Notice

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2423384

Fake information meant to incite racial hatred.

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...933&highlight=

This post uses imagery and concepts used to incite racial hatred, with the intent to elicit racially charged responses.

I am sorry about the grammar mistakes.

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2423384

Fake information meant to incite racial hatred. Originally Posted by kehaar

Okay, so first, the information contained in the thread has to be fake, and second, it has to incite hate in the reader that is specifically directed toward a racial group.

Looking at the reference thread you provided, I can see that the information is fake, so your first point is met. As a Staff member I’m not sure what fake information has to do with anything, because if y’all wanted me to adjudicate fake information posted by members here, I’d have banned 3/4’s of you on points already. That being said, the post contains fake information, so your first point sticks.

As for the second, which race is that post meant to incite hatred towards? Is it meant to make the reader hate Caucasians? The OP doesn’t mention any race at all. The picture shows a gruesome moment in American history that no one should ever be proud of, but does that, in and of itself, incite hatred towards the Caucasian race? It’s an interesting question, and one which I shall consider, but at this point I don’t see anything in either the text written by the OP, or the picture that rises to that level.

[https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...933&highlight=

This post uses imagery and concepts used to incite racial hatred, with the intent to elicit racially charged responses. Originally Posted by kehaar

Okay, now we’re apparently adding a third component to your definition of race-baiting, and that’s that the post must intend to elicit a response from other members that is racially insensitive. Interesting concept, and one that I’ve seen a lot on the Interwebs, mostly posted by people who are incapable of controlling their emotions, or by people who have received infractions after posting something when their emotions are running out of control.

So, in reviewing your reference post, I see nothing at all that even comes close to inciting hatred against a certain race. What race is the OP telling y’all to hate? I mean, Citrullus lanatus may actually be a race as far as the scientific community is concerned, I’m not sure, but if you think the OP is trying to make you hate watermelon, then there is no point in explaining anything else. I see no other mention of any race anywhere in the post.

As to your new requirement of intending to elicit racially insensitive responses from other members, my comment is the same as it’s alsays been. If members here can not control their emotions when they read posts by other members, then they should simply not read them, or failing that, should leave the interwebs. The board has a very good Ignore function. It’s there for exactly this purpose. Use it. If you cannot, then please send me a PM requesting that your account be disabled and we’ll make sure that happens for you. It’s already happened here, so the option is always yours.

I am sorry about the grammar mistakes. Originally Posted by kehaar

It’s not a grammatical mistake that I care about, it’s a fundamental clarification of the concept of the phrase itself. There are many definitions of the phrase in use today, some more general than others, and it’s important to know how people define it so the question can be answered correctly. In this case, I simply do not see how your definitions completely fit either of the reference threads.

However, I understand what you’re really saying here. What you’re really saying is “Sistine Chapel does nothing but make posts that upset me and/or others in some way, and I want him to stop.” That’s completely understandable, and unfortunately, also completely irrelevant. There are people in the world that you will find annoying. There are people who will try to play you. There are people who will try to take advantage of you. Of all people, the members in this forum should be fully aware of the examples of people on the Interwebs trying to influence others in certain ways to reach their own personal goals, or to disrupt the actions of other people in certain ways.

Ignore them. If they break the rules here, Staff will punish them. If they do not break the rules, Staff will not punish them. Either way, it doesn’t matter to you because you’re ignoring them. This isn’t rocket science folks. The only question you have to ask yourself is, “am I going to let Sistine Chapel continue to influence my actions or not?” As always, your answer is yours alone.

Wakeup the picture or reference material is like most in science is an artist conception meant to support an actual non Fictional event in American history. I do not race bait at all. I'm not here to incite hatred for anyone based on race. Even though I do dislike Trump with a passion. The fact is that modern day historians and educators like to white-wash history and pretend certain things didnt happen. I understand that some people dont like to see evidence of the bad deeds of America and their ancestors but you cant run from it just because it makes you uncomfortable. It's an example of how Most Americans like to eat animal meat but dont like to see how the animals are slaughtered. I'm a factual poster not an emotional one and by and large I agree with your assessment. I felt the same way most here feel about me when most discredited John McCains war service. Some feel they can do or say whatever they want. I get the feeling that its difficult for some to accept they cant use their ethnic priviledge on this board. I further believe it's an insult on your intelligence and you shouldnt have to issue 3 paragraphs of responses. I'm within the rules and boundaries and I keep things based on fact.

Most Americans only want to hear history that demonizes those that dont look like them or gives them a unicorn and rainbow sense of Euphoria. If you will notice most posters rarely stick to the topics they choose instead to try to pivot to make the topic about me. If they stuck to the topic and focused on providing a legit response I would imagine they'd reduce their level of frustration. My point is this uproar is really not about me as it is their ability to follow basic rules. People frustrating themselves because of this is not my problem but belongs to them and them alone.

And for the record 90% of what Fox News puts out is legit fake with the exception of Shep Smith. See how that works?

In this case its true Fox News is legit fake news and is basically a state run media outlet similar to Putins and Kim Jung Un state run media and yet many people use Fox News as their source. And yet I never complain about it because I comfortable with my news sources.

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=2423384

Fake information meant to incite racial hatred.

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...933&highlight=

This post uses imagery and concepts used to incite racial hatred, with the intent to elicit racially charged responses.

I am sorry about the grammar mistakes. Originally Posted by kehaar

I just thought you should know that I vet everything myself before I post it. I already knew I'd get this very specific type of pushback. ;-)

I'm within the rules and boundaries and I keep things based on fact. Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Staff will let you know if you are or aren’t, your opinion of whether or not you are following the guidelines doesn’t matter...the rest of what you posted is irrelevant to the discussion in this thread...

I’ve already warned y’all, so I’d advise y’all to stick to the topic here.

Where appropriate, I do ignore him and the other posters who have his agenda, and don't need the ignore function to do so. He does not "upset" me.

I was attempting to ascertain as to whether the rules in this forum have evolved to the asymmetrical rules imposed on the rest of the "internet", and society, in general.

However, I understand what you’re really saying here. What you’re really saying is “Sistine Chapel does nothing but make posts that upset me and/or others in some way, and I want him to stop.” That’s completely understandable, and unfortunately, also completely irrelevant. There are people in the world that you will find annoying. There are people who will try to play you. There are people who will try to take advantage of you. Of all people, the members in this forum should be fully aware of the examples of people on the Interwebs trying to influence others in certain ways to reach their own personal goals, or to disrupt the actions of other people in certain ways.

I do not find Sistine annoying. In fact, I find him illustrative of his, and his cohorts, political movement. My specific question concerned this site owner's perspective on speech, that movement, and the asymmetry of speech controls imposed out of fear of that movement.

Thanks for the clarification. The response is illustrative.

kehaar

P.S. Was this the appropriate thread to ask this question?

I was attempting to ascertain as to whether the rules in this forum have evolved to the asymmetrical rules imposed on the rest of the "internet", and society, in general. Originally Posted by kehaar

I do not know what you mean by this, and cannot answer your question without knowing it.

Your response was definitive and clear.

I don't concur with your analysis, but, as you have indicated, that is irrelevant. I understand the rules, and I am sure they reflect the owner's wishes.

Thanks again.

There’s no threat there...it is just what is... Originally Posted by Wakeup

LOL! The completely expected denial!

Stop...get back on topic.

On that topic, I just read that one of our members here is upset that I didn’t crack down on thread hijacking. First, please refrain from addressing Staff in a disrespectful manner...

Second, If you really want Staff to issue infractions for thread hijacking, fine. Your wish is granted...from now on, be very careful what y’all post...hijacking points will add up VERY quickly... Originally Posted by Wakeup

Wakeup - I agree with your insistence that this thread (explaining the guidelines) should stay on topic. However, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to enforce a more general "rule" against thread "hijacking". Please identify or quote the member who you say urged a crackdown. I am certain the overwhelming majority here oppose the idea. It's unworkable. A can of worms. A Pandora's box. You can't even define it. It's in the eyes of the beholder.

I will give you an example that plays out in this forum every day...

Yssup starts a thread bitching about something Trump did or said. Someone else points out that obama or hildebeest did or said something similar or equally objectionable. Yssup doesn't want to admit this takes the wind out of his sails, and leaves him looking like a hypocrite eager to impose a double standard. So he reacts by yelling "Whataboutism!" "Hijack!" "This thread is about twitler, not obama!" Then he pounds the rtm button demanding that the other poster should be pointed.

Is that what you want? If so, we might as well shut down the forum, because you can't talk about politics without calling out the other side's hypocrisy.

I could tick off a dozen more reasons why it's a bad idea. That's just the most obvious one.

I was attempting to ascertain as to whether the rules in this forum have evolved to the asymmetrical rules imposed on the rest of the "internet", and society, in general. Originally Posted by kehaar

Why did you decline to clarify this when wakeup asked you to? I am also curious to hear what you mean. If you think rules are being applied "asymmetrically" then it's important for you to speak up. For your own sake as well as everyone else's.

Even though there should not be one, it appears there is a fine line between minimal moderation and heavy handed moderation.


To be honest, the political forum had minimal moderation, people were getting away with almost anything. We now have a new sheriff in town, and it looks like his Colt .45 is unholstered and ready to be drawn. So act as such and be careful what you post.


I dare anybody start a 'fat whore' thread.

I dare anybody start a 'fat whore' thread. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Hmmm... not sure what that refers to. I dare you to furnish a link! Or would that be off-topic?

Wakeup - I agree with your insistence that this thread (explaining the guidelines) should stay on topic. However, it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to enforce a more general "rule" against thread "hijacking". Please identify or quote the member who you say urged a crackdown. I am certain the overwhelming majority here oppose the idea. It's unworkable. A can of worms. A Pandora's box. You can't even define it. It's in the eyes of the beholder.

I will give you an example that plays out in this forum every day...

Yssup starts a thread bitching about something Trump did or said. Someone else points out that obama or hildebeest did or said something similar or equally objectionable. Yssup doesn't want to admit this takes the wind out of his sails, and leaves him looking like a hypocrite eager to impose a double standard. So he reacts by yelling "Whataboutism!" "Hijack!" "This thread is about twitler, not obama!" Then he pounds the rtm button demanding that the other poster should be pointed.

Is that what you want? If so, we might as well shut down the forum, because you can't talk about politics without calling out the other side's hypocrisy.

I could tick off a dozen more reasons why it's a bad idea. That's just the most obvious one. Originally Posted by lustylad

LOL! Have you not noticed Wakeup is smarter than the average Bear. He can make a logical determination if it is on topic or not. Hypocrisy is when the other side does the same or very similar thing. It does not mean well I heard so and so is gay. Or bringing up some totally unrelated topic like Trump grabs someones pussy and and you retort with Benghazi! Then you also have the gist/verbatim, punctuation/sentence structure way of getting off topic.