Opinions on the expression of chauvinism, racism, homophobia, etc.

[madeldoe]

haku: 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 happened three years ago, except that this time many people were asking for stricter limitations to the expression of homophobia and racism.


QueenBee: Continuation of this thread that got very off-topic after the closing of this thread.

Originally Posted by Rachel

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

Basically because this is more subtle

[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]

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

[Lux]

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.

[madeldoe]

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.

Rachel: 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]

Rachel: 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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by madeldoe

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]

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?

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

[dradeel]

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]

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 [cough]AmericanChristianFundamentalists[/cough] 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]

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]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

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.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

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. ) 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]

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:

Originally Posted by freddie

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]

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.

[freddie]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

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.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

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]

Originally Posted by freddie

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:

Originally Posted by freddie

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.

Originally Posted by Rachel

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]

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

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.

Originally Posted by PowerPuff Grrl

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]

Originally Posted by freddie

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!

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]

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]

Originally Posted by QueenBee

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.