NOW you have crossed a line!!!

Objection! (Using 'irrational' to describe a 'love of KISS' is redundant.)

Sustained!

I'm guilty.

(of being a KISS fan)

Charged!

My sentence? Watching KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park for five years straight. Nooooooo!

Let the sentence be carried out...

But that's not what's occurring.

If someone posts "I think that (blank)", and someone replies with "People who think (blank) are (blank)", then they are attacking that person, not what they posted.
The person is being directly attacked and called a name.

Characterizing posts with phrases like
"That's what racists think"
"Only a racist would think that"
are direct personal attacks. Even though you aren't quoting or explicitly mentioning the other person you are calling them a racist. The post isn't being referenced, the person is.

If someone were to post:
"Trump is a great president"
and someone replies only with"
"Anybody who thinks Trump is a great president is a fucking moron"
that would be a direct personal attack. The first poster is being called a name by the second.
This goes on all time and nothing is done. I guess it's a loophole in the rules because the attacking poster doesn't included a name or phrase it as "you are"

Personal attacks are being disguised with terms like "people who" or "anybody who". Not every time. But when it occurs within just a few posts of what's being referenced, yeah it's a direct personal attack.

It's occurring in some threads. What you describe appears to be occurring as well in other threads.

It's not a direct personal attack, it's an indirect personal attack. Which might explain why they're sometimes missed. I do agree that while indirect, it's an attack on the person instead of the idea.

Direct, or indirect as Jay noted above, it's still a personal attack and shouldn't be allowed.

But there seems to be a willingness to let that stuff slide, especially when it's someone with a right of center opinion being attacked.

I was recently indirectly called a sexist on the Politics board. I called that comment/accusation stupid (it was pretty absurd, so I said so) and then I was rather vociferously taken to task by our newest Mod for doing so.

I said SPECIFICALLY that the comment/accusation was stupid, and the Mod jumped all over me for it in a lenghy public diatribe.

What the hell is going on here? Has this really become, "DVD/LIBERAL TALK," with no moderate or, heaven forbid, conservative voices welcomed?

Liberals are allowed to make personal attacks, but moderates and conservatives aren't even allowed to defend themselves without being lectured about how inappropriate that kind of defense that is?? (Even when the defense is 100% within the rules and the attack was in violation of forum rules!)

There really is a SERIOUS problem here.

Anybody else that often votes for Conservatives/Republicans (at least locally) disturbed when bigoted beliefs are categorized as being conservative?

It's not being categorized as conservative that's the problem. (Although I'm left of center on some issues, so I consider myself fairly moderate overall, but if you want to call me a conservative I don't see that as an insult, just ever so slightly off the mark.)

It's being categorized as being racist or sexist that's the problem. That's a personal attack, and is against forum rules. Period.

When you try and make it all about a liberal bias by the mods/admins, you're are most definitely categorizing the misogyny and bigotry being called out as being conservative.

So if that's not your intent, you may want to find another angle other than political bias.

Politically correct bias, then?

Look, you cannot tell me that there isn't a bias there and the moderation is allowing personal attacks to continue, despite such attacks being violations of forum rules.

And, I'm sorry, but I'm not seing any real bigotry anywhere on this board. I've seen true bigotry, and what goes on here isn't even close to being that.

Comparing Hillary's cackling laugh to the Wicked Witch, for example, is not sexist. It's a fairly accurate comparison. Guys take a lot worse abuse here than that.

I think the true sexists are the ones who think women are LESS THAN. IF you really think they need special protection and can't take a little, "Ball busting," then you're the sexist. See how that works?

Actually I can having seen the mod warnings and suspesions that have been handed out since I started reading/posting here. At least politically biased, which has been the only example if bias given so far.


Beyond that statement being very telling, it's also worthless. You don't get to define bigotry.

Neither do you.

I just refuse to be politically correct. I'm not worried about offending people if what I'm saying isn't really offensive. I have never said that women or minorities are, "Less than," in any way (other than women being less than physically - men are bigger, faster, and stronger, but other than that women are the equal of men in every important way).

That doesn't mean that men and women are the same (they're not), that doesn't mean that blacks and whites have the exact same life experiences and can completely relate to each other (they can't, unfortunately - because of the racists on both sides).

So if I say a black man can't be Bond because his life experiences would be different than the Bond we've come to know, that isn't a racist statement, just a statement of fact. If I say that a black Bond can't go undercover as easily and go as easily unnoticed in a place like, say, Moscow or some Nordic country as Bond could, that's not a racist statment, just a statement of fact. If I say that a black Bond would face some ugly racism and face some ugly, nasty racial epithets that a white Bond wouldn't it's not racist, just reality.

But when I post things like that I'm told I'm a sexist and a racist, which is utter and complete nonsense.

Just because a black man is the intellectual equal of a white man doesn't mean he isn't different in some important ways (life experiences, attitudes because of those life experiences, obstacles he's had to overcome, etc).

Oh, my - I dared to post about differences! I must be racist, right??

Bullshit.

I know for a fact that many black people are the SUPERIORS of many white people. I wouldn't trade my supervisor at work for ANYONE. Oh, by the way, SHE is a black woman who is 5 years younger than me, and I have more respect and admiration for her both as a person AND as a supervisor than anyone in the building (a building that employs 2,500 people). I see her as my superior in just about every way possible (at least every way that is truly important).

Oh, but I forgot - that's impossible because I'm a fucking sexist racist.

Like I said, those accusations are bullshit.

Yet another very telling statement. In other words, if it's not offensive to me, what's the problem?

I think this is reference to this post, which you later called stupid:
I do feel that is a problem post. Did you report it?

However, there does need to be room in the conversation for people to argue that criticizing a woman for her voice, especially for being "shrill," is sexist:
https://debuk.wordpress.com/2016/03/...of-the-shrill/

I also don't see any sort of public "diatribe" from a mod on your responding post.

There is no delimiter for what's "really" offensive. If people are offended by it, then to them it's offensive. You don't get to say their offense isn't real because you don't share it.

Also, if people find your statement racist, sexist, etc, they can say so. It doesn't matter if you don't perceive them as so, they have different experiences and have their own opinions that they have the same right to voice as you do.

They shouldn't be calling you racist or sexist. But honestly, considering you're going into discussions of race and gender and suggesting that the acting roles people can play should be restricted based on those aspects of a person, claims of sexist or racist thinking shouldn't be unexpected.

Two more of the type of personal attacks I posted about.

Explain to us what you mean by "very telling".

Could you mean,"This tells me what kind of person you are." or , "This tells me all I need to know about you".

Explain what you mean by "very telling" if not that.

Way to hone in on one sentence and take it largely out of context while ignoring the substance of a rather substantive post.

My point there is simply this - there are people who are going to be offended by just about anything you post if it is on a subject that they find sensitive.

If I say that the average woman is smaller, slower, and weaker than the average man some people will be offended by that statement, and call it sexist, even though it is factually accurate.

That's what I'm talking about in that comment that you quoted. If people are offended by a statement like that then that's on them. You can't change facts just because you don't like them. And getting upset because someone dares to post those facts doesn't make those posts offensive. In other words, just because someone is offended that doesn't make the comment truly offensive.

Hillary Clinton DOES have a laugh like the cackle of the Wicked Witch of the West. She just does, and it's not sexist to say so. It's just what she sounds like. If you don't like that take it up with Hillary and get her to stop. But by now that point (along with the abrasive personality) is moot since she isn't going to run for office in the future.

But if a man can be called out for having an abrasive personality and/or an annoying voice then so can a woman.

There was no part of the rest of your post that wasn't invalided by the line I quoted. If you don't like statements like that detracting from the rest of your post, I would suggest not including them.

Unless you know someone you have no real basis, not enough of a basis, to accuse them of racism or sexism.

As I noted in my post above, I work for a black woman who is five years younger than me, and I respect and admire her more than anyone else that I work with. Period. I view people as individuals.

But people posting here don't know that. They jump to wild conclusions because they want to, because it makes their disapproval of certain points of view that much easier. It makes it that much easier to attack opinions when you assign them to someone that you simply dismiss as racist or sexist.

It's lazy and not very thoughtful (literally, not much thought is put into a personal attack like that - it's reflexive).

Guess what, in the real world a black man can't be a white woman's brother. Just not gonna happen. And in the movies such a thing is ridiculous (when was the last time you saw a black man adopt a white girl? Fant4stic). And that move, a totally PC move, killed the family dynamic of the comic. In the comic they are one big family. Is it racist to say that changing that dynamic was stupid? Is it racist to say that a black man can't be a white woman's brother? It shouldn't be since the statement just reflects reality.

But there are people here who took offense to that statement (and several people made it and were lambasted as racists for doing so).

Just because someone doesn't like a particular fact of life doesn't mean that the person bringing up that fact of life is a racist or that it's a racist comment.

Saying that a black man SHOULD never be able to adopt a white girl would be a racist statement. But merely saying that it just doesn't happen isn't.

And that's why I say that if some people are offended by statements like that then I'm not going to worry about it. I don't support holding people down or treating them differently just because of the color of their skin or the country of their family's origin. That kind of thing is bullshit.

But saying that a black James Bond would have significantly different life experiences than the Bond that many of us know and love isn't a racist statement. It's a statement of fact, not a value judgment on whether it's right or wrong that such a situation is (unfortunately) still a fact of life in 2018.

Calling that view, "Racist," is lazy and disingenuous.

That, my friend, is laughable.

See my post above. Some people find all sorts of unoffensive stuff offensive. That doesn't make their views legitimate.

You cannot expect everyone to be politically correct just because some people are offended by comments that may be politically INcorrect. Some facts of life are politically incorrect, but they're still facts of life and they shouldn't be ignored or considered to be verboten subjects just because they aren't fair.