At Last A Forum With Free Speech- Newsfix Rocks.

[Major]

The forums I have been on where you are banned for even thinking the things we freely discuss here.

We must be allowed to vent our views, even anger if we want to.

Sassy can even have her purely racist, hatred views of us Brits put into script.

Most forums say they have free speech but it is untrue when it comes to debating, queers, terrorists, Muslims lesbos and so on.

Newfix Rocks,





unless you know different.

[Ben Reilly]

We do encourage free expression, but please don't use slurs like "queers" and "lesbos."

[Major]

We do encourage free expression, but please don't use slurs like "queers" and "lesbos."

I take your point Ben.

Repeatedly calling posters 'racists' 'bigots' 'nazis' are also slurs Ben, do you not agree?
If someone outside of forums called you a Nazi for example I bet you would react.
I do like a level playing field.

[Ben Reilly]

We do encourage free expression, but please don't use slurs like "queers" and "lesbos."

I take your point Ben.

Repeatedly calling posters 'racists' 'bigots' 'nazis' are also slurs Ben, do you not agree?
If someone outside of forums called you a Nazi for example I bet you would react.
I do like a level playing field.

I don't like to see "Nazi" here either. However, what else are you going to call views that are racist or bigoted, besides "racist" and "bigoted"?

[Andy]

Stormee a Nazi?
He is far worse than that.
Even his avatar is designed to provoke.
He wears Nazi as a badge of honour.
There is a forum that is perfectly suited for his extreme far right,racist, anti Muslim, and homophobic views.
I would post a link , but Eddie would tell me off and Dean thinks he banned me

[eddie]

Stormee a Nazi?
He is far worse than that.
Even his avatar is designed to provoke.
He wears Nazi as a badge of honour.
There is a forum that is perfectly suited for his extreme far right,racist, anti Muslim, and homophobic views.
I would post a link , but Eddie would tell me off and Dean thinks he banned me

Do you talk about Dean to other people in your life too? Your work colleagues, friends and family....the dog....
Or is it just here, every time you put your finger to your keyboard?

[eddie]

And storm? I'm backing Ben here.
Please don't use the terms queer and lesbo; they're not slloŵed.

Thanks

[Original Quill]

Well...and we don't want to become overly PC, either.

All in all, I think Storm's right...this is a good place for all. Freedom of speech is cardinal in this place.

[eddie]

Well...and we don't want to become overly PC, either.

All in all, I think Storm's right...this is a good place for all.  Freedom of speech is cardinal in this place.

Hahahaha you don't even like calling people by the colour they are and tiptoe round your own language! You're one of the most PC on here!!!
Free speech? Lol lol lol ad finitum

[Major]

Stormee a Nazi?
He is far worse than that.
Even his avatar is designed to provoke.
He wears Nazi as a badge of honour.
There is a forum that is perfectly suited for his extreme far right,racist, anti Muslim, and homophobic views.
I would post a link , but Eddie would tell me off and Dean thinks he banned me

Explain, "far worse than that" when referring to me as a Nazi.
You are implying that using words is worse than, gassing people to death, concentration camps, forced tattooing.
You really need to get a realistic perspective on things.

It is people like you who are helping to ruin this country, I hope you are ashamed of yourself..

Get this right, I hate, loathe, abhor anyone who does anything detrimental towards my country, if you or anyone else wants to call me names for being patriotic, loyal, caring, then so be it but you gotta expect to get some back which is not really my style but for you I will make a exception.

[Major]

I take your point Ben.

Repeatedly calling posters 'racists' 'bigots' 'nazis' are also slurs Ben, do you not agree?
If someone outside of forums called you a Nazi for example I bet you would react.
I do like a level playing field.

I don't like to see "Nazi" here either. However, what else are you going to call views that are racist or bigoted, besides "racist" and "bigoted"?

Nazi is implying I kill, gas, torture people amongst other things.
There is NOTHING wrong in being 'bigoted', which means biased, prejudiced.
'Everyone' is biased, prejudiced even mods, site owners as THEY DEMAND certain words should not be scribed by posters with the threat of a ban hanging over them when a mod, site owner can say all the biased things they like and let certain things be said, condone by their silence which is much more than a slur to some posters..

Free speech is for everyone, not a select few.

If you wanna ban the words "queer and lesbo" which are harmless in comparison to Nazi I cannot stop you.

I would like to here the views of other Newsfixers on WHY a slur is so important as to ban it when you can call someone all the filthy names under the sun without reprimand.

Please be civil.

Fairness for everyone.

[eddie]

Storm I don't think any words should be banned actually. I think it's stupid to ban a word when another can be found that could be considered far worse.
And what's a bad word to some, is nothing, to others.

Words are just words. They can't hurt you if you don't let them.

I dislike PC. I hate it, in fact. I don't practice it at home nor with friends, if anyone is offended - their problem not mine.

However.
This is Ben's forum and as such, he really does have the final say. As a moderator I abide by the rules becasue I can find ways to say what I want to say without using banned words.


Hope that helps.

[nicko]

If you stop people saying what they like, you can't stop 'em thinking it.

[Syl]

I don't think any forum can have total free speech, there are such things as  libel laws....even on the internet.

I'm not struck on banning certain words though, what's offensive to one may not be offensive to someone else, so where do you stop?
I tend to just see so called un pc words as either the way that person would talk in RL, or just used to evoke a reaction of some sort.

Personally I don't see the point of upsetting anyone by calling names or using derogatory terms, but the joy of a good forum is that we all bring our own bit of individuality to it...good and bad..

[Major]

Storm I don't think any words should be banned actually. I think it's stupid to ban a word when another can be found that could be considered far worse.
And what's a bad word to some, is nothing, to others.

Words are just words. They can't hurt you if you don't let them.

I dislike PC. I hate it, in fact. I don't practice it at home nor with friends, if anyone is offended - their problem not mine.

However.
This is Ben's forum and as such, he really does have the final say. As a moderator I abide by the rules becasue I can find ways to say what I want to say without using banned words.


Hope that helps.

All sincere help is appreciated eddie.

I had not worked out whos forum it was, prob forget anyway lol

eddie, we are surely entitled to 'fairness for all'.

[Original Quill]

Well...and we don't want to become overly PC, either.

All in all, I think Storm's right...this is a good place for all.  Freedom of speech is cardinal in this place.

Hahahaha you don't even  like calling people by the colour they are and tiptoe round your own language!  You're one of the most PC on here!!!  
Free speech? Lol lol lol ad finitum

And you are the one who is always opposing free speech. Unfortunately for Europeans, who are opposed to freedom of expression, this is an American site. America is governed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ..

And as Stormee pointed out, it feels refreshing, innit?

[Major]

Over the years I have noticed forums where free speech is denied fade away to nothing or just a shadow without many members.

EVERYONE is a bigot to their personal preferences.

[Original Quill]

Over the years I have noticed forums where free speech is denied  fade away to nothing or just a shadow without many members.

EVERYONE is a bigot to their personal preferences.

Case in point: Best UK Forums, or BUKF.

[Syl]

Storm I don't think any words should be banned actually. I think it's stupid to ban a word when another can be found that could be considered far worse.
And what's a bad word to some, is nothing, to others.

Words are just words. They can't hurt you if you don't let them.

I dislike PC. I hate it, in fact. I don't practice it at home nor with friends, if anyone is offended - their problem not mine.

However.
This is Ben's forum and as such, he really does have the final say. As a moderator I abide by the rules becasue I can find ways to say what I want to say without using banned words.


Hope that helps.

I agree with most of what you say eddie....not the highlighted bit though.

Words can and do hurt. I have known some really good posters leave forums because of the words that have been flung at them.

[veya_victaous]

Well...and we don't want to become overly PC, either.

All in all, I think Storm's right...this is a good place for all.  Freedom of speech is cardinal in this place.

Hahahaha you don't even  like calling people by the colour they are and tiptoe round your own language!  You're one of the most PC on here!!!  
Free speech? Lol lol lol ad finitum

YES that's free speech
Quill is free to complain (as part of his freedom of speech) but he never asks for people to be banned or punished.

[Guest]

Over the years I have noticed forums where free speech is denied  fade away to nothing or just a shadow without many members.

EVERYONE is a bigot to their personal preferences.

you can`t link "bigot" and "personal preferences" like that
unless you completely want to throw out the English language ?

bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.


personal preferences are
1 personal
2 relates to your self
3 a choice

So to claim and link "every one is a bigot because of there personal preferences" is just ludicrous .

[Guest]

Over the years I have noticed forums where free speech is denied  fade away to nothing or just a shadow without many members.

EVERYONE is a bigot to their personal preferences.

you can`t link "bigot" and "personal preferences" like that
unless you completely want to throw out the English language ?

bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.


personal preferences are
1 personal
2 relates to your self
3 a choice

So to claim and link "every one is a bigot because of there personal preferences" is just ludicrous .

Everyone is a bigot and to claim otheriwse is nonsense.
Are you saying you are not bigoted to men who has the opinion to have sex with young girls?
An extremist far right that promotes hate and violence?
An extremist Islamist that promotes hate and  violence?
An extremeist anti-homosexual who holds hate and violent views against homosexuals?

[Victorismyhero]

thats a very harsh...but precise....definition of bigotry though didge

is it possible to reconstruct the idea of bigot to

bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. unless those different opinions are repugnant?

of course THAT then involves the whole concept of something being repunant to one culture/group and not to another

I mean we see your first example as quite correct

but (say) methodists find drinking alcohol repugnant

mmmm....


back to is there any such thing as absolute evil

or is evil "relative" to your group

[Guest]

thats a very harsh...but precise....definition of bigotry though didge

is it possible to reconstruct the idea of bigot to

bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. unless those different opinions are repugnant?

of course THAT then involves the whole concept of something being repunant to one culture/group and not to another

I mean we see your first example as quite correct

but (say) methodists find drinking alcohol repugnant

mmmm....


back to is there any such thing as absolute evil

or is evil "relative" to your group

But lets be honest Victor and not having a go at Korben, we have all been intolerant at some point of others views.
Mainly because some things mean more to us than others, its the nature of who we are.
I certainly more and more believe to allow people to express their views but again there is a tipping point if where some  were promoting violence towards others. But then even then most of us would not bat an eyelid to many promoting violence towards ISIS as like you say they are what many would define as evi andt they stand against the golden rule, which then makes us defy that rule because of that threat from them.

Which then boils down to rationally if something is a threat to your way of life, which I think ISIS can easily be classified with that, as they do not respect the rights of others. Where we respect the rights of others to have the same equality under the law. If you were under threat the natural and most rational think to do is to protect from that threat.

[Eilzel]

Saying words don't hurt is wrong.

How does a black person, who may have suffered real racial abuse in the past, know if someone who uses n word is just a casual bigot or poses a danger? Of course if someone is going to carry out a racist attack they would do regardless of saying a word but simply using it might cause a person to feel unnecessarily intimidated.

How does a gay child feel, still closeted and worried how people will react, feel when people around them use words like faggot? Not good I'll tell you, and the natural conclusion is to think everyone using those words would not accept gay people. So they stay closeted, with all the shit feeling that goes with it.

Words aren't nothing.

[Guest]

Saying words don't hurt is wrong.

How does a black person, who may have suffered real racial abuse in the past, know if someone who uses n word is just a casual bigot or poses a danger? Of course if someone is going to carry out a racist attack they would do regardless of saying a word but simply using it might cause a person to feel unnecessarily intimidated.

How does a gay child feel, still closeted and worried how people will react, feel when people around them use words like faggot? Not good I'll tell you, and the natural conclusion is to think everyone using those words would not accept gay people. So they stay closeted, with all the shit feeling that goes with it.

Words aren't nothing.

Completely agree Eilzel, and people have committed suicide from such verbal constant abuse.
However there is a flip side here where we know some people in the world take offense to the piss take of a religious figure or deity and are so angered they will literal kill over this.

[Guest]

thats a very harsh...but precise....definition of bigotry though didge

is it possible to reconstruct the idea of bigot to

bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. unless those different opinions are repugnant?

of course THAT then involves the whole concept of something being repunant to one culture/group and not to another

I mean we see your first example as quite correct

but (say) methodists find drinking alcohol repugnant

mmmm....


back to is there any such thing as absolute evil

or is evil "relative" to your group

But lets be honest Victor and not having a go at Korben, we have all been intolerant at some point of others views.
Mainly because some things mean more to us than others, its the nature of who we are.
I certainly more and more believe to allow people to express their views but again there is a tipping point if where some  were promoting violence towards others. But then even then most of us would not bat an eyelid to many promoting violence towards ISIS as like you say they are what many would define as evi andt they stand against the golden rule, which then makes us defy that rule because of that threat from them.

Which then boils down to rationally if something is a threat to your way of life, which I think ISIS can easily be classified with that, as they do not respect the rights of others. Where we respect the rights of others to have the same equality under the law. If you were under threat the natural and most rational think to do is to protect from that threat.

what you are doing is trying to make all words equal "bigot ,preference,intolerant, choice the words are not equal your conflating the underlying intent and accepted understanding of how the words are used in an attempt to support your premise





i have a preference for milk over alcohol i am not bigoted against alcohol and on very rare occasions i might have a sip

i

[veya_victaous]

words should be nothing..
they are not but they should be,
they are to those with a strong support network.

@les
the child needs to see that gay men are not treated any different, and for that we need to make a world where they aren't treated.
A world where people are treated as individuals and valued based on their individuals traits and achievements.

[veya_victaous]

thats a very harsh...but precise....definition of bigotry though didge

is it possible to reconstruct the idea of bigot to

bigot is a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions. unless those different opinions are repugnant?

of course THAT then involves the whole concept of something being repunant to one culture/group and not to another

I mean we see your first example as quite correct

but (say) methodists find drinking alcohol repugnant

mmmm....


back to is there any such thing as absolute evil

or is evil "relative" to your group

But lets be honest Victor and not having a go at Korben, we have all been intolerant at some point of others views.
Mainly because some things mean more to us than others, its the nature of who we are.
I certainly more and more believe to allow people to express their views but again there is a tipping point if where some  were promoting violence towards others. But then even then most of us would not bat an eyelid to many promoting violence towards ISIS as like you say they are what many would define as evi andt they stand against the golden rule, which then makes us defy that rule because of that threat from them.

Which then boils down to rationally if something is a threat to your way of life, which I think ISIS can easily be classified with that, as they do not respect the rights of others. Where we respect the rights of others to have the same equality under the law. If you were under threat the natural and most rational think to do is to protect from that threat.

what you are doing is trying to make all words equal "bigot ,preference,intolerant, choice the words are not equal your conflating the underlying intent and accepted understanding of how the words are used in an attempt to support your premise  





  i have a preference for milk over alcohol i am not bigoted against alcohol and on very rare occasions i might have a sip  

i

I Agree
Bigot implies a degree of 'illogical' stereotyping
Preference Implies a minor positive

Intolerant is actually a weird one, as I think it implies a degree of logic and reasoning behind a decision, where as racism/prejudice/bigotry implies more base illogical thought process to reach the same point

[Eilzel]

I agree with you veya about what the world should be. But is isn't. As an adult I understand how a gay person can easily realise how accepting some societies are (not all though!). But as a kid it wasn't so easy. And even among a substantial minority of American families and many in the UK and lots in Eastern Europe- the words can ne either used ignorantly or be meant with serious prejudice, for that gay child, they cannot possibly know. And even if they won't be treated differently legally they cannot know the reactions of friends, family or colleagues- but if they use those allegedly 'harmless' words, they will assume it won't be good.

[veya_victaous]

I think it is a delicate balance between protecting those that would be bullied and allowing dickheads to show their colours so that society knows to 'reprogram' the dickhead.

the other thing is by making it 'too taboo' you will make it 'cool' to be homophobic in a later generation. the real solution is to normalize the relationships as the were in many non abrahamist societies

[Guest]

But lets be honest Victor and not having a go at Korben, we have all been intolerant at some point of others views.
Mainly because some things mean more to us than others, its the nature of who we are.
I certainly more and more believe to allow people to express their views but again there is a tipping point if where some  were promoting violence towards others. But then even then most of us would not bat an eyelid to many promoting violence towards ISIS as like you say they are what many would define as evi andt they stand against the golden rule, which then makes us defy that rule because of that threat from them.

Which then boils down to rationally if something is a threat to your way of life, which I think ISIS can easily be classified with that, as they do not respect the rights of others. Where we respect the rights of others to have the same equality under the law. If you were under threat the natural and most rational think to do is to protect from that threat.

what you are doing is trying to make all words equal "bigot ,preference,intolerant, choice the words are not equal your conflating the underlying intent and accepted understanding of how the words are used in an attempt to support your premise  





  i have a preference for milk over alcohol i am not bigoted against alcohol and on very rare occasions i might have a sip  

i

No you are doing that.
I stated quite spefically views, not words.
Again a person that holds views to have sex with children.
That is a view, one the vast majority of people are intolerant of.
Which means we are bigoted of some views..
Again for people to deny they are not bigoted about some things is being completely dishonest

[Guest]

what you are doing is trying to make all words equal "bigot ,preference,intolerant, choice the words are not equal your conflating the underlying intent and accepted understanding of how the words are used in an attempt to support your premise  





  i have a preference for milk over alcohol i am not bigoted against alcohol and on very rare occasions i might have a sip  

i

No you are doing that.
I stated quite spefically views, not words.
Again a person that holds views to have sex with children.
That is a view, one the vast majority of people are intolerant of.
Which means we are bigoted of some views..
Again for people to deny they are not bigoted about some things is being completely dishonest

only when used in the very broadest sense of the term and thats the point your linking two ends of the scale as one and they are not the same when used properly and in context

[Guest]

No you are doing that.
I stated quite spefically views, not words.
Again a person that holds views to have sex with children.
That is a view, one the vast majority of people are intolerant of.
Which means we are bigoted of some views..
Again for people to deny they are not bigoted about some things is being completely dishonest

only when used in the very broadest sense of the term and thats the point your linking two ends of the scale as one and they are not the same when used properly and in context

No you are trying to move the goalpost on the meaning of the word when it is very specific Korben.
There is no scales, you are either tolerant or intolerant of a said view point.
There is no middle ground.

[Major]

I rate this Newsfix debate very highly, one of the best I have personally been involved in on any forum, this type of debate usually descends into chaos.

Well done everyone.

Any more to come?

[Raggamuffin]

It's interesting that when this kind of subject is discussed, people usually come out with the same two kinds of "bigotry" - racial and homophobic. What about someone who is constantly called "fat" or "ugly"? OK, so a fat person can probably lose weight, but calling someone "ugly" on the basis of some random idea of what constitutes "beauty" is hateful isn't it?

Those are just two examples - I'm sure there are others.

[nicko]

Eilzel, can you tell me how the word Gay, came to be the word to describe Homosexuals? not so many years ago it meant something entirely different.

[Guest]

Nicko, I heard it used in the way it is now in clubs in the 60s, so I thought I would look it up, and found this, it's been around a long time:

Today I found out how ‘gay’ came to mean ‘homosexual’.
The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known.  The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.
However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality.  By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean  “addicted to pleasures and dissipations.  Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”.  This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.
Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.
With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man.  Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.
Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning.  In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men.  There was also another word “gey cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.
By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males.  Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and many still do), that “homosexual” is much too clinical, sounding like a disorder.  As such, it was common amongst the gay community to refer to one another as “gay” decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s).  At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay.  Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.
Since then, gay, meaning homosexual male, has steadily driven out all the other definitions that have floated about through time and of course also has gradually begun supplementing the word ‘lesbian’ as referring to women who are homosexual.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/

Then of course you had Larry Grayson 'What a Gay Day' in the early 70s

[Major]

It's interesting that when this kind of subject is discussed, people usually come out with the same two kinds of "bigotry" - racial and homophobic. What about someone who is constantly called "fat" or "ugly"? OK, so a fat person can probably lose weight, but calling someone "ugly" on the basis of some random idea of what constitutes "beauty" is hateful isn't it?

Those are just two examples - I'm sure there are others.

Disabled people are labelled with obnoxious names which could offend them.

Bald men or women.

Ginger blokes

Crosseyed people

Speech impediment people

Said enough

I know quite a few different names for the above but do not use them.

[Major]

I detest how the word GAY has been hijacked to try to make homosexuality respectable.

[Eilzel]

Are you saying being gay is not respectable?

[Guest]

I detest how the word GAY has been hijacked to try to make homosexuality respectable.

Why? Generally homosexuals are very happy and liberated, so the word is very apt to be honest to define homosexuals.

[Syl]

STORMEE WROTE.

Disabled people are labelled with obnoxious names which could offend them.

Bald men or women.

Ginger blokes

Crosseyed people

Speech impediment people

Said enough

I know quite a few different names for the above but do not use them.

[/quote]

.......................................................................................
.........................................................................................

Words can and do hurt.
I know you would never use a nasty word to describe someone who was physically deformed (for eg) but some words used to describe gay people (for eg) could be  as hurtful to them just as a nasty word used to describe someone with a disability would be.

I don't see the point of banning words because the list could be endless, but neither do I see the point of using words which can and do upset people.

On the other hand many words that used to be acceptable are now not.....so it's an ever changing list.

[Raggamuffin]

Hahahaha you don't even  like calling people by the colour they are and tiptoe round your own language!  You're one of the most PC on here!!!  
Free speech? Lol lol lol ad finitum

And you are the one who is always opposing free speech.  Unfortunately for Europeans, who are opposed to freedom of expression, this is an American site.  America is governed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution:

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting ..

And as Stormee pointed out, it feels refreshing, innit?

The person with the Founder's account is in America, but does that make this an American site?

[Ben Reilly]

Here's what I see as the ideal this site strives for -- while it's a place to freely speak your mind, we do try to enforce a certain level of civility. That's not just banning slurs, that's also trying to get people to not be personal when they argue with one another.

We also don't tolerate hate speech, of course. Tommy Monk has said here for ages that homosexuality is unnatural, and while a lot of people here take offense to that, he's never going to be banned for saying it. If he were to say we need to start stringing up all the "queers", he'd be gone in a second.

We've had a number of members who falsely claim that black people or Pakistanis are more prone to violence. We've tolerated that abhorrent opinion because it's usually expressed as civilly as a hateful thought such as that can be.

Finally, why don't we feel the same way about calling people fat, or ugly, or stupid? That's pretty simple -- the fat, the ugly, the stupid aren't historically oppressed communities. Plenty of the most powerful people in history have been fat, ugly and stupid, and very rarely has any society sought to systematically deprive them of basic human rights.

Is it offensive to call someone fat, ugly or stupid? Yeah, in the same way it's offensive to taunt people about things about themselves they have little or no control over. But that's it -- until some government decides to start a fats-only lunch counter, separate drinking fountains for the ugly or internment camps for the stupid.

[Raggamuffin]

Here's what I see as the ideal this site strives for -- while it's a place to freely speak your mind, we do try to enforce a certain level of civility. That's not just banning slurs, that's also trying to get people to not be personal when they argue with one another.

We also don't tolerate hate speech, of course. Tommy Monk has said here for ages that homosexuality is unnatural, and while a lot of people here take offense to that, he's never going to be banned for saying it. If he were to say we need to start stringing up all the "queers", he'd be gone in a second.

We've had a number of members who falsely claim that black people or Pakistanis are more prone to violence. We've tolerated that abhorrent opinion because it's usually expressed as civilly as a hateful thought such as that can be.

Finally, why don't we feel the same way about calling people fat, or ugly, or stupid? That's pretty simple -- the fat, the ugly, the stupid aren't historically oppressed communities. Plenty of the most powerful people in history have been fat, ugly and stupid, and very rarely has any society sought to systematically deprive them of basic human rights.

Is it offensive to call someone fat, ugly or stupid? Yeah, in the same way it's offensive to taunt people about things about themselves they have little or no control over. But that's it -- until some government decides to start a fats-only lunch counter, separate drinking fountains for the ugly or internment camps for the stupid.

We don't have inequality under the law for black people or gay people though, so your argument doesn't really work.

You forgot to mention the posts by your administrator, Veya, who regularly posts hate speeches about English people, and even said that some of them should be bombed.

[Eilzel]

The only time I'd use fat, ugly and stupid alongside oppression is talking about Kim Jong Un, but in his case the fat, ugly idiot would be the oppressor

Nice post Ben

[Guest]

Also Ben to argue off historically where there has been a problem, does not mean a problem does not exist today with other kinds of discrmination and to down play that based off black and Pakistani discrmination is blatantly abusrd. Interesting that you do not meantion the discrmination to Jews, about the longest oppressed people in history and the fact they are the most religious group in America, shows how you look at discrmination from a colurization aspect. Any discrmination is wrong, not just the ones that you hold to your view, where all should be equally viewed as wrong, as many people are oppressed. Even today people in Africa, who are whites are being oppressed, so its best to mention all the problems in the world and how in fact the worst discrmination is not actually found in the west at all. We have laws to protect against discrmination and its time people stopped being scared to speak about the problems in all areas, not just the west

[Ben Reilly]

Here's what I see as the ideal this site strives for -- while it's a place to freely speak your mind, we do try to enforce a certain level of civility. That's not just banning slurs, that's also trying to get people to not be personal when they argue with one another.

We also don't tolerate hate speech, of course. Tommy Monk has said here for ages that homosexuality is unnatural, and while a lot of people here take offense to that, he's never going to be banned for saying it. If he were to say we need to start stringing up all the "queers", he'd be gone in a second.

We've had a number of members who falsely claim that black people or Pakistanis are more prone to violence. We've tolerated that abhorrent opinion because it's usually expressed as civilly as a hateful thought such as that can be.

Finally, why don't we feel the same way about calling people fat, or ugly, or stupid? That's pretty simple -- the fat, the ugly, the stupid aren't historically oppressed communities. Plenty of the most powerful people in history have been fat, ugly and stupid, and very rarely has any society sought to systematically deprive them of basic human rights.

Is it offensive to call someone fat, ugly or stupid? Yeah, in the same way it's offensive to taunt people about things about themselves they have little or no control over. But that's it -- until some government decides to start a fats-only lunch counter, separate drinking fountains for the ugly or internment camps for the stupid.

We don't have inequality under the law for black people or gay people though, so your argument doesn't really work.

You forgot to mention the posts by your administrator, Veya, who regularly posts hate speeches about English people, and even said that some of them should be bombed.

Haha, forgive me, Raggs, but I'm going to need to see a link before I believe you on that one -- you lie about people here all the time, to be blunt.

[Guest]

We don't have inequality under the law for black people or gay people though, so your argument doesn't really work.

You forgot to mention the posts by your administrator, Veya, who regularly posts hate speeches about English people, and even said that some of them should be bombed.

Haha, forgive me, Raggs, but I'm going to need to see a link before I believe you on that one -- you lie about people here all the time, to be blunt.

He has said it Ben

[Sponsored content]