PDA

View Full Version : Allegations of Racism



Basil
11-05-2008, 09:11 PM
I'd like to see the adoption to this board of a policy whereby allegations of racism are not permitted (and are summarily deleted) unless wholly proven.

Firegoat 7 made allegations of racism as well as homophobia against me before falling a heap, publicly apologising and then disappearing. I've seen other similar allegations made against other posters as well.

I note that the issue has appeared again today although that is not my motivation for posting this thread - today's events were merely a reminder prompt for me to do so.

Attaching a label to a poster describing a political persuasion or an assessment of intellectual ability is quite different. It is neither a crime to be a dunderhead nor a lefty (although it should be ;)); and moreover these labels are not on the whole damaging. However the accusation of racism is a gross one (with criminal connotations) with substantial consequences - foreseeable and otherwise.

I'd encourage a swift adoption of this proposal with but the merest of prevarication.

Thank you.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2008, 09:35 PM
I'd like to see the adoption to this board of a policy whereby allegations of racism are not permitted (and are summarily deleted) unless wholly proven.

Assuming the level of proof is inadequate, where would you draw the line between:

1. Claims that a specific idea is racist, accompanied by suggestions (possibly unstated) that posters here hold it.
1a. Claims that a specific group of people are racist, accompanied by suggestions (possibly unstated) that posters here agree with that group.
2. Claims that a specific comment by a specific poster is racist.
3. Claims that a specific poster is racist.

I notice at a quick search that the word "racist" appears here rather frequently and there have been a heck of a lot of type 1 and 1a comments, many of them by Jono.

There was an instance of type 3 that was modded and a warning issued because it referred to a poster in a specific real-world capacity and was probably defamatory, but most uses of "racist" aren't actually defamatory (contrary to the esteemed legal opinion of one of our ex-members).

Certainly such claims don't make for great debate whatever the context, but Jono and Rincewind both seem to be quite robust individuals who will swing all manner of stuff at each other without breaching the rules or requesting much moderation so I tend to just let them go.

Actually in the current case I am surprised it has gone on for so long. I thought the original claim was just obviously over the top and those opposed to Rincewind would quickly dismiss it rather than settling in for trench warfare.

Basil
11-05-2008, 09:45 PM
Assuming the level of proof is inadequate, where would you draw the line between:

1. Claims that a specific idea is racist, accompanied by suggestions (possibly unstated) that posters here hold it.
1a. Claims that a specific group of people are racist, accompanied by suggestions (possibly unstated) that posters here agree with that group.
2. Claims that a specific comment by a specific poster is racist.
3. Claims that a specific poster is racist.
Until testing and experience suggest otherwise, I propose that only type 3 be eradicated.

Being told that a statement I have made is racist, and subject to subsequent debate is fine by me (albeit perhaps incongruous from my overall stance on this subject - but such is the nefarious nature of BBs). Types 1, 1a and 2 are lesser claims, less damaging, more easily investigated, more readily dismissed, upheld, digested by observers and so forth.


Certainly such claims don't make for great debate whatever the context, but Jono and Rincewind both seem to be quite robust individuals who will swing all manner of stuff at each other without breaching the rules or requesting much moderation so I tend to just let them go.
I'd go so far as to allow Jono and Barry an exemption while addressing each other :lol:

Rincewind
11-05-2008, 10:11 PM
I'd go so far as to allow Jono and Barry an exemption while addressing each other :lol:

I am only maintaining a claim of type 2, currently.

Basil
11-05-2008, 10:18 PM
I take this opportunity to reaffirm that my request for policy adoption is general in nature and not specific to today's discussion.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2008, 10:18 PM
Until testing and experience suggest otherwise, I propose that only type 3 be eradicated.

Your proposal has been deemed not to be demonstrably silly and has therefore advanced in the queue.

Basil
11-05-2008, 10:22 PM
Your proposal has been deemed not to be demonstrably silly and has therefore advanced in the queue.
Crikey! Be still my beating heart. The brains in vats have been moved.
Thank you.

Desmond
11-05-2008, 10:30 PM
Shall we add "misotheist" and "lefty" to the list? Perhaps we should just make Jono use people's proper names at all times. :P

Basil
11-05-2008, 10:33 PM
Shall we add "misotheist" and "lefty" to the list?
No. As stated earlier, neither of these are crimes (although the latter should be).

Rincewind
11-05-2008, 10:33 PM
Shall we add "misotheist" and "lefty" to the list? Perhaps we should just make Jono use people's proper names at all times. :P

Not to mention his use of "non-scientist" while ever he continues to ignore numerous requests to define the term. :lol:

Basil
11-05-2008, 10:34 PM
Let's try and keep this serious issue on topic please gents.

Aaron Guthrie
11-05-2008, 10:40 PM
The allegations that people hate such and such a religion seem to me to be rather extreme allegations. They seem to fit the criteria of
and moreover these labels are not on the whole damaging. However the accusation of racism is a gross one (with criminal connotations) with substantial consequences - foreseeable and otherwise.That is, of labels that are damaging, and that may have criminal or other substantial consequences.

I am not sure if they are in the same class as accusations of racism.

Basil
11-05-2008, 10:45 PM
Aaron, I don't understand your post. Would you rephrase it for me please?

Aaron Guthrie
11-05-2008, 10:54 PM
Aaron, I don't understand your post. Would you rephrase it for me please? Saying something like "Bob hates Christianity", "Doug is a muslim hater", seems to me to fit the criteria I quoted from you in my previous post.

I don't have anything to back up the legal or other consequences except that I vaguely expect that you could be charged with hate speech against a religion in this country. (Which if true would show that hating a religion is taken seriously. I could just be way off the mark here, however.)

Basil
11-05-2008, 10:57 PM
Saying something like "Bob hates Christianity", "Doug is a muslim hater", seems to me to fit the criteria I quoted from you in my previous post.
Neither of these statements would be permitted under my proposal (unless they could be substantiated). Only because of the word 'hate' though. 'Dislike' would be OK. Again the whole thing can be reduced to absurdity. My primary objective is to stop the machine gun mantra of "racist" allegations being made against folk.

Desmond
11-05-2008, 11:04 PM
No. As stated earlier, neither of these are crimes (although the latter should be).The former is probably a crime in most countries. Probably is in Australia if you looked through the law books thoroughly enough.

Basil
11-05-2008, 11:08 PM
The former is probably a crime in most countries. Probably is in Australia if you looked through the law books thoroughly enough.
I didn't take your meaning as serious from your original post #8. I'm only interested in addressing the racism issue here. You'd be welcome to put any proposal to the board you like.

antichrist
12-05-2008, 10:48 AM
I would consider A/C hates Christianity a compliment, pile more on. Is putting poop on Brisbanites allowed?

Desmond
12-05-2008, 10:53 AM
I didn't take your meaning as serious from your original post #8. I'm only interested in addressing the racism issue here. You'd be welcome to put any proposal to the board you like.
fair nuff

pax
13-05-2008, 06:21 PM
What about the preemptive assumption that someone will accuse you of racism?

Spiny Norman
14-05-2008, 09:37 AM
I'm against removal/banning of posts/people claiming others are racist. I'd be much happier if people learned the actual meaning of the word ... just that alone would likely reduce its usage by more than 90%.

Basil
14-05-2008, 01:46 PM
I'm against removal/banning of posts/people claiming others are racist.
Why? Especially if the allegation isn't proven but shrouded in 1/2 truths and vagaries. Do you not believe claims of racism (especially if put on high rotation) are damaging. Do you not believe the proposed clean-up represents a step towards best practice in an imperfect world?


I'd be much happier if people learned the actual meaning of the word ... just that alone would likely reduce its usage by more than 90%.
I doubt it. I'm surprised you hold that POV. It is quite clear there are people who enjoy rubbishing someone's character with mud that is likely to partially stick even in the absence of proof.

Basil
14-05-2008, 01:48 PM
If anyone can cite any Australian or for that matter UK case from the last 20 years in which a claim of "racist" or "racism", unaccompanied by any false claim of fact, was found to be defamatory, then I would be very interested to see it.
I'm unaware of any. I would point out that this board has chosen as best practice to disallow references to people's physical characteristics. This is despite the citations probably having a basis in fact.

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2008, 09:04 PM
Do you not believe claims of racism (especially if put on high rotation) are damaging.

I think that, in much the same way as bogus "fascist" calls, they are primarily damaging to the person making them - except in cases where they are not all that far from true, in which case a media beat-up quite often takes over.


I'm unaware of any. I would point out that this board has chosen as best practice to disallow references to people's physical characteristics. This is despite the citations probably having a basis in fact.

Yes; something doesn't have to be defamation to be restricted on this forum. Those points were mainly because someone elsewhere has been making dubious claims about whether "racist" calls are defamatory.

Basil
14-05-2008, 09:21 PM
I think that, in much the same way as bogus "fascist" calls, they are primarily damaging to the person making them ...
Sure. For mine the fascist call is barely damaging (and barely criminal). I agree there are degrees which have been covered here previously. I also agree that greater damage is likely bestowed on the caller. Nonetheless I still believe perpetuating an unfounded racist slur should be OUT, for the enduring protection of the recipient.

Kevin Bonham
14-05-2008, 10:07 PM
Posts mainly concerning the issue of whether claims of racism are defamatory, and general debunking of Toolbox (and in one case my own) nonsense moved to Libel and the Forum (http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=123636) thread.

Spiny Norman
15-05-2008, 07:38 AM
Why? Especially if the allegation isn't proven but shrouded in 1/2 truths and vagaries. Do you not believe claims of racism (especially if put on high rotation) are damaging. Do you not believe the proposed clean-up represents a step towards best practice in an imperfect world?
In the vast majority of cases I have seen, the claim "you're a racist" or "what you said is racist" turns out to be little more than "I disagree with what you said about X and since X is from another country, you're a racist". This usually says more about the comprehension skills and vocabulary of the accuser, rather than anything particularly negative about the target of their accusation.

In cases where someone has said something racist (i.e. it discriminates between two groups of people on the basis of their race and not on some other basis), then the fact of the matter is that what was said was racist and we all should be free to call it as such.

Basil
15-05-2008, 09:54 AM
In the vast majority of cases I have seen, the claim "you're a racist" or "what you said is racist" turns out to be little more than "I disagree with what you said about X and since X is from another country, you're a racist". This usually says more about the comprehension skills and vocabulary of the accuser, rather than anything particularly negative about the target of their accusation.

In cases where someone has said something racist (i.e. it discriminates between two groups of people on the basis of their race and not on some other basis), then the fact of the matter is that what was said was racist and we all should be free to call it as such.
Spiny, do you make room to allow that people incorrectly called racist are damaged?

Spiny Norman
15-05-2008, 10:33 AM
Spiny, do you make room to allow that people incorrectly called racist are damaged?
Yes. So are some of the people who are called stupid, moronic, fat, or any one of a thousand other adjectives. Perhaps we should ban all conversation just in case someone gets hurt?

Are you sure you aren't subscribing just a little to the "nanny state" mentality which I (and, I think, you) detest? ... :whistle:

Basil
15-05-2008, 10:42 AM
Yes.
Good, we agree on that. That is the centrepiece of my position.


So are some of the people who are called stupid, moronic, fat, or any one of a thousand other adjectives. Perhaps we should ban all conversation just in case someone gets hurt?
No, I 'm not suggesting that. In fact I've made it clear that these boundaries are already imperfect. We (society and this BB) have already made rules which, on their face, seem inequitable or imbalanced, yet nonetheless we have made them. For instance I can refer to your race, but not your height.

A blanket refutation of my proposal because the system is imperfect is neither becoming nor helpful. Arguing "whatever next" falls into the same category.

Imagine you are applying for a job and someone Googles. Lo and behold "yada yada yada and there was that unsavoury situation where Stephen Frost made those racist comments, for which he was admonished ..." How do you think that is going to go down on the short-list? This is entirely different from Stephen Frost is a fat fool.

I'm not sure we can make any further progress. I'm calling "damage". You're saying "damage, smamage".

Spiny Norman
15-05-2008, 10:48 AM
Sticks and stones ... :hand:

OK, I'm happy enough to go along with the majority. But I actually prefer it when an opponent resorts to name-calling, as it just demonstrates their inability to mount a polite and reasoned argument ... as soon as they start doing that, they've lost.

Basil
15-05-2008, 10:55 AM
Sticks and stones ... :hand:
You seem to miss the point. I'm personally not offended by name-calling either. It is the damage to reputation that is at play.


But I actually prefer it when an opponent resorts to name-calling, as it just demonstrates their inability to mount a polite and reasoned argument ... as soon as they start doing that, they've lost.
This introduces a brand new idea. I agree with it. But it is not central to what I'm seeking address.

Rincewind
15-05-2008, 12:04 PM
You seem to miss the point. I'm personally offended by name-calling either.

Freudian slip? I assume you misplaced the 'not' in that last sentence.


It is the damage to reputation that is at play.

I think talk of damage to reputation is largely overstated. No one sensible takes anything stated on a internet blog or bulletin board without vast quantities of salt.

eclectic
15-05-2008, 12:30 PM
I think talk of damage to reputation is largely overstated. No one sensible takes anything stated on a internet blog or bulletin board without vast quantities of salt.

irrespective of the (presumed) damage to reputation which may or may not be occurring what right do they have to anchor your actual name to the thread title as opposed to using your chesschat username or better still using a title which covers the (supposed) point of contention without needing to involve personality politics?

Basil
15-05-2008, 06:10 PM
I assume you misplaced the 'not' in that last sentence.
Thanks. Fixed.


I think talk of damage to reputation is largely overstated. No one sensible takes anything stated on a internet blog or bulletin board without vast quantities of salt.
Agreed. But again to degree.

The fact that damage can exist is sufficient to examine the issue. And from there I examine that type of damage (as opposed to "you're an incompetent goose") and find that the foreseeable degree of damage of the slander is again sufficient for the proposed action.

Conversely, I don't believe we can allow whatever we want (and indeed we don't) on the internet (BB or otherwise) simply because of the grain of salt defence. Ultimately I find your 'grain of salt' defence and Spiny's 'sticks and stones' defence insufficient protection against an allegation of racism.

And I am unanimous in that! :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
15-05-2008, 07:02 PM
In the vast majority of cases I have seen, the claim "you're a racist" or "what you said is racist" turns out to be little more than "I disagree with what you said about X and since X is from another country, you're a racist". This usually says more about the comprehension skills and vocabulary of the accuser, rather than anything particularly negative about the target of their accusation.
However, the Leftmedia often protects its favourite demagogues by brandishing accusations of "racism" at anyone who dares to criticise them, thus demonizing the critics. We see it right now with B. Hussein Obama, the current Leftmedia darling, who is not allowed to be criticized in any way (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2008/05/12/the_obama_rules).

Spiny Norman
16-05-2008, 12:16 AM
However, the Leftmedia often protects its favourite demagogues by brandishing accusations of "racism" at anyone who dares to criticise them, thus demonizing the critics. We see it right now with B. Hussein Obama, the current Leftmedia darling, who is not allowed to be criticized in any way (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/RichLowry/2008/05/12/the_obama_rules).
True, they might do that ... but in my mind, if their allegation of racism is incorrect, they've just lost the argument and I pay them no more attention (losers!). :)

Kevin Bonham
16-05-2008, 01:26 AM
Shall we add "misotheist" and "lefty" to the list?

One reason I haven't done anything about the Rincewind/Jono "racism" stuff in moderation terms is that if it's OK for Jono to call someone a "misotheist" or "atheopath" (the former suggesting hatred, the latter a psychological disorder), generally with nowhere near sufficient evidence to justify such terms, then he has to expect that others might call him "racist" (among other terms) in a similarly loose fashion. And every indication I get from the thread is that he does not, indeed, find that being tried against him all that surprising - of course he disputes it, but there's no disproportionate or inconsistent sense of outrage there.

I think it's different to cases where a racism call appears more or less out of the blue in a debate that was otherwise only mildly provocative (and where there is no background of similar characterisation flaming between the individuals concerned) and where that happens I will be quite likely to step in and snip it in future. But having thought about all this for a few days, I currently don't think a blanket policy banning unproven racism calls is desirable, specifically because to be fair we would have to then ban a whole range of other adverse characterisations.

Basil
16-05-2008, 10:06 AM
But having thought about all this for a few days, I currently don't think a blanket policy banning unproven racism calls is desirable, specifically because to be fair we would have to then ban a whole range of other adverse characterisations.
Thanks for your considerations Kev.

For the record I don't agree with your stated primary rationale other adverse characterisations would need to be moderated. I find this 'can of worms / precedent' defence as bad as the 'sticks and stones', 'water off a duck's back', and 'grain of salt' rationales.

The overriding issue that I feel you, Barry and Spiny have missed is that an allegation of being a thief would not be tolerated for instance. I believe a better demarcation would be one where the allegation has a criminal element.

I'm happy to leave it there.

Kevin Bonham
16-05-2008, 02:00 PM
The overriding issue that I feel you, Barry and Spiny have missed is that an allegation of being a thief would not be tolerated for instance.

Such an allegation, without proof, would be clearly defamatory.


I believe a better demarcation would be one where the allegation has a criminal element.

I've got no problem with that, but just calling someone a racist (or "misotheist") isn't automatically calling them a criminal. It's not illegal to be a racist but it is illegal to express racism in certain ways. There's been no suggestion that anyone currently heavily involved here has ever done so.

Capablanca-Fan
18-05-2008, 05:30 PM
I've got no problem with that, but just calling someone a racist (or "misotheist") isn't automatically calling them a criminal.
It's not necessarily a crime to be a liar either.

Kevin Bonham
18-05-2008, 08:47 PM
It's not necessarily a crime to be a liar either.

Indeed; in some occupations it seems more or less compulsory.

We restricted the use of "liar" because it is often defamatory. I was interested to note that the USCF forum rules also ban it in much the same manner.

Basil
18-05-2008, 09:11 PM
It's not necessarily a crime to be a liar either.
Jono, we have a ruling whose roots I say is found in reductio ad hair-splitting. There is certainly no inductive or deductive reason for the ruling (impossible because of the exceptions littering life and the law).

I've been called ahead of my time and I think is another such instance. I will either have to wait for society to move in this direction or for demonstrable damage to have been caused to inch my insight along.

Of course such grandiose self-adulation is all but a guarantee that such a proposal will never see the light of day on this board.

antichrist
19-01-2012, 11:09 PM
..........


I think talk of damage to reputation is largely overstated. No one sensible takes anything stated on a internet blog or bulletin board without vast quantities of salt.

before RW even named a thread AC the Francophobe - I was truly hurt and felt my reputation suffered

Redmond Barry
20-01-2012, 03:30 AM
before RW even named a thread AC the Francophobe - I was truly hurt and felt my reputation suffered

which reputation was that ? :hmm:

Rincewind
20-01-2012, 08:06 AM
before RW even named a thread AC the Francophobe - I was truly hurt and felt my reputation suffered

Perhaps I should have said AC the Mimophant. :hmm:

antichrist
20-01-2012, 09:57 AM
Perhaps I should have said AC the Mimophant. :hmm:

I googled it and once I read you re comparing me with the brilliant and famous Bobby Fisher that was enuf - you have made my day, my week, my year, my life

Rincewind
20-01-2012, 10:32 AM
I googled it and once I read you re comparing me with the brilliant and famous Bobby Fisher that was enuf - you have made my day, my week, my year, my life

I would not make the mistake of comparing you with Bobby Fischer but you may be compared to him.

But seriously someone who carries on as you do and makes ludicrous pseudo-sensational statements on a disappointingly regular basis has very little reputation with regard you 'good' name.

But then again I have forgotten that you are not one to stero-type (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=2779).

antichrist
20-01-2012, 10:46 AM
You can't burst my bubble - I am with Bobby

Rincewind
20-01-2012, 10:48 AM
must rush off till later but that thread a rarity for not been locked by your grannie

Now you are just stero-typing.

Hobbes
20-01-2012, 02:35 PM
http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/offended_on_internets.jpg

antichrist
23-01-2012, 09:17 AM
..........
But seriously someone who carries on as you do and makes ludicrous pseudo-sensational statements on a disappointingly regular basis has very little reputation with regard you 'good' name...........
.


well I gave someone a chance to grab the limelight and declare the winner of Queenstown Open Classic but no one was up to the bar - like no one to replace our Lleyton

Agent Smith
23-01-2012, 12:43 PM
well I gave someone a chance to grab the limelight and declare the winner of Queenstown Open Classic but no one was up to the bar
AC , i accept the challenge. Chao Li will win.

And i predicted that 2 months ago for a different tournament. :P


- like no one to replace our Lleyton
as the bogan poster boy of australia, laugh. Yes - he has that one tied up. Still wearing his cap backwards.

antichrist
23-01-2012, 09:58 PM
AC , i accept the challenge. Chao Li will win.

And i predicted that 2 months ago for a different tournament. :P


as the bogan poster boy of australia, laugh. Yes - he has that one tied up. Still wearing his cap backwards.

But Darryl won, my prediction for a different tournament a few weeks ago.

antichrist
26-01-2012, 10:08 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3410940.htm
Dr Teo, Australian of the year, claims there that some Aussies are still racist, and give examples of his daughter etc
It is good that he is not afraid to speak out.