A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry
Racist remarks
Posted: May 27, 2013
If you post a comment using racist terminology (we all know the common ones) against white people, black people, Hispanics, etc. OR calling another person racist, insinuating another poster is racist, or in general arguing about whether a poster is racist, your post will be deleted and if I delete more than one of your posts, you will be banned. The hatred on both sides is getting almost unbearable to read through these days.
It is absolutely reasonable to have discussions about race, racial differences, racial struggles, racial tensions, and prejudices, but when the board dissolves into threads solely dedicated to one side calling the other racists or "old white men," the discussion has obviously ended. Stick with the topic of discussion - if you don't like what the OP wrote, start your own thread with something that interests or concerns you. The personal attacks and insults (including racist remarks) have to stop.
;
Right on moderator! Best post in a long time - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I have not come in awhile because of what you wrote.
Hoping the board becomes a more enjoyable place to come now.
Thanks.
Clarification please - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I think most of us agree with the idea of posts where racist accusations are directed toward individual posters should have the reasonable second-strike ban policy you have proposed.
IMO, the assertion that "we all know" what "the common ones" are is questionable since we have seen knee-jerk replies of deep denial and turn-table accusations in response to others trying to point out either direct or indirect racist references in phrases, various forms of imagery and figures-of-speech and buzz word terms that are commonly recognized by some but never acknowledged by others. Their use has been promoted via freedom of speech through media outlets and embodied by listeners with shared beliefs as being normal and perfectly acceptable. It would seem that criticism of same does not enjoy the same free-speech latitude.
This practice is a tactic those of us who have been around long enough to remember the good old pre-politically correct days are particularly sensitive toward. Racism was institutionalized in our federal, state and local laws and was evidenced frequently in press and broadcast media coverage. As I recall, voices opposed to racism were systematically ignored and denied equal exposure through suppression and censorship. Those same partisans were also politically marginalized, socially ostracized, targeted by violence delivered by organizations, individuals empowered by those above conditions, and even law enforcement who also had the authority the arrest and detain.
It took many decades of struggle to reverse those "norms." I think most of us can agree those are conditions we would like to stay buried in the annals of the more shameful chapters in our historical record. So that brings up the following questions about this directive.
(1) Does calling another "person" racist include public officials, such as Sheriff Arpaio, whom a federal court found guilty of 142 pages' worth of institutionalized racist practices? I'm asking since you saw fit to delete that entire post, despite the fact that there were numerous replies attempting to discuss that case. I see nothing listed in your "reasonable" discussion list about litigated cases which IMO are extremely relevant to current political discourse. Off limits? Yes or no?
(2) Along those same lines, like it or not, Sheriff Arpaio's case is not some lone-wolf freak incident. We still have many elected and appointed political officials and judges who obviously represent both major and minor parties who manifest racist beliefs and ideologies in their thoughts, actions, legislation and causes they support. Off limits? Again, they do not seem to appear on your "reasonable" discussion list. In fact, the implication that we are not allowed to "call another person" racist would indicate the opposite. Is this line of dialogue also off limits? Yes or no? What about the political parties they represent? Is silence our only option when obvious evidence of racism among political party ranks emerges in the national dialogue?
(3) Racist press and broadcast communications appear on a daily basis, littered with codes, dog whistles and buzz words, all of which filter down to individuals by design who in turn "spread the words" via comments sections and political forums such as these. Is that line of rhetoric taboo as well? Yes or no?
As an example, I am puzzled by the decision to delete the entire Arpaio post since at least some of its contents were clearly appropriate for political exercise. Why did you decide to get rid of all of it? I am also confused as to why this forum has been tolerant of hundreds of filthy racist posts in the past directed against minorities that have elicited complaints that either went ignored or resulted in the "thick skin" directive, but viola, as soon as a complaint against a "white" racist post perceived by some "thin-skinned" poster as unacceptably offensive, we get this overkill directive. That last observation can be left hanging as a rhetorical statement, and left up to each of us to draw our own conclusions, but I felt it was at least worthy mention, since evidently some of us are unable to distinguish routine acceptable dialogue on this subject versus that which is deemed outrageously unacceptable.
First of all... - Moderator
[ In Reply To ..]I did not delete the entire Sheriff Arpaio post, just the part where some posters went off on racist rants - the Arpaio case is definitely a court decision that can and should be discussed.
I think too many people are too sensitive to "codes, dog whistles, and buzz words." For instance - "Prince of Darkness." I had no idea that was a racist term until someone reported it, which made me wonder if the OP knew she was using a racist term or was she referring to the devil (or Obama as the devil)? So many words or phrases can be misconstrued to mean something that they were never actually intended to mean. I'm doing the best I can, but apparently even I don't know all the buzz words or codes or whatever.
All I'm asking is to use some common sense - I know everyone on here has it! This is a board to discuss politics - you can very easily express your opinion without insulting those you disagree with. Feel free to discuss the issues, but when you attack a poster in any way, shape, or form, it will be deleted - plain and simple.
And I will not draw any conclusions about your "rhetorical statement" and I do not believe this is "overkill." Arguing over who is a racist and who is not or making derogatory remarks about any race certainly has nothing to do with politics.
Prince of Darkness clarification. It was my post and - I was comparing to the Devil.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
how proud you must be - ...
[ In Reply To ..]The devil is a religious construct and has no place on a politics board.
I beg to differ. She's not talking about religion - annieb - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Politicians are always being compared to satan or the second coming. A good example is the One thinking he is the second coming. Another good example is the numerous discussion that Bush was the antichrist. Funny, don't remember seeing your protests that those messages were not political. But maybe I missed your post saying that. If you'd like to post your link when you protested against people calling Bush the antichrist I'd love to read it.
She was not talking about religion. She was comparing a politician to the devil. It's no doubt that we have a lot of people in politics, oh how shall I say this....not working for the people, doing things to dismantle the country, keep people out of work. There are some politicians with a truly evil mind and therefore posters should be allowed to give their opinions on the political board about their feelings towards politicians.
Oh, that's OK then. NOT!! nm - VTMT
[ In Reply To ..]
me - He's not???
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Still confused - sm
[ In Reply To ..]"...too many people are too sensitive to "codes, dog whistles, and buzz words."
How can you draw that conclusion in the same breath when making this statement:
"...but apparently even I don't know all the buzz words or codes or whatever."
If that is the case, wouldn't "arguing" (I prefer the term "discussing) over what is and is not racist be the logical course to take to advance the discussion on that issue?
Who is the "who" in the "arguing over who is and who is not racist?" Is that confined to individual posters (on which I think we all agree), or does that extend to all the other parties mentioned in my previous post? Specifically, are discussions about racist elected and appointed officials on federal, state and local levels of government, national political party platforms and those among their ranks who clearly manifest racist ideologies (and their supporters as a whole) OK or not?
I'm asking because from where I sit, the "common sense" approach standard used on this forum ever since I can remember does not appear to working in your estimation. I think we all would appreciate knowing where it is YOU draw the line, since you have now assumed the expressed authority to ban. That action should not be carried out based on vague, arbitrary or whimsical standards. Could you please further clarify this policy?
I was referring to... - Moderator
[ In Reply To ..]the Prince of Darkness comment when I suggested that people are too sensitive - the OP (I don't think) meant that as a racial comment, but someone took it that way.
If you're going to accuse an elected official of being racist, you better have some facts to back it up. I would refrain from accusing entire political parties or political groups racist, as you are assuming that everyone in that group believes the same and we all know that's just not the case. Same with communists, socialists, etc. as another poster pointed out.
Each poster on here knows when they are insulting someone - all I'm asking is that you stop doing it. I don't think that's vague or arbitrary.
vague, arbitrary - other sm
[ In Reply To ..]This post is gross and intended as an insult to an entire group:
So how are you all liking the feel of Communism?
Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, wrapped in The One's big arms? You don't have to worry about anything anymore. He will tell you what to do, and what to say and give you everything you need.
http://general.mtstars.com/348949.html
That post is a week old. - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
well within the statute of limitations for ignorant and insulting - your point?
[ In Reply To ..]
I think that's Obama's goal, so I find it neither ignorant - nor insulting. Insulting to whom exactly?
[ In Reply To ..]nm
to whomever was addressed as "you" - c'mon
[ In Reply To ..]"So how are YOU all liking the feel of Communism? Does it make YOU feel all warm and fuzzy inside, wrapped in The One's big arms? YOU don't have to worry about anything anymore. He will tell YOU what to do, and what to say and give YOU everything YOU need."
http://general.mtstars.com/348949.html
In answer to your question, I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL. - That's why we must get rid of him.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
I didn't ask a question - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
I opened your post and saw a question. - What? (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]Let me answer it again for you. I am not enjoying it at all.
OMG... it's noted that the post is over a week old, yet not recognized as a C&P of - that post?
[ In Reply To ..]We've had over a week to read it!
She's not asking you (specifically) anythng.
Geez
thread following 101 - ...
[ In Reply To ..]
Reading comprehension fail. - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
I think you're having trouble with this - ...
[ In Reply To ..]You can believe it's his goal. That's your prerogative. But language like "warm and fuzzy" and "wrapped in The One's big arms" are insulting and ignorant, and certainly were not directed at our conservative partisans.
Per the moderator: "I would refrain from accusing entire political parties or political groups racist, as you are assuming that everyone in that group believes the same.... Same with communists, socialists, etc. as another poster pointed out."
Thanks. I look forward to seeing the - sm
[ In Reply To ..]"you better have some facts to back it up" part of this policy enforced with more vigor than we've seen in the past....in a fair and equitable way....and less editing of posts that attempt to do that very thing just because a complaint has been received by someone who either has posted no "facts" at all or believes their version of the "facts" rules the day.
Yes, hopefully the "calling another person racist" - directive refers only to posters...
[ In Reply To ..]and not political figures, like Arpaio, who is indeed racist.
Institutionalized racism still abounds ("post-racial America," hah) and is certainly worthy of political discussion.
Your opinion of Arpaio is YOUR opinion. - I disagree. Not Moderator.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Yes, MY opinion (I've outgrown "IMO;" it's implicit) AND a U.S. - District Court's. nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
I do not have to agree with a District Court, if - that's what you are saying.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
of course you don't have to - ...
[ In Reply To ..]but the District Court's pronouncement firmly places the issue within the realm of political discourse.
Wow! Brava! - well said!
[ In Reply To ..]
Permission to speak - sm
[ In Reply To ..]The Trayvon Martin case will be proceeding in a couple of weeks. It is political because of the stand your ground law and some republicans support of George Zimmerman. The case has racist arguments. Are we allowed to talk about the whole case or just the part that is not racial?
OMG you guys are nitpicking this apart - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]She's not talking about that. She's talking about everyone here calling other posters racists, as though it's the new fad. You don't like what someone has to say, hey call them a racist. They say something, hey lets turn it into racist remarks even though it isn't.
The moderator is doing her best. I have not been to the board in awhile. It's hard to read about issues someone is discussing when if someone doesn't like what you're saying they call or insinuate you're a racist when your remarks had nothing to do with race.
Not going to speak for the moderator, but in my opinion she is not talking about some case having racist remarks in it, she's talking about the disrespect people here have towards other posters calling them a racist. At least that is my take on it.
How about the disrespect some posters show to those who are pointing - out *real* racism, denigrating them for doing so?
[ In Reply To ..]This was from a thread about a political figure who is definitely racist (my home state, I should know), yet this reply knocks the OP for pointing out his racism.
http://general.mtstars.com/349335.html
Goose/gander. If we're not allowed to call other posters racist, then we shouldn't be allowed to mock those bringing issues of actual racism to the board by implying specious race-carding where none exists.
You say "definitely". I say he's not. - So?
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Same thing with calling other posters communists. - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
But some are! They even admit they like one party system. - One person in charge. (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]It's kind of like calling Obama a dictator. He makes it an "us against them" government. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is the "them." You don't see that?
I've never seen a single avowed communist on this board. - And I'm a Democratic Socialist...
[ In Reply To ..]so I would be likely to remember such. There may well be one/some actual communists here, but they haven't spoken up about it, that I've happened to see.
To call others by labels they don't acknowledge themselves to be is insulting and disrespectful, period.
Maybe totalitarian? What would you call a one-party system - with one person in charge? (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]not sure
I call this coy thinly veiled insult utter garbage. - But hey, that's just me.
[ In Reply To ..]For sure.
Have you read Obama's opinions of Congress? - LM with a link
[ In Reply To ..]see below
His opinions of Congress mirror my own. - However
[ In Reply To ..]those portrayed by Fox pundits are too distorted to merit further comment. Now, if you want to talk "dismissive," let's revisit Mitch McConnell's one-term-president edict, shall we? I think the disregard the senate minority leader showed for 65,899,660 Americans is utterly appalling. Warning: I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in the groundless "fraudulence" upchuck, but feel free to rally the troops with that battle cry if it helps the fractured GOP feel more united, if even for a fleeting moment.
Well, I posted I think it was here yesterday (sm) - Silly
[ In Reply To ..]that for many of us, it is our goal to make sure Obama is impeached, by whatever means necessary; so I don't find McConnell's comments dismissive, or whatever you said.
By whatever means necessary and at whatever cost. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I'll bet the impeachment posse folks are the first ones up to bat when it comes time to wax poetic over totalitarianism, morality, ethics, the Constitution, freedom, the Founding Fathers who fashioned our democracy, and the like. Of course you have to right to have that goal, just as I have the same right to denounce the waves of revulsion experienced when trying to find the words to express the amount of contempt and disdain this kind of hypocrisy generates.
A Zantac would probably help with that - - Good luck.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Thanks for your concern but - I have my own remedy
[ In Reply To ..]I just kick back and take comfort in knowing how futile the posse's hunt has been until now and will continue to be. I even indulge in a little time travel and try to imagine how much of their time will be spent in the future spinning their wheels while trying to impeach another Clinton. We all know how well that went for them last time around, huh?
Sure! Lying under oath no big deal for a Clinton is it? - LOL
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Obviously the American voters - didn't think so.
[ In Reply To ..]I wonder why? Let's see here. Perhaps they simply grew weary of Ken Starr's lynch mob mentality. Maybe they didn't agree that sexual indiscretions should be impeachable offenses. They certainly seemed to realize the political nature of a lame-duck witch hunt the house tried to ramrod through and voted accordingly.
Not only did they put a democratic majority in the House, it was the first time since 1934 that the president's opposition party failed to gain congressional house seats in a mid-term election, AND the first time since 1822 that the party not in control of the White House failed to gain seats in the mid-term election of a President's second term.
Now about that perjury thing. Despite a 55-45 GOP majority in the Senate, the vote breakdown was 55 not guilty and 45 guilty on the perjury charge and 50/50 on the obstruction of justice charge....far short of the 23rds majority required to impeach. A second perjury charge plus an abuse of power charge never made it out of the House. To top it all off, Bill Clinton's approval rating soared to 70% during the process.
Some folks just have to learn the hard way. Judging from their behavior during this administration, it's a lead-pipe cinch the RW will try for rounds two and three of a Clinton impeachment beginning with the swearing in Jan 2017 and ending in November 2024. Hope I live long enough to see it all.
Or perhaps something less nefarious? - Lo-info?
[ In Reply To ..]nm
Perfect - sm
[ In Reply To ..]example of another lesson the GOP has to learn the hard way. Never underestimate your political opponents and their supporters, particularly when all your own party has to offer up is unelectable candidates and platforms. As a consequence of those major deficiencies, we found out in 2008 and again in 2012 that relying on negative campaign tactics, slogans and buzz word overkill can never cover up those major flaws and is a sure-fire way to lose an election. Just no two ways about it.
Sorry, but if you had read the full article, the following - Truthhurts
[ In Reply To ..]paragraphs were not made by anyone at Fox:
In February of last year, Louisiana Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman found that the Obama Interior Department was in contempt of his ruling that the offshore oil drilling moratorium, imposed by the administration in 2010, was unconstitutional. After Feldman struck down the initial drilling ban, the Interior Department simply established a second ban that was virtually identical.
Judge Feldman was not amused. "Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance," Feldman said in his ruling. "Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second moratorium ... provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of its contempt."
As for Congress, we see the same dismissive tone. "Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe and I, we're going to act," Obama said in February at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, with Vice President Joe Biden off to the side. "In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we're going to take steps on our own to keep this economy moving."
When cap-and-trade failed to make it through Congress — a Congress that had specifically denied the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate so-called greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act — the Obama administration, with the support of the usual suspects in the media, went ahead, unleashing the EPA to make war on coal and other fossil fuels.
In April 2009, Time Magazine ran a piece titled, "EPA'S CO2 Finding: Putting a Gun to Congress' Head." The New York Times editorialized that if Congress fails to ram through cap-and-trade legislation, the EPA should ram it down our throats. And that's what the administration has been doing.
Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/040512-606939-obama-dangerously-close-to-totalitarianism.htm#ixzz2Uc8xk4jb
I read the full article and made no comment - sm
[ In Reply To ..]relative to anything that appears in the article beyond the Fox punditry. There's a reason for that, which is not all that hard to figure out. I agree with the use of executive directives for the purpose of implementing specific policies a successful candidate ran on and was put into office to uphold, most especially when discussing 2nd term presidencies. I believe W saw it in much the same way: "The people made it clear what they wanted....Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it." I didn't notice any strenuous objections to that style of governing back then coming out of the GOP. What goes around comes around.
PS. I also believe in the administration's legal strategies described in the cited article of challenging the hubris inherent in the forked-tongue outrage coming out of the RW camp.
What is that? BUT if we believe is a Marxist, - it's because we have reason. (sm)
[ In Reply To ..]I'm not talking about a poster, I'm talking about the POTUS.
Trying to refresh your memory of what you just posted... - sm
[ In Reply To ..]
Post above yours: "Same thing with calling other posters communists."
Your post: "But some are!"
My post: "I've never seen a single avowed communist on this board."
Your post: "I'm not talking about a poster..."
That wasn't talking about other posters? Would you like to clarify that?
Post above yours: "Same thing with calling other posters communists."
Your post: "But some are!"
My post: "I've never seen a single avowed communist on this board."
Your post: "I'm not talking about a poster..."
That wasn't talking about other posters? Would you like to clarify that?
Impossible to discuss rationally on this board. - Impossible.
[ In Reply To ..]nm
So I guess that means you have no defense, eh? - NM
[ In Reply To ..]NM
No, it means that it is impossible to discuss (sm) - me
[ In Reply To ..]rationally on this board. I have tried several times in the past, but I find that if you are a conservative and don't agree with the liberal point of view, you are chided, derided, and attacked and the dreaded "reported" (so kindergarten). I for one have had enough of it. I shall go hang at my regular political board at least for the rest of this day. Things can get hairy around there, but there is not the nastiness and childishness that abounds here. No, I'm not announcing my departure as I hate when people do that. I always want to tell them go ahead, who cares. I'm sure my curiosity will get the better of me and I'll see what's going on here - maybe tomorrow. It's just funny how when everything was hunky dory and the press was carrying Obama's water it was fine here for the most part. Now that the press is starting to see this administration for what it is, the whole tone has changed. Have fun, guys. Oh, and by the way, I blame Obama for this too. He has divided the country like no one else could. Even Bush the "war-monger."
No it's not the same thing - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Calling someone a racist is a hateful remark. Especially when they write nothing to be deserved of being called a racist. Calling someone a racist pretty much says you are now trying to control the conversation putting an end to whatever they have to say. Nobody wants to be called a racist, especially when nobody has said anything to deserve being called a racist. Take for instance the term the Moderator spoke of "Prince of Darkness". The poster was not using is at a racial slur, he/she was referring to satan/devil or whatever. That's what it's always been. Unless you live in Guyuna, which is a racial slur they use for Indo-Carribean people. It's gotten to a point on this board every post that doesn't reflect favorable about Obama or this administration people are being called racist.
Communism is a political ideology. It's also a political party here in the US that people belong to just like I/R/D. A relative of mine told me flat outright there is nothing wrong with communism and that's the way it should be here. Hence, she is a communist. If your political ideas support communism (stray away from the republican, democrat, or whatever party idea) then it's just a fact that since a person supports the ideals of the communist party then that is what they are. It's not a hateful word like because called a racist, it's just a persons political viewpoints.
I agree. - me
[ In Reply To ..]nm
communism as a political ideology - ...
[ In Reply To ..]is hardly the issue here. At issue here is the way in which words like communist and commie are used as epithets by posters seeking to DEFINE someone else's political beliefs.
Let's not be disingenuous. We all know what name-calling is. When people say "Obama lover" they are NOT talking kindly about people who support the president.
You mean like Obama hater? - They sure are not talking kindly
[ In Reply To ..]Let's be truthful here. There are hateful remarks on both sides. I sure don't like being called an Obama-haters. A racist, a teaba**er, and all the other an Nazi, a Cheney lover, and all other stuff. It's not just one side.
yes. name-calling is name-calling - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
Yes we are. It involves constitutional values - such as
[ In Reply To ..]freedom of speech and freedom from censorship. For the record, that used to be a SHARED value regardless of political affiliation. I know in my case, my "nit picking" is done on behalf of ALL of us.
talk about nitpicking... - other sm
[ In Reply To ..]We don't need a lecture every time. How's this for nitpicking:
http://general.mtstars.com/349288.html
Where do you see that post? I'm looking at the board - but do not see it
[ In Reply To ..]I'm looking down the board and do not see the post you are referencing.
They search archives for just such posts. - LOL
[ In Reply To ..]nm
it's quite easy to do - ...
[ In Reply To ..]and the example is relevant to the discussion here.
the entire thread was deleted - other sm
[ In Reply To ..]as the moderator said:
"Changed my mind on the "prezadent" post and invited the OP to re-post without the controversial statements."
If it was deleted, what are you doing with my post - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]If my post was deleted the moderator had a reason for deleting it. And if she deleted it why are you posting it again?
Doesn't delete me delete (as in its no longer on the board and in the trash).
Still don't understand if the Moderator deletes a post, how is it you still have it?
I think they copy them so they can use against us later. - LM -
[ In Reply To ..]nm
one word -- - google
[ In Reply To ..]I don't need to copy anybody's posts.
Not getting this.... - please explain
[ In Reply To ..]you say google. What is it on google you are searching for? If people are talking about posts on the board and someone's post is not on the board, are you specifically targeting them? I understand deleted posts can be located, but why would you?
google is an index - it is not a spy function
[ In Reply To ..]
one word - gotcha
[ In Reply To ..]or presumed gotcha (okay that's two words)
or presumed failed gotcha (okay, okay, that's three words) LOL
I'm sharing it - ...
[ In Reply To ..]I don't "still have" your post. I can operate the google.
Your post was not singled out for deletion. As I said above, the entire thread was deleted. That means everyone who responded to the OP lost their posts.
If my post is no longer on this board I would appreciate it staying off the board - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]It does not matter if the post before me was deleted or my post was deleted. Sometimes I will post something and then delete it myself.
All I'm saying is if there is an old post of mine that is no longer on the board there is a reason for that and I would appreciate it if it would remain off the board. I wrote it and I have the option of whether or not I want it on the board. Nobody else.
That's all.
Okay I fixed it. As I stated in my previous message - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I didn't want it on the board. Don't care if you can operate Google or not.
Remember: - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Thick skin.
My skin is tough as leather. That's what the miltary does - toughens you up - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]I really could care less what people say about me. You don't make it through boot camp if you can't take criticism.
This is different. These are posts that I delete or that the moderator deletes. There is a reason for that. The reason is to delete if off the political board. Not for someone to repost thinking they are trying to make a point.
But that's okay. The posts are now empty. Hopefully the moderator will get rid of the posts bringing up other people's posts if those posts were deleted.
I just feel this is the wrong place to be playing any games of "gotcha"
that's good - ...
[ In Reply To ..]Overall, I find it's easier to just not say stuff I wouldn't want to be accountable for.
Proof please. How do we know what that post says - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
precious - ...
[ In Reply To ..]http://general.mtstars.com/349976.html
Racist, commie...It's all unnecessary - drama.
[ In Reply To ..]I guess this is what happens when you have a bunch of un-socialized people who work at home who try to "discuss politics."
She says anonymously from her computer... lol - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Work from home does not mean unsocialized.
Just because this is a forum for MTs, that does NOT mean all who post here are. On this board in particular, I can pretty much guarantee you that most are not MTs who try to "discuss politics."
Yeah, right. I'm sure most of us are doctors and - lawyers with nothing better to do
[ In Reply To ..]than haunt an obscure board in a dying profession. Because this board is so high profile.
Most of the folks on this political board are NOT MTs. - sm
[ In Reply To ..]*the politics board should not be confused with the main, company, MModal, or Nuance boards where there are mostly - if not all - MTs, QAs, some MTSO management as well as students*
Don't believe me? Stick around for some of the abortion/BC debates and see the complete lack of knowledge when it comes to anatomy, reproduction, fetal development, and basic biology. No doctors... not many MTs in this section of MT Stars. You know that folks do not need a super secret MT-only password to access this site, right?
Sorry - I'm not buying it.
[ In Reply To ..]That's totally over-inflating the popularity of this board. No offense, but the discussion here is mostly a handful of people bickering. Yeah, I think it's a bunch of MTs. Bored MTs, to be specific.
One can only speak for themselves, I guess. - w/e
[ In Reply To ..]"Whatever you say is right" is the easiest way to end this discussion.
tricky racist insinuations - other sm
[ In Reply To ..]You mention "calling another person racist, insinuating another poster is racist, or in general arguing about whether a poster is racist."
How about posters who claim that you are about to call someone ELSE a racist, as in this example:
"...one can only imagine that you are getting ready to call her a racist or something to that effect."
Where? - Proof please that is what is written
[ In Reply To ..]nm
as you know... - lol
[ In Reply To ..]once the post is removed by the author, it can no longer be referenced. Phew. Fortunately, the author has figured this out. :)
here - ---
[ In Reply To ..]http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9kQvVkpKe8MJ:general.mtstars.com/349288.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Moderator, please note the participants you please with promise to ban any - who uses COMMON racist terms and ALL who
[ In Reply To ..]might complain about racist remarks using many others. You've said you don't recognize them, but the people using them certainly do. Time to study up, maybe?
I've been watching what you've been going through and truly do feel for you, but you're not bringing balance to this forum. Just the opposite. Everyone knows which groups are being inadvertently favored and which are not. It's hard, and this stuff scares me into seriously doubting I could do the job nearly well enough, but I'd certainly try to do it better.
An entire board should not feel it knows the moderator's politics.
If you're going to involve yourself this way, please go learn something about racism as it's being practiced in politics these days. There are many highly regarded studies of political groups and behaviors and many well documented histories of current political figures that provide an abundance of the sort of proof you speak of needing. Ignorance is not reasonable in this case. Racism and other bigotries are enormous, driving factors in almost every issue these days. You should not be blind to what almost every else here sees perfectly well.
Wow talk about disrepectful. Also it should be noted - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]Please do not tell the moderator to "go learn something about racism". She is fully aware of racism, but these phony racism statements are just that. Not everything is racism.
It should also be noted that a ton of posts by conservatives are either edited or gone.
Or edited by poster. - nm
[ In Reply To ..].
I was not disrespectful, but the notion that I owe a special respect - to one who is here to serve this forum
[ In Reply To ..]is foreign to me. She is an authority, certainly, but I am not an authoritarian follower.
By the way, I suspect I would like her if I knew her under better circumstances. She's taken on a really stinky, difficult job, one that I believe most of us would have real problems with, and many could not handle outright, but--she did take it on and with it a duty to somehow keep this dysfunctional forum stumbling along in a way that's fair for MTs of all viewpoints. Note, this does not mean helping out minority viewpoints outnumbered by those who disagree.
So you knew "Prince of Darkness" - was a racist term?
[ In Reply To ..]I thought it was a biblical term, or maybe one used by the left for Dick Cheney.
And I don't think you should pretend to know what the Moderator's politics are. She's deleted many insulting conservative posts, mine included when I let myself get drawn in. Maybe you should learn something about tolerance and respect.
Nope, in that case, could be both or just biblical, in spite - of the many who come from both directions. nm
[ In Reply To ..]x
So what's the point of your post - then?
[ In Reply To ..]If you didn't know that one, how can you expect anyone else to? I'm not racist and wasn't brought up in a racist home or community - I thought Aunt Jemimah was only a brand of maple syrup until I read someone calling Condi Rice that name.
Yikes! That went ugly fast! - ZvilleMT
[ In Reply To ..]nm
LOL - Too funny - The Sarge - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
You gave kudos to the Moderator post? - so what's so fumny?
[ In Reply To ..]x
and you contributed!!! LOL begging your posts not be - available, why?
[ In Reply To ..]x
I didn't give Kudos to the moderator post unless your - The Sarge - sm
[ In Reply To ..]referring to a previous post of mine in which I did tell the moderator best post in a long time. Yes, she deserved Kudos.
This post I replied to is funny because the liberals are up in arms they can't continue their barrage of insults towards conservative posters calling them racists at every little thing from now on. THAT'S what is funny.
And conservative posters can't make racist remarks, not even - veiled ones. LOL
[ In Reply To ..]I won't respond to the veiled or blatant ones, I'll report them to Moderator citing the history and origin of the remark.
That's not what I said - The Sarge - nm
[ In Reply To ..]nm
I didn't say it was. No more racist remarks. So it won't be necessary to call - someone a racist. SimpleNM
[ In Reply To ..]x
lol - nm
[ In Reply To ..]
Old white men is a racist remark? - boostraps
[ In Reply To ..]I'm glad I read this post because I might have used that phase without prior knowledge or ever hearing it used as a racial remark. I've heard them all, but that is definitely a new one to me. What about old white women? I refer to myself that way sometimes... but I'm not a racist...so...
Similar Messages:
Akin's RemarksAug 21, 2012
Pregnancy will not result unless a woman is raped, so if she gets pregnant, she wasn't really raped, she enjoyed it, the juices and secretions were flowing and welcomed the sperm.How insulting. How disrespectful.This is what is borne out of selling your political soul to the right wing. Poor Mr. Akin probably thought he'd get kudos from his party radicals riding on the snowball of their anti-female rhetoric. After all, Paul Ryan co-signed his "forcible rape" ...
Boehner's Confusing Remarks AboutMay 20, 2014
February 2014: "I think they're misleading their followers," Boehner said. "They're pushing our members in places where they don't want to be and, frankly, I just think that they've lost all credibility." http://www.npr.org/2014/02/14/276977809/boehner-fights-back-against-tea-party-again Now: "I think the tea party has brought great energy to our political process," he said in response to a question about Tuesday's primaries, adding that he expects many R ...
Controversy Over Dr.s Remarks About Patient's WeightNov 21, 2009
My husband told me he read somewhere on the Internet about an ophthalmologist telling an extremely obese patient that he was refusing to do her eye exam since she was going to lose her sight anyway because of her uncontrolled (apparently she's been noncompliant with her diabetic care) diabetes and obesity. He told her she was obese and had better ose some weight What are your thoughts? He's just a jerk. He cares about his patients and knows her obesity is going to kill he ...
Ben Carson Defends His Remarks Calling Obama A Psychopath (sm)May 08, 2015
You go, Ben. You are 100% right. Link ...
College Professor Fired Following Remarks On 'Tucker Carlson TonightJun 26, 2017
What a piece of work! This short video speaks volumes about the leftist mentality. ...
ISIS Threat: Obama's Remarks Over The Past Year Show EvolutionFeb 11, 2015
ISIS was a JV team on 01/27/2014. Today he's seeking authorization to fight said JV team with military force, but with conditions. Well, of course, there will be conditions because he won't want to offend his Muslim brethren. Are they terrorists yet? Does he really think a tiny pinprick will help? ...
‘Utterly Stupid’: WH Slams Robertson Over Haiti RemarksJan 15, 2010
By David EdwardsThursday, January 14th, 2010 -- 10:17 am UPDATE: The White House joined the growing chorus of condemnation surrounding televangelist Pat Robertson's comment that the earthquake in Haiti was the result of a "pact with the devil" the nation's founders made when fighting against French colonial rule in the 18th century. "It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid," White House Press Secretar ...
Not Racist But Really?Jan 10, 2013
I am a person who watches the news on TV be it the local news or the nightly news always. I am bothered by the people my local channel chooses to interview for the stories in Atlanta. I do not know where they get most because they cannot speak anything that sounds like your basic English, dat, dem and dos. It is hard on my ears. I was flying 1 time and had a person talk about the lack of intelligent black people in Atlanta because of what he had seen on TV. The news here actually shows our city ...
PB&Js Are Racist.Nov 22, 2013
LOL ...
Jon Stewart Take On An Obviously Racist CallerApr 01, 2010
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-march-31-2010/fear-of-a-black-c-spanet ...
Our Racist President (link)Nov 12, 2012
link ...
Racists Emboldened By Example Of The RacistMay 27, 2017
Two brave people stepped in to protect two women this afternoon and were murdered. Horrifying When people in power normalize hate it emboldens those with similar beliefs. "Two men were killed in a stabbing on a MAX train Friday when they tried to intervene as another man yelled racial slurs at two young women who appeared to be Muslim, including one wearing a hijab, police said. A third passenger who tried to help was also stabbed, but is expected to survive, said Portland police spokes ...
If It's Not Racist, It's Just Corrupt And WrongJun 22, 2017
They need to be prosecuted for murder. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/video-shows-fatal-takedown-in-orange-county-jail ...
RNC Keeps Racist Pics On Facebook For Nearly A Week (sm)Oct 27, 2009
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/gops-facebook-photos/ ...
Taking Racist Off Top Of Politics ThreadJan 18, 2010
xx ...
It's Beyond Any Doubt Now. He Is A Racist, Bigoted Liar - Oct 02, 2012
Also proves he was never vetted. All those parts cut out - unreal. I like the split screen, saying one thing in his Obama voice, just the opposite in his black dialect. One of those Obamas is a liar. I know which one. Do you? ...
Racist Ferguson Emails Released.Apr 04, 2015
Some of them I have seen before on right wing websites. The concerning thing is these kinds of disgusting racist/homophobic beliefs and actions are not isolated to the police and courts in Ferguson, Mo. Some racist emails were uncovered in SF. I have personal contacts in the LAPD and can only imagine what is in their server! Racism has pretty much taboo over the last 50 years and kept underground, spoken in private hush hush voices. The internet and anonymity has flushed ...
If You Anticipate People Will Call You A Racist, You Probably AreMay 12, 2015
If you are getting angry because you can't say what you want about race? Definitely a racist. Because nonracists don't ever worry about things like that. Now if you post on subjects from a racial perspective with intent to provoke, not only is that racist in and of itself, but the fact that you enjoy provoking reaction and then play the victim when people do? Well, you're not just racist, but a the very definition of a bully as well. But you know what's true about bull ...
Hillary's Racist Rant On Video!Oct 06, 2016
What a hypocrite! ...
Margaret Sanger, A Racist And EugenicistAug 21, 2017
Since some self-righteous leftists here think the above is parroting other's thoughts, I'll take it upon myself to educate, in her own words: Sanger advocated “a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.” Reference: http://library.lifedynamics.com/Birth%20Control%20Review/1932-04%20April.pdf And the mo ...
AZ Judge: It's Official. Sheriff Arpaio Is A Racist.May 24, 2013
A federal judge ruled Friday that the office of America’s self-proclaimed toughest sheriff systematically singled out Latinos in its trademark immigration patrols, marking the first finding by a court that the agency racially profiles people. The 142-page decision by U.S. District Judge Murray Snow in Phoenix backs up allegations that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s critics have made for years that his officers violate the constitutional rights of Latinos in relying on race i ...
The Disgusting Racist Comments On This Board Make MeJul 11, 2016
... ...
Racist Michelle Stirs Up A Hornet's Nest At (sm)May 11, 2015
graduation speech. Why must these Obamas stir up race at every turn? It's always the poor me mentality. Grow a backbone, Michelle. Maybe you'd find out you're really not such a victim after all. Poor little rich girl. Link ...
Liberal Writer Thinks Hurricane Is Racist.Oct 08, 2016
Death in Haiti from a hurricane is "environmental racism." Some people are so stupid that they don’t know they are stupid. People that believe weather is racist fall into that category. Didn’t they upgrade all their building codes with all the money we sent from the Clinton Foundation after the last disaster? Oh wait... ...
Sanders Kissing Racist Sharpton's Feet....Feb 10, 2016
x ...
Editor Of Mother Jones Thinks Tomahawks Is RacistApr 11, 2017
Apparently this wack job thinks Tomahawk missels are racist against First Nation peoples. I mean...really? The stupidity of this boggles the mind, it truly does. However, what this idiot editor has done underscores the problem I have with liberals - thinking they "know best" for everyone else. I guess I have to get rid of my collection of First Nation tribal art because I'm only a smidgen Lenape because, you know, it's "cultural appropriation." Or maybe I ...
Large Portion Of GOP Thinks Obama Is Racist, Socialist, Non-U.S. CitizenFeb 02, 2010
If this is true, it's certainly sad for America. I don't know how our President stays focused knowing people think he is a non-U.S. citizen, racist, etc. Some are even praying for his death. A new poll of more than 2,000 self-identified Republican voters illustrates the incredible paranoia enveloping the party and the intense pressure drawing lawmakers further and further away from political moderation. The numbers speak for themselves -- a large portion of GOP voters think that Presid ...
Lawmakers Gasp When Black Dem Rep Accuses Colleague’s 18-month-old Of Being Racist Mar 29, 2015
Seriously, how can anyone be so stupid? ...
Traveling Abroad, Obama Repeatedly Calls Americans Lazy, RacistSep 08, 2016
It's been plain since the beginning of his political career that both the President and the First Lady harbor very deep-seated anti-American feelings. I realize that this is something so incomprehensible that a lot of Americans can't get their arms around the idea. An anti-American US President? It couldn't be, could it?! Well, yes it can. Most people had NO idea what they were really voting for when this man was elected, they were so caught up in electing the first black ...
GOP Operative Who Made Racist Obama Joke Arrested For 'dirty Campaign Tricks'Nov 19, 2009
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/gop-arrested-dirty-tricks/ http://www.palmettoscoop.com/2009/11/17/barrett-consultant-arrested-for-dirty-campaign-tricks/ http://www.topix.com/afam/2009/06/another-republican-makes-off-color-joke-about-obama ...