Is Racist Bigotry Protected by the CoC? ... by Bob Nelson
1. No Personal Attacks: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Address issues and arguments, not individual members. Comments or articles designed as personal attacks or those which in-and-of-themselves, are off topic, disruptive, abusive, threatening, harassing or offensive, unlawful, defamatory, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically are prohibited, and will be removed.
If a member lies... and I prove it... and I write, "You are a liar!" ... ... is that a violation of the CoC? It would seem not to be, from that first section.
Comments meant to inflame will be removed.
What is "intent"? How does a Mod know what was "meant"? Who struck first? Somebody makes a mild off-hand insult ; the other person takes offense; the "conversation" escalates. At what point was a post "meant to inflame"?
And finally, the CoC is explicit:
You can not refer to a member as a bigot, racist or anti-semite nor name call and make other personal insults.
So that seems fairly clear: The CoC does not prohibit your actually being a racist and a bigot like Dylan Roof ; it only prohibits my remarking on the fact.
2. A user's participation on this site is judged as a whole, that is, based upon all comments, articles and actions as they relate to NewsTalkers.
But let's be honest. Nobody ever gets in trouble for sustained behavior; only for particular incidents.
A member may use offensive symbols, for example. As long as that person sweetly denies that the symbol is "meant" to be offensive, no Mod will challenge them.
I could use a swastika. As long as I sweetly say, "Oh, no! I do not mean this as an affront to human decency. I mean it as an ancient Hindu good luck charm..." No problem!
The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.
Ah, No!! I do not mean this symbol to be racist! Your CoC does not apply! This is a symbol of my heritage!
Tags
Who is online
441 visitors
I mean this article to provoke a conversation about symbols.
Who gets to define their meaning?
How does a Mod decide how they do or do not violate the CoC?
Bob,
I have read your article. It boils down to this.
This site was based on freedom of speech. For me, this is the probably one of the most important constitutional freedoms, other than freedom of religion.
As long as a symbol isn't outlawed, (and the confederate flag isn't), a person can use it, and should not be attacked for doing so. You are free to draw conclusions about why they use the flag, and I am sure you may draw conclusions about them, but you can't harass them for using it.
Hate speech is a different thing. Hate speech is prohibited by law. Comments meant to incite hate are not allowed and are removed. If it continues, the member is banned. This has happened only once.
No matter what, the bottom line is that you can't call a member names, even if you believe it to be true. That is the fundamental to the CoC.
Hate speech is a different thing. Hate speech is prohibited by law. Comments meant to incite hate are not allowed and are removed.
Perrie, a large part of the population believes the confederate flag to represent hate speech. Is it a majority? Maybe not, but it is a large number of people. So what is hate speech ?
John,
The flag may be offensive to some, but it is not incitement. which is the bench marker on most of legitmate discussion sites.
You still can't define what hate speech is on a site like this, but I think we all know that by now.
Hate speech is not prohibited by law.
Sean,
Yes it is, if it is meant to incite. You need to read the hate speech laws. That is why all sites don't allow it, and have it in the TOS as well as their various rules.
Perrie, a large part of the population believes the confederate flag to represent hate speech. Is it a majority? Maybe not, but it is a large number of people. So what is hate speech ?
It doesn't work that way, John. As long as this government hasn't outlawed it, it is allowed.
I thought you were saying Newstalkers does not allow hate speech, which would be why the use of the word "racist" about another member would be disallowed. Many people consider the confederate flag to be racist. If someone uses it in their personal signature (avatar) , why would it be disallowed for people to draw conclusions ? I am not saying that I believe the individual involved is a racist, but why would it be against the COC to draw that conclusion ?
People get called commies, and other disparaging descriptions, on these sites, including this one, all the time. So someone can call me a communist, or a socialist, or whatever, but I can't call them a racist ?
So someone can call me a communist, or a socialist, or whatever, but I can't call them a racist ?
A valid question John. The answer is this. Those words are not necessarily meant as an insult. People are actually communist and socialist and are proud of it. Just ask Bernie. But being called a racist, is always meant as an insult.
You rely too much on semantics. When someone calls another member of a discussion forum a "commie" or "socialist" it is meant as an insult. We both know that.
You are too fond of splitting hairs about these things in my opinion.
Commie, is an insult, since it goes back to the McCarthy era and was meant to be derogatory. Communist, is just a description.
John, all law is splitting hairs. Hence why we have SCOTUS.
There are no laws binding Newstalkers. If there were you would have a court. If there is free speech here, then descrbing someone as a communist or racist should be allowed. And yes, you are splitting hairs, drawing a distinction between communist and commie.
Is it ok to call someone here a white supremacist ?
Is it ok to call someone here a white supremacist ?
Answer this question: When is calling someone a white supremacist not an insult?
Are you kidding? I would think and expect that members of white supremacist groups are rather proud of it. I have seen white supremacist websites and you don't see anybody sheepish about it.
In this particular instance, the confederate flag flew on behalf of and represented a white supremacist organization, the Confederate States of America. In the CSA constitution it states that African slavery can never be abolished. The secession documents are filled with white supremacist language. The vice president of the CSA made an openly white supremacist speech on the eve of the founding of the "nation" in which he states unequivocally that the CSA was being founded on the principle of white supremacy.
Are you kidding? I would think and expect that members of white supremacist groups are rather proud of it. I have seen white supremacist websites and you don't see anybody sheepish about it.
True. But unless you know a member here is a member of a white supremacist group, it is an insult.
In this particular instance, the confederate flag flew on behalf of and represented a white supremacist organization, the Confederate States of America. In the CSA constitution it states that African slavery can never be abolished. The secession documents are filled with white supremacist language. The vice president of the CSA made an openly white supremacist speech on the eve of the founding of the "nation" in which he states unequivocally that the CSA was being founded on the principle of white supremacy.
It is also used by the DOC, which is not a racist group and do not support what you are describing.
I will try to keep this excerpt as short as possible to make the point
"...the United Daughters of the Confederacy ’s most important and lasting contribution was in shaping the public perceptions of the war, an effort that was begun shortly after the war by a Confederate veterans’ group called the United Confederate Veterans (which later became the Sons of Confederate Veterans—also still around, and thirty thousand members strong). The central article of faith in this effort was that the South had not fought to preserve slavery, and that this false accusation was an effort to smear the reputation of the South’s gallant leaders. In the early years of the twentieth century the main spokesperson for this point of view was a formidable Athens, Georgia, school principal named Mildred Lewis Rutherford (or Miss Milly, as she is known to UDC members), who traveled the South speaking, organizing essay contests, and soliciting oral histories of the war from veterans, seeking the vindication of the lost cause “with a political fervor that would rival the ministry of propaganda in any 20th century dictatorship,” Blight writes.
Miss Milly’s burning passion was ensuring that Southern youngsters learned the “correct” version of what the war was all about and why it had happened—a version carefully vetted to exclude “lies” and “distortions” perpetrated by anti-Southern textbook authors. To that end, in 1920 she wrote a book entitled “The Truths of History”—a compendium of cherry-picked facts, friendly opinions, and quotes taken out of context, sprinkled with nuggets of information history books have often found convenient to ignore. Among other things, “The Truths of History” asserts that Abraham Lincoln was a mediocre intellect, that the South’s interest in expanding slavery to Western states was its benevolent desire to acquire territory for the slaves it planned to free, and that the Ku Klux Klan was a peaceful group whose only goal was maintaining public order. One of Rutherford’s “authorities” on slavery was British writer William Makepeace Thackeray, who visited Richmond on a tour of the Southern states during the 1850s and sent home a buoyant description of the slaves who attended him: “So free, so happy! I saw them dressed on Sunday in their Sunday best—far better dressed than English tenants of the working class are in their holiday attire.”
But presenting the “correct” version of history was only half the battle; the other half was preventing “incorrect” versions from ever infiltrating Southern schools. Before the Civil War, education was strictly a private and/or local affair. After the Civil War, it became a subject of federal interest. The first federal agency devoted to education was authorized by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1867, and Congress passed several laws in the 1870s aimed at establishing a national education system. White Southerners reacted to all this with a renewed determination to prevent outsiders from maligning the reputation of their gallant fighting men by writing textbooks especially for Southern students. One postwar author was none other than Alexander Stephens, former vice president of the Confederacy, whose portrayal of the war sounds remarkably like the version you hear from many Southerners and political conservatives today: it was a noble but doomed effort on the part of the South to preserve self-government against federal intrusion, and it had little to do with slavery. (This was the same Alexander Stephens who had proclaimed in 1861 that slavery was the “cornerstone” of Southern society and “the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.”)
As the UDC gained in political clout, its members lobbied legislatures in Texas, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, and Florida to ban the purchase of textbooks that portrayed the South in anything less than heroic terms, or that contradicted any of the lost cause’s basic assertions. Its reach extended not just to public schools but to tenured academia—a little-known chapter of its propaganda effort is detailed by James Cobb in his 2005 book “Away Down South: A History of Southern Identity.”
The DOC, (as you put it) , is largely responsible for the myth of the "lost cause" which has been a strong element of civil war revisionism over the past century. It's funny, no one who lived in 1860 was in doubt as to what the cause of the war was, or that the south was white supremacist at the time, but in recent decades many people are. I guess the DOC succeeded.
It is also used by the DOC, which is not a racist group and do not support what you are describing.
There's an interesting article in Wikipedia about UDC, which includes this:
Controversy over insignia
In July 1993, Senator Jesse Helms made several attempts to extend a patent on the United Daughters of the Confederacy insignia, which included the Confederate flag, and needed to be renewed every 14 years. Initially it had been a rider on a bill for Olestra, a fat substitute, but Senator Carol Moseley Braun, then a freshman Senator and the only black one, discovered it and removed it in committee. Helms then introduced it directly onto the Senate floor, proposing an amendment to the national service bill, which would provide educational grants in return for various forms of service. With many senators unaware of what they were voting on, he won a test vote, 52 to 48.
Then Senator Moseley Braun took the floor in outrage at the defense of a symbol of slavery, supported by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.She told the Senate
"On this issue there can be no consensus. It is an outrage. It is an insult. It is absolutely unacceptable to me and to millions of Americans, black or white, that we would put the imprimatur of the United States Senate on a symbol of this kind of idea...This flag is the real flag of the Confederacy."
She said it symbolized the Civil War, "fought to try to preserve our nation, to keep the states from separating themselves over the issue of whether or not my ancestors could be held as property, as chattel, as objects of trade and commerce in this country."
"This is no small matter," she said. "This is not a matter of little old ladies walking around doing good deeds. There is no reason why these little old ladies cannot do good deeds anyway. If they choose to wave the Confederate flag, that certainly is their right."
Senator Strom Thurmond rose to support the amendment saying that the UDC "has nothing to do with discrimination."
But Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama supported Moseley Braun, and said his family was "rooted in the Confederacy." He said he thought they "might be spinning in their graves," but he would reverse himself and vote with Senator Moseley Braun, against the flag, because "we live today in a different world... perhaps racism is one of the great scars and one of the most serious illnesses that we still suffer from today."
The Senate was convinced by the argument that the flag was an insult and killed the Helms amendment 75 to 25, as 27 senators changed their votes over three hours.
Senator Helms angrily insisted that his proposal had nothing to do with race or with slavery. "Race should never have been introduced," he said. "It is a political ploy."
Boldface is mine...
Hate speech is not prohibited by law.
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), t he Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words". [27]
Fighting words, as defined by the Court, is speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction". [28] Additionally, such speech must be "directed to the person of the hearer" and is "thus likely to be seen as a 'direct personal insult ' ". [29] [30]
Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress . [31] However, such a rule (which has never been explicitly decided) would be limited to private figures.
Thank you for demonstrating that hate speech is not illegal. The Court in Chaplinky, and the cases that have interpreted it for the last 70 years, hold that the fighting words exception only applies in face to face confrontations where violence is imminent. Moreover, it has to be a direct personal insult,not an attack on a group.
Hate speech on the internet can never meet that standard.
In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member’s allegedly racist speech and created the "imminent danger" test to permit hate speech. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that; "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." [80]
This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.
We had one such case here. When someone says that we should go out and kill X, that is hate speech in internet terms. This is what has been spelled out on every internet site.
Incitement and hate speech are two different things. If you advocate for the police to be shot because you are made about a grand jury verdict, than you are inciting murder and that's illegal. Even if the advocacy is couched in the most polite terms possible, it's illegal because of the incitement of the underlying crime.
On the other hand, you can post the most vile, hateful things imaginable about the police in general and not run afoul of the First Amendment. You can engage in all sorts of hate speech so long as you don't incite people to act out criminally.
For instance in 2011. in the Snyder v Phelps case, the Supreme Court upheld the rights of pickters to "carry signs that stated, for instance: “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “God Hates Fags,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” outside a Catholic Church at the funeral of soldier.
That's hate speech, and its protected because it doesn't incite imminent criminal activity.
Bottom line, you can hate, just don't incite.
Chaplinsky has been modified since the decision was handed down in 1942. Chaplinsky was the last case to uphold a conviction for the use of fighting words against a public official. Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) introduced the notion of a "heckler's veto," a doctrine which states that mere threats cannot trump free speech rights. In Cohen v. California (1971), the Court went further, stating that in order to override First Amendment protections, "fighting words" must provoke an immediate hostile reaction. What is more, the Cohen Court recognized that even threatening words have a communicative aspect that is worth protecting.
Correct. Hate speech, as commonly defined by liberal thought crime proponents, is NOT illegal.
As long as a symbol isn't outlawed, (and the confederate flag isn't), a person can use it, and should not be attacked for doing so . (My emphasis)
If a member of NT behaves loathsomely... is it against the CoC for another member to point out that behavior?
I do not dispute the "right" of a member to use a Nazi flag (for "example"
) as their avatar. Free speech and all that. Are you saying that a member would be in violation of the CoC in pointing out that a Nazi flag is a symbol of racism, bigotry, mass murder, and repression of human rights?
Why is despicable behavior protected as "free speech", but describing that despicable behavior is forbidden?
As long as a symbol isn't outlawed, (and the confederate flag isn't), a person can use it, and should not be attacked for doing so.
I am asking this sincerely and am not going to do it. However if I used a Nazi flag, a Swastika, as my avatar, would that be allowed? Why or why not? I see no difference between a Nazi flag and a Confederate battle flag.
Guess it's OK.
Randy,
if I used a Nazi flag, a Swastika, as my avatar, would that be allowed? Why or why not?
From whom were you hoping to get an answer?
My reading is that it would be allowed. Perrie said that anything that isn't illegal is OK.
But your question does lead to another:
If an avatar is covered by "free speech", then it is considered "speech"... and is open to response. Right? If an avatar is a statement covered by "free speech", then anyone should be allowed respond to that statement, every time the avatar/statement appears. Right?
It seems to me that if a person chooses to use a controversial avatar, then they cannot plead "off topic" when another person reacts to that avatar. Right?
Hey, Perrie!! Is this right??
I could see responding to an avatar that is highly suggestive of a position : For example a swastika could be responded to by calling that person a Nazi . A confed flag has somewhat less of a direct association ...
Petey , come on bro, tell us the truth now. You just make shit up as you go along, right ?
It must be hard making yourself understood when you speak with your foot in your mouth ... Feel free to prove that confed flags are synonymous with racism . But since you see racists everywhere you go it should be EASY !
The confederate flag represents the Confederate States of America. That is all the proof anyone needs.
More demonstration that "proof" is too big a word for you . Thanks !
The CSA was an actual organization, and was actually represented by the battle flag in question.
This isn't even debatable. What you are evidently referring to is that some people ALSO give non-offensive meanings to the flag. Maybe so, but that does not erase or eliminate the offensive ones.
Petey, just for your information. The battle flag of the army of Northern Virginia is the flag in question. The commander of that army was Robert E. Lee. General Lee reported directly to Jefferson Davis, president of the CSA. Are you getting the picture Petey ?
Robert E Lee on slavery :
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.
This isn't even debatable.
Not that it matters . You have always been incapable of debate . For example :
Ha Ha ha
I can sympathize with your current need to change the subject.
That old article I linked to did clearly demonstrate your inability to discuss . But then you closed your account AGAIN . I'm sure it will happen yet again .
Avatars are not "statements".
" An avatar is the graphical representation of the user or the user's alter ego or character . It may take either a three-dimensional form, as in games or virtual worlds, or a two-dimensional form as an icon in Internet forums and other online communities. Avatar images have also been referred to as "picons" (personal icons) . The term "avatar" can also refer to the personality connected with the screen name , or handle, of an Internet user ."
I know - above your head. You're wanting to start a fight and no one will accommodate you.
You're wanting to start a fight and no one will accommodate you.
Hey, there, 1st!!
Aren't you one of the folks who assumed that if I had pictures of the KKK and a mass murderer of Black people, and a quote from the Confederate VP calling slavery the cornerstone of the CSA... that I had to talking about some particular person?
You never did explain why you make those associations.
Nope - wasn't me - and yes, I did explain the comments - but, as usual - over your head.
Have you boxed, 1st?
Duck, dodge, weave and bob...
But, going to the article linked by Perrie, it shows you and the other member engaged in blatant ass-naming - and thinking you were being intelligent.
Yeah - that was stupid.
No duckin' and dodg'n there bob - go to the link Perrie provided - go to the comments made by you and another member - absolutely idiotic and childish AND, heaven forbid, COMMENTS WERE DELETED by the mods because of the stupidity of said comments - by both parties.
How much more explainin' needs to be done for it to sink into your head???
Ummm.....
Yes-s-s-s...
And what is your point? That was a different conversation on a different day. Do you have any questions about last year?
I have tried to use the Nazi flag as my avatar , a few minutes ago. Evidently the system does not allow it, since I still have my old avatar.
Foiled by your own liberal desires!
Actually, there is nothing to stop it on this system.
I have tried to use the Nazi flag as my avatar , a few minutes ago. Evidently the system does not allow it, since I still have my old avatar.
Well! That is very interesting!
Someone, somewhere, is making a decision about what is and is not acceptable...
Hey, Perrie, please???
Could you tell us who is making this decision, and what the criteria are? Thank you.
Bob,
I am not sure why John couldn't do it. There is nothing in the system that would prevent him from doing so.
Perrie is the one that knows. Maybe it was just taking a long time to change and I did not understand that.
Thanks for the information, Perrie. It would have been pretty shocking to have have that kind of lock somewhere...
Have you thought about the questions I raised up above ?
So let me be clear, Bob.
If someone uses the Nazi flag, it is not forbidden, but it sure says a lot about them.
BUT
Their avatar is not the subject of an article, but it would influence how you respond to them.
Using the confederate flag says a lot about someone too.
The Confederate States of America was a white supremacist entity that codified black slavery into it's national existence for as long as the nation was to last.
I wonder what it is about that fact that people have trouble understanding ?
Lol! The Union was white supremacist at the time too!
Why can't liberals understand that very simple fact? It must be the poor education system. ..
It seems to me that if a person chooses to use a controversial avatar, then they cannot plead "off topic" when another person reacts to that avatar. Right?
Hey, Perrie!! Is This Right??
Wrong! You can make assumptions about their responses to a discussion and reply to them in a way that you understand who they are, but you can't make an entire article about an avatar. This is called "The NewsTalkers", not "The Avatar Talkers".
From whom were you hoping to get an answer?
Well, I'm happy to get an answer from you, but it was Perrie who was making determination on what symbolism is or is not allowable, so I was sort of hoping for an answer from her and I guess I still am. I know that she has banned several phrases that are associated with Nazi Germany and has forbidden me specifically and the site in general from using them, so I was truly wondering about this.
As I said, I find both flags to be equally as offensive and should be banned or both should be allowed AND previously banned Nazi phrases also, as phrases that support slavery are allowed. One is no better or wore then the other IMHO.
Wrong! You can make assumptions about their responses to a discussion and reply to them in a way that you understand who they are, but you can't make an entire article about an avatar.
I disagree. An avatar, when it is something such as a flag or symbol of a movement or country or hate group or political group, etc., IS speech and one can assume a lot about a person who uses a particular one. It IS a statement of a belief or support of an ideology.
Randy,
I think we are saying the same thing.
If you don't see a difference between a regime that embroiled most of the world in war and attempted genocide and a Confederate battle flag, you need to recalibrate your perspective.
I would have no problem with someone using the swatika as an avatar if the orientation was corrected to match the Buddhist original.
Offended snowflakes don't get to define historical symbols for the rest of us.
We would have to delete damn near everything, and could you imagine the limitless quarrels over it? What is hate speech? You know Bob, I think the term "Uncle Tom" is racist, hate speech but there are plenty of liberals on the site that would disagree with me. Get my point?
You know Bob...
I'm not sure why you are addressing me. I have not requested any deletions, and I did not participate in the hate-speech sub-thread. I think you have me mixed up with someone else...
If a member lies... and I prove it... and I write, "You are a liar!" ... ... is that a violation of the CoC? It would seem not to be, from that first section.
I would handle this as follows;
1) If one member rebuts specifically a comment, claim or stated position of another member, IMO, it is fair game to DECLARE THE REBUTTED/REFUTED STATEMENT "A LIE" -- and further suggest that the member responsible for posting consequently DELETE ANY/ALL CONTENT/COMMENT(S) with regard to said "LIE".
2) Rather than use the phrase, "You are a liar" -- which would imply a character flaw (one which may or may not constitute an accurate assessment) -- my preference would be (i.e.) "THE ARTICLE/ALL OR PART OF ITS CONTENT/AND/OR THE HEADLINE IS SPECIOUS/FALLACIOUS/DECEPTIVE/INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING/INSIDIOUS/ETC., or, if one prefers … the somewhat less diplomatic but frequently justifiable and warranted …
"THIS IS OUTRIGHT HATEFUL BULLSHIT … GET IT THE F__K OFF THE BOARD."
Your choice.
From my POV any declarations about another member are OK as long as they are willing to address questions that their comments bring up . But a hit-and-run accusation is unacceptable to me ...
I have seen a lot of racism directed towards white people here. Particularly those that consider themselves to be tea baggers or choose to fly the confederate flag. They are often the target of the racists.
I don't let it bother me as I would rather they are allowed to speak their mind than be censored. I choose freedom of speech.
I have discussed the spirit of the COC with the appropriate people on a number of occasions. I still can't really make heads or tails from it even though I do understand where they are coming from.
I pretty much agree with Bob's article. The idea that people can act openly as racists but it is a violation to say so is a hoot. But on the other hand, there is a matter of semantics, and people skirt the COC, although that goes on everywhere.
From what I have seen of other forums, and I have seen a fair amount, Newstalkers is more "obsessed" with the topic of how everyone behaves, and discusses the topic more than most, (ala Newsvine).
While moderating is undoubtedly hard, the moderation is so uneven that it is almost indecipherable. I volunteered to be a moderator some time back and was told no.
I have the policy of just doing what I do, and really don't think about whether what I say violates the COC or not. If it does, the authorities can take their desired action.
I almost always never call an individual racist, not because of the COC, but because I don't think you can really know people's deep beliefs on an internet forum. But there could be exceptions. One guy on NT admitted racial prejudice, so I called him racist a couple times. Boo-hoo.
I have discussed the spirit of the COC with the appropriate people on a number of occasions.
I have never seen you discuss anything John . I have seen you consistently throw around accusations even when the topic is designed for discussion . But by all means post some links to your "discussions" .
After spending some time researching this I've come to the conclusion the COC is overly restrictive and infringes on our first amendment rights. One example of this is no personal insults. Personal insults are not a violation of the first amendment.
Dean,
This site is not absolute in freedom of speech. The members here, including Bruce, decided what was and was not allowed. Most discussion sites have rule of engagement. Ours was to find a balance between max freedom of speech without personal attacks.
Yes, I'm aware of that and believe if the sites motto is speak your mind than the COC is overly restrictive and should be reviewed. I appears there are rules that restrict freedom of speech that should be removed.
Dean,
You can make your feelings known during the next updating ot the CoC. Right now this is what the community wants.
Dean, there are lots of decent articles about free speech on the internet. This is a good one:
Free Speech on the Internet
Today, most of us turn to the internet because the tools are free and available: Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, newspapers, blogs with comment sections, forums, they all offer one-click methods for us to speak our minds. However, when you leave a comment on a company's Facebook page, post to a Reddit thread, or tweet your grievances, you're speaking in privately owned spaces. This means you should have no expectation that your speech is somehow protected beyond that service's terms of use. That said, when it comes to freedom of speech on the internet, there are two truths that are almost universal:
Since you are "speaking", or writing, on a privately owned space, one has to agree to the TOS, or terms of service, in order to use their space.
Short answer to the title of the article is, YES.
A person makes a racist statement, and you can't call it/them what it really is...Makes no sense to me.
you can't call it/them what it really is...Makes no sense to me.
Makes no sense to me, either. But I'm going to see what else may perhaps be done...
A person makes a racist statement, and you can't call it/them what it really is...Makes no sense to me.
If a person says something obviously, undeniably racist, then you should be able to called them an obvious, undeniable racist. Also I think that description applies to some members of this site.
If a person says something obviously, undeniably racist, then you should be able to called them an obvious, undeniable racist.
I would be OK with that if a dialogue ensued but it never does . For one thing people who fling out an accusation do not stick around for dialogue . If people here were about discussion that would be a different matter but it is always about one-upsman-ship . For example the member who the "racist" calling rule was invented for is alien to the idea of discussion . That was proved in the following old article . It was designed to discuss what racism was about but that never happened :
Petey, you rarely make any fucking sense. That is why you believe you are shut out of dialogue.
you rarely make any fucking sense.
I think the rule invented specifically for your abuse of the word racist was a terrific rule . Choke on it ...
Xanax, Petey... Xanax!
Personally I respect this flag:
But apparently here is one POS who doesn't.
@jwc2blue :
If that's not making a "statement," what,is?
I agree.
Personally I respect this flag:
So do I and prod of it! Now THAT flag is a statement! Also if it were used as an avatar it would also be speech.
Does anything strike you as odd about this ridiculous photo ? ROFL. The chairs are all roughly the same size in the photo , but the people standing right in front of them are all wildly different sizes. Obama looks like a giant compared to the woman on the right, who would have been only a few feet away from him on the stage.
Even if Obama was not holding his hand over his heart during some ceremony, so fricking what ?
Stop dragging this forum down Six.
Picture of Senator Barack Obama Failing to Salute the Flag While Others on a Platform, Including Senator Hillary Clinton, are Saluting- Truth!
I'm not sure if anyone brings this site down any more than you do John.
Six, Obama is the only one in this shot who was singing the song, and like the rest he applauds at the end.
Knock this shit off or there will be trouble. I have had enough of this nonsense.
Bring it on!
You ever wonder why he did that? Here is the President of the United States, a man the American public gave the office of the Presidency to who is standing before the entire world and does not show any respect this country, the people or the flag of this country.
I'll tell you why he disrespected the flag of this country. He doesn't like this country either. He knew it would upset many Americans who love their country and it would show those who didn't he was on their side. It would be one of the first things he could do to start his fundamental change by starting to divide the people of this country as soon as he could and make up some excuse, but he knew it would be understood by all, especially those he hated the most. He must have been pleased because it accomplished exactly what he wanted and brought those who loved the country and those who didn't into the light. And then there were those who were confused and just couldn't believe it was anything as devious as it really was and gave him a pass.
If you are using this absurd photo as evidence, you are out of your fucking mind.
But again, if he did listen to the national anthem without his hand over his heart, so fucking what?
I am ready to go off on some people once and for all and get suspended out of this laughable place.
Well, I will apologize about the photo. Apparently it is legitimate even though I think it looks weird as hell.
Even so, there is nothing wrong with Obama having his hands folded in front of him during the playing of the national anthem, which is what this photo depicts. Just stop with this bullshit.
Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of the Star-Spangled Banner . "I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant."
Oh great!!! I read that back when it happened. That is not generally customary and I bet you can't find half a dozen people who know that and Obama knew you couldn't find them either.
@johnrussell :
If you are using this absurd photo as evidence, you are out of your fucking mind.
He doesn't like this country either.
Bullshit and you know it. I know you're not a crazy right wing conspiracy nut who thinks Obama hates this country or wants to bring it down, divide or destroy it, so please don't make statements that sound like you are. You're better then that statement and that post. Or at least you were.
I know you're not a crazy right wing conspiracy nut who thinks Obama hates this country or wants to bring it down, divide or destroy it, so please don't make statements that sound like you are.
Are you kidding Randy ? That is exactly what Sixpick is. Doesn't anybody on this site read what other people write ?
George H W Bush during a playing of the national anthem.
oops
George H W Bush during a playing of the national anthem.
Obviously he is determined to hate America and tear it down and destroy it. That picture proves it. He probably even a foreign born Muslim terrorist supporter.
The stupidity and pettiness of the right wing never ceases to amaze me.
Randy, over the course of the past 8 or 9 years the right wing media in this country has destroyed these people's minds.
They merely filled already empty heads and brains.
George H W Bush during a playing of the national anthem.
Since Presidents who refuse to salute during the National Anthem are traitorous pricks who want to drag America down, destroy it and hand it over to the Islamic Terrorists. And since George H. W. Bush refuses to salute the flag also, one can only conclude that he wanted to destroy the country so badly that he disguised himself as a black man, changed his name to Barack Obama and got himself elected President again so he could complete his terrible mission of the destruction of democracy. The proof is obvious because the BLACK George H.W. Bush (now called Barack Obama) is still refusing to salute during the National Anthem! What an evil prick he must be!
BTW, the above conspiracy theory makes more sense then 99% of the ones made up and told by Donald Trump and almost all of the the right wingers on this site and others. It's also just as possibly true as 99% of the bullshit the right wingers on here spout. Including a couple on this thread.
Let's set the record straight … and see who is interested in the realities and who the BULLSHIT!
The rumor that President Barack Obama refuses, or doesn’t know how, to say the pledge of allegiance just won’t die. Since early in his presidential candidacy, we’ve been getting e-mails with photos that purport to show Obama failing to properly salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem. The photos have reliably been real, but taken out of context. The most recent example , for instance, included a genuine photo of Obama standing with hands folded while everyone else saluted or put their hands over their hearts — but that’s because "Hail to the Chief" was playing.
Now the rumor has been repeated with a photo that’s not only miscontextualized, but fake. This picture supposedly depicts both President Obama and Michelle Obama saluting the flag during the pledge of allegiance with their left hands instead of their right. But the photo has been flipped, and the original picture wasn’t taken during the pledge of allegiance. It was taken during a rendition of "Taps" at a Sept. 11 memorial ceremony.
The e-mail accompanying the digitally altered picture oozes with phony outrage:
Setting aside any comment about the dishonesty of all this, we have to give the photo-fakers this much credit: They learned from others’ mistakes. Eight years ago, credulous e-mailers circulated a photo of then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle with the wrong hand over his heart. Alert skeptics noted then that his suit buttoned the wrong way (men’s suits button left over right, and Daschle’s suit in the picture was buttoned right over left), and that his "left" hand had no wedding ring. Daschle’s image had simply been cut out from the photo and flipped over. So the e-mail accompanying this new fakery calls attention to the Obamas’ buttons and wedding rings to prove that it hasn’t been subject to the same manipulation.
Despite the care taken, though, we’ve received a steady stream of e-mails from readers who smelled a rat. They’re right — the photo has been reversed. If you look closely at the uniformed officers in the background, their medals are on the wrong side. And Michelle Obama parts her hair on the left, not the right. The hoaxer flipped the photo, then doctored the details that tripped up the Daschle e-mail. ( Snopes and About.com also pointed out the telltale signs that the photo had been altered.)
Not only that, but the original photo wasn’t even taken during the pledge of allegiance. In fact, "Taps" was being played following a moment of silence on Sept. 11, 2009, as this video from CBS News shows.
ANOTHER RIGHT WING LIE DEBUNKED!
— Chain email on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 in an e-mail circulated by many people.
Photo was taken during anthem, not pledge
By Bill Adair on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 at 12:00 a.m.
In the photograph, Barack Obama is standing in front of an American flag with his hands clasped just below his waist. Beside him are Bill Richardson and Hillary Clinton, with their hands on their hearts.
The e-mail notes that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" and says he "REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief????"
But the Time magazine photograph wasn't taken during the Pledge of Allegiance; it was taken during the singing of the Star-Spangled Banner.
The Obama photo was taken Sept. 16 in Indianola, Iowa, at the Harkin Steak Fry, an annual political event hosted by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin. The caption on the Time photo says Obama and the others "stand during the national anthem."
Matt Paul, an organizer of the event, and a video from ABC News confirm that the photo was taken as someone sang the Star-Spangled Banner .
Oddly, the accurate caption from Time is included in the chain e-mail. But someone has added that "the article said" Obama refused to say the pledge and would not put his hand on his heart.
There is no such article on the Time Web site, and searches of the Web and newspaper/magazine databases could only find blog postings that repeat the claim from the e-mail. So it's unclear where the allegation originated.
Obama said the e-mail was false and that the picture was taken during the anthem.
"My grandfather taught me how to say the Pledge of Allegiance when I was 2," Obama said at campaign stop in Burlington, Iowa. "During the Pledge of Allegiance you put your hand over your heart. During the national anthem you sing."
He called the e-mail "irritating" and likened it to others that have falsely said he is a Muslim.
The photo has stirred up such a fuss that on Wednesday night the Obama campaign released a letter of support from retired military leaders.
"Senator Obama's attackers are peddling lies and smears because they disagree with his strong opposition to the war in Iraq and the rush to war in Iran," wrote Richard Danzig, secretary of the Navy under President Clinton, and retired Gens. Merrill "Tony" McPeak and J. Scott Gration. "We have served this nation for decades, and we know a true patriot when we see one. Barack Obama is a patriot."
The photo has also spawned a debate about whether Obama's conduct was proper for the national anthem.
Conservative bloggers have pointed out that the federal law for "patriotic and national observances" says that during the Star-Spangled Banner , "all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart; men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold the headdress at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart."
Experts on the national anthem say the law seems a bit out of date, given its reference to a man's "headdress." Yet it's still cited in several military manuals found on the Web.
Modern custom does not require a hand over the heart, said Anne Garside, director of communication for the Maryland Historical Society, home of the original manuscript of the Star-Spangled Banner . "I think the bottom line is that you show respect with your demeanor," she said. "Whether you put your hand over your heart, hold your hat at shoulder level or waist level, is really in this day and age irrelevant."
She pointed out that "the tune of the Star-Spangled Banner was originally a drinking song. If they can put the words to the tune of a rousing drinking song, to quibble over whether you put your hand over your heart is really ridiculous."
Show a speck of f'n integrity … the hatred for Obama among the ill-informed is sickening. Every bullshit e-mail and lie and faked photo is sucked up by the haters.
Have the balls to acknowledge when you have your asses handed to you!
I admire you, Mac...
I admire you for the time and energy you spend trying to show the truth to people who don't give a flying F about the truth. Your faith in the capacity of Truth to move the human spirit is inspiring!
I mean it. You make me feel guilty for not doing as much...
Your faith in the capacity of Truth to move the human spirit is inspiring!
Bob, I speak truth to Power and to Ignorance, Stupidity and to just plain Ill-will; I don't do it under the illusion that it will change a hard head or hard heart, rather I do it so that I can satisfy myself (and others I deem reasonable) to know the willing-dupes, haters and fools … from that point on, can never HONESTLY CLAIM … they "didn't know better."
Free knowledge … bring your own container and I'll fill it to overflowing …
Be it a bucket or a thimble!
NOTE: Thimbles fit over thumbs.
I assume the seeder lost an argument with Bruce and resorted to this thinly veiled hit piece?
He doesn't like this flag either.
No one should...
You know why? Actually he likes this flag because he can use it to divide the people. People weren't thinking about the Confederate Flag, all the different people who were in the Civil War or the statues before Obama brought it to their attention and (If you push a negative long and hard enough, you can push it through to the other side).
A community organizer has one thing on his mind and that is to organize the people, rub them raw for unless you rub them raw they will not move to effect change. We may ask....... are race relations better today than they were before this community organizer took office? I don't think so.
It's not as bad in the South as it is in the North. Even in Charleston the blacks didn't want to have anything to do with the way the North had become.
Running the slaves out of their cities after the Civil War into Canada to escape the worst racism they had ever seen. Even Martin Luther King said he had marched all over the South and never had he experience such racism as he had in Chicago.
You are Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] to this site. Hundreds of false and misleading posts and comments. And randy says you are not really like that. What a fucking joke.
I saw that one a long time ago as well. George HW Bush didn't try to run the country like a dictator.
[picture removed for Copyright infringement ph]
I admit that, sadly, I was wrong about Six. He has changed radically and not for the better in the past few months. It's a shame as he was once a person worthy of a good honest political debate, instead of a just a robotic repeater of right wing bullshit...like so many others on this site no longer worthy of even engaging in conversation with.
Sorry Randy, didn't mean to bring you down. I was just trying to get JR off the commode or at least unload some of that stuff.
You have a right to your opinion but I don't think he has changed at all. He was like this since he came to NT.
The Great One has spoken
Interesting photo of a national anthem. GWB has his hand over his heart, but his dad doesn't , nor do 75% of the other 40 people in the picture.
Islamic terrorist pricks! Kill them now!
@johnrussell :
Interesting photo of a national anthem. GWB has his hand over his heart, but his dad doesn't , nor do 75% of the other 40 people in the picture
You know ole George, he thought he was going to a ballgame and ended up at the DNC in Charlotte, NC.
@woodie :
He can't do it, SIX. He could even fight his way out of a torn wet paper bag. He would get lost in it.
Well, I'll let him be the rest of tonight. He's had a hard day of it. It only takes me a few minutes to get worn out, anyway.