Well, yes.
Let’s avoid calling others names in this forum.
I’m colored, and I wasn’t entirely sure that the post in question was meant to indicate anything about race. However, given the source, I don’t think it was necessary to offer him the benefit of the doubt.
I did some googling into some of the grosser parts of the internet and found some talk that threw the word “polychromatic” around with the word “miscegenation.” That is, polychromatic folks are the ones who are the product of the mixing of races.
Since the late Diego once commented on “traditional all-white culture,” this is a slur that makes sense for him. When he called us “polychromatics” he was referring to our disgusting disregard for white culture.
No cite. Google it your own damned self.
I think there was adequate and sufficient provocation for the banning. I have no interest in discussing the banning, actually.
I don’t like the idea, raised by the OP in the abstract (with the banning of this poster being cited, at least in theory, merely as an example), that hate speech should result in a no-warning ban. The reason I don’t like it is that such an attitude pretends that interpretation plays no role, that hate speech is what it is, recognizable to all. Perhaps less obviously, it insulates us all from any ongoing consideration of what makes something hate speech. It depends on recognizing words, phrases, and perhaps insinuations and lines of thought that have already been tagged as hateful. That’s a type of autoresponse. My concern here is that in the absence of reminding ourselves (at least periodically) of what the criteria are for something being understood as hateful, we get lazy and cease to recognize new forms of it.
I do understand that it’s tiresome to rehash in every instance why saying some hateful phrase is an example of hate speech. And when it’s a newly-registered person who has not been part of our community, I’m onboard with an instaban attitude if they land in here shooting their hateful mouth off. But in general I don’t like zero-tolerance anything as an across-the-board (no pun intended) policy.
I don’t think that’s exactly what he meant since he’s Filipino himself.
Eh, I guess. I’m not terribly interested in dissecting his particular flavor of bigot.
I’m not sure he was Filipino, but he did live there.
I think, given the overall history of the poster, including his recent Pit thread, the banning made sense.
I agree that context and history should be part of the decision process.