Damnit damnit damnit, laziiiiiiiness.
Blarg.
Not necessarily. Racism is not automatically hate speech. For example, look at the numerous Pit threads we’ve had over the years about racist remarks, most of which did not draw hate speech warnings. We also allow sexism, ageism, and fatism without warning the perpetrators. Does this mean we endorse those things? Of course not. It just means we rely on the community to blast the guilty parties when appropriate instead of imposing non-offensiveness by administrative fiat.
Fair enough.
Then I have a second question. Are there any special rules for Pitting our resident gringo hater? It seems that, were he to be Pitted again for the same offenses, he’d be just as much of a schmuck and we’d see a replay of last time. Does this mean he can’t be Pitted, or that threads he’s Pitted in will have a short shelf life?
But that was the point of the closed thread–namely, blasting the party who was being a racist dick. TPTB removed that avenue from the community, and also didn’t want to do anything by administrative fiat, so the “offender” basically gets away with it.
Does that sound like a good policy?
That’s a good point, although note that the reason the thread was closed not to protect CB from taking his medicine but to decide if we should give him something a bit stronger. In any case, I’d say now that we’ve sorted out the whole hate speech issue, you’re welcome to start a Pit thread about CB’s use of the word “gringo” in that thread if you want to.
So how about letting on about what conclusion you mods have come to?
“Fucking gringo hypocrisy” is hate speech? Hypocrisy is an equivalent to “laziness” “thievery” or “money grubbing” when it comes to racial stereotypes?
Bullshit.
Are you banned yet?
Bigoted but not bannable, evidently.
Yes, bigot.
Your bigotry isn’t special, fool.
Apparently it’s not sorted out.
I was responding to post #46. Post #47 wasn’t there when I submitted #48.
I’m sorry, we hid the conclusion deep in the middle of this thread. The only possible way for anyone to find out about it would be for them to have to read the whole thing. Which is, of course, ridiculous. Our bad, really.
Here it is again, just for you:
Just to clear this up a little, is it official that Gringo should not be used in a derogatory manner towards White Americans or just that CB needs to act like less of a jerk?
Many of us are slow and likes things spelled out. 
Thank You in advance,
Jim
To clarify, just because something is derogatory towards a group does not make it a hateful post, and we would rather have a narrow version of what is hateful so that we don’t get people whining about just using the word “gringo” or “cracker” or “white trash” is a violation, or that any unflattering statement (or one perceived as unflattering) about any group is hateful. Unflattering is not necessarily hateful. However, it could be depending on the context.
I think you’re correct, the “don’t be a jerk” rule is more applicable in the case of the previous thread, but again, it’s a fine line because this is the Pit. We have chosen not to warn anyone up to this point, but as we have freed up the matter for discussion.
The problem with setting a firm an absolute guideline or litmus test is that people will dance all around the line and carefully craft what are transparently hateful statements to get around the written rule. This is not the point. The point is that we want the forum to be as open as possible without going overboard. Frankly, we generally don’t see hateful posts that don’t also violate “don’t be a jerk” and “don’t troll” so I don’t think further rules and guidelines are needed.
As always, if you feel that your post may not meet our requirements, I encourage you to send it to any moderator, myself included, and we will discuss it with you. Nearly all users have not had a problem up to now so I don’t think this will be a major point of contention regarding future warnings.
I know that it can be frustrating as a user to follow a “we’ll know it when we see it” rule. Please do report posts that you’re concerned about.
White? Where did anyone mention skin color?
Were you insulting black Americans as well?
Aren’t you leaving out red and yellow? I wasn’t insulting anyone. Some people around here are too thin skinned.
Saying that you “weren’t insulting anyone” is a plain lie. Does the term “gringo” include black and Asian Americans to you?
No it’s not. You should try rereading the way I used the word. Gringo to me is a non-Spanish speaking foreigner. In Mexico we don’t differentiate between nationalities or races. How does one know the nationalitiy of a person on looks alone?
CD, you obviously feel wronged by these threads, but as I was asking a question and fluiddruid pretty much answered it.
Why don’t you drop this, let it fade away and be less of a jerk. Obviously this has been going on for several weeks now and it had looked like you were going to let it drop.
If you didn’t make such a big deal about the word white in my question, Colibri wouldn’t have felt the need to say anything and now the hostility is growing again.
So, you are not in trouble, this can all go away now and you got a little advise.
Please try to have a nice day and I’ll see you in another thread.
Jim
Fair enough. However, to carve a fine point on it, she did not say that it was not hate speech either. This I think is the salient portion–bolding mine–
I am having a hard time parsing the bolded part, but nowhere else is it stated what the decision was, or even if one had been made, other than there is not a list, which we already knew. However, every time I am told there is no list I am compelled to bring up this post by TVeblen–
Sure looks like a list to me.
As noted above, we were not privy to that decision.
Instantaneous? Give me a break. It was over a week! That is a bullshit answer.
At first, no, she didn’t. That’s why I posted a clarification, as did she. My comment wasn’t intended as a chastisement, merely a clarification.
There is no list of taboo words. There are terms that are more likely to make one’s statements be viewed as hate speech, which I think is what Veb was pointing out, but even those depend on context. For example, do a search on the word nigger – you’ll find that almost none of the resulting 750 posts have drawn warnings. That said, nigger is a far more charged word than (e.g.) redneck, so we’re going to have less tolerance for someone ranting about the stupid niggers next door than the stupid rednecks next door.
The point of the rule is not perfect colorblind fairness, but the pragmatic realities of running a message board. (Have a glance through some unmoderated message boards and newsgroups and you’ll see what I mean.) Treating any and all racially-related words as exactly equal is ridiculous, a complete disconnect from both present day reality and history simply for the sake of abstract consistency. Simply put, there’s some racist drivel we don’t want to have to listen to. But it’s a pretty high threshold, and we’ve very rarely had a problem with non-trolls running afoul of the hate speech rule. Until we see evidence of a problem, I don’t see the point of trying to make the rules on speech in Pit any more restrictive than they are.