Your thoughts?

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

Your thoughts?

Postby Searcher08 » Sat May 17, 2008 8:21 am

Hope this is the right place... this is probably for Jeff and sunny

I am feeling concerned about a couple of LONG threads that happened that have a similar underlying theme.

Members of the board are accused of vigorous anti-semitism. When asked about specifics, the accusers speak in vague generalities or refuse to answer or then deny they made the accusations (when one can read them a few pages previously!). When challenged to escalate this to discussions with Mods or Jeff, they do not.

So I am.

I am aware of and sensitive to Canadian hate laws - and myself have Jewish family. I am not willing to stand for ANY anti-Semitism on this board and would bring any instance of it to the attention of the Mods / Jeff. However, use of the word Zionazi to describe the intersection of Bush fascist, Likudnik and neocon politics, particularly as realised in Palestine and Iraq is not anti-Semitic. It is also a term used by anti-Zionist Jews.

I am also not willing to have myself and others accused of this by people who thing it is ok to do this without evidence, just because they can, with no consequences. It is bullying and should not be permitted.

My request is that this behaviour added to the Forum Rules as a no-no:
1) No anti-Semitism , racism, homophobia will be tolerated

2) Accusations of a potentially defaming nature MUST be accompanied by specific evidence. If the accuser refuses to provide any, they should be asked to withdraw the remark, and if they do not, they should be temporarily suspended / banned.

This board is a lively feisty and thought provoking place and IMHO "smearing" has no place in it.

best wishes
Searcher
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nomo » Sun May 18, 2008 1:19 am

"Zio-Nazi" is an anti-Semitic slur.

So: Stop saying "Zio-Nazi" and I will stop calling you an anti-Semite.

That's what I've been saying all along.

Cheers.
User avatar
nomo
 
Posts: 3388
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:48 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Sun May 18, 2008 7:30 am

Would it be terrible if I was in broad agreement with you both?

I think accusations of racism, sexism and antisemitism against members should be accompanied with specific examples. And I prefer that they be pm'd to myself or a moderator rather than posted, so the issue can be addressed before a flame war erupts.

And since language is all we have here, we should be careful how we use it. For instance, while I'm not persuaded "Zio-Nazi" is necessarily always an antisemitic slur, it is a favourite slur of antisemities, so that should matter to members who care about how they're presenting themselves and the board. Also, it is always incendiary jargon and a stumbling block to discourse, just like "Islamo-Fascist," and I'd prefer to see neither here.

Do we need a list of proscribed words? I'd rather we didn't. But if not, what can we do about it?
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Searcher08 » Mon May 19, 2008 8:30 am

Jeff, my suggestion is reading the two threads regarding this.

On the one hand you have people trying to engage in dialogue and on the other you have people shouting and ranting about a word they don't like and providing neither logical argument or even basic reasoning. This has happened twice and is continuing.

In the context it is used on RI it is NOT anti-Semitic at all.

nomo has provided no evidence of members anti-Semitism other than he feels this word is. His feelings are his business and do not constitute evidence.

His posting above is incredibly disingenuous given how people have tried to engage him beyond what appear to be his "talking points" that are just repeated - rational argument is just shouted down, sensible questions are ignored or mocked or themselves taken as evidence of anti-semitism.

Seriously, Jeff - *please* look at the threads in questions - they illustrate very clearly what I am talking about. Discourse depends on willingness
to engage first, vocabulary later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok

Being ranted at isn't discourse.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Jeff » Mon May 19, 2008 9:23 am

Searcher08 wrote:On the one hand you have people trying to engage in dialogue and on the other you have people shouting and ranting about a word they don't like and providing neither logical argument or even basic reasoning.


Quite often this topic seems more monologue than dialogue, and I don't mean just here. But I would like to at least encourage dialogue, and even shoot for civil dialogue, but that requires all sides to give some consideration to the red flags of their jargon.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Ask Admin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest