The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Ok Bill I'm done wasting time with you, you have not a shred of intellectual honesty here and repeatedly misstate my position intentionally.

Hey Robert - for shits and giggles, have you ever thought of posting the ignore counts of users?

I'm not interested in (nor expect) an online community that is all nice-nice as much as I am interested in seeing the addressing and removal of hateful, baiting behavior. I'm hopeful that the forum is moving away from inflammatory, derogatory language that can only be described purposely discriminatory - e.g. the removal of 'hate' speech.

Removal of hate speech or language that is purposefully intended to do some emotional harm to a member due to their political persuasion, alternate lifestyle, sexuality, or gender identity or race.

I understand that proposed changes in the interface (and eventually the atmosphere) of this online community should not be about popularity contests or removal of disagreements or removal of harsh or passionate discussions that get out of hand. In my mind, ..my hope ..it's to help in keeping a lid on that corrosive atmosphere and hate speech and slurs.

Hawkeye's repeated attempts to denigrate certain individuals, particularly at the expense of someone who happened to espoused a gay lifestyle needed to be addressed. IMHO, he earned a ban of some sort due to his extreme behavioral history towards community member/members. He knew very well about the individual's sensitivities and may have manipulated the circumstances to see if he could get the person to leave the community. He had done such a harassing behavior to more than one member. A stop to that behavior was long need.

While he's not responsible for the person's sensitivities, what he is/was responsible for is what I perceive as 'hate' speech. This sort of behavior is not a singular isolated event... and should not just singularly be about Hawkeye behavior, either.

IMHO, an online community that moves toward elimination of hate speech is a worthwhile community in which to participate.


While I'm on the topic:
Another example of hate speech I feel should be addressed had occurred about a week ago. An individual who virtually floods the site and averages about 15-20 posts per day (every single day) was involved in what I call spewing of 'hate' speech. Whether or not intended, others can judge the behavior for themselves. First of all, the term needs to be understood. The scenario that occurred is someone was discussing Zionists. This offending member referred to Zionists as being equal to being a kike. There's another prime example of vicious hate speech and a derogatory slur that has to go!

Many non-Jewish people don't understand the inflammatory and derogatory hateful nature of the term. For those that don't understand the nature of the word (or are simply curious), here's Wiki link to the word and its origins: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kike

However, the problem I'm trying to get to here ... and the point ... is equating and associating Zionism, a political philosophy and religious movement, with such a vile, hateful slur. This is not a behavior that exemplifies just an extreme insensitivity. It's that same 'baiting' behavior that should be discouraged and hopefully eliminated from a forum community for the sake of all who participate.

You've now made your position much clearer than in your opening posts. I have no problem with anything you've said, nor, for that matter, with anything you've ever done or posted on A2K.

I read many,but not all of Hawkeyes posts and while I noted many sexist comments I never noticed any anti-gay or anti-Jewish posts. He at times appeared to me to be sexist and I've commented on this in another thread.

Does sexism ( expressed via speech) fall into the area of what you're calling "hate speech"?

You're talking about me, Rags, and you should know damn well that wasn't "hate speech." But, as you said, others can judge for themselves.



You haven't been around the block too many times, Rags, if you're unaware that there are many (not all) who use "Zionist" as virtually synonomous with "jew." And many spit the word out with such venom and contempt that is becomes clear that they are using as a euphemism for the ("politically incorrect") word, "kike."

That is an observation from experience. A fact is a fact, sorry.

But your concerns do touch on another topic that I find interesting. Let's just take what is (or should be) a neutral word such as "jew." If I called someone a jew, is that:

1. Merely an objective fact (assuming they are a jew)
2. A contemptuous insult,
3. An expression of approval, even admiration, or
4. Something else?

A lot of that would depend on the intent of the person saying it, and have nothing, per se, to do with the person hearing it, don't you agree? To illustrate: A skinhead might intend #2, another jew might intend #3, and so on.

Put another way, the "offense," if any, is not in the word itself, nor is it even in the sensitivities of the "offended" person. A person can always "take" offense, even where none was "given" (intended).

Many homosexuals call each other, and refer to themselves, as "fags." Likewise, many blacks call each other "nigga."

How can the WORD itself be inherently offensive?

I don't want to engage in a debate over this particularly nor do I want to add any more notoriety (or infamy) to Hawkeye's history of the problematic behavior. Here's one of the more notable recent posts...where he creates slurs and engages in what I call hate speech specifically directed towards a gay forum member.

Whether or not he's a sexist is clearly not debatable but his online persona seemingly (to me) was based on pot-stirring groups such as feminists in search of pressing the hot button. When and where he would go over the line is a moderator issue. Personally, I found it offensive and tiring. I generally would scroll past his pile-ups and habitual habit of provoking feminists (rape thread, etc.). IMHO, it was a tedious act. Baiting others for sport is tedious, but hate speech is a whole other kettle of fish.

After this last event, and after his long history of outrageously bad behavior, he got stopped. I'm not indicating or explaining why Robert did what he did. I'm simply expressing what I would have done.

IMHO, the forum atmosphere is improved in his absence.

I will acknowledge that I've read your comments. I'm not going to blow it off with no comment. I will say that you make some analogies that I don't see as parallel. I choose not to engage in a semantics dance or reply to you at this time. At some other point in time I may but not right now. It's a sunny day here in so FLA when others are shivering in the colder climates..and I want to enjoy life and the sunshine and get away from the computer.

The example of hate speech you identify is one that bothers me. Was anyone called that word? Did you report it?

About one year ago on A2K, close to a holiday ( which one I don't know )I posted innocent comments on two different threads. On one comment, in the TAG section, someone called me "WHITE TRASH" and on the second comment, someone( the same one?) in the TAG section called me "JEW TRASH".

I contacted a moderator, who removed the TAGS.

I'm not going to debate you about this episode. Suffice it to say, the whole thing made me sick.

I could be wrong but I think I'm aware of the post you've referenced and I believe if you reread it, you'll realize that the poster was being facetious. I don't believe he meant that Zionists were equal to "kikes," but that the term "Zionist" was a substitute, for some people, for the term "kike." In other words, anti-Zionists are thinly disguised anti-Semites. Whether or not anyone ascribes to such an opinion of anti-Zionists is immaterial for this discussion.

I raise this not simply as what I believe to be a correction of your misunderstanding, but to provide a good example, IMO, of the difficulties with specific word filters, zero-tolerance for the use of certain terms, and censorship in general. (Not that such mechanisms have been discussed by Robert as part of the new A2K)

Several years ago I wrote an e-mail at work that included a sentence that read something like "I believe we will find that if we decide not to compromise on this request, it will queer the deal." The e-mail was about a page in length and so the sentence wouldn't have necessarily stood out.

After I sent it, I got a Non-delivery message that simply advised me it couldn't be delivered to it's intended recipient. To make a long story short after re-sending it several times and exhausting the few remedies I thought might work, I spoke to someone in IT. Eventually he asked me if it was possible that I had used a term that the systems "profanity filter" might block. Obviously, the offending word was "queer." Once replaced with a synonym, the e-mail was delivered.

The point, of course, is that my use of the term had absolutely nothing to do with anyone's sexual orientation, and was entirely innocuous. In retrospect, I suppose I could have anticipated a problem using the word, but first of all I wasn't aware that a "profanity filter" was being utilized and, secondly, given the context in which I was using it, it didn't even occur to me that someone (including a censor) would misinterpret my usage. Frankly, if I had paused to consider it's use I would have went with it not only because it was perfectly acceptable in the context of the e-mail, but because zero-tolerance policies annoy me. (I am reminded of the Washington DC official who got in hot water for using "niggardly" in a speech despite the fact that his usage was totally appropriate and entirely innocent of malice)

In the case of the post to which I believe you refer, the word "kike" was used. I think we would probably agree that "kike" is akin to "fag" in terms of being a slur that paints a wider group that any individual addressed and so if the poster wrote something like "Shut the hell up you kike!" and a moderator became aware of it, he probably would have (or should have) suffered a suspension; based on the logic behind the hawkeye case.

Now if I am right in my interpretation of the poster's usage then not only was he not using "kike" in a mean-spirited and derogatory manner, he was, if not defending Jews and/or Zionism, at least making a negative statement about anti-Semitism.

I presume that if you had reported the post and the moderator agreed with your interpretation so that a suspension was seriously considered, the poster, would have, at least, been advised of the alleged offense and been given a chance to explain his actual intention.

At least I hope so. I once had a comment rejected at the Comments section of a major newspaper's online site. I wasn't notified in anyway as to why or even that it had been rejected. I did notice that it didn't show up and so after a period of time wrote to the paper asking them for an explanation. They provided one and it was clear they had misinterpreted what I wrote. I disabused them of their misunderstanding and they apologized and allowed it to appear on their site. I'm fairly sure it was an innocent mistake by someone that has to make a lot of rapid decisions on the fly about posts. Some of the articles generate fast and furious commentary. No real harm, no foul, but it does point out that words can be misinterpreted.

I think we all need to be prepared to re-examine whatever posts we immediately find offensive, not simply to prevent unnecessary reporting of posts to moderators, but to prevent unnecessary turmoil in our discussions. I would venture to say that almost all of us, at one time or another, have had our comments misinterpreted here. That it's often by someone who, for whatever reason, has an ax to grind going in may be a coincidence, but I doubt it.

(Of course if we are each referring to two entirely different posts... )

Certainly not by me, and I am who Rags is talking about. I see his efforts to point out that it is a "slur" as an attempt to insinuate that it was used as a slur--which it definitely was NOT.

Your reading is correct, Finn, as I think would be clear to anyone who knew the context. Rags simply took it out of context. Perhaps he never even read the post(s) and just happened to see the word, I don't know. But, like your email example, trying to judge naked words, out of context, is pretty shallow (or possibly an attempt to "frame" someone by way of complaints about "taking offense" when none was intended).

Saying that someone is Zionist is not antisemitic. As Ragman pointed out, that's a description of a political position based on a religious conviction. Not all Israelis are Zionists. By no means are all Jews Zionists. The post in which the term "kike" was used was an attempt to slur people who are critical of Zionists with an unfounded claim that those people are antisemitic. The low-life scumbag who used it is a constant provacateur here, and got a twofer--he got to slam people in particular whom he seems to dislike and he got to use a nasty racist term which was a blanket slur of all Jews. There was absolutely no basis for a contention that i was talking about all Jews or all Israelis--because i was the one who was using the term Zionist. Anyone familiar with the posting style of the one who used "kike" will understand all of this.

To begin with, there are different meanings of Zionism. Secondly, although one of those meanings has an element of religious conviction to it, that is not tantamount to a political postion (except in the broadest sense--support for the existence of the nation of Israel). Thirdly, many Zionists are not religious. Fourthly, some Zionists are not even jews, and I know that. I wasn't addressing people who have an adequate understanding of these things, but rather some of those that don't.

And I don't recall talking to you, in particular, about the problem. I do recall others where the issue came up--e.g., the resident conspiracy theorist, Q.

In your case, your prejudices may just be anti-religious in general, and not just anti-Semitic in particular. Or it may just be general left-wing extremism (and the commies, beginning with Marx, do have a long and brutal history of being anti-Semitic).

And before you go off on some long-ass spiel about how Marx WAS jewish, let me offer this as an example of what I meant:

Nah, that wouldn't be good for the community, IMO.

For someone who pretends to be a "shuckin' and jivin'" black man, that would be hilarious, were it not so scurrilous. Americans of African descent are notorious for their antisemitism, going so far as to blame the slave trade on Jews. As usual, you protest too much.

This is a definition from the Jewish Virtual Library:




The basis for referring to Palestine (the name used for that region of the middle east at the time of the foundation of that state of Israel) as "the homeland" is entirely religious--the claim that "god" gave that land to the Jews. Whatever permutations of Zionism have since evolved, the claim that Palestine is a homeland to which the Jews are morally entitled is a religious claim. I do not oppose the existence of the State of Israel--it's a fait accompli which it would be monstrous to attempt to undo. That does not alter that the most virulent haters of those in Palestine who are not Jews are Zionists. The extremists of Zionism call for the removal of "Arabs" from Israel, and are responsible for almost seventy years of bloody slaughter in Palestine.

Anyone who refers to Jews as "kikes" has used a demeaning racist epithet, and in the absence of anyone else using the term, is responsible for that racist remark.

Kike is definitely a racial slur, and one we would not permit depending on context (obviously we are both using it here in a context that needs to be allowed to discuss it). That is something that would be worth reporting.



Any of those kinds of slurs when used in derogation toward a user or even a group of people is not going to be tolerated. It has always been against the rules and though we do not have enough volunteer mods to maintain those rules perfectly we are going to try to improve our coverage of this kind of thing.

Glad to see you understand that, Bob. Not that I would have expected otherwise, but, still....

The level of self restraint and mannerly discourse on this site has certainly declined over the past decade,though to some degree that may merely be an inevitsable consequence of its growth.

There are posters here whom I would certainly like to see less of. Many are needlessly crude and inclined to substitute personal attacks for what could otherwise be interesting discourse and even dispute over contending ideas and view points. That said I would be reluctant to impose my view of what, in effect constitutes an "asshole" on everyone else. Indeed once one starts down that road, even if he does so with the best intentions in mind, he is drawn inexorably into value judgments about motives and beliefs. The result is usually crowd based intolerance, and a good deal of the commentaty above illustrates just that. I believe such an effort would ultimately destroy this site.