PDA

View Full Version : Opinions on the expression of chauvinism, racism, homophobia, etc.


madeldoe
26-04-2006, 23:39
This forum sets limits to the expression of certain opinions like chauvinism, racism, homophobia, etc. This thread is an outlet to express opinions about those limits and where the line is drawn between what's acceptable and what's not.
For information, a similar discussion (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=6058) happened three years ago, except that this time many people were asking for stricter limitations to the expression of homophobia and racism.


Continuation of this thread (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=10287) that got very off-topic after the closing of this thread (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=10265).

Probably because it doesn't call anyone names or compare Christians to gorillas :gigi:

Basically because this is more subtle :p


[nonconfrontational tone] to you it is. to me its blatantly "discriminating" and personally insulting. would it be too much to ask if the thread be closed? [/off]

Satire of religion, politics etc is not the same thing as direct insults based on race/gender/orientation.

Lux
27-04-2006, 00:38
first and foremost, what hate thread? i simply ridiculed male genitalia and sexual performance. nothing wrong with that. it's a personal opinion at the very least. secondly, i post no hate. this thread is obviously different. this is an analogy the symbolizes something that people think but do not say. sure, the undertones can be offensive, but it can't be SO offensive that people get upset over it. after all, its message is subtle, not overt, and this is its very nature. because the undertones of the message are cast through humor albeit not of the light variety, this is simply a comical and suggestive critique on religion. so, it is not the same thing as what i posted. i came right out and said, "cock is disgusting" and people get heated and upset. now, had i presented my message in a humorous "it's not only the size of the sausage, but what it's attached to that is disgusting" fashion, people would scoff at best and roll their eyes, rather than close the thread, call the thread uber feminist (despite not know that that really means) and that i hate men. if anything, it is one giant example of how and why i am not at all attracted to men, intimately or physically. that is not hate. it is what i am. ok, getting off topic here..in conclusion, these two threads are not the same because one is dripping in satire and the other is blunt. which means, if you speak your mind, the thread will be closed. and if you present your message with satirical overtones, people will get a kick out of it. :done:

madeldoe
27-04-2006, 00:53
which is why i would like to have this thread closed. people closed your thread [to which i took no offense] for unjust reasons. forre didnt like the opinions being expressed, which i respect, but why isnt she allowed to make her own opinion? but if thats how its got to be then fine. which is why i would like this thread to be closed. i find it DIRECTLY and personally insulting, satirical undertone or not. and every comment commending this thread is just another stab. do i have to have a million rep points to have my opinion and feelings count? or is it the little stars??

to be honest, i dont give a damn about this thread. like everyone else i can choose not to read it. my point is, if your going to keep this thread open then keep lux's open. if your going to keep lux's thread closed then this thread should be closed on the same grounds.



Satire of religion, politics etc is not the same thing as direct insults based on race/gender/orientation.

says who? to me its exactly the same. my religion is a part of me just like my race, gender or orientation. just because religion means nothing to you, it doesnt mean that it shouldn't matter to me. no matter what form its in, and insult is an insult and hurts just as much.

zebu
27-04-2006, 01:08
Satire of religion, politics etc is not the same thing as direct insults based on race/gender/orientation.

race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status r equally protected in the modern world

forre
27-04-2006, 07:07
Ok, here it goes. Who is offended here directly because a person was born like that (like in Lux's thread), please RAISE YOUR HAND!

This is a satire. Try to see the difference, ok?

P.S. I will not open Lux's thread, no matter what. The reason is simple - we need to draw a line somewhere, ok?

madeldoe
27-04-2006, 07:31
so before it can be considered "descrimination" whatever is being descriminated against has to be innate? what?

i see the difference, but just because it has a damn punch line im NOT allowed to be offended?!

i understand you have to draw a line..and i consider this to be over that line which is why id like this thread to be closed.

forre
27-04-2006, 07:50
so before it can be considered "descrimination" whatever is being descriminated against has to be innate? what?
Pretty much so. Where is discrimination? Does it say Christianity is better than a sucky Buddhism for instance (sorry guys for a lousy example)? Does it draw any comparison with that? Please specify. What exactly are you screaming about here?

freddie
27-04-2006, 13:00
1.) I think the text in question was relatively neutral, not exposing any religion out there. Yeah, Rachel did compare it to christianity (which would granted be an obvious reference in this case), but no religion is mentioned in the text at all. It's more a satirical jab at dogmas in general, which could apply to almost all popular monotheistic religions (judaism and islam not excluded) out there and numerous politheistic ones. It doesn't discrimminate against anyone. It just shows a point of reference of an atheist.

2.) I'll go on the record here and say I wasn't really offended by Lux's thread, but rather annoyed because of it's sheer stupidity and somewhat obvious aim to provoke. We had another member doing the same shit even more blatantly so I'm sure you all get the gist of it. That wasn't a subtle satire of males, that was just bland i-think-men-suck-and-imma-show-you-why-by-raising-some-ridiculous-points-i-made-up-this-afternoon exercise. I'm not even saying a good satire about men and their deficiencies couldn't be made. It most definitely could. And it could be clever and witty. But that was just bad taste. How can one argue such dubious shit without feeling redundant for doing so? Think about it... try comming up with an argument against these two things a) God Exists. It is true because the Bible tells us so. and b) Semen is gross. Know what I mean?

I won't comment on the thread being closed, though.

dradeel
27-04-2006, 14:27
Religion or belief in general is something you as a person choose to believe in. Christians believe that everyone who aren't christians are wrong and will burn in eternal damnation. Heh, okay, maybe not directly, but you know what I mean :) Even so, that's okay ... non-believers don't take it personally. But when someone makes an example to question your belief in general - not an attack on you as person - you shouldn't take it personally either.

Now, race and sex are things you DON'T choose. It's something you always have to live with - if you like it or not. Most people like it. Hehe, some very rare examples change "their outside".
To question these things as better or worse than anything else would be VERY wrong, and therefor a very different topic.

Now, I believe in the equal rights for every single person on this earth, and respect for religion, sex, race and sexuality. But there's a huge difference between innocent satire and direct insults. Hey, people joke about sexuality and races all the time. You don't think about it, but it excists. It just isn't bad, and most important thing of all; people don't take it personally!

I think people should be more openminded about humorous things and try not to care too much, but again raise a big voice against discrimination - like direct, stupid and meaningless insults just because of frustration, anger and hatred. Now, let me add that I'm one of those who actually thought that some of Lux's points was funny :) But I understand the desition that was made. A similar desition based on the same reasons on this thread would not be correct tho...

PowerPuff Grrl
27-04-2006, 19:29
I can see why madeldoe would find this offensive. It's basically equating the love of God to kissing some guy's ass and that believers don't follow the word of God for altruistic purposes but rather for their own selfish interests, among other things.

If this were something aimed to a particular group of people within Christianity AmericanChristianFundamentalists then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it. However this is applied to every Christian, fundamentalist or not, which includes a moderate like madeldoe.

And does it really matter if she chose Christianity or not? I mean, technically we kind of chose the country we're living in; even if we were born into it, we could always change. But if a thread opened up saying, oh I don't know, "Canada is the worst Goddamn country on face of Earth" or some shit (don't get any ideas!) I'd be offended. Deep down we are all just a tad bit nationalistic and to insult something somebody identifies with would be to insult the people him/herself.

PS: You know I love you right Lux? I was kind of taken aback at what was said in your thread. I however, was waaaay too freaking offended by people who equated that to being feminist.
In any case, because there are a number of males here Lux's thread got locked. If most of us considered Christianity as much as madeldoe then yeah this thread too would be locked up. I am well aware that it was a woman who locked up the thread, but I still think the statement holds true... to a degree.

QueenBee
27-04-2006, 20:15
But if a thread opened up saying, oh I don't know, "Canada is the worst Goddamn country on face of Earth" or some shit (don't get any ideas!) I'd be offended.
But Lux's thread was more in that sense, seeing as it stated that "Women are just better, women smell better, dicks are ugly" - here nobody said that Christians are worse than everyone else, plus the content of the post itself never said that it was actually Christianity (although, yes, it "obviously" was - but it was said in a more witty way, if the other thread would have been the same, I would have seen it only as a little interesting read and a joke). I know that Rachel made the title include Christianity, but the content in the post, which I believe was not written by her, never did say so.

Sorry if no-one understood what I said, my writing has lately been pretty bad.

Also, I don't think anyone or very few were actually OFFENDED by what Lux wrote, but I think it was written in a dumb way. It wasn't witty, clever or funny at all, just.... stupid.

freddie
27-04-2006, 20:24
I can see why madeldoe would find this offensive. It's basically equating the love of God to kissing some guy's ass and that believers don't follow the word of God for altruistic purposes but rather for their own selfish interests, among other things.

I agree up to an extent, however this text doesn't explicitly imply selfishness per se. It questions religion in a humorous way and as I said before expresses an atheist viewpoint of religious dogmas. There's really no comparison with Lux's thread imo. There's a world of difference.

In any case, because there are a number of males here Lux's thread got locked. If most of us considered Christianity as much as madeldoe then yeah this thread too would be locked up. I am well aware that it was a woman who locked up the thread, but I still think the statement holds true... to a degree.

Actually... there are way more females here than there are males and I hardly believe any male would get OFFENDED over stuff like this (even if it was put forward in such a blatant way). I for one seriously had no problems with it personally. It didn't offend me in the slightest. I'd also say no one would be offended with a thread entitled "women do it better" that'd actually had something clever to say (hey, I'm the first one to admit women do a lot of stuff way better than men. :p) I think what got people shaking their heads was the sheer outrageousness of those points she made. Like I said... there's hardly any point to argue them. Anything said in reply would be redundant.

PowerPuff Grrl
27-04-2006, 20:34
The title of this thread indicates it is about Christianity and Rachel concluded with remarks (that is if it was her remark's at all) at the end to not believe in the Bible because it doesn't make sense. This is about Christianity. But for the sake of argument, let's just say it isn't. This thread would then be an attack on faith alone which implicates every religion and would therefore be moreso insulting.

I don't think it really matters whether the joke is comparing one religion with others. It's basically calling a particular one as bullshit and that's still offensive to some people.

I never said Lux's post wasn't offensive.

ETA:
I agree up to an extent, however this text doesn't explicitly imply selfishness per se. It questions religion in a humorous way and as I said before expresses an atheist viewpoint of religious dogmas.
"If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars"?
This is pretty darn explicit, less so than Lux, but still nonetheless.
Whether or not it is funny is a matter of taste but I think the message is pretty clear.

I know that there are more females than there are male, but the fact that there are a significant amount of men browsing these forums does affect how the site is managed. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that madeldoe is the only open Christian is the entire English Forum, if the ratio of Christians to Athiests were that of Female to Male than it is pretty reasonable to assume that Lux's thread would still be open.

Though for the past couple of years this site has been administered exceptionally well, I do find that this site has a history of leaving hateful posts unchecked because nobody of the group targeted were there to speak up.

Rachel
27-04-2006, 20:43
PowerPuff Grrl, so if the thread name was changed and the comment at the end was removed would it be different or not?

And btw, no I never wrote any of that, it was just a copy & paste. :rolleyes:

freddie
27-04-2006, 20:49
ETA:

"If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars"?
This is pretty darn explicit, less so than Lux, but still nonetheless.
Whether or not it is funny is a matter of taste but I think the message is pretty clear.

Imo it's really not. It's just a metaphore. Carrot and a stick theory. And to be honest... that IS the essence of religious dogmas as they are preached about today... and imo that's what Rachel had in mind when she spoke about "the bible". The fact that religions didn't neccesary originate as carrot and a stick affairs is also true... and yes.. I do believe there are people out there who're religious for all the right reasons. Bu those really shouldn't be offended at this thread, since it's exposing only one side of christian dogma. The side which themselves more than likely don't feel comfortable with either. I still claim the text jabs blind faith rather than one's own personal beliefs.

I know that there are more females than there are male, but the fact that there are a significant amount of men browsing these forums does affect how the site is managed. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that madeldoe is the only open Christian is the entire English Forum, if the ratio of Christians to Athiests were that of Female to Male than it is pretty reasonable to assume that Lux's thread would still be open.

Yes it is possible that madeldoe is the only one of this particular interest group, so she spoke up. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to feel offended (eventhough the potential for anyone to get offended is vastly more remote than in Lux's thread) If she does feel so she's welcomed to explain to us all the good parts of christian beliefs. But trust me on this one... Lux's thread closing was not in any way connected to any male interest groups expressing discontent. It was more to do with the fact that it was redundant and not on an appropriate discussion level. It had absolutely no potential to evolve into an interesting debate. It did have a huge potential though to evolve into a flame war... and I don't think any males would be involved in the flaming, to tell you the truth.

PowerPuff Grrl
27-04-2006, 20:58
But those really shouldn't be offended at this thread, since it's exposing only one side of christian dogma. The side which themselves more than likely don't feel comfortable with either. I still claim the text jabs blind faith rather than one's own personal beliefs.
But therein lies the problem, the joke doesn't make any distinction between the hypocrites and the genuine believers; the Bible is false so everybody who follows it are duped into becoming shrewd people looking out for themselves.

ETA:
But trust me on this one... Lux's thread closing was not in any way connected to any male interest groups expressing discontent. It was more to do with the fact that it was redundant and not on an appropriate discussion level. It had absolutely no potential to evolve into an interesting debate. It did have a huge potential though to evolve into a flame war... and I don't think any males would be involved in the flaming, to tell you the truth.
Oh, I'm not saying the Lux's thread was unfairly locked because of some male-insecurity driven agenda or anything, or that it was unfairly locked at all. It's just that because there are enough males on this site for people to consider and that if any had a problem with it their disapproval would be heard and would carry more weight. Whereas, madeldoe is the only open Christian on site and so her disapproval wouldn't be as heard nor would it carry as much weight seeing as most of us (myself included) have a particular distrust towards religion.

PowerPuff Grrl, so if the thread name was changed and the comment at the end was removed would it be different or not?
The only difference it has made is that it now includes the entire Judeo-Christian-Islamic axis; that's quite a feat there!

freddie
27-04-2006, 21:16
But therein lies the problem, the joke doesn't make any distinction between the hypocrites and the genuine believers; the Bible is false so everybody who follows it are duped into becoming shrewd people looking out for themselves.

That's the thing with satire. It's meant for inteligent people. And inteligent people will be able to differentiate between a satirical critique of certain aspects of religion and blatant attack on one's personal integrity and beliefs. It's a fine line I admit, but one that wasn't really crossed in this case. If anything the text was aimed at fundamentalists who take everything written in the bible literaly, more often than not extracting only excerpts which suit them. True believers have faith because it's in them... it's engraved in their moral fibre... they're not believers because they've read a few excerpts from an ancient book, or believe what their friend told them like John and Mary. That's one positive aspect one could extract from the text if you look at it closely enough.

Oh, I'm not saying the Lux's thread was unfairly locked because of some male-insecurity driven agenda or anything, or that it was unfairly locked at all. It's just that because there are enough males on this site for people to consider and that if any had a problem with it their disapproval would be heard and would carry more weight. Whereas, madeldoe is the only open Christian on site and so her disapproval wouldn't be as heard nor would it carry as much weight seeing as most of us (myself included) have a particular distrust towards religion.

It wouldn't and wasn't unheard. As you've noticed I'm not at all disencouraging her protestive posts or even ridiculing them. Up to an extent I can even understand why she'd be offended. But what she wanted was the lock up of the entire thread and comparing a satire thread which could be mildly offensive with another thread which was closed for other reasons as well... which is a whole different ball game.

PowerPuff Grrl
27-04-2006, 21:25
That's the thing with satire. It's meant for inteligent people. And inteligent people will be able to differentiate between a satirical critique of certain aspects of religion and blatant attack on one's personal integrity and beliefs.
So madeldoe and I are idiots!
:lol: :lol: :lol:
I keed, I keed.
I'm just trying to get people to see where madeldoe is coming from.

In any case, that's the same reasoning Lux used. So I guess the closure of satirical threads can be determined by how funny and how well comprehensive they are rather than how offensive they may be to some.

I'm no lawyer but uh, that's setting up bad precedence there.

QueenBee
27-04-2006, 21:34
It's just that because there are enough males on this site for people to consider and that if any had a problem with it their disapproval would be heard and would carry more weight. Whereas, madeldoe is the only open Christian on site and so her disapproval wouldn't be as heard nor would it carry as much weight seeing as most of us (myself included) have a particular distrust towards religion.
I disagree with that. Although it is true that madeldoe is the only open Christian here, I don't think the thread was locked because the men here thought it was inappropiate, or that there are enough men here to think so. Most people actually did (think so). It was dumb, and like freddie said, did not have a chance to lead to discussion. I don't see how we can compare these two threads, at all.

PowerPuff Grrl
27-04-2006, 22:25
Most people actually did (think so). It was dumb, and like freddie said, did not have a chance to lead to discussion. I don't see how we can compare these two threads, at all.

I thought there was room for discussion. Lux was very prepared to indicate that it was meant as a joke and I myself was about to post about how Forre and/or nath were dead wrong about insisting that it was a very feminist approach to sexuality.

Some racist things were uttered in the past but were never really dealt with because there were not enough Black people to speak up, though admittedly the site was really young and there were about two moderators. Still however, this behaviour has continued with some anti-Semitic posts uttered here and there and considering that ypsidan04 is the only overt Jew and only posts once in a while, anti-Semiticism was tolerated. Same with anti-Islamic statements and since rosh and xmad are the only Muslims here, with xmad not really giving a shit, that only makes one person and rosh's presence is ever disappearing. And now with Christianity and madeldoe.

Now contrast that with homophobic and anti-male remarks stated and you'll see that there is a direct correlation between how posts perceived as hateful are dealt with and the demographic of posters. Not to say that any of you guys are anti-whatever, just that you'll speak up if something affects you particularly and most of you have the benefit of being backed-up by other people equally offended.

Not that I'm saying it should be locked, but that we shouldn't be deciding what thread needs to be closed based on how many people are offended, or at least turned off, by it. If half of us, or even a quarter of us were as Christian as madeldoe would this thread would be closed too?
I tend to think so.

freddie
27-04-2006, 22:34
So madeldoe
I'm just trying to get people to see where madeldoe is coming from.

I understand where she's coming from and I completely supoport her right to stand up for her personal religious beleifs if she felt they were being challenged. With valid arguments though. Not requests to close down the thread, with arguments that some other thread was closed down for identical reasons (which as I said, is not the case).

In any case, that's the same reasoning Lux used. So I guess the closure of satirical threads can be determined by how funny and how well comprehensive they are rather than how offensive they may be to some.

I'm no lawyer but uh, that's setting up bad precedence there.

Wait... Lux said what? Did she imply her thread was satirical in any way? I'm sorry but I don't see any satirical or even humorous aspect in her thread. It was just a collection of absurd (mostly factually incorrect, sometimes completely subjective) statements which were presented as fact. No satiric value in that whatsoever, is there?

INot that I'm saying it should be locked, but that we shouldn't be deciding what thread needs to be closed based on how many people are offended, or at least turned off, by it. If half of us, or even a quarter of us were as Christian as madeldoe would this thread would be closed too?
I tend to think so.
I don't get it. Why do you think so? There are a bunch of males here and none of them had nothing whatsoever to do with the thread's closing. No one even complained about it. It was closed down mainly cause of it's absurdity and I didn't see any indication from lux stating it should all be percieved as a joke. Not even a subtle one, just said it's her own personal opinion while presenting it as a well-known fact.

QueenBee
27-04-2006, 22:58
As far as I remember, there *were* some anti-jew statements on this forum, and they were dealt with. I don't understand what you mean (specifically).

Saying that nobody does anything to deal with such things as discrimination, only when enough people "care" or feel offended, is kind of like a slap in the face for a moderator, since they try to keep the forum as clean as possible, and free of such things (I too am a moderator but take no credit for keeping things in order as I haven't been moderating the General Forum for so long).

PowerPuff Grrl
27-04-2006, 23:55
Last couple of sentences from this post (http://forum.tatysite.net/showpost.php?p=288851&postcount=3) in the thread.
I took it as a satire but I guess Lux has the final say.

The thread though didn't have to be closed down by males and I doubt any even had the chance to post in it seeing as how it was closed down real fast. Because there are a bunch of males it is more likely for people (male or female) to consider them than to consider, for example, the one lonely Kiwi so as to prevent a flame-war, a pre-emptive lock-down if you will. Because there aren't that many Kiwis, people wouldn't know what exactly offends a Kiwi so if something comes up that's anti-Kiwi nobody would recognize it as being offensive.

We as Athiests may not recognize this joke as being anti-Christian because regarding this site we don't interact too much, if at all, with devout Christians. Even when we talk about Christianity or about religion, it is never in a positive light.

PS: Queenbee, my posts aren't meant to be a harsh critiques of the moderation (to which I have stated earlier have been doing an excellent job in the past couple of years). I'm just saying that it is really hard to notice one person's objection to a post when it is drowned out by numerous others that do not object. Regradless of how super-PC any moderator is, it's impossible to regulate everything, I recognize that. Obviously madeldoe has yet to argue why this thread should be closed if she so wishes but that doesn't make it less wrong for an Athiest to say that a Christian should not be insulted by what is essentially an anti-Christian post.

freddie
28-04-2006, 00:16
Still the basic point remains that Lux's thread wasn't locked because of it's offensive nature, but rather cause of it's stupidity (pardon the expression). Did she mean it as humorous? Well, it certainly didn't appear to be, despite that last few sentences, however she was already accused of feminism by then, which WOULD make her say that in her defence anyway. If it was meant in a humorous way, then let me tell you, it was a really kauffman-esque performance. :p
I guess we should give her the opportunity to make her intentions ragarding that clear.

dradeel
28-04-2006, 01:24
I think there are heaps of christians that would smile when reading this text 'cause they simply see the irony, yet don't take it personally. I don't believe that any christians would be convinced that their belief had been proven wrong, or that it was hurt in any way, just by reading this innocent text. I wouldn't in light years call this text an attack against christianity. This text was only a weak attempt to examplify the irony of it.

I know this guy in Australia, he's catholic and laughs of every anti-christian comment I come with. He thinks they're just funny, 'cause they are awfully cliché, as he has great knowledge of the black metal scene. He's a metalhead... why hasn't he said that my comments are insulting, and why does he keep listening to the music? Because he doesn't take it personally, and he don't believe that some atheist from norway with satanic overtones could convince him or even make him feel less of about his absolute belief here in this world, and his way of looking at reality, the truth and that people will go to a better place when they "cross over to the other side". It's something private and important for him, and he doesn't care about other people's remarks. I respect him ooo-so-much for that! :)

Even Jerry Seinfeld brought up the issue of anti-semitism and how everyone spoke about anti-seimitism even from the slightest attempt of a jew-joke. I mean, everyone got offended by nothing. He examplified it by talking about anti-dentitism on one of the episodes of Seinfeld. Funny, and very self-ironic. It was pretty clear what he ment... and Jerry Seinfeld is a jew.

I'm just saying that people shouldn't take things so personally. Just laugh and forget about it! :)

spyretto
28-04-2006, 22:47
Yes it is possible that madeldoe is the only one of this particular interest group, so she spoke up. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to feel offended (eventhough the potential for anyone to get offended is vastly more remote than in Lux's thread) If she does feel so she's welcomed to explain to us all the good parts of christian beliefs. But trust me on this one... Lux's thread closing was not in any way connected to any male interest groups expressing discontent. It was more to do with the fact that it was redundant and not on an appropriate discussion level. It had absolutely no potential to evolve into an interesting debate. It did have a huge potential though to evolve into a flame war... and I don't think any males would be involved in the flaming, to tell you the truth.

I don't think it got to the point where people were actually in a position to refute the sheer stupidity of that thread because it was closed early...as for the current thread...jee, I think you people must be really bored. Nice analogy and witty story no doubt, rather insulting towards religious people, who are outnumbering the atheists by the vast majority on this planet.

PS. what's wrong with a war of words...it's fun and it's all virtual anyway..I find this thread quite disappointing compared to the flame war we could have had.

forre
28-04-2006, 22:58
I find this thread quite disappointing compared to the flame war we could have had.
It's all good bit I'm outta here. We are in the translating business right now. I can only assure you that Lux's thread won't be opened, more than that I'm going to trash it next week. Have fun here! :rose:

spyretto
28-04-2006, 23:17
It's all good bit I'm outta here. We are in the translating business right now. I can only assure you that Lux's thread won't be opened, more than that I'm going to trash it next week. Have fun here! :rose:

I don't mind Lux thread, it was kinda fun..yeah well, thanks for all your good wishes... unfortunately I too don't have enough time to enjoy myself over here as I used to but yeah I do pop around for the ocassional dose of fun' n' games...you do realise however that the thread can be seen as offensive, don't you? It's common sense, don't have to believe in God to see that...well never mind, good luck with the translation venture :)

Lux
29-04-2006, 08:15
Still the basic point remains that Lux's thread wasn't locked because of it's offensive nature, but rather cause of it's stupidity (pardon the expression).

i beg to differ. i was accused of something people do not even know the meaning of. pardon MY thread, it was MY expression. you closed a thread because it was stupid? let's see, how many stupid things do people post on this forum that do not get locked? too many to count. and there are plenty of topics in the past that have been stupid and offensive but did not get locked. THAT is stupid. pardon the expression.

Did she mean it as humorous?
i think you do not care. no one does. no one asked me. no one gives a shit. people reacted with "Lux hates men" or "Lux is an ultra feminist" and did not bother to ask why i posted the thread.

Well, it certainly didn't appear to be, despite that last few sentences, however she was already accused of feminism by then,

that makes no sense. i do not comprehend your english sometimes. i was accused of feminism AFTER i posted the thread, not during or before it. what you wrote does not make sense. also, need i remind you that a few people enjoyed it. a few others did not find it offensive. but again, since you claim it was closed due to its supposed stupidity, whether it was offensive is irrelevant. yet somehow, it seemed that it was closed because of its offensive nature. maybe the mods disagree? first, you (mods) said it was offensive and now you are saying it was closed because it is redundant and stupid? what redundancy is there? no one else posted anything like this before. and certainly no one expressed their opinions on why they prefer women before this. pardon my tendency to express my most thorough expressions. i am expressively incline to express.


which WOULD make her say that in her defence anyway.
are you in my head? i think not. assuming what i would and would not do is ridiculous. you do not know me and do not know what i will and will not do. i thought you mods were supposed to be unbiased and fair. and definitely would not incorporate personal objective insight into the matter.


If it was meant in a humorous way, then let me tell you, it was a really kauffman-esque performance. :p

so even if i wrote it to be funny, you say that it is not? LMAOO now you are considering the fact that i wrote it without any intent whatsover, leaving it totally up to the minds of this forum to interpret. funny or not, now you see its humorous potential? :done:

I guess we should give her the opportunity to make her intentions ragarding that clear.

this is forum. i could have done that already. you do not have to give me opportunity. ever. this is a forum. free and open to all. i do not need your permission to post anything. and who is we? who are you speaking for?

on a side note. having debates such at these are tedious because english is not the best language for some members on the forum. that is, it is simply difficult to understand what people write. grammar is important. as is being able to accurately convey what you think. in cases where it is difficult for people to express their opinions, ideas get blurry and the debate itself goes to hell. english is not my first language but i know it better than any other language. i think i have mastered the english language to a degree sufficiently enough to express my views clearly and accurately.


definition of feminism:
men and women should be equal in every realm: public and private. that is, men and women should be equal both in the professional world and the domestic world. example: women should not be left at home to take care of the kids and clean the house, and they should not make $0.75 to the $1.00 for the same work that men do. in one word, equality between men and women.

spyretto
29-04-2006, 08:55
definition of feminism:
men and women should be equal in every realm: public and private. that is, men and women should be equal both in the professional world and the domestic world. example: women should not be left at home to take care of the kids and clean the house, and they should not make $0.75 to the $1.00 for the same work that men do. in one word, equality between men and women.

So lets suppose - for the sake of the discussion - that your thread wasn't offensive or stupid
( ie the "arguments" did make some sense, and nobody would get offended by the way the arguments were put forward ). How exactly was your thread promoting the "equality between men and women" :rolleyes:

Lux
29-04-2006, 09:13
it is not and i never said it was. since there was not a clear definition present on this forum, i decided it best to establish what it means. please re-read the thread. i never said it was feminist. it is clearly, not. however, others did.

Argos
29-04-2006, 13:23
Seems that some people have lost the sense of humour completely. What's wrong with questioning our thoughts and ideas whether it be about religion or sexuality or whatever else?

Unfortunately I missed Lux' thread, it was open less than 3 hours and was closed before one single argument. Freddy, I don't know why you don't have trust in the imagination of members of this forum, that you can state that it is stupid, before a discussion has even begun. For me Lux' statements were funny and worth of some witty argumentation, and I never had the impression that she has a tendency to hatred and personal offensiveness. So I think you (the mods) missed a chance for an interesting thread about sexual self-judging.

There is a difference between personal attacks and general 'pointed' discussions about some hot topics. Why not have some courage to permit such controverse threads?

QueenBee
29-04-2006, 13:50
you closed a thread because it was stupid? let's see, how many stupid things do people post on this forum that do not get locked?
For me it was just stupid... not offensive at all. I mean, I can have a dark humor sometimes too and naturally I would laugh at that (have done so before) but I think the thread was a bit too much.

definition of feminism:
So someone used the wrong word. :rolleyes: As you already stated a couple of sentances before that one, people have trouble with language and grammar, maybe they got the wrong definition. You keep bringing up the fact though, "How was my thread feministic?", "Do you even know what feministic means?" (or something along those lines).

this is forum. i could have done that already. you do not have to give me opportunity. ever. this is a forum. free and open to all. i do not need your permission to post anything. and who is we? who are you speaking for?
If it's free and open for all, then you shouldn't be surprised that others find it wrong to post such threads. Also, since you have your right here - others have their right to close any thread for whatever reasons.

Argos
29-04-2006, 14:06
... but I think the thread was a bit too much.

Too much of what? To understand, to give a smart answer? Of wicked humour? Or what?


If it's free and open for all, then you shouldn't be surprised that others find it wrong to post such threads.

Who are the others? The mods and their 'relatives'? Or were there normal members too, who were offended?

QueenBee
29-04-2006, 14:32
Too much of what?
"Man-hate". And yes I know she doesn't hate men.

Who are the others? The mods and their 'relatives'? Or were there normal members too, who were offended?
The mods are abnormal? :gigi:
Why can't the mods find it wrong to post such a thread? Do we need others to speak aswell? Maybe not so many spoke against the thread (except moderators and maybe one or two "normal" member, as you call them) but someone did, and a moderator chose to close the thread - don't expect it to open again. It goes to the trash.

I didn't say anyone was offended. I also stated that I wasn't offended.

Argos
29-04-2006, 15:44
Do we need others to speak aswell?

How should I interprete this? As far as I am concerned, the mods can talk to each other or hold 'grand monologues' as much as they want, but I thought, it's a forum, where it is supposed that people speak about topics in which they are interested in.

Sorry if I offend you, but I am not used to be dictated about what I am allowed to speak. I thought these times are over now in Europe, but it's not to late for me to learn that it's not!

QueenBee
29-04-2006, 15:50
As far as I am concerned, the mods can talk to each other or hold 'grand monologues' as much as they want, but I thought, it's a forum, where it is supposed that people speak about topics in which they are interested in.
I think you misunderstood me... sorry, I can be confusing as English isn't my first language. :( I meant, if a mod thinks that a thread should be closed for whatever reasons, why does she/he need to need the other members' opinions (to be allowed to close it)? The thread was locked very quickly (I think, I mean there were not many posts - I certainly saw it when it was locked) so not even all moderators got a chance to say anything, and I don't see why this is wrong.

I don't think it was locked so that opinions shouldn't be expressed... more because it was very straight forward men-suck-talking. I think there are clever ways to write such things, for example this thread.

Argos
29-04-2006, 16:02
I think you misunderstood me...

I understood you very well, but I think it was not necessary to close the thread that early. I can't speak for Olga, but I have the impression, it was a paranoia-close, to avoid bad vibes before the discussion even has begun. Most of us members know where is heated discussion and where personal insult begins, so we don't need a guardian most of the time.

marina
29-04-2006, 16:16
Sorry if I offend you, but I am not used to be dictated about what I am allowed to speak. I thought these times are over now in Europe, but it's not to late for me to learn that it's not!

No , you got it all wrong ! You free to talk whatever you pleased but at your own place , at your home . Or on the streets . If you go to the other people house you have to respect the host of the house and his rules. I say *you* , you .....but it can be any of us. So , our hosts , our mods seems didn't like very much talks of smelly gorillas -men , their unplesant moaning and groaning during the intercorse and last but not the least -- wonderfully vile sound of flapping man's balls during this time ...Do you want to talk about this , Argos?
Do you ? I can hook up you with a couple of links . No need to thank you me.
So , our mods didn't like that and closed the thread . What do you want to do ? Walk around the forum with the banners :* Please open Flapping Balls thread . We haven't got full pleasure yet !!!*

nath
29-04-2006, 16:37
definition of feminism:
men and women should be equal in every realm: public and private. that is, men and women should be equal both in the professional world and the domestic world. example: women should not be left at home to take care of the kids and clean the house, and they should not make $0.75 to the $1.00 for the same work that men do. in one word, equality between men and women.
I know the definition of "feminist", don't worry for my poor culture...
I know too the state of mind that some hard ultra-feminists could have and the hate they could feel to wards men..
Don't tell me it doesn't exist.

So I wasn't stuck to the dictionary ; I was referring to this state of mind.
Sorry to tell you that...you can tell you love men and you have nothing against them but I really wonder how you could write such disgusting things if you feel the such respect you pretend to have to wards men.

Who are the others? The mods and their 'relatives'? Or were there normal members too, who were offended?
It was me.
I have replied and expressed my full disgust, dislike in reading a such post.
For your information, I'm a normal member as you and I have absolutely no more "right", no more power than you: direct or "indirect".

The first time I read your posts Argos, you were insulting all the mods for a reason where you weren't involved at all....
I see you haven't changed as you still contest about the honesty, the fair judgment of the mods about a thread you haven't read....

Zorro 's complex ?

Argos
29-04-2006, 17:13
The first time I read your posts Argos, you were insulting the all the mods for a reason where you weren't involved at all....
I see you haven't changed as you still contest about the honesty, the fair judgment of the mods about a thread you haven't read....

Zorro 's complex ?

You didn't understand me at that time and you don't understand me now. I never insulted anyone in this forum. I expressed my opinion as I do now, to distinguish between a controverse discussion and a personal attack (and voting the most annoying member is an insult!). The result was foreseeable, my post was a warning what could be.

The Lux-thread is about the lacking romance between male and female and some disgusting feelings many women have during intercourse with men, as far as I understand and a good base for an interesting discussion, despite the wicked arguments of her, I even doubt that those are her own, because I heard most of them before.

What I stated as a member, was, that I don't want that any thread that might get unpleasant, should be closed before even a hint of personal attacks. If we only discuss things, where we all agree, it would be rather boring. So, please. don't interprete bad intentions into posts of others who do nothing more than you do, express their own opinions.

Lux
29-04-2006, 17:22
Seems that some people have lost the sense of humour completely. What's wrong with questioning our thoughts and ideas whether it be about religion or sexuality or whatever else?

agreed.

So someone used the wrong word. As you already stated a couple of sentances before that one, people have trouble with language and grammar, maybe they got the wrong definition. You keep bringing up the fact though, "How was my thread feministic?", "Do you even know what feministic means?" (or something along those lines).

the wrong word? people rained criticism based solely on this word. if they did not know what it means, why use it? :rolleyes:

If it's free and open for all, then you shouldn't be surprised that others find it wrong to post such threads. Also, since you have your right here - others have their right to close any thread for whatever reasons.

i am not surprised. find it wrong? are you serious? it is not wrong. if others find it wrong, SO BE IT. but i do not find it surprising. never did, still do not. wait...are you saying the mods can close a thread based on "whatever reasons"? is that right..

I know the definition of "feminist", don't worry for my poor culture...
I know too the state of mind that some hard ultra-feminists could have and the hate they could have to wards men..
Don't tell me it doesn't exist.

i do not worry about your culture. just because SOME feminist hate men, does not make the definition of feminism to be "hatred of men." just because they COULD does not mean that is the definition. of course it exists. and just because someone hates men, does not make him or her feminist.




i do not know what this argument is over. someone tell me what it is over. i also have no idea what the mods discuss but when they say different things on the forum, i got confused as to why it was closed. frankly, it does not matter anyway, but initially the reasons were blurry.
and, one other thing. i posted it because...

nath
29-04-2006, 17:59
You didn't understand me at that time and you don't understand me now. I never insulted anyone in this forum.
You DID. In big (red?) cap letters. You have erased this part after.
I don't think I'm the only one to have dreamed that on this forum.
I'm sure you could have expressed the same idea without wishing the worse things to them...

(and voting the most annoying member is an insult!).
Remember what you've written about the mods...
They had just accepted the choices of the other members....
So, in a such case, to be fair you had to insult all the members who had voted in this category and more specifically the member who was at the origin of this idea.
None of the mods was at the origin of this idea.

The Lux-thread is about the lacking romance between male and female and some disgusting feelings many women have during intercourse with men, as far as I understand and a good base for an interesting discussion, despite the wicked arguments of her, I even doubt that those are her own, because I heard most of them before.
I still don't understand how you can have a such interpretation as you haven't read it...

I don't think that normal women who chose to make love freely with a man could have those so......*no words found for that sorry *.....thoughts...or they are really neurotic if they continue to have any sexual relations with men after a such....adventure....except may be if they are zoophile...or masochist.

Lux, when you will be clear and able to stop to play just with the words, may be we could speak in a normal way.

QueenBee
29-04-2006, 18:21
it is not wrong. if others find it wrong, SO BE IT.
What? A person can't just post *anything* (I mean things like gross images, images with sexual acts, racism, whatever - and no I am not comparing these things to your thread but just using them as an example) and then just say "You don't like it? So be it."

wait...are you saying the mods can close a thread based on "whatever reasons"? is that right..

Yes because there are plenty right reasons to why a mod can close or delete a thread. For example images with nudity are accepted, but not with sexual acts so a mod could delete such a thread if it was based on posting pornography.

just because SOME feminist hate men, does not make the definition of feminism to be "hatred of men."
Just because some men are smelly doesn't mean they all are. :gigi: :coctail:

Argos
29-04-2006, 18:50
You DID. In big (red?) cap letters. You have erased this part after.
I don't think I'm the only one to have dreamed that on this forum.
I'm sure you could have expressed the same idea without wishing the worse things to them...

What I wrote was a christmas joke which we in Austria are used to say when people are quarrelling during the holidays. I heard this from an Irishman some time ago, too, so I thought this is an international saying. I never changed anything with my post, other people did.

Remember what you've written about the mods...
They had just accepted the choices of the other members....None of the mods was at the origin of this idea.

Wrong interpretation again! I wanted the mods to be nominated, so that they can see if it is fun to be one of those 'unwanted' people. It is the right of members to make suggestions and to vote, but mods have the right too, trying to persuade members not to make such a vote. Look at what happened with Lorna! This was not necessary and not unevitable.

I still don't understand how you can have a such interpretation as you haven't read it...

Simply because there is an ongoing discussion about this topic in my neighbourhood with similar arguments. But Lux' version is very pointed and exaggerated, but it's meant as satire. Therefore I was interested in hearing some arguments from the world outside.

freddie
30-04-2006, 01:02
Goodness. Don't you guys think this has dragged on for long enough? I mean seriously... You're making Lux's thread of questionable intelectual value an example of free speach? Come on. Free speach deserves better advocates than that. This is simply a case of free speach versus good taste. And yes... on this forum like on any other forum mods and admins are the ones who're the final judge on what's against good taste. Lux's thread was one of those examples in our opionion. It has nothing to do with people getting offended over it because it's hardly believable men would really get offended over such shit. It's about establishing some standards of what's considered normal and acceptable. And excuse me, but I don't see anything - anything at all - satirical in that thread. I said if Lux DID mean it in a satirical way it'd be a very kaufman-esque performance. Yet she unfortunately mistook that for my recognition of her satiric intention. But you know... all I wanted to say is that she is no Andy Kaufman. ;)

PowerPuff Grrl
30-04-2006, 01:30
And yes... on this forum like on any other forum mods and admins are the ones who're the final judge on what's against good taste. Lux's thread was one of those examples in our opionion. It has nothing to do with people getting offended over it because it's hardly believable men would really get offended over such shit. It's about establishing some standards of what's considered normal and acceptable.
Seriously?!
Because you guys were a lot better off closing the thread on the basis of it being offensive material (not in any way related to feminism!). There is a distinct line as to what is offensive and what is not; it's easier for people to adhere to that. By saying it was stupid is too subjective, the line gets blurred. What is stupid to one person isn't to another. A thread's lifespan is then determined moreso on the taste of at least one moderator. Far too many discrepancies can be made.

haku
30-04-2006, 01:52
Not a reply to anyone, just information:

If someone had created a thread titled 'White people are better' and went on saying stuff like 'Black people suck, they are stupid, they smell bad, they have pubic hair on their heads, and they look like apes' and other sophisticated arguments, that thread would have been closed and shortly deleted.
Same thing for a thread about how straight people are superior and gay people are abnormal sick deviants.
Same thing for a thread about how men are better and women are just inferior beings whose sole purpose is to serve men, make children and clean the house.
This is where the line is drawn.

Lux
30-04-2006, 02:06
i was saying women are better at sex. because i like them, sexually. i did NOT say they are superior beings. what ARE YOU talking about?



can't you people see that my thread was anything but serious? :rolleyes: there was absolutely no point in it. people here are really bored.

PowerPuff Grrl
30-04-2006, 02:23
This is where the line is drawn.
But can the same thing be said for religion; The Torah/Koran/Hindu Vedas/Noble Eightfold Path/Book of Scientology is bullshit... (one of of these things is not like the other! :p )
Granted most of us don't gives two shit if such threads do pop out, but if we did regard religion as much as sexuality, does that line still apply?

QueenBee
30-04-2006, 02:37
Granted most of us don't gives two shit if such threads do pop out, but if we did regard religion as much as sexuality, does that line still apply?
I think if someone should have said "Christians suck and their bodies are disgusting, everyone knows this" then yes, but that's just my opinion.

PowerPuff Grrl, Omg, for some reason I thought you were ypsidan and I've been thinking so while looking at your other posts as well (in different threads), weeeird

haku
30-04-2006, 02:43
Religion is regarded as politics, religious organizations and political parties offer in their respective realms (which are sometimes one and the same) competing ideologies that often contradicts each other (collectivism vs capitalism, reincarnation vs eternal life). Religious and political ideologies can therefore be discussed, analysed, criticized, caricatured, etc.

PowerPuff Grrl
30-04-2006, 02:48
Groups can only identify with things that make them different from everybody else. Men -> Penises (or Penii?), gays -> gender of who they love, Blacks -> skin colour/facial features, Christians -> faith.

To insult somebody based on the difference of their identity is hateful.

QueenBee Weird indeed. But it's all good!

ETA:
Haku, point taken. However there is a difference between critisizing the practice of a faith, its interpretation and manipulations and whatnot, and just simply insulting the faith as a whole.

freddie
30-04-2006, 10:18
ETA:
Haku, point taken. However there is a difference between critisizing the practice of a faith, its interpretation and manipulations and whatnot, and just simply insulting the faith as a whole.

The text was about citicizing the practice and interpretation of faith, wasn't it? No one came out and said christians suck and presented it as a fact.

Argos
30-04-2006, 12:39
The text was about citicizing the practice and interpretation of faith, wasn't it? No one came out and said christians suck and presented it as a fact.

It's more about the practice of sects and, sometimes, the church, not so much the faith and the bible. I don't see many parallels between the bible and Rachel's 'visitor-story', but she declared the bible as nonsense (intentionally overinterpreting her statement).
You see, it all makes no sense No reason to trust the bible
I wouldn't see it as an insult, but I am not affected by this.

Nevertheless it's necessary to question, what we do and what we believe, else we would be too prone to manipulation. In this sense there is no question for me about banning such topics from the forum.

freddie
30-04-2006, 13:31
It's more about the practice of sects and, sometimes, the church, not so much the faith and the bible. I don't see many parallels between the bible and Rachel's 'visitor-story', but she declared the bible as nonsense (intentionally overinterpreting her statement).
She could have said koran or the old testament for all I care. It all comes down to the same thing. Questioning the bible and seeing it through the eyes of a clever satire. A satire which has so much more merit than men semen being gross just because that's someone's subjective opinion. But you know... take it as you will.

Nevertheless it's necessary to question, what we do and what we believe, else we would be too prone to manipulation. In this sense there is no question for me about banning such topics from the forum.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly.. you want discussions like this (religious satire) banned from the forum? That's... not gonna happen. It's a free forum where every noteworthy (notice the noteworthy) discussion will be held into place.

Argos
30-04-2006, 13:43
I'm not sure if I understand correctly.. you want discussions like this (religious satire) banned from the forum? That's... not gonna happen.

Completely misunderstood! On the contrary, this is exactly what I want, discussing such topics, to prove your own opinions and beliefs! I should have expressed myself more carefully!

freddie
30-04-2006, 16:48
Oh okay, then. So your problem is... closing of Lux's thread? Or what?

Argos
30-04-2006, 17:03
Oh okay, then. So your problem is... closing of Lux's thread? Or what?

Not so much the closing itself, more the timing and the arguments for closing (ultrafem.-manhating-stupid-redundant). But I learnt that some people found it really disgusting, and I fully respect this. So, never mind!

nath
30-04-2006, 17:13
Have you read it now Argos? No provocation here, just to know....

Argos
30-04-2006, 17:20
Have you read it now Argos? No provocation here, just to know....

No chance, I've read it before, but I always look for the (positive) intentions of such posts, not only the written words, but now I'm not so sure what she really wanted with this thread.

nath
30-04-2006, 17:25
Thanks for your answer :)

Rachel
30-04-2006, 23:41
Something interesting I found.

***

Free Speech Or PC?

It is late in the game and we, as a society, have finally reached the very edge of creative expression. Sensitivity has grown to enormous proportions; there is no doubt about that. Some groups will go to the greatest lengths imaginable in order to silence any critics. Freedom of speech is not important to these people, only the agendas they push make any kind of a difference in their twisted, one–sided minds.

We have come to the point where we must choose between freedom and feelings. Should something that offends some people but speaks what others are thinking be eradicated to save the few from being offended? In effect, wouldn’t an action such as this by any governing body be a declaration of loyalty to the offended side?

It could definitely be construed as such. If one man has the right to say something, another should have the right to say that what was said first was false. It is the basic right to protest. Every human should have that right, no matter whom you are or what point of view you represent.

Getting offended is the price we pay for freedom. If certain groups are going to be off limits we should make that exception for everyone. This is to say if I can make fun of Christians but not Muslims, then we might as well all cover our women and stop eating pork, because these things offend them as well. Maybe we should also forget that 9-11 ever happened and ban the use of the American flag everywhere, because these are also things that Islam is sensitive too as well.

See, this PC thing only works for certain groups. It is the ones who cry loud enough. Still, we can’t blame them completely. The blame also falls upon the ones in power who listen to them and censor accordingly. Seriously, what makes Mohammed any better than Jesus so we can’t make fun of each of them equally?

Why is it that black people can be open about their racism and whites can’t? Why is it that whites can not be openly racist against blacks, but can say whatever they want about the Mexican immigrants? Why is it that Muslims can burn our flags in their streets and run planes into our buildings but we can’t say the least little thing bad about them?

I’ll tell you why. Because people cry too much. The one-third of me that is Cherokee Indian would like to tell you “oppressed” peoples out there to fuck off and stop whining. You have no idea what real oppression is. The cold truth is most of what is said to make fun of a people is basically correct, that’s why it is so funny.

In conclusion, this world is never going to advance until people stop crying about being offended by something someone halfway across the world said. If anything, we as a people, and that means Muslims, Christians, blacks, whites, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and every other exclusive group in this world, should be offended by what isn’t being said.

Only when we delve into our problems from a serious and uncaring point of view without worrying about others feelings will we finally be able to move forward with some of them. Until then, we will hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no freedom.

***

Source (http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/11358/Free_Speech_Or_PC)

spyretto
30-04-2006, 23:58
What anti-semiticism are you talking about? When I expressed a view that they're a dominant force that controls the planet in the economy and the media you jumped straight away; now certain people are defending misoandric and anti-religious comments that unequivocally say that religion and men are shit. If I were a religious man I'd find this offensive.
I also don't agree that Lux thread wouldn't evolve into an intelligent conversation; alas we've had enough dumb posts in the past and always something good came out of it, so I do agree that Lux's thread was closed prematurely. I'd love to take the defense of the penis vs-the-vagina debate, just for the sheer fun of it...finally I don't think that neither me or Lux are in a position to evaluate the qualities of the dick. You need to ask the people who prefer it over the pussy. ( see, that as a response to Lux's thread reads a bit ridiculous, isn't it? )

Finally, I find religious fanatics and atheists equally unbelievable. Common people, you have not a clue.

PowerPuff Grrl
01-05-2006, 03:57
Common people, you have not a clue.
That's a pretty bold statement for someone who thinks the Jews control the world.
:heh:

Rachel, though I do partially agree with what you posted, I'd like to hear what you think of all this.

nath
01-05-2006, 09:36
Free Speech Or PC?
This is one of the most intelligent thing I've read for long time...:done:
To tell the truth, I'm enough fed up by the Politically Correct language..

I agree that each one has to make an effort for the Life in Collectivity is more pleasant...but this Politically Correct Language really seems dangerous to me when it's pushed to its extremes as it's tended (tent?) to be from these past years....

Because I have the feeling that this PC language is applied just by the same part of the poplulation...it goes in an unic direction...
If you're Caucasian type and if you're not poor: you become the target...of the ones who don't apply this PC Language....
BUT, you, you have to behave, to apologize to be born Caucasian and to apologize to not belong to the poor social class...you have to apologize because 150 years ago your country had colonies.... and You HAVE to continue to use this PC language....
What a such hypocrisy !...

I wonder when people would have the Honesty to recognize that chauvinism, racism... aren't just the "not poor White Caucasians "qualities" !! It's everywhere!

We are all chauvinist, racist...with different degres...
We have to improve to be more tolerant in knowing others, it's true....But let's stop this so easy old song: "White are bad, Rich are bad....Coloured people are always good, Poor people are always good"..it becomes really boring..

I just give you an example of these extremes:
When we got the riots in Paris, a Russian friend told me: "Oh! Your police isn't performant....here, the Russian Police would have fixed the situation in 24 hours"....
Of course our French Police is good...:flag: *chauvinistic here...:heh:* even if we don't have the "Poutine's style" to fix the extreme situations....But the government couldn't act....if not it would be interpreted as "Not Politically Correct"!
So instead to fix the situation in some days, people had to wait one month during in watching their burnt cars and their destroyed shops...

PowerPuff Grrl
01-05-2006, 14:46
Ok honestly, what the hell has this got to do with race? While I agree that some forms of political correctness has been abused by less than honest individuals and organizations tell me who in this forum is guilty of such things?

We have had discussions of about Islam and Ebonics, among other things, in this forum that both teetered on "political incorrectness" and nobody expressed any signs of being deeply offended. Lux posted something that was politically incorrect, or stupid as some would say, but not once have I heard anyone actually saying they were offended and it gets locked up and trashed while Rachel's posts something also politically incorrect one person verbally expresses being offended and nobody gives a shit because we all (including myself) don't share her beliefs.

I really don't care what thread gets opened or locked up, I just care about the reasoning behind it because as far as I'm concerned the reasons given just don't hold up. This has nothing to do with being PC, please don't make this into something it is not.

I wonder when people would have the Honesty to recognize that chauvinism, racism... aren't just the "not poor White Caucasians "qualities" !! It's everywhere!
We do, thank you for your concern.

nath
01-05-2006, 15:05
Ok honestly, what the hell has this got to do with race?
I think the problems linked to the "racism" are something else than a simple link to the "race"..

May be it was the case 50 years ago, when people weren't used to meet colored people , for example....
I don't think that (in the big towns, for exemple) the conflicts which still exist could be linked to the color of the skin... (except in some very well known racist "states" in the United States...or other places I have no time to mention here...)...

So I'm not so sure we could still base the ""racism" about the colors or the definitions of a race....
I mostly think it's linked to the different cultures, to the different mentalities, to the different ways of life and of thinkig....

That's why I said it's boring to listen that Black people are "victims of racism" because of the color of their skin , for exemple...

We collide because we have different cultures, because when people are disturbed in their cultures they become angry....

So could we still call that RACISM or a shock of the cultures?

Sorry ...will continue later cause I'm working here...but I'll come back to try to answer better to your questions.

PS: by the way, sorry I've just realized that your thread was about this forum...I thought it was a general problem.
one person verbally expresses being offended and nobody gives a shit because we all (including myself) don't share her beliefs.
By the way , I don't "don't give a sh*t" about the reaction of Madeldoe and I understand very well that she could have been offended...and I'm sorry about that.

haku
01-05-2006, 15:39
by the way, sorry I've just realized that your thread was about this forum...I thought it was a general problem.
The discussion started after an androphobic thread was locked and a satirical thread of religion was not, so indeed it is about this forum and the limitations it sets. :)

I'll repost here what i added to the first post:This forum sets limits to the expression of certain opinions like chauvinism, racism, homophobia, etc. This thread is an outlet to express opinions about those limits and where the line is drawn between what's acceptable and what's not.
For information, a similar discussion (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=6058) happened three years ago, except that this time many people were asking for stricter limitations to the expression of homophobia and racism.

I'll add that 'chauvinism' in the title is meant to include misogyny and misandry of course, the expression of misandry being what started all this.

Please also notice that the expression of misandry is not totally forbidden on this forum, i'm sure you've all noticed that 'man-hating' comments regularly pop up in many threads, like in this thread (http://forum.tatysite.net/showthread.php?t=10307) for example, it comes with the territory on such a forum and can't really be avoided. However we have to set a limit to just how far people can go.