We have several members here at the forum who have started posting somewhat racist threads... I am sure this is fairly common around here, and things tend to sort themselves out, so this is in no way a complaint or a diatribe.

Just a question: I know that because DVDTalk is a private forum, there really is no true "freedom of speech". We can and do set very specific rules about what can be posted here, and anyone who does not agree with these rules can go express their freedom of speech elsewhere.

For example, I know that several racist words are grounds for an automatic suspension. If I call someone a "******" or a "****", I will be kicked off the board and probably encouraged never to post here again, and I 100% agree with this policy.

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...)

If what somebody has to say is offensive to the body politic, does that mean that we should censor that person? No answers from me, just an open question.

I haven't noticed any "White Pride" threads, but there are a couple of posters who routinely make subtle racist comments and it does bother me.

The reality is that this place is a LOT better now compared to right after 9/11. There were some pretty shocking suggestions and posts (made in the heat of the moment of course) at that time.

Sure, Groucho, and I have no doubt that there have been times before that where this place was crawling with Archie Bunkers. I am really and truly not complaining about the number of bigoted posters we have out there -- heck, if anything, these members are really making the forums a fun place to heckle!

But in general... would DVDTalk seek to bar members who repeatedly make bigoted posts, or would they allow it under the guise that we do not want to regulate opinions?

I'm treading into forbidden territory, but I can say that members have been banned in the past for repeatedly trash-talking various groups.

Yes. Read the user agreement for when you signed up. And it was only in the last week a user was banned for going over the line.

Where it's difficult is the gray area some people are smart enough to tread.

OK, let's say that someone stays in that gray area. (A fairly new poster in the Otter forum comes to mind.) Nothing blatantly against the rules, nobody advocating the master race or talking about "Kill Whitey"... just someone whose opinion we find repulsive, but who still skirts the line and stays on the clean side of the fence. What then?

My two cents worth: I hate racists and bigots. and I would like to see them [BANNED]. Then again, I hate conservative Republicans, but I respect their right to present their opinions. Even if someone morally offended me... I still wouldn't favor them being banned or suspended from the forum.

Voltaire: "I may not agree with what you say, but to your death I will defend your right to say it."

As you mention, there is the thought off some allowance of points of view. This is a private site and we don't want anyone to start going off thinking about censorship and the right to state their opinion, no matter how horrible or wrong it is.

But we as mods need to exercise some restraint, because as you say, some people want various people banned for what they say. And without kvrdave, where would we be?



I think it's better to err a little on the side of tolerance from the mods, and ask people to understand that forum users do indeed reflect a broad spectrum of people. You don't have to agree with everyone. You may even find something said offensive to you. The world has a lot of stupid or mean or mixed up people in it. Some of them may register here.

If they go too far.... we take care of it.

When I was a mod, I used to judge the "gray area" members by how much trouble they caused. If they were creating too much "unrest" in the forum, then that was enough of a reason for me to initiate some kind of action.

The point of the forums is to be able to carry on discussions. Anything that gets in the way of that is always subject to administrative action. How any and all of the terms above are applied is of course up to the mods and Geoff, of course. Which is to say, there isn't a set line in the sand for every single action out there. They tend to take things on a case by case basis, and, for the most part, it works pretty well.

I'm conservative but i dont claim to be a republican...even though i vote republican...


do you hate me?

I haven't read anything here I would consider too over the top. But I'm glad there are rules because when people can remain anonymous, then they can say and do all sorts of silly things (like put a basket of puppies into a french fry cooker). Not everyone has a sense of humor, not everyone has thick skin, and several people on this forum know what buttons to push on the other forum members. Sometimes we type things we would never say in person. Maybe it is just to see what reaction we can get. That's where the anonymity kicks in. This forum seems to really be a microcosm of society. One tends to live in a bubble, and reading the posts from such varied peoples has been quite enlightening.

Given with what happened in regards to the French this past year I can't imagine what it would take to be considered a racist on this forum. I guess making fun of French people is different than what NCMojo is talking about.

There is a value in seeing the forum not too sanitized. A trade off.

Still, in reviewing some posts.. there may be something here that will require administrative action.

Yes. IMO, there is a difference between hate inspired racism, and bad humor. Even if the humor is rooted in jingoistic tendencies. Sometimes the lines were blurred and indeed, there was administrative action taken, warnings were given.

???




Adding my meager .02, I think clearly that legitimate discussion has been hampered, and that some threads in Other have crossed the line. I simply have been staying away, but it is bothersome. I wish something could be done.

for the record the french aren't a race, so you can't really be racist toward them

I thought the French was a nationality? Like The Canadians.

Not a race of peoples, like the Eskimos.

Without sidetracking too far... I don't think it really matters. It seems to me that one could indeed be racist to a nationality.

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".

Also, remember that while in most connotations being considered "racist" is a bad thing, the defintion does not, per se, imply that "racist" behaviour is a defacto "bad thing". Programs such as affirmative action, or college admission programs that treat members of specific races preferentially are, technically, "racist" programs, because they discriminate along racial lines. Please bear in mind too that "discrimination" is also not a 100% "bad" word. It means to mark or percieve the distinguishing features of. It could be just as easily applied to races as it can to members of a baseball team -- batters have bats, fielders have gloves, catchers wear a mask, etc.

Gosh, whose being more tolerant here? I'm a conservative Republican but I've never "hated" anyone (except maybe the Cleveland Browns) Words have power, my friend. Ask the Haitians.

From Dictionary.com-


I think we can get into the semantics, but the issue still remains that one can treat a group of people from another country/region/nation in a manner that can be considered racist.

I 100% agree with you on the word discrimination.

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.

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.

By the way... I know that the racial terms that I placed within quotation marks in my initial post were offensive, but it seems to me that in context, they should not have been censored. I'm not complaining... just wanted to state my opinion.

The forum software is not smart enough to know your intent.