a2k sucks

If its used as fighting words or to cause disruption vs furthering the conversation, why couldn't it be juried by members to determine whether it meets community standards or not?

And obviously it's OK to bash Americans, but to your point, within America while bashing all these other groups is verboten (although not so with the French), Southerners, particularly white male American Southerners who work outdoors with their hands, are fair game. I think that deep inside of everyone (or for that matter right on the surface) there is a desire to mock others. In the Good Old Days there was available a tremendous buffet table of targets. In our ultra-sensitive world of today, just about all of the targets have been removed from the table. Rather than eliminating mockery altogether, enlightened cultures have reached a consensus on who are acceptable targets. American Southerners all carry the Mark of Cain thanks to their ancestors owning slave so they're a very likely target. Add to this the fact that they tend to be conservative in both political and social affairs and Voila! The abuse worthy Redneck, Hillbilly, and Walmart Shopper are chosen as America's acceptable targets of mockery.

To a lesser extent, within the US, White Americans in general are acceptable targets. This is more the case with liberals than the general public although everyone seems to laugh uproariously whenever a black comedian impersonates a tight-assed, "unhip" White person. For the American liberal, no one is more deserving of mockery than White Men (and if they are old, they practically beg to be abused). But of course old White males are, largely, evil and responsible for all the bad things that happen to these other off-limits groups so the basher doesn't have to concern him or herself with a conscious that questions whether any sort of mockery is a very nice thing in which to engage. It's not mockery, it's retribution! Speaking Truth to Power!

BTW - Since when is it "baaaad" to bash Londoners, the Brits outside of London do it all the time, and who bashes Canadians? What's there to bash about them, they're too busy trying hard not to be Americans to be drawing much attention from the rest of the world.

To be fair, arrogance attracts bashing which accounts for the prolific bashing of Americans and the French. You guys also got something of a bad wrap with WWII that has provided great fodder for French Bashers. The rep relative to WWII is deserved, but given France's long history of military involvement and triumphs, prior to taking a knee when the Nazis invaded, it's very unfair to characterize the French as cowards in war. However that's what bashers do. I think sometimes it's done in fun; for instance when the Scottish janitor on The Simpsons refers to the French as "Surrender Monkeys." No one loves fun at their expense, but this is where the arrogance factor come in. If you're arrogant (either individually or nationally) expect to be bashed.

Yes, I appreciate that your comment was made somewhat in jest, and obviously so is this reply, but you have to admit that it does irk you a bit.

Whoa, whoa, whooooaa.... The Canadians should not be on this list. It's an American tradition to bash Canadians. I mean come on, boxing day? What even is that?! Add to that they celebrate Thanksgiving in October... There is just no end. [/shakes head]

Pardon me panzade, but this is a load of crap and implies that you and the members of society you identify as the "good guys" have the perfect definition of misogyny and racism, and, more importantly, that you can accurately and with precision identify them wherever they rear their ugly heads.

I'll ask you to review the same statements I asked bobsal to review. Do any of them strike you as expressions of misogyny:

• One poster addresses another as “honey” or “sweet-cakes.”
• A poster comments that he believes women with children should stay at home and care for their children rather than pursuing a career
• A poster comments that he believes a significant number of the rape allegations being made on US campuses are either greatly distorted or outright fabrications being used as weapons to either settle scores or garner attention
• A poster comments that he believes there is a significant difference in the way the two genders think and that as a result one gender may be better suited for a specific career or profession than the other
• A poster comments that most of the women who are being sexually harassed at work have through certain of their own actions and behaviors invited the unwanted attention and perhaps at some level the attention is not unwanted.



I have no idea and I know you don't either. You believe the answer is zero, I suspect, because your mindset tells you that minorities cannot be racist or bigoted and women cannot be misogynistic. I, of course, disagree, but it is the mindset described that concerns me because it immediately creates a class of people for whom otherwise unacceptable behavior is tolerated and another who are almost by default guilty and who must be watched closely for transgressions. When an idea is broadly banned it is very easy to subjectively find examples of transgressions.

Now you can tell me all day that this will never happen in A2K and perhaps it won't but the purpose of safeguards (whether designed for freedoms or anything else) is to ensure that bad things don't happen, not to correct the bad things that do happen. Without them, the likelihood of bad things happening increases because, as has been born out in a myriad of situations over centuries of history, people cannot be relied upon to always to the right thing.



And how are you going to do this? How do you do this?

Presumably you combat these evils by responding to posts where you see them displayed, identifying them for what they are and explaining why they are vile and harmful. From a rhetorical standpoint, anything other than this is silly and futile. Posting "YOU ARE A DUMB RACIST F*CK!" may feel good but it certainly does nothing to combat racism (I hasten to add this is not something you specifically have done or would do.)

Frankly the more reasoned response I've described probably won't do much to combat racism either, but it has a shot. Since any rhetorical response to the evil is, at best, a long shot, what are you left with? Prohibition?

First of all you don't have that power in this forum or probably anywhere, but if you did, why should any of us assume that you would wield it wisely and objectively? Because you say you will? I don't for one minute believe that you (or anyone else) is able to accurately identify each and every expression of true racism or misogyny that appears in this forum. You've already suggested that you will give a pass to such expressions when they are made by members who you believe are the minorities they claim to be.

The proper response to speech one finds offensive is speech, not prohibition. Of course I am not advocating totally free speech in this forum. There are plenty of rhetorical behaviors and practices that I believe can be clearly defined and properly prohibited. I don't, however find that calling someone a "sick racist pig" is any more acceptable than calling someone a "dumb slut" or an "ignorant Paky" (or however it's spelled) Because someone thinks they are combating evil when they employ crude invective doesn't make that invective acceptable, no matter how many upvotes they may get from other posters.

By banning invective there is no need to determine motivation and no possibility to misinterpret (deliberately or otherwise) the intent of the poster.

Izzy has explained in a post that in the UK use of the "C" word is not attached to gender, and for what it's worth I can back him up on this. Calling someone the "C" word should not be acceptable in this forum, but an assumption that it's use implied the user hated women could easily be inaccurate.

Ultimately, my point is that it should not be necessary to take the risk inherent in banning ideas in order to improve the quality of interaction in this forum.

It may make people feel good that they are part of the fight to combat evil, but as the old saying goes...The road to hell is paved with good intention. To which I would add that is heavily traveled by sanctimonious people who feel the need to combat ideas with prohibition rather than competing ideas.

This is a reasonable response however I think you are displaying an unfortunate degree of defensiveness when you imply that a perception that the rules are being selectively applied is necessarily unreasonable.

I don't know that this is the case, and the fact that you have decided, for whatever reason, to make hawkeye the poster boy for A2K "assholes," is not necessarily proof of anything other than your personal distaste for him. I have always hated the idea of "reporting" posts and in fact, I bet that a lot of the reports you get are not due to someone being sincerely offended but because they want to take a shot at somebody. In any case, going forward I intend to use the function since it is the only way available to determine if there is selective enforcement at work, and I encourage any other members who have expressed a similar concern (and there are some and they know who they are) to do so as well.

Again, not as a means of joining in a tribal "report" skirmish, but to prove to ourselves that our concerns are not justified.

It was a joke.

Whether or not it's racist I know someone who is Chinese and if he is referred to as "oriental" he responds "What am I a rug?"

Personally, I think it's silly. I don't have a problem with people preferring to be referred one term over another and clearly some terms people are used are intended to be slurs, but expecting people to stay current on the preferred term du jour is ridiculous.

It's all about intent and I can't imagine anyone uses "oriental," intentionally, as a slur. Some people just like to be offended.

I almost always make sense, but those who disagree with me don't always see it so Thank you though for that somewhat left-handed compliment.

THANK YOU! At least someone understood.

I have a suggestion and a request for the future A2K - ban everyone that starts or joins in on the these pun streams within a thread!

(I know, I know...In my community I can ban puns)

Not surprised. You tend toward the notion of enforcing goodness of ideas

Ok so when you visit your homey in LA, Japanese who lie west to you are "westerners" or "occidentals" and the good folk in, SAY, England are "orientals"... I see.

And if you ever go to Thailand (homeys are very good there, been told), the Afghans will be instantly occidentalized.

Exactly, Finn.

That is not what I meant. I said that it is not reasonable to expect all posts to be moderated and thusly all posts that break community rules to be acted upon. I think that a significant portion of the users will have their qualms with moderation and think that it should have done this or not done that. That will never not be the case.

Whaaat??? So far you were doing good (you're right on Americans being fair game in some quarters. I always thought that the sort of antiamericanism de rigueur in the French left was a form of racism) but y You lost me there. I hope i didn't come across as someone who wants to eliminate mockery... I'm just asking for fair treatment of all slur on A2K, using the same criteria than for everybody else. Égalité. A leveled playing field. No double standard. You've been asking for the same thing, unless I misunderstood you.

It's all very simple. In short, if you can't say it about them "Negroes" or "Youpees", well then you can't say it about them Yanks or Frogs. If you think you can't say "Blacks are dirty", what makes you think you can say "the French are dirty"? (not YOU, i mean anyone)


We bash French Canadians. but very very gently...


Yeah well, that may apply to me and to quite a few French and Americans... but i've travelled the world and the seven seas, and can tell you that arrogance (and racism) is in no short supply in this world. We all look down to each other, we human beings, everywhere. There's the arrogance of the Parisian intelkectual of course, and that of the American billionaire of course, but also that of the Chinese official, the Thai who see sea gypsies and montainers as inferiors and foreigners, the Afghan who idealize the pack of tribes he calls Afghanistan, the Turk, the Russian, the German and yes, the Brit, they all have more than their fair share of arrogance. Even totally inconsciously, we often see our own team as better than it is. More central to the whole game than it is. We are all equal ALSO in that no nation is without pride and prejudices.


Yep. Nobody likes to be the but of a stereotype, unless he can fire back another at his opponent. I don't take racist jokes too seriously, can dish them out when NOT with REAL racists of course, as JOKES. nor would I endorse a ban on the word "orientalist".

In fact i love orientalist writers and painters, as unreal and as prejudiced as they are. That dreamed orient of them is more fascinating because it is a european fantasy, not less. We're all self-centrist in a way, and we all invent other nations as we like to invent them.

But double standards are annoying.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
Commies are coming.
I'm stocking up now on canned goods and bottled water.

God knows I've tried, but they skate too damn fast.

They drive even faster. It's scary to get on a freeway in Québec.

Ya wanna see hosers bashed? No problem, give them a buncha hockey sticks and a puck, and they'll bash each other to death.

Make sure to pack a can opener, and not the electric kind.

I used to think all hosers were plumb stupid, but now I make an exception for the McKenzie brothers because they wised me up to this great scam!