In the Entrance Hall, if any. Gawain did not have a chance to defend the French because he wasn´t present at that time. It´s therefore not fair to hold it against him.Originally Posted by [b
In the Entrance Hall, if any. Gawain did not have a chance to defend the French because he wasn´t present at that time. It´s therefore not fair to hold it against him.
i am offended by the amirica stiff not all of it but when some idiot just goes"america is dumb and i hate them" that is what makes me mad they have no evidence no backup so i consider it a flame but the mods stand by and do nothing when they are flaming not one person but millions there is somthing wrong with that
Formerly ceasar010
The difference is that when you make a comment about "America" you are commenting on the entity that is America but not the people who are themselves Americans. America, or any entity, represents whatever that entity stands for but it does not itself represent the people that make it up. For that reason any attack on the entity, as long as you don't bring the people into it, is permissible. America is a nation but Americans are people, that is the difference, a subtle one but an important one.
If we were to disallow an attack on "America" then we would have to disallow attacks on any entity if we were to be consistent. It would severely limit your ability to criticize the actions of any entity such as a religious entity, corporate entity, national entity, etc, and this would make for very boring threads.
What is not allowed is any attack on a person or person(s) so for that reason a statement flaming the American people would not be allowed, just as a statement flaming any other national, racial, ethnic, or religious group is not allowed.
We cannot afford "America" any special protection that we do not afford to all other countries or entities and to afford that protection would fetter much of what we say in the Tavern.
The rule of thumb is this: You can say "Mars is an awful place" but you cannot say "Martians are awful." In the first example you attack Mars without attacking the Martians but in the second, the not allowed, example you attack the Martians. If there is one thing that I will not tolerate it is flaming martians.
Run Right at them and board them in the smoke Captain Lucky Jack Aubrey of the HMS Surprise
when they have evidence and resons to support their reasoning i am find but when they just start sying stupid things about the place is what gets me
Formerly ceasar010
No, becuase as I pointed out, nigger has several hundreds of years behind it as a term used primarily for abuse. If he resorts to such language, he is demonstrating an attempt purely to offend.
If I make a comparison between a persons politics and the politics of a specific real world institution, then that is clearly a comparison and a claim, not an attempt to offend.
The faux-martyrdom routine doesn't change this one bit. Please note that redleg could not only not dispute, but in fact reinforced, my claim by restating his position on Fonda.
"We are not the Duke of Sung." - Mao Zedong
Jane Fonda went to North Vietnam and manned an anti-aircraft gun and pretended to shoot at American Aircraft that were engaged in warfare against that country. As a citizen of the United States she committed an open act of treason.
Then she went to the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison and caused several POWs to be questioned and then tortured by the North Vietnamese. Then she reported when the evidence of maltreatment was plain to see that the North Vietnamese were treating the POWs humane.
Jane Fonda is a traitous witch for these reasons. Which I will ackownledge that the term witch is wrong of me, but since like so many in the past have told me, when a person is a public figure and their actions are known to all, some labels are acceptable. I actually have even more crude forms of labels for what I think of Jane Fonda and her traitorous actions against her country during her visit to an enemy nation who was activitily engaged in warfare against her nation.
Just like you want to equate the term Nazi to historical fact - well guess what Squippy - Jane Fonda is a traitor because of her Physical actions, which are indeed fact with propaganda pictures from North Vietnam to show the truth of her actions. That the United States did not prosecute her for her actions shows how much disconent was in the United States at the time but it does not negate her crime. Its just that the government decided not to punish her for her actions. That does not negate the fact that she conducted traitorous acts against her country.
And who is making a martyr of themselves. I brought an issue to the watchtower because I felt it was necessary. After I calmed down a little - I realized that part of the problem was myself. I have attempted to change some of my posting methods to maintain a tone of civility to the consevation. Martyr's don't correct themselves they keep on going on an issue until it burns them up. So who indeed is the Faux-martyr on this?
Who continues to show one of the major reasons why the Tavern and now even these threads in the Watchtower have broken down to name calling, finger pointing, and denial of their own culliblity to the problem? Who continues to violate the rules of the forum? Who continues to not review their actions to see where the fault lies within their posting style and the language that they use?
You brought me into this conversation by naming me, which I don't mind. I can at least try to review my actions and omit when I might be mistaken, incorrect, or even flat out wrong? Can you say the same for yourself in regards to your actions in the forum?
Yes indeed the term Nazi has been used as insults against police officer doing their job of protecting citizens. It has been used to make an emotional response because of the actions of an individual be it in the work place, home, or just in the community. The term has indeed become an insult regardless of the historical accuracy of the description of the term as it relates to a politicial movement in the 1930's. THe aftermath of WW2 and the use of the term over the last 50 years has made it an offensive insult. A point that has been brought up over and over again - but one that you as an individual continue to use even after the moderators have informed us all that it is an offensive word.
When you place someone's name in the same phrase - then you are indeed placing a label on the individual or the group. If you used the term America and the American government - I just might agree with you, however as it has been pointed out over and over again by the moderators when you place someone's name in the comment - you are no longer talking about an instituation but the individual. When you say americans are facist - you have crossed that line. A point that I have ackownledged about my own posting stlye and am attempting to refrain from doing in the future.
Are you as an individual willing to find fault in your own actions Squippy? And attempt to change them? Or has you attempted to accuse me of just going to go down the road of faux-martyrdom?
edit to add this link about Jane Fonda's actions during Vietnam.
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
no offence squippy, but I think you're way off base here.Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 04 2004,04:17)]No, becuase as I pointed out, nigger has several hundreds of years behind it as a term used primarily for abuse. If he resorts to such language, he is demonstrating an attempt purely to offend.
If I make a comparison between a persons politics and the politics of a specific real world institution, then that is clearly a comparison and a claim, not an attempt to offend.
The faux-martyrdom routine doesn't change this one bit. Please note that redleg could not only not dispute, but in fact reinforced, my claim by restating his position on Fonda.
There's no way in hell what you're saying is just "comparing his personal politics to a real world institution" you called him a Fascist and a Nazi. You could have said "your ideas remind me of those held by the Nazis and Fascists of the last century" but no, you said he was and maintain that he is a Fascist and a Nazi.
I could be totally wrong here but I seriously doubt it...
Your not off TK.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 04 2004,07:19)]no offence squippy, but I think you're way off base here.Quote[/b] (squippy @ June 04 2004,04:17)]No, becuase as I pointed out, nigger has several hundreds of years behind it as a term used primarily for abuse. If he resorts to such language, he is demonstrating an attempt purely to offend.
If I make a comparison between a persons politics and the politics of a specific real world institution, then that is clearly a comparison and a claim, not an attempt to offend.
The faux-martyrdom routine doesn't change this one bit. Please note that redleg could not only not dispute, but in fact reinforced, my claim by restating his position on Fonda.
There's no way in hell what you're saying is just "comparing his personal politics to a real world institution" you called him a Fascist and a Nazi. You could have said "your ideas remind me of those held by the Nazis and Fascists of the last century" but no, you said he was and maintain that he is a Fascist and a Nazi.
I could be totally wrong here but I seriously doubt it...
He has called me the same- terms he has direct at me in past posts.
Nazi
Facist
Imperialistic Racist
And I have been just as guilty of making insults direct back at him.
The difference is I see where my actions were wrong and decided to try to change.
O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean
FYI, all of those words are rude and offensive; plain insults.
Redleg, I'm glad to see you trying to correct yourself regarding your dictionary, for your own good and peace of mind. I believe you know well that all the truthful content of one's post is gone with the wind if the person starts insulting others; it diminishes the poster and makes his statements "less" valuable.
To believe you can call someone a Nazi or a Fascist clearly demonstrates that the person representing that point of view either isn't mature/intelligent enough to understand how terribly wrong that is or it is plain "ox-manure".
Again, to all, PM me or any other Tavern staff member if you see someone using foul language and seemingly is getting away with it.
Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book
Sorry voigtkampf, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. 'Nazi' is a term that describes a particular political party, one that has significant negative overtones to it (to put it mildly). So, certainly, calling someone a 'Nazi' would be wrong.
'Fascist', however, refers to a system of government ('Fascism'). To suggest that we are unable to refer to a system of government would be, imo, ludicrous. You'd pretty much have to ban "Democrat" and "Republican", as both of those refer to systems of government.
Bh
just don't call people names they find offensive, ok?
Most people are offended when you call them a fascist, so just avoid name-calling period.
But what do you classify as "name-calling"? While calling someone a "nazi" is clearly offensive if you ban all name calling how would you treat someone who calls another member "liberal" or "conservative"? If you allow someone to use those names then your rule is no longer a consistent one. It becomes either a rule by list, this list is okay and this list is not okay, or a contextual rule, in the context of a statement or discussion a name used is either permissible or not.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 04 2004,11:29)]just don't call people names they find offensive, ok?
Most people are offended when you call them a fascist, so just avoid name-calling period.
On the one hand we have our current system that combines rule by list and rule by context, which are both subjective. The downside is that any subjective standard is debatable and someone will always say that it is unfair; usually the person being sanctioned. The upside is that it allows for more free-flowing and lively conversations. You can make more forceful statements as long as you don't pick fights or flame someone.
On the other hand you have a hard and fast rule against name calling of any kind and the result is that enforcement is very cut and dried. There can be no debates either the offender did or did not use name calling. In this system there can be no question of fairness as long as the rule is applied to everybody. The downside is that conversations become very stilted and the forum losses some of its vivacity because you cannot actively engage other members.
In our current system we rely on members to self-moderate. In exchange for more freedom is the need to use it responsibly. We allow a degree of name calling, i.e. liberal/conservative, but we also expect that everybody will not consciously seek to offend or start fights by using names or themes that are generally offensive or generally give rise to conflict, i.e. nazi, racist, etc.
If people can self moderate then we can have a better forum with better discussions. If one or two people can't self-moderate then better to sanction them than to create overly restrictive rules for all of the members.
Run Right at them and board them in the smoke Captain Lucky Jack Aubrey of the HMS Surprise
If someone advocates beliefs that are fascist in nature, then I don't see anything wrong with calling them a "fascist". If correctly labelling someone's beliefs offends an individual, then I suggest they have a closer look at what those beliefs are.
I suspect the reason most people are offended to be called a "fascist" is a simple one - most people aren't fascists.
Bh
I can agree with that.Quote[/b] (Bhruic @ June 04 2004,13:26)]If someone advocates beliefs that are fascist in nature, then I don't see anything wrong with calling them a "fascist". If correctly labelling someone's beliefs offends an individual, then I suggest they have a closer look at what those beliefs are.
I suspect the reason most people are offended to be called a "fascist" is a simple one - most people aren't fascists.
Bh
Your agreements or disagreements are irrelevant here, and make the content of my statement not more or less truthful.
Comparing Democrats and Republicans with Nazis and Fascists, calling them all merely political currents, is nonsense. Fascism was a political movement before it became a system of government, much like the communism was the movement the spawned communistic governing system. These two are basically opportunistic to democratic view of the world and are barren of all respect for the essential human rights and freedoms.
I am not discussing semantics here. I leave that to those with much more time and patience then I do have. Fascism and Nazism were two movements/government forms/call it what you want that have been directly responsible for murdering millions, much like communism, and calling someone fascist is also implying that the said person is as malevolent as those former movements/governments et cetera.
And if this doesn't convince you, go out the door and pick any number of people and tell them they are fascists, and be sure to tell us how it went.
Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book
I'm not sure that avoiding my point really helps yours any. Of course I'm not advocating randomly calling people fascists. To suggest I am is simply creating a strawman for you to attack in an attempt to make me look bad. But as I never made that argument, it does nothing to disprove my point.
I'll make my point extremely clear: If someone is advocating Fascism, then to describe them as a Fascist would, by definition, be accurate. If someone is advocating positions that are similar to Fascism, then again, labeling that individual as a Fascist would be accurate.
And, please, don't go with the "directly responsible for murdering millions" line. Catholicism was directly responsible for the torture and mutilation (and death, of course) of thousands during the Inquisition (at a time when thousands was a substantially larger percentage of the population than now). Should we decide that Catholicism is unmentionable? Should we ban people for calling someone else a Catholic (or, worse yet, admitting to being one)?
I'm all for eliminating so-called "name calling", but the runaway movement to simply eliminate words from our vocabulary because using them might offend someone seems a little on the oppressive side.
Bh
The problem with simply slapping a label on some one is that you are assuming that the other readers know enough to associate the statements of the "accused" with the label given. In the case of fascism, how many people here know what it is all about? I don't. I know Mussolini was a Fascist, but in all the reading I did on WW2, I don't recall ever coming across the ideals of fascism.
A better (and more educational) way of saying the same thing is to relate the belief expressed with those of fascism. "When you say you believe XYZ, that is very similar to the beliefs held by Fascist." A further word or two about why that is a bad belief to have (if it is not obvious) would further support your position.
The thing about name calling is that half of it is the name itself, but the other half is the context. "Liberal" and "conservative" might be "safe" labels but in the right context could become a flame. Calling a conservative a "liberal" (or vis versa) may be intended and/or taken as an insult.
This space intentionally left blank
I agree Gregoshi, and (hopefully) that's what I was pointing out. Someone saying something like "You Fascist", or "You're a Fascist" without anything to support or back that up would, imo, be wrong. I'm just suggesting that saying "It is always wrong to call someone a Fascist" is not a good way to look at it. There may be a situation where it is correct, and as long as it's handled correctly, it shouldn't be a problem. I don't mean to imply that it should freely be used as an insult.
And I agree with the second part of your post as well. When it comes down to it, there's almost nothing that can't be used as an insult, if one portrays it as such. I could very easily use "Catholic" as an insult, for example, by drawing the parallel with the current "altar boy" style scandal. But the potential for causing offense should not outweight the fact that the word does have a proper use and a proper context.
Bh
Bhruic
Could you please make another post in the Tavern where you discuss wether calling someone a fascist is a nice thing to do. It seems that you are discussing just for the discussion and this thread is about how the moderators can improve their moderation.
(Everbody)
And could everbody please do that? Or perhaps just make a seperate topic on how the Tavern Moderators are doing their job. It seems that the only moderation in the Org (=gaming site) is about handling political issues...
Bhruic,
I wasn't attacking you. I was trying to appeal to one thing; common sense.
I wasn't avoiding your point, yet you failed to realize that. The fact that you disagree with me upon this behalf doesn't change the fact that my statement is true; my disagreement with the fact that the moon is Earth's satellite and claim that it was a planet itself won't make it so.
And why not come with the statement that the Nazis and Fascists have killed millions? While catholic inquisition has killed thousands indeed and has done some severe atrocities in the medieval times, almost all other religions did the same, as well as various government forms have conducted wars and killed hundreds of thousands.
Does that make them the same? Never.
The essence of Christianity and Islam, like many other religions, is to do good and respect life, love the fellow man and help unselfishly whenever possible. Those who do not follow those principles do wrong and hurt their religion more then anyone else. The guidelines of Nazism and Fascism were to do harm; to kill a Jew or another member of "lower value races" was considered duty.
I cannot possibly believe you thought this one through. Well, interpreting this would mean that people should call Afro-Americans "ni***rs", homosexuals "qu**rs", et cetera, and wonder stupendously why these find themselves offended. Or even scream how "oppressive" is to forbid these words.
Someone can scream "democrat", "Catholic", "liberal", "conservative" at me as much he wants, but when someone calls me a "fascist", he is in for big trouble.
Ergo, to put it down as clear and obvious as it should be all the way from the start, many people would find themselves offended when they are being called fascists. There are many other terms that various groups of people resent, and for that mere reason this term should not be used here. And, once again, if someone has doubts whether some term is socially/publicly accepted, he should go out in the real world and try it out to find out himself how appropriate is to call people certain ways.
Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book
voigtkampf -
See, that's just it. You thinking you are correct doesn't make it true either. To use your own example, if you thought that the Moon was made of green cheese, that doesn't make it so. Similarily, in this case, just because you believe that "Fascist" should never be used doesn't make it true. It makes it your opinion. I seriously hope you don't believe that all of your opinions are automatically true.
You are also incorrect about what the "guidelines of Fascism" were. As I said, Fascism is a form of government. The Nazis were a party. Trying to equate the two is utterly incorrect.
Fascism: a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism is an excellent site that details the political ideals that Fascism represents, as well as the numerous governments that have been Fascist (up to 1975, well after WWII).
It's quite obvious from your description of what "Fascism is" that you have no idea what Fascism is/was really about, so perhaps after reading that site you'll have a better idea.
As for the word choice, no I'm not advocating the use of "derogatory" insults. Words that are designed and function purely as insults really have no place here.
As to your final "criteria", how is that supposed to be an indication? Were I to walk around calling random people Communists, I'm sure they would be offended. Were I to walk up to someone belonging to the Communist Party of Canada and call them a Communist, they'd just nod their head.
I really don't understand how you can be missing this point. The fact that a word doesn't apply on a global scale is irrelevant. If it is applicable to the situation, then there seems no reason not to use it. Please don't continue to presume that I am advocating randomly throwing it off at any forum user I please. I'm not. I've demonstrated that I'm not. Continuing to argue against that point is futile.
Bh
Is it just me, or does this seem to be WWWWWAAAAYYYYYYY off topic?
I like this thread - it allows me to get a little feedback from the people who care enough to comment on the moderation here at the Org. Sometimes that feedback is positive and sometimes it is critical, either way it is useful stuff.
Lately it has become a thread about posting responsibility and the semantics of name-calling. Maybe some useful stuff, maybe even some ideas that are pertient to moderating, but IMO much would be suited for other threads.
ichi
BTW the Mods in the MP Forum are doing a great job
Stay Calm, Be Alert, Think Clearly, Act Decisively
CoH
You're right ichi (although I wouldn't sum it up as "semantics"). My apologies for the off-topicedness (?) of my posts - if voigtkampf wants to continue this elsewhere (although I suspect not), I'd be happy to move there. Otherwise, in general, mods are doing a good job by my standards.
Bh
You are right, ichi, this is slightly going off-topic.
Bhruic, you are partially right; I won't get into this anymore. Obviously you are experiencing an urge to discuss ad nauseam, and I am obliged to discuss this one out with you because I am an AM here at the Org and have to deal with similar issues in the Tavern on a daily basis.
So, you think because Google threw out the vikipedia entry you can argue down someone that has a legal education and has studied basically all the different forms of governments and diplomatic systems from ancient Babylon to modern states? If so, good luck in future discussions
The point is; it is inappropriate to call someone a fascist, and for that reason you will never hear any politician/educated person saying that to another politician/educated person, and only places where you'll hear someone calling another a fascist is in the Tavern before a brawl starts.
Furthermore, I will never allow the use of that word on my watch.
Respectfully,
voigtkampf
Today is your victory over yourself of yesterday; tomorrow is your victory over lesser men.
Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Five Rings, The Water Book
The defining sentence of the last three pages...
But why is Fascist such a touchy word. I'm inclined to Agree with Bhruic here. It's just a term for a political movement.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 05 2004,20:10)]The defining sentence of the last three pages...
Co-Lord of BKS and Beirut's Kingdom of Peace and Love.
"Handsome features, rugged exteriors, intellectual chick magnets, we're pretty much twins."-Beirut
"Rhy, where's your helicopter now? Where's your ******* helicopter now?"-Mephistopheles.
but so is Nazi so that's a mute point.Quote[/b] (Big King Sanctaphrax @ June 05 2004,15:21)]But why is Fascist such a touchy word. I'm inclined to Agree with Bhruic here. It's just a term for a political movement.Quote[/b] (Teutonic Knight @ June 05 2004,20:10)]The defining sentence of the last three pages...
It's the historical implications that go with the term that make it offensive.
But the difference is, that I doubt there are any Nazis on the forum, whereas there might be some people who support policies that might be deemed fascist. What else are we going to call them?
Co-Lord of BKS and Beirut's Kingdom of Peace and Love.
"Handsome features, rugged exteriors, intellectual chick magnets, we're pretty much twins."-Beirut
"Rhy, where's your helicopter now? Where's your ******* helicopter now?"-Mephistopheles.
there's a hole in your argument.
You're suggesting that if there were indeed Nazis on the forum we should call them Nazis correct?
Well, if they came out and said 'I'm a card carrying member of the Nazi party", I think it would be fair.
Co-Lord of BKS and Beirut's Kingdom of Peace and Love.
"Handsome features, rugged exteriors, intellectual chick magnets, we're pretty much twins."-Beirut
"Rhy, where's your helicopter now? Where's your ******* helicopter now?"-Mephistopheles.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks