Free Speech vs. Racism
08-05-03 | 11:09 PM
#26
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by kenbuzz
But you just made my argument. If one can treat folks from different nations differently only because of their nationality, then all the flag-waving folks around here are, by your definition, racist. Are fans at the Olympics racist because they root for their home team? And by extension, if its "racist" behaviour to like or dislike someone because of their nationality, the same rule must apply to states, regions, or even cities and counties. If folks from Ohio dislike folks from Michigan, are they racist? If Dodger fans root against the San Francisco Giants, are they racist?
I know these examples are absurd, but the line must be drawn somewhere. To me, racist behaviour is limited to actions based solely on race.... not nationality, not religion, not sexual preference.... race and race only. I think the "racist" brush is too divisive, and in this instance, too much broad to be weilded effectively at the country/region level.
But you just made my argument. If one can treat folks from different nations differently only because of their nationality, then all the flag-waving folks around here are, by your definition, racist. Are fans at the Olympics racist because they root for their home team? And by extension, if its "racist" behaviour to like or dislike someone because of their nationality, the same rule must apply to states, regions, or even cities and counties. If folks from Ohio dislike folks from Michigan, are they racist? If Dodger fans root against the San Francisco Giants, are they racist?
I know these examples are absurd, but the line must be drawn somewhere. To me, racist behaviour is limited to actions based solely on race.... not nationality, not religion, not sexual preference.... race and race only. I think the "racist" brush is too divisive, and in this instance, too much broad to be weilded effectively at the country/region level.
I think it's fair to say that the term is commonly applied to those that apply certain attitudes or actions towards people of various groups, and that would include religions or nations.
I see your point, but yikes, I did not want to derail this thread.
In any case, we as admins have to make decisions, and I can tell you I am influenced by my judgement of what the intent is, how disruptive it is, and that could cover a lot of ground. Not just races.
08-06-03 | 06:42 AM
#27
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by NCMojo
Just a point of clarity -- I don't actually hate conservative Republicans. I just put that in as a point of contrast. In reality, even if you're on the far side of Rush Limbaugh, I'd be happy to meet you, shake your hand, and buy you a beer.
Especially you, Venusian. You big stud muffin, you.
Just a point of clarity -- I don't actually hate conservative Republicans. I just put that in as a point of contrast. In reality, even if you're on the far side of Rush Limbaugh, I'd be happy to meet you, shake your hand, and buy you a beer.
Especially you, Venusian. You big stud muffin, you.
08-06-03 | 11:16 AM
#28
Originally posted by Venusian
woohoo!! btw, I aint that far right. I think that was krvdave's location for a while though
woohoo!! btw, I aint that far right. I think that was krvdave's location for a while though
08-06-03 | 12:24 PM
#29
DVD Talk Hero
maybe before your time here, but he had "just right of Rush" as his location (that thing listed a few lines below your name next to your post). I guess you liberalized him enough to make him change
08-06-03 | 02:42 PM
#31
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Free Speech vs. Racism
Originally posted by NCMojo
But what if a member doesn't use offensive langage, or otherwise break the letter of the law? If somebody continually made threads celebrating "White Pride" or "racial superiority", would that person be [BANNED] or would we simply allow the more open-minded members of the forum to harrangue and mock the poster until they slink shamefully away? (Kind of a Darwinian model...)
But what if a member doesn't use offensive langage, or otherwise break the letter of the law? If somebody continually made threads celebrating "White Pride" or "racial superiority", would that person be [BANNED] or would we simply allow the more open-minded members of the forum to harrangue and mock the poster until they slink shamefully away? (Kind of a Darwinian model...)
08-19-03 | 04:05 PM
#32
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Nestled amidst Angeleno faults.
There does seem to be more posts these days that are not grossly racist but rather subtle. One that comes to mind was a thread where someone asked for places to move too. Someone posted so and so neighborhood wasn't good because it was full of foreigners, asians and hispanics. That raised my eyebrows.
08-20-03 | 03:38 AM
#33
Banned by request
Originally posted by kenbuzz
But that's why we have dictionaries. The word "racist" is applied when someone or something exhibits racial prejudice or discrimination. Nationalities are not races, just as races are not nationalities. If one acted in a manner parallel to racism, but in terms of a specific nationality, that person would be described as a "nationalist".
But that's why we have dictionaries. The word "racist" is applied when someone or something exhibits racial prejudice or discrimination. Nationalities are not races, just as races are not nationalities. If one acted in a manner parallel to racism, but in terms of a specific nationality, that person would be described as a "nationalist".
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
And yes, that is the definition for "nationalist," not "nationalism."
And while nationalist behavior can certainly lead itself to prejudice against people of another nationality (by becoming so proud of one's own nation that the members of that nation consider other nations inferior simply because they are not part of the group), the word "nationalist" has far fewer negative connotations than the word "racist." I think, therefore, that the term "racist," while not perfect, is a better word to use than "nationalist" in this case.
English lesson over.
Meanwhile, I haven't had too many bad experiences with prejudiced remarks on DVDTalk (although in a recent discussion on Mel Gibson's The Passion a few members started crossing lines).
08-20-03 | 10:55 AM
#34
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by Suprmallet
English lesson over.
English lesson over.
Hey everybody, the English lesson is over!
Last edited by kenbuzz; 08-20-03 at 10:59 AM.
