Moderator: Community Team
If someone is saying racist things, and exhibiting racist behaviour, then I don't think it matters if they are doing it because they believe what they are saying or because they are trolling. The end result is the same.riskllama wrote:lol, mrs ain't no racist - just a troll.

Luckily we are still allowed to be xenophobic at least.Nut Shot Scott wrote:If I can sum up what I'm reading:
- You're racist lemmings if you disagree with OP.
- You're racist lemmings if you agree with OP.
- You're just plain racist if you're trolling.
- You're racist lemmings if you're white.
- You're racist lemmings if you're from the USA.
- You're mainly lemmings but probably racist, too if you're from the UK.
- You're definitely a racist lemming if you like llamas.
So pretty much, everyone is racist and we can all agree to disagree that this map that resides in a small, ignored corner of the WWW does or does not need to be changed due to the offensiveness or inoffensiveness of depictions of slaves, aka "free local labour", who did exist but we don't want to have existed in a place that may or may not want to acknowledge this part of their history for reasons that could be valid but also might be totally invalid. Complicated...
You will likely think I am one of Louti's clan mates coming to his aid but I have to say you have lost a lot of credibility by your current signature and it is downright troubling that in this day and age people can feel justified in both trying to hold a moral high ground while also sinking to the depths that you have.mrswdk wrote:It's interesting how you were so enthusiastic in defending anyone's right to say anything 'logical' if they want to, up until I said something you didn't agree with at which point your response was a three-post diatribe screeching about how I'm an anti-Semite who deserves to be taken to criminal trial.
But then you are also the guy who described this thread as 'a bit of fun' before later saying that any offense you profess to be taking should be totally disregarded by anyone reading your posts, so at least you were up front about how disingenuous your contributions to this thread were going to be.
I did. On page 1. So did others. The thoughtful contributions were then followed by loutil, SCuD et al spouting their fingers-in-the-ears 'protect history' nonsense. They clearly have their own axe to grind and are clearly not willing to listen to a calm and measured post. So then what? The only other option is to go for the emotional prompt and show them how it feels to be on the other side of the debate.ljex wrote:The true path to progress is maintaining credibility and actually inviting people to see your perspective on something
A very level headed response. In this case I would like to think that loutil has the intellectual nouse to discuss a point on it's own virtue. I don't believe he would sink to the level of disagreeing with a point simply because an immoral and intellectually dishonest person does believe it.ljex wrote:Spoiler
You will likely think I am one of Louti's clan mates coming to his aid but I have to say you have lost a lot of credibility by your current signature and it is downright troubling that in this day and age people can feel justified in both trying to hold a moral high ground while also sinking to the depths that you have.mrswdk wrote:It's interesting how you were so enthusiastic in defending anyone's right to say anything 'logical' if they want to, up until I said something you didn't agree with at which point your response was a three-post diatribe screeching about how I'm an anti-Semite who deserves to be taken to criminal trial.
But then you are also the guy who described this thread as 'a bit of fun' before later saying that any offense you profess to be taking should be totally disregarded by anyone reading your posts, so at least you were up front about how disingenuous your contributions to this thread were going to be.
To put it bluntly I disagree with Louti fairly frequently on political issues and we have had some fairly heated private conversations about some of these disagreements (one of which was regarding the BLM movement). In fact I would agree with you that renaming the map to Colonial Jamaica is a pretty no regrets move to contextualize the time period the map is based on and would even understand the desire to remove such a symbol from the map as it has the potential to offend someone.
That said, there is simply no place for a signature like yours as it only serves to further the divide. You see at the end of the day because you have have chosen to post something so offensive directed right at Louti you have made it that much harder for us to progress as a society because now he has someone to push against. It has become that much clearer that your message is inconsistent, is hypocritical, or is selfish. Even sadder, beyond just the impact this has on one person some number of others will see and assume you are just some troll and also inherently decided to disagree with your message, or louti will share this with some of his family / friends and tell them either about how it hurt his feelings or that he met this silly internet troll who is the perfect embodiment of why the BLM protests shouldn't be listened to.
The true path to progress is maintaining credibility and actually inviting people to see your perspective on something rather than pushing them away for the sake of getting a rise out of them. You can do what you choose, but sit down and ask yourself if you actually want to see things get better because if you do pushing people away is just going to cause that progress to happen at a much slower pace.

Just so the CC community is aware, I have reported the above post from mrswdk with the following statement attached to the report.mrswdk wrote:Seeing as a bunch of cry babies are getting butthurt about my old signature (despite the same cry babies being fine with the Jamaica map how it is) I have now changed my sig to remove the offensive symoblism. Be the change you wish to see in the world, and all that*.
My signature is now a photo of Red Swastika Society members. Red Swastika was and is the Asian equivalent of the Red Cross, so my signature no longer contains any symbolism that is offensive to anyone. I therefore will not be changing it again.
*even if the world is too busy demanding BLM protesters be executed to give a shit

Yeah you're right, he's actually been very supportive of OP's idea throughout this thread:Extreme Ways wrote:I know mrs is trolling, but nowhere did Lou state that he is very much against renaming the map to Colonial Jamaica. Despite what mrs frames, Lou's quote of 'history is history' does not in any way mean he condones any of it.
loutil wrote:Wow....this crap has found its way into here as well. History is history. The good and the bad. Hiding it will not change it... History is a historical record. I am not sure how that offends anyone unless they wish to find a way to be offended.
loutil wrote:I am not interested in changing things just because someone chose to be offended.
What if I said that I am offended by people who take offense at historical realities? Should your speech be silenced?
loutil wrote:You seem to be one of those people who like to play the victim card and find reasons to be offended by innocuous or otherwise irrelevant stuff.
As you so love to do, being intellectually dishonest again, you take my statements out of context. The intent of the OP was to remove the iconography, not change the name of the map. There is no offense in the maps name and changing it to better reflect what it represents is a good choice. That is not the same as someone being offended by something and demanding it be changed.mrswdk wrote:Yeah you're right, he's actually been very supportive of OP's idea throughout this thread:Extreme Ways wrote:I know mrs is trolling, but nowhere did Lou state that he is very much against renaming the map to Colonial Jamaica. Despite what mrs frames, Lou's quote of 'history is history' does not in any way mean he condones any of it.
loutil wrote:Wow....this crap has found its way into here as well. History is history. The good and the bad. Hiding it will not change it... History is a historical record. I am not sure how that offends anyone unless they wish to find a way to be offended.loutil wrote:I am not interested in changing things just because someone chose to be offended.
What if I said that I am offended by people who take offense at historical realities? Should your speech be silenced?loutil wrote:You seem to be one of those people who like to play the victim card and find reasons to be offended by innocuous or otherwise irrelevant stuff.
The thread was pretty much agreed to that two pages ago.mrswdk wrote: So it would now appear that this thread is now almost unanimous in agreeing to change the map's name to Colonial Jamaica/Colonial Era Jamaica.
