THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING

[ban-all-sheds]

Mod(s) - what do I have to do to get you to engage in a meaningful debate about censorship, perceived bias, what is and is not an "acceptable" post on this forum etc?

Not only did you lock the thread in which I posted a reasoned response to Admin, but you also deleted that response, thus totally distorting the whole thing.

You did so on the most specious grounds of my use of certain words, despite the fact that in the context in which they were used they were not offensive.

You cannot impose a totally context free ban on certain words. If I'd put one of those words into the sentence

"The use of terms such as <word> is known to cause offence"

that could not be regarded as racist, nor given the context could the use of the word be condemned.

If, however, I said "Britain is being overrun by <word>s, and we should end this menace before it's too late"

then that could well be regarded as racist, and to be condemned.


So - in order to remove that ridiculous justification, I will repeat the post, for two reasons.

1) I would like you to have the opportunity to respond to it properly

2) I'd like other forum members to be kept informed about what's going on.

For those who missed it the first time round, the words I used were:

a) a 4-letter word beginning with P, often used as a derogatory term for people from the Indian sub-continent, whether or not they are from Pakistan. Replaced in the post below with <P>.

b) a 4-letter word beginning with K, used as a derogatory term for Jews. Replaced in the post below with <K>.

c) a 6-letter word beginning with N, used as a derogatory term for anybody of African descent, or possibly for anybody with a dark skin. Replaced in the post below with <N>.

. . . . .

You have been asked to drop this before (see here), but we ask again please draw a line under this and move on.

Actually, that situation has nothing to do with this complaint, which is really my generic long-term one, now aggravated by broken promises from yourself.

The long-term complaint is probably best summarised thus:

1) Someone makes a racist/criminal type post.
2) I respond making every attempt to convey just what a disgusting scumbag I find that person because of his or her racist views or the advocating of criminal behaviour.
3) My post is removed by the mods because it is "insulting", "has no place in a family forum" etc.
4) I complain, pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing racist/criminal views to remain without apparent criticism, as though they were not an insult, or not unacceptable in a family forum etc.
5) Usually my complaint at #4 is also removed.

The long-term positioned has now been worsened by your recent post stressing that racist/criminal posts will be removed, and that anybody finding such should alert the mods, because this is simply not happening.

Because in your opinion a post is unacceptable it does not mean that it will be unacceptable in the opinion of anyone else.

Obviously not - everyone has different political beliefs. There really are extreme right-wing fanatics in society, there really are racists, there really are holocaust deniers etc, and clearly if one of them makes a post then others of their kind will not find it unacceptable.

The moderators have lots of posts to moderate on this forum and they do not have time to keep harping back to posts that you find unacceptable from several weeks ago.

This has nothing to do with me harping back, except insofar as the posts which I will quote later as specific examples of how your stated policy is not being implemented, do date from a few weeks ago.

The 'general discussion' is supposed to be a place for light discussion providing relief from the other forum sections,

Sorry - but I don't regard the spreading of racist views, or the glorifying and advocating of criminal behaviour, up to and including arson and murder, as "light discussion".

it is not meant as some sort of battleground or the forum for anybody's personal crusade against some grievance,

The only personal crusade I'm on is the one to end the biased and hypocritical moderating that takes place. I'd be quite happy with either a consistent policy of removing offensive posts, or a consistent policy of not removing offensive posts.

If a comment is outwardly racist

returning illegal fugees would not cost as much as you say BAS

we can do send them back the way they came here in the back of trucks through the tunnel then kick them out in france for a fraction of the cost you said


as for taxes

there are very few fugees paying tax but loads taking out hard earned tax in the form of handouts and health benfits

kick them all out and make those uk citizens that wont work WORK

time to make a stand on these fugess and get britains job back in BRITAINS hands

Now, please read that, and read it seriously, and put some thought into what Slogger is really saying, and about whom.

These are fellow human beings, many of them fleeing nightmarish situations, and Slogger wants to kick them out of the back of a truck. His whole post is posited on them being foreigners, and he is advocating this unpleasant treatment of them because of it.

His use of the word "fugee" is derogatory, and shows a racist bias against them. If you don't believe that, replace it with <P> or <K> or <N>, and see how the post reads then.

And then tell me again that it is not a racist post.

or advocating violence

i am all for locking them up with absolute minimum food and water and no health treatment at all

So is denying people health treatment not a form of violence? It's certainly against the law, as is simply locking up people because they happen to be refugees.

I note that you did actually say "advocating violence". Even if you don't class imprisonment without trial, providing poor food and the withholding of medical care as "violence" these acts are all illegal, so is it DIYnot's position that cruel and criminal behaviour can be advocated here?

then it will be moderated, as will personal insults.

My grandparents and their children were refugees.

When Slogger talks about sending them back in trucks and kicking them out, and locking them up and denying them medical attention it's my Grandma, and my Grandpa, and my Dad, and my Uncle that he's talking about, so you'd better believe it's a personal insult.

Comments will not be moderated because you or anyone has a preconceived idea of a member's beliefs

I don't have a "preconceived" idea - what I know about peoples' beliefs is based entirely on what they post here.

Surely you aren't really saying that I'm not allowed to remember what they have said in previous posts, or that I am not allowed to build up a picture of their beliefs based on what they have posted? That would be ludicrous...

and determines that something is unacceptable.

So who does determine what is unacceptable?

Staying with Slogger, he has in the past advocated branding people, torturing them, burning their places of worship because he doesn't like their religion and shooting them because he doesn't want them in the country.

Just how "unacceptable" does something have to be for you to take action?

. . . . .

. .
. .
. .

 

[markie]

BAS

let it go/chill out, it's only a diy forum it's not real life, it won't efect your day to day life, I see your point and i see mods point.

 

[paulbrown]

BAS wrote,

Obviously not - everyone has different political beliefs. There really are extreme right-wing fanatics in society, there really are racists, there really are holocaust deniers etc, and clearly if one of them makes a post then others of their kind will not find it unacceptable.

Have you any evidence whatsoever that such people exist on this forum other than in your opinion?

You are clearly being childish in this issue by ignoring the remarks made by other members. the Mod's and now by Admid.

As one of the people who is attracting your vindictiveness I will set you a challenge.

For several days running you called me a racist, despite my protestations. So lets both be up-front.

Show one truly racist post I have made(not just in your biased reverse racist/PC opinion) and I will leave the forum. Likewise if you can't, I would expect you to do the same.

In other words PUT UP OR SHUT UP, how many people have to say this before you listen?

 

[Softus]

Show one truly racist post I have made(not just in your biased reverse racist/PC opinion) and I will leave the forum. Likewise if you can't, I would expect you to do the same.

He has already done so, and you ignored it. There seems to be no virtue in repeating that exercise, since the racism within your thoughts, whilst rearely overt within your postings, is crystal clear.

...how many people have to say this before you listen?

And why would any particular number of people saying the same thing mean that those people are right?

 

[paulbrown]

Show one truly racist post I have made(not just in your biased reverse racist/PC opinion) and I will leave the forum. Likewise if you can't, I would expect you to do the same.

He has already done so, and you ignored it. There seems to be no virtue in repeating that exercise, since the racism within your thoughts, whilst rearely overt within your postings, is crystal clear.

...how many people have to say this before you listen?

And why would any particular number of people saying the same thing mean that those people are right?

Where and when? he has declined my request on many occasions.

You recently denied there was a clique on this site, yet you agree with people who you know full well tell lies. Why would you do this if no such clique exists?

BAS has not yet been able to show any racist threads of mine and I am quite happy to offer you the same challenge, put your money where your mouth is softus.

Let everbody see, once and for all, what you two really are.

 

[Softus]

Where and when? he has declined my request on many occasions.

Once is quite enough. Frankly, If you'd repeatedly made the same request/demand of me, and I'd already answered you once, I wouldn't feel at all inclined to either (a) repeat the answer or (b) keep telling you that I'd already answered it. I believe that you're being deliberately obtuse, and are using the fact that many people will read your blustering question and assume that b-a-s has not answered it. But he has.

You recently denied there was a clique on this site, yet you agree with people who you know full well tell lies. Why would you do this if no such clique exists?

Assuming that you refer to b-a-s, I don't think that he is telling lies. This doesn't mean that he isn't - it means that I think that he isn't. You thinking that he's telling lies is a quite distinct claim from asserting that I "know" it.

Notwithstanding that, considering the hypothetical case of me agreeing with someone who tells lies, (although he isn't, and I'm thereby not), you can't remove my right to agree with any person on those points that are truthful, and disagree on those points that are fabricated. To dismiss a person's complete set of opinions, on the basis that you believe that one or more them is based on a lie, is closed-minded and, to be frank, rather foolish.

For example, you and I agree on very little, but we've each acknowledged the other when a spark of wisdom finds accord. I'm comfortable with this, and I surmise that you are too, which is why I find your wholesale dismissal of the right to agree with b-a-s on some points to be disingenuous.

BAS has not yet been able to show any racist threads of mine and I am quite happy to offer you the same challenge, put your money where your mouth is softus.

OK then, if we're talking about mouths and money, are you saying that you'll pay me if I can refer you to a post in which b-a-s has answered the challenge which you so brazenly repeat?

Let everbody see, once and for all, what you two really are.

I am not one of a two, and I have no interest whatsoever in what anyone else makes of my opinion about your blatent racism. Your attempt to goad me into a public battle is rather pathetic. However, since I'm open-minded enough to believe in the possibility, however small, that you are genuinely unaware of the post containing the answer to your question, I will, as offered above, refer to the relevant post.

I will only do so, however, if you undertake, upon reading it, to apologise for being wrong, and that you'll offer the apology in the same strident manner as your proclamations that some people are liars.

 

[noodlz]

BAS, I agree with what you have said.

The reason I have not posted here for some time is precisely because of this biased censorship. Let’s see how long this post lasts. There is an unhealthy tolerance for the intolerant here, yet people who call these on it are censored. Go figure?! If similar discussions were held in other media, such as radio, television or most broadsheets, the closet racists or plain xenophobes would not be given such leeway.

I do think it a great shame, but there it is. I did enjoy the banter, but it’s really not worth it if one is stopped from airing a perfectly reasonable view without biased censorship.

PaulBrown, I also concur with Softus's views, yet this does not make me part of a clique for merely agreeing with others. If you wish to call me within a group of people who are anti-racist, for want of a better term, I can live with that, but if one were to resort to this simplicity surely by your own logic the opposing side of this banal assertion would be the racists?

From someone who asked me to provide him with the names of the people who run the ‘Stop The BNP’ website and claiming them to be a left-wing extremist organisation, then himself posting a link to the BNP website, it is quite clear to most reasonable people how to view you. A person is not only racist by overt comments, such as with Slogger, some are more subtle and their views are quite apparent from their general perspective….either they are racists or amazing pedants in their defence of the indefensible. David Cameron recently said UKIP had many ‘closet racists’, which is the problem with most racists nowadays….they are in the closet. So, come on PaulBrown, if you want to come out of the closet, your secret’s safe with us.

As far as this forum goes, I doubt the uneven censorship will stop. Maybe it has become so commonplace here to see racist posts it is accepted as the norm. Yet if someone has the temerity to question these posts every now and then, it is seen as descending into a thread that is leading nowhere!

I had a forum member tell me that I would die within a month in an accident and spouted many other extremely offensive personal insults, yet this member is allowed to continue to frequently abuse people and post offensive drivel.

If this forum is truly unbiased, I do hope this post shall remain, unlike some of my previous posts relating to this issue, for me to be proven wrong to a certain degree.

 

[markie]

noodlz

So far so good,

 

[ban-all-sheds]

blah blah blah

This post is not about you, unless you're one of the moderators.

I'm happy to respond to your post, but I won't do so in this thread, because I don't want another one shut down by the mods, I want them to reply to the points I have raised.

 

[joe-90]

BAS, I have asked you on endless occasions to provide a post of mine that is racist. You have been unable to do so.

My stance is that the UK can no-longer take any more immigrants. We are full up. It has nothing to do with race, just logistics. That is NOT a racsit viewpoint. If you believe that it is then you don't understand the meaning of the word.

I ask you for the umpteenth time "WHEN DO YOU THINK THE UK IS FULL?"


joe

 

[Softus]

I would respectfully request that nobody reply to the post that precedes this one.

 

[joe-90]

I would respectfully request that nobody reply to the post that precedes this one.

Don't worry Softus. No one will. It's a question that you and your ilk cannot answer.



joe

 

[ban-all-sheds]

blah blah blah

This post is not about you, unless you're one of the moderators.

I'm beginning to wonder if you and paulbrown are stirring things up in a deliberate attempt to get the thread closed, because you don't want this debate to take place.....

 

[toffee]

perhaps then to show fairness, instead of this getting locked if posts appear to be going that way.. it could be temporarily paused while the mods remove the 'offending' items only!
Rather like a 'test case' on editing, as that is what this is all about.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Better still, have those posts moved, not removed - wouldn't want to get even more censorship going.....

MOD 2

nothing is getting locked without warning