PDA

View Full Version : Another Rule



CountryFlowers
11-14-2008, 10:34 AM
Hello everyone;

I am sorry to have to impose a new rule, but I've had to deal with the situation twice in less than a month, and I'm not willing to let things get any worse.

The subject of racism has popped up on a number of topics, and has caused some strife among members.

What I'm imposing is a flat out rule and a guideline, too. This new rule really isn't so new, it's part of the user terms, but it's something that needs to be elaborated on, so please read this and obey it as you post on these forums. If you have any questions about this rule whatsoever, please feel free to ask it here and I'll be happy to answer it.

When a member observes something that they feel is racist and they express that on the forum in a respectful tone, that is permissible. It does not make them racist.

When a member calls another member racist because of such a post, that is not permissible and is perceived by other members as racist.

If a member makes racial remarks in a post, calling people obvious racial slurs or saying negative things about a race in general, that is not permissible and is considered as racist, even if the post is made by a member of the race being slurred. In other words, people of color are no more allowed to use the n-word on these forums as any other ethnic group is. Racial slurs are not allowed at all, unless it's in the context of elaboration.

For example, "this person often says [racial remark], and I think that's racist" is allowable; "Hey, [racial slur], wazzup???" is just as bad as, "so and so is a [racial slur]" or, "all [ethic group]'s are [racial slur]" or, "you're a [racial slur]".

If a member, seeing such a post, concludes and posts that the party who made such a post is being racist, that is also permissible, so long as the member doing so does not engage in racial slurs and remarks themselves.

This same rule applies not only for racism, but for other sensitive topics as well. Discussion is encouraged, name calling (intended as more than a harmless jab between friendly members), accusations, threats and so on are not tolerable.

If any member sees a post that they feel is racist, please do not engage that member further beyond identifying the post as racist and even stating why, and report the post to me by way of email or private message, or simply report the post publicly by posting "racism" and leave it at that. THE REPORT POST LINK WILL NOT NOTIFY ME OF A REPORTED POST. I don't know who it reports to, but it's not me, so don't rely on that. (You can use it if you want, I think it sends an email to the administrator, though, and he doesn't spend much, if any, time here that I know of.)

If you want to report a post to me but remain anonymous to the offending member, then a PM to me works best, I get those before I get my emails. If you need help with how to send a PM, consult the FAQ or just ask me here how to do that.

Let's keep an atmosphere of peace, and sharing on these forums, bitterness and fighting isn't what we're about.

Thank you for your cooperation on this.

Marc.N
11-14-2008, 03:34 PM
..............

Sandra
11-14-2008, 04:45 PM
LMAO! Now THAT's trolling, but it's funny and well deserved trolling! (Of course, I wouldn't try that here.)

It's amazing how angry and hateful people sound on the net. If people could just sit back and take a look at themselves I wonder if they'd be embarrassed at what they see.

Henryk
11-27-2008, 01:46 AM
Wishing everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

Old Sweater
01-31-2009, 12:22 PM
What about racial profiling like Large and others does? Is that permissible?

For instance...........

Hispanics vote for the last name for a candidate in the running......

or......................

Most defensive geniuses are men of color.

Unless 100% of Hispanics vote for the last name and the larger percentage of defensive coordinators are black, it can't be considered nothing but racial profiling.

Does the rules apply to racial profiling or what the poster considers racial profiling? Or do they apply to racial profiling at all?

large
02-02-2009, 11:51 AM
Racial profiling?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah . .

Sonny, we're just reading and repeating surveys by PEW, Rasmussen and several others . .

Here's one to cry about: From Human Rights Watch . .


Racially disaggregated incarceration rates that measure the number of confined blacks and whites per 100,000 residents of each racial group yield another perspective on the extent of racial disparities in imprisonment. Nationwide, blacks are incarcerated at 8.2 times the rate of whites. That is, a black person is 8.2 times more likely to be in prison than a white person. Among individual states, there are even more extraordinary racial disparities in incarceration rates (Figure 3). In seven states -- Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

and Wisconsin -- blacks are incarcerated at more than 13 times the rate of whites. Minnesota has by far the highest disparity -- blacks in that state are incarcerated at 23 times the rate of whites. In the District of Columbia, blacks are incarcerated at 34 times the rate of whites. Even in Hawaii and Vermont, the states with the smallest racial disparities in incarceration rates, blacks are still incarcerated at more than twice the rate of whites.26

Blacks are incarcerated nationally at a rate of 1,547 per 100,000 black residents. In some states, the black rate of incarceration reaches extraordinary levels (Table 3). In Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia, blacks are incarcerated at rates that exceed 2,000 per 100,000. The lowest incarceration rate for blacks, 570 in North Dakota, exceeds the highest rate for whites, 440 in Arizona.

These rates of incarceration reflect a marked increase since the late 1980s. Although rates increased for both whites and blacks in most states between 1988 and 1996, the black rate in most states increased more than the white rate. The national black rate of incarceration increased 67 percent, from 922 per 100,000 black residents to 1547, while the white rate increased 28 percent, from 134 to 188 per 100,000 white residents (Table 4). In nine states --Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin -- the black rate of incarceration doubled. In another twenty-six states, the rate increased by fifty percent or more. In contrast, the white rate increased by fifty percent in fifteen states; in only two states (South Dakota and Washington) did the white rate double. As a result, the ratio of the rates of black to white incarceration increased from 6.8 to 8.2.

To quote this article would label me "Racist" in your little world? No, dipstick, it labels me a "Realist" . . Let's hope the Messiah Obama changes these statistics . .

As for the statement that 95% of the Black American Voters, voted for Barack Obama . . it came from a Rasmussen report a week after the 2008 election.

And for the "Latinos vote the name", Start with the Orange County Weekly, and then degenerate to several national polls (Pew, Rasmussen and Gallup) . . who have confirmed that latinos vote for latinos before they vote for agendas or programs . .

Get some help . . .

CountryFlowers
02-03-2009, 04:37 PM
I'm not the thought police, I'm merely the forum moderator.

My job is to make sure the conversations stay clean and free of spam.

While racial slurs are against the rules, exploring issues isn't.

Now, I must qualify this because I recently deleted a topic that I felt would put the Chieftain and it's participants in a rather precarious and offending position, and that wasn't because of the topic itself (discussing, basically, the topic of sexual assault on children), but because of the content of the topic.

I think the topic of sexual assault on children is important as there are many perverts in most communities nationwide preying on the innocent, and discussing the problem in general is a good thing, but when someone uses this forum to apparently gain support for their sick minded way of thinking, I simply won't allow that at all.

Topics of that type are the kind that I'll play "thought police" on because of the criminal potential it has.

Just about a week ago, here in Pueblo, a prominent citizen was arrested and thrown in jail for sexual assault on a child. This man had been investigated numerous times since 1982, and they never had enough to go on until recently. Can you imagine how many victims this pervert must have had in all that time? That's almost 30 years of molesting children, folks. Could that person have been the one who posted the topic that I deleted?

I have no idea, but I'm glad the man is behind bars and I hope he doesn't get out any time soon. I would hate to think that this forum would have made him feel like he had "permission" to seek out more victims.

So that's the only time I'll play thought police. If the alleged profiling heading in a direction that becomes racist negativities meant to insult others, yes, I'll step in and do something about that. But I won't step in and tell people how to think.

At the same time, though, I'm asking all of you to please try to be considerate of other people's feelings during your conversations. I'm not asking anyone to walk on egg shells, however.

Old Sweater
02-08-2009, 03:51 AM
Racial profiling?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah . .

Sonny, we're just reading and repeating surveys by PEW, Rasmussen and several others . .

Here's one to cry about: From Human Rights Watch . .



To quote this article would label me "Racist" in your little world? No, dipstick, it labels me a "Realist" . . Let's hope the Messiah Obama changes these statistics . .

As for the statement that 95% of the Black American Voters, voted for Barack Obama . . it came from a Rasmussen report a week after the 2008 election.

And for the "Latinos vote the name", Start with the Orange County Weekly, and then degenerate to several national polls (Pew, Rasmussen and Gallup) . . who have confirmed that latinos vote for latinos before they vote for agendas or programs . .

Get some help . . .


Well until the poll shows 100% percent it is racial profiling against the other 5%, but I guess you don't care about them. Not surprising.