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>.
. . . . .
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.
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.
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?
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.
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...
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?
. . . . .
. .
. .
. .
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>.
. . . . .
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.DIYnot said:You have been asked to drop this before (see here), but we ask again please draw a line under this and move on.
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.
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.DIYnot said:Because in your opinion a post is unacceptable it does not mean that it will be unacceptable in the opinion of anyone else.
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 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.
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".The 'general discussion' is supposed to be a place for light discussion providing relief from the other forum sections,
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.it is not meant as some sort of battleground or the forum for anybody's personal crusade against some grievance,
If a comment is outwardly racist
Now, please read that, and read it seriously, and put some thought into what Slogger is really saying, and about whom.Slogger said: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
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
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.Slogger said:i am all for locking them up with absolute minimum food and water and no health treatment at all
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?
My grandparents and their children were refugees.then it will be moderated, as will personal insults.
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.
I don't have a "preconceived" idea - what I know about peoples' beliefs is based entirely on what they post here.Comments will not be moderated because you or anyone has a preconceived idea of a member's beliefs
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...
So who does determine what is unacceptable?and determines that something 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?
. . . . .
. .
. .
. .