone and substance would be a factor

I’m not at all sure that there is any appropriate “tone” for expressing disdain for racist thinking.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is odd to me that Zone 1 protection is given to a thread in the forum for discussion of “racism” when the OP is, itself, engaged in racism.

I’m wondering why a racist OP should be granted such privilege from appropriate rejoinders just because the OP places its racism IN the protected forum? How does that serve any logical purpose? Why should an OP which is itself racist get any special protection?

Because MAKING the Race and Religion BOTH Zone1 is the way we INTEND to fix the old bad habits of ALL sides of the discussion. And we're serious about. It's the MEMBERSHIP that needs to adjust to this HIGHER standard. Everyone that wants to post in there.

We're doing the OPPOSITE of controlling content. We're requiring more effort and attention to the topics. Dont LIKE the topic? Dont intend to CONTRIBUTE civil discussion to the topics? Dont go there anymore. Applies to EVERY USMB member. It's all fixed now and free expression wins.

 

[BackAgain]

I’ll say it again and then drop it.

I maintain that racist thinking is worse than merely slovenly thinking. It is actually highly offensive and beyond ignorant. Additionally, however, I also maintain that there is no immunity to the problem of racism merely because of the race of the “speaker.” I have heard it claimed that — supposedly “by definition” — a black person “cannot be” a racist. And my response is clear and consistent: that claim is absolute nonsense. It is false.

Silencing a rejoinder does not ultimately serve free speech. Zone 1 protection for a racist assertion is misguided. Very sadly misguided. But I realize that this point is destined to be ignored by those moderating and administering this board. That’s a shame.

 

[flacaltenn]

Either way though, the discussion would be addressing racism and it would be discussing the very merits or the underlying fallacies of the argument presented. But this can’t happen under zone 1 rules which ironically then serve to protect the initial racism.

Fallacies are there for you to CORRECT. Or not. You're choice. The old meaningless "everything and everyone is racist" tone is history. You either focus your interest and attention on the offered topics or not. I know -- it hurts to do it the HARD way. But, we're serving no purpose in allowing low effort of any kind in Race or Religion.

And the thread you're complaining is NOT 'intially racist" in itself. It's about taxation and reparations. THAT is the topic. Take it or leave it.

 

[BackAgain]

Fallacies are there for you to CORRECT. Or not. You're choice. The old meaningless "everything and everyone is racist" tone is history. You either focus your interest and attention on the offered topics or not. I know -- it hurts to do it the HARD way. But, we're serving no purpose in allowing low effort of any kind in Race or Religion.

And the thread you're complaining is NOT 'intially racist" in itself. It's about taxation and reparations. THAT is the topic. Take it or leave it.

Nope. The underlying assumption of ALL of that member’s threads and posts is to presume racism by white society against black people. And his OP in that thread is no different.

Couching the same old rancid rhetoric in a new suit doesn’t change the basic argument. The specific taxation claims themselves are already refuted in that thread. But the racism inherent in the claim gets a free ride.

It is the underlying presupposition (as always a racist one) that can’t be addressed because of those zone 1 protections.

 

[flacaltenn]

I maintain that racist thinking is worse than merely slovenly thinking. It is actually highly offensive and beyond ignorant.

GREAT!!!

Additionally, however, I also maintain that there is no immunity to the problem of racism merely because of the race of the “speaker.” I have heard it claimed that — supposedly “by definition” — a black person “cannot be” a racist. And my response is clear and consistent: that claim is absolute nonsense. It is false.

Of course that is false. So what? AGAIN -- it's up to correct those fallacies (or not) IF those generalizations arise.

Silencing a rejoinder does not ultimately serve free speech. Zone 1 protection for a racist assertion is misguided.

Completely wrong. Race and Religion should ALWAYS be discussed with respect from all sides. It makes no sense to HAVE a "racial confrontation" forum to SERVE ANY component of "free speech" and we're no longer gonna host it that way. People will need to FOCUS SOLELY on topic and not on other members.

I remind you that we allow racists and haters of ANY COLOR on this site. The reason we DO that is to allow members to PUSH BACK on their flimsy beliefs. This has to be done BY THE RULES. Not by PERSONAL combat.


If members are too LAZY or unable to abide by the rules while they do that push-back -- they should not participate. As for the haters and racists -- The REAL and IMAGINED ones -- if THEY cannot abide by rules or dont make the effort to support THEIR biases -- we simply, eventually ditch off the plank and buy some NEW ones to keep around.

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is odd to me that Zone 1 protection is given to a thread in the forum for discussion of “racism” when the OP is, itself, engaged in racism.

I’m wondering why a racist OP should be granted such privilege from appropriate rejoinders just because the OP places its racism IN the protected forum? How does that serve any logical purpose? Why should an OP which is itself racist get any special protection?

It is a reasonable complaint but then you didn't have to get involved in it either which is what you might have to consider in the future if this kind of thread comes up again as it has many times in the past.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nope. The underlying assumption of ALL of that member’s threads and posts is to presume racism by white society against black people. And his OP in that thread is no different.

Poster MAYBE "full of assumptions. So are a lot of people. That poster is being tested for honesty and effort now -- JUST LIKE YOU. Let bygones be bygones. It's a new day and WE FIXED THIS !!

And like I said -- Topic of that thread was taxes and reparations. Take it and participate OR IGNOR IT -- your choice. You no longer have the choice of spending dozens of post personally BADGERING members.

Couching the same old rancid rhetoric in a new suit doesn’t change the basic argument. The specific taxation claims themselves are already refuted in that thread. But the racism inherent in the claim gets a free ride.

GREAT!!! Then you admits this WORKS. At some point the topic will exhausted and everyone leaves wiser or butt-hurt and the thread fades away or gets closed by moderation when it gets off topic.

ALL that -- is completely in the design plan change to Zone1.

 

[flacaltenn]

It is the underlying presupposition (as always a racist one) that can’t be addressed because of those zone 1 protections.

If you're "underlying" butthurt is that you can no longer come in with low effort flaming and redundant charges of racism instead of DEALING with this racist to relieve them of their flimsy arguments, I just cant shed a tear.

You want CONFLICT on a personal level -- drag the member down to the Taunting Forums and we'll all get out the popcorn.

 

[flacaltenn]

I’m not at all sure that there is any appropriate “tone” for expressing disdain for racist thinking.

Is discussing reparations RACIST? nope. Is discussing the equality of taxation racist. Again no.

Wanna discuss something SPECIFIC that is racist? Fine. But make the scope of the topic VERY NARROW in Zone1. Not an open brawl about the meaning of racist.