[These cases have been closed. If you would like to appeal the decision of the hunter please open a ticket on the help page and the case will be looked into by a second hunter.]
Comments:
While I'm certainly no saint, I don't believe that this site would want folks being called a "Muslim terrorist".
Funny thing to those who've read him, I was reading Christopher Hitchens' Portable Atheist at the time this comment was directed at me. In fact it was Sam Harris' excerpt from The End of Faith
Runeldo also sent me a lovely pm which I'm not sure how to upload yet, maybe someone could give me guidance.
And now I've got a bookend testament of a wall post from same, wish I knew how to upload these gems.
Comments:
While I'm certainly no saint, I don't believe that this site would want folks being called a "Muslim terrorist".
Funny thing to those who've read him, I was reading Christopher Hitchens' Portable Atheist at the time this comment was directed at me. In fact it was Sam Harris' excerpt from The End of Faith
Runeldo also sent me a lovely pm which I'm not sure how to upload yet, maybe someone could give me guidance.
And now I've got a bookend testament of a wall post from same, wish I knew how to upload these gems.
You're wasting your time reading that. Go straight to existentialism. Those guys are like the journalists. Go for the philosophers.
Comments:
While I'm certainly no saint, I don't believe that this site would want folks being called a "Muslim terrorist".
Funny thing to those who've read him, I was reading Christopher Hitchens' Portable Atheist at the time this comment was directed at me. In fact it was Sam Harris' excerpt from The End of Faith
Runeldo also sent me a lovely pm which I'm not sure how to upload yet, maybe someone could give me guidance.
And now I've got a bookend testament of a wall post from same, wish I knew how to upload these gems.
Some technicalities:
1) You insulted him first
2) Muslims aren't a race, they're a faith group
3) He didn't actually call you it, he asked if you were one
subprime wrote:While I'm certainly no saint, I don't believe that this site would want folks being called a "Muslim terrorist".
but he didn't call you a Muslim terrorist... he asked you if you were one... the written word, what a beautiful thing... a simple nuance and turn of phrase and he has at one time both insulted and enraged you, without really saying much... foe and move on or suck it up, cupcake... nothing to see here... the black jesus has spoken...-Jésus noir
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation
makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
clangfield wrote:
2) Muslims aren't a race, they're a faith group
3) He didn't actually call you it, he asked if you were one
So what he said isn't discrimination?
It's not racist bigotry, which is the main point as that's what's against the rules.
As I said, it's a technical point. As far as I know, insulting someone's religion isn't actually against the rules.
My personal view is that religions deserve all the criticisms they get, but that's a different thread.
clangfield wrote:
It's not racist bigotry, which is the main point as that's what's against the rules.
As I said, it's a technical point. As far as I know, insulting someone's religion isn't actually against the rules.
My personal view is that religions deserve all the criticisms they get, but that's a different thread.
Bigotry includes racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia/sexual orientation bashing, religion bashing, lack of religion bashing, or wishing violence on any group of people, etc.
clangfield wrote:
It's not racist bigotry, which is the main point as that's what's against the rules.
As I said, it's a technical point. As far as I know, insulting someone's religion isn't actually against the rules.
My personal view is that religions deserve all the criticisms they get, but that's a different thread.
Bigotry includes racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia/sexual orientation bashing, religion bashing, lack of religion bashing, or wishing violence on any group of people, etc.
I stand corrected (although it was as far as I knew - I just didn't know far enough ).
Again, a personal view, but to me bigotry concerns treating someone differently because of who they were born. I know people disagree about whether homosexuality is nature or nurture; but I would very much incline to the view that religion is a choice (even though some would say they are born into it), and is therefore an opinion and as such is fair game to be criticised and disagreed with - not in an insulting way of course, but as an intellectual exercise (I can give you a logical argument against the fundamental tenets of all the major religions). People can (and do) change religions, or choose to abandon them, so it's not something that one is stuck with (albeit in some cases it is far from easy to change).
Still, if that's the site rule, so be it. However I would not say that the conversation in question crossed this particular line.
Wait how is religion bashing and lack of religion bashing part of bigotry? Would the inclusion of both cause a contradiction? Anyway the issue at question is asking whether someone is a Muslim terrorist is discrimination. How is asking if someone is a Muslim terrorist akin to bashing the Islamic religion?
Major.Bossman wrote:Wait how is religion bashing and lack of religion bashing part of bigotry? Would the inclusion of both cause a contradiction? Anyway the issue at question is asking whether someone is a Muslim terrorist is discrimination. How is asking if someone is a Muslim terrorist akin to bashing the Islamic religion?
I believe the "lack of" part was intended to protect atheists
Why is asking someone if they are a muslim terrorist akin to bashing islam?
Im not sure it is or isnt. I was just pointing out that religion bashing is against the guidelines.
Major.Bossman wrote:Wait how is religion bashing and lack of religion bashing part of bigotry? Would the inclusion of both cause a contradiction? Anyway the issue at question is asking whether someone is a Muslim terrorist is discrimination. How is asking if someone is a Muslim terrorist akin to bashing the Islamic religion?
I believe the "lack of" part was intended to protect atheists
Why is asking someone if they are a muslim terrorist akin to bashing islam?
Im not sure it is or isnt. I was just pointing out that religion bashing is against the guidelines.
It would indeed be highly amusing if lack of "religion bashing" were to be interpreted in the same way as "lack of religion" bashing... reporting people who posted without bashing a religion would keep the mods pretty busy I feel
Major.Bossman wrote:Wait how is religion bashing and lack of religion bashing part of bigotry? Would the inclusion of both cause a contradiction? Anyway the issue at question is asking whether someone is a Muslim terrorist is discrimination. How is asking if someone is a Muslim terrorist akin to bashing the Islamic religion?
I believe the "lack of" part was intended to protect atheists
Why is asking someone if they are a muslim terrorist akin to bashing islam?
Im not sure it is or isnt. I was just pointing out that religion bashing is against the guidelines.
It would indeed be highly amusing if lack of "religion bashing" were to be interpreted in the same way as "lack of religion" bashing... reporting people who posted without bashing a religion would keep the mods pretty busy I feel
I think it means bigotry includes bashing someones religion or bashing someones lack of religion lol
Does this also mean that betiko is guilty of bigotry here?
betiko wrote:...
yes. this account is the wierdest shit ever. he is very often connected, never plays games and never posts in forums... well, he did, but after 2 years a C&A troll accusation because owen called himself the black jesus.
What is that all about seriously? why would someone hang out on a risk game site to not even try a game once... and not even interact with the community...?
is it he a christian terrorist monitoring what we say in here????
I'm not trying to be preachy or lecturing here, but I'd like to share what I understand about racism. Some of you might find it of benefit, and others may not.
Racism is a complicated term and isn't necessarily restricted to discrimination based on 'race'. There is certainly no definitive definition of the term. Whole books and many academic papers have been written trying to define it, and still there is no consensus about its meaning.
Firstly, there is absolutely no scientific basis for the assertion that humans are divided into biologically distinct races. There is no such thing as the white race, or the black race, or the yellow, red, brown or whatever race. And it should also be stated clearly that there are no national groups that can be described as a race, like the German race, the Irish race, the Chinese race, and so on. Early understandings of the term racism considered it to be discrimination on the basis of the understanding that, not only were humans divided into various biologically distinct groups, but that these groups were hierachically ordered in terms of superior and inferior physical, intellectual and moral traits.
However, since scientists debunked the doctrine of biological races, efforts to find better ways to understand the differences in human society arrived at the concept of ethnicity, which is a much more encompassing theory. There are several factors which can define a group as an ethnic group: of course, physical attributes such as skin colour, facial shape, physical stature and so on, but also language, nationality, religion, culture and traditions, and, very importantly, a sense of shared history.
The problem about the term racism is that not everybodythese days understands these concepts. There are a lot of people who still believe that there are biological races, and many of those people still believe that some 'races' are superior to others in terms of physical, intellectual, moral and cultural traits. There are those amongst us who still see biological races, but see race as being the whole package of phenotype, religion, culture and so on, so when they discriminate against someone on the basis of their religion or a cultural practice or trait, they are being racist, insofar as they think the person belongs to another 'race'.
So was Betiko being racist when he typed, "Christian terrorist"? Well, if Betiko is white, most likely not. Would an Arab, a Pakistani or an Indonesian be making a racist statement if he called someone a Muslim terrorist? Not many people would think so. I suppose it's a little like a black person using the n-word.
Was Runeldo being racist? Well, he was certainly being bigoted. If Runeldo equates being Muslim with non-whites, then yes, he was being racist, but we don't know if he does. There was no reasonable context to use the term Muslim terrorist in that particular game chat. It was obviously intended as an insult, given that he had launched into a tirade of insults against subprime, and being an insult, we can conclude that he thinks being Muslim is in some way inferior to him, so check the second box for what classifies as racist.
It should also be noted that he called Runeldo a "disabled idiot", which is just as bad as calling him a Mulsim terrorist and should also be a part of this report.
For what it's worth, I think the term 'hate speech' has a lot to offer. It helps to clear up this argument over whether insults diercted at religious and cultural traits, and nationalities can be classified as racism or not.
Sorry for the long post, but, as I said, some of you might find it useful or interesting.
Last edited by Dualta on Thu Feb 26, 2015 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sorry, asking someone if they are a muslim terrorist or a christian terrorist is not bigotry or racism, it is a question... he hasn't broken a guideline, he has used the beautiful english language to get into someone's head and make them feel as if they are being insulted... he asked a question... he did not call anyone a name... to the best of my knowledge, Muslim Terrorist or Jihadi Terrorist are not racist or bigoted, just as Christian Terrorist or Right To Lifer are not racist or bigoted... sorry about your little butt, but if they deem this racist, it is whack...-Jésus noir
Thorthoth,"Cloaking one's C&A fetish with moral authority and righteous indignation
makes it ever so much more erotically thrilling"
Dualta while your definition and background of racism seems largely correct, there was more of a connection with ethnicity, class, and social practices in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. However racism seems to be more driven by physical appearance. Yes there are still people who cling to these misconceptions as truth, but unless there is a case by case analysis or large scale study it would be rather hard to determine the full extent of these people's ideas. Also your analogy of the Muslim terrorist is in error. The full context of the question was "are you a muslim terrorist" followed by "or just an idiot" which points to Runeldo equating a Muslim terrorist to an idiot as opposed to a Muslim being an idiot. Also that term hate speech would probably be worse as it can lead to numerous problems. The extent to what is allowable and prohibited in regards to hate speech can be every detrimental to the advancement of ideas through criticism especially criticism that is not sugar coated and cutting.
).
