"Bigotry on the Forums" Topic

I've given recent developments some thought, and here are my conclusions.

Bigotry

Forum rules can control what a person posts, but not what they believe.

We already have rules against expressing bigotry on the forums. Those rules will continue to be enforced. We are talking here about prejudice or hatred against a group solely based on their race, ethnicity, gender or gender preference, or religion.

If someone continually expresses bigotry despite repeated forum punishment, they will be removed from TMP.

In some cases, whether a post expresses bigotry is not clear. The moderators will use their discretion in such cases.

For example, someone who endorses the use of harsh military measures against terrorists has not broken the forum rule against bigotry. Perhaps the poster is motivated by bigotry against a certain religion or ethnic group, but that cannot be discerned from a single post.

However, someone who says the entire Arab world should be nuked is obviously expressing bigotry against Arabs.

Nothing that I have stated here is new, but I hope that I have clarified this for anyone who might have been confused.

Cool, old farts can still be ridiculed! Watch out grognards we now have protected classes on TMP and you are not it.

Kidding aside, just keep it consistent Bill, please. You are doing a tough job here.

Correct, "Arab" is not a religion.

Second, shouldn't religion be exempted from this? Gender, ethnicity, and race can't be chosen. Religion has to be. It's not inherited, not an accident of nature, but a positive affirmation of a particular set of beliefs. Further, opposing doctrinal views have to be considered and consciously rejected for it to said one has a religion.

Seems weird to exempt a belief set. Progressives, Nazis, flat-earthers, Ancients gamers, Monty Python fans, IPA drinkers – nobody with freely chosen views should be categorically protected. Seems like a classification error to me.

And I spose for a wargames forum, lines have to be drawn but in private life I consider every ideology up for debate and criticism.

All that said, I'll abide by the rules, and maintain my usual standard of decorum.

I consider every ideology up for debate and criticism.

I agree, though it's not appropriate here except in the Blue Fez.

However, that's different from attacking a person or group solely because of their religion.

Key word here is "attacking." I can think players of "Eagles to Glory & Honor" are a collection of nimrods, blackguards and ne'er do wells. I can attack the rule set as puerile, inaccurate and sheer balderdash. I just can't attack the players on the forum. Seems reasonable to me.

race, ethnicity, gender or gender preference, or religion.

Why should these come up in a forum about playing wargames?

Why should these come up in a forum about playing wargames?

Some common examples:

* the French always surrender
* the Italians always lose
* the Arabs just aren't warriors
* "natives" lack spunk

Seriously Bill, you best think this through more. You are mixing up national origin and race.

Surrender monkeys will always be surrender monkeys, it's just fun.

I assume orcophobia is still OK?

National origin should probably be added, then. No one should have to suffer abuse due to where they were born.

What Flashman said eloquently plus one.

John T

To all:
I would caution that more careful consideration be given to this policy. Sometimes stereotypes are true and thus stating them may be offensive to some but is not incorrect. If a truth hurts, should we hide the truth to spare the feelings of certain groups of people?

This is a forum for discussing wargames. Wargames are simulations of war. War is a profoundly anti-social act involving inhumanity and violence between groups of people. War is often based on bigotry and prejudice. If it is not, war or at least those involved in war use these human vices as a tool to further their aims (propaganda). Is it wise to try to make a discussion about war and wargames more sanitary by denying voice to vices like bigotry and prejudice while discussing games which are showcasing and possibly celebrating deception, destruction and wholesale slaughter?

Humans are biased and thus prone to prejudice, discrimination and bigotry. Perhaps we should all grow thicker skins and depend more on our own responsibility to moderate our statements and those of our peers, rather than depending on the paternalism of editors to keep us civil. While a direct attack against a poster using bigotry should be dealt with by the editorial staff, the expression of ideas which some might find bigoted, but which are made in the context of an historical or game-mechanics context, should not be sanctioned. If one argues that generally speaking an Italian military unit's morale should be poorer than a Commonwealth unit's morale during WW II, that may very well be a prejudicial statement which discriminates against one group in favour of another. Thus this could be seen by some as a bigoted statement. But it is also a necessary discrimination if one is to discuss WWII wargaming. There is benign discrimination and there is malignant discrimination. Distinguishing between the two may be quite difficult and will ironically require editorial discrimination to characterize, target and punish. Do we want to yoke our discussion of the hobby to a nanny-editorial policy which could stifle fruitful discussion in order to protect particularly sensitive segments of our membership or to placate vocal, hostile and vexatious critics from further afield?

It should be the responsibility of the membership to detect, call-out and argue against bias, prejudice and bigotry in the agora of TMP, no matter how littered and filthy that marketplace of ideas may appear at times. We should not rely upon a cadre of editors in order to abrogate our own responsibilities to police ourselves and our peers. The best disinfectant for pernicious and malignant discrimination is vocal argument and declamation when it appears.

Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

race, ethnicity, or religion

Why should these come up in a forum about playing wargames?

Possibly because if you threw in money, you'd have the causes of and excuses for most wars.

It is a simple fact that Dwarfs are warriors, Orcs are thugs, Goblins are sniveling sneak thieves, Elves make their money by being bunco artists, gnomes are pure s and the role model for the Batman nemesis called the Joker, and Humans are entirely inconsistent and unreliable.

There. All those stereotypes are true.

Rod I. Robertson has a point about thicker skins but there is a point where stereotypes move beyond the seed of truth that birthed them to hateful caricatures.

I wish we would stick to (preferably 3 to 15mm) miniatures, war, history, war games/reports on same, bricoles and lace, rules. I also want lots of chocolate. Maybe Santa Claus will bring me chocolate (or the Easter Bunny.)

I have no solutions that will satisfy everyone so I will just have to satisfy myself and risk Bill's wrath.

I imagine most of this hand-wringing could be avoided by talking about gaming.

Amen Weasel.

I never understand this whole French always surrendering thing -does nobody know any actual history?
What is a surrender monkey for heaven's sake?
Is it all to do with them not joining in one of the American Gulf wars. I do remember a lot of silly nonsense about French Fries etc

"Cheese eating surrender monkey" is a classic Simpsons scene.
The teachers are in strike and Groundskeeper Willie is a substitute teacher in French.
I believe Jonah Goldberg popularized it when the French were reluctant to join the Holy Crusade of one of them there Gulf Wars. I forget which one. Sadly, for humor's sake, they were probably right.

Can Carthaginian religion be disparaged?
The Romans thought so. But then the stories about sacrificing children to Baal may have been bs. Or not. L Sprague de Camp believed it.

Grim
link

The whole French always surrendering, along with the jokes about the trees planted alongside the roads so the Germans could march in shade, French tanks being faster in reverse etc…..all these (and many others) are long running jokes, its seems that they are now bigotry rather than the usual banter.

I've never actually met anybody who didn't take them as anything other than gentle banter rather than an attempt to characterise the French in some way.

I guess this means that like the Aliens 'nuke them from orbit' quote, every jokey comment is going to be treated as a literal statement.

Grim
link

Speaking of human sacrifice:
Did the Ancient Greeks Engage in Human Sacrifice?
link

I've never actually met anybody who didn't take them as anything other than gentle banter rather than an attempt to characterise the French in some way.

Did you ask the French?

Sometimes stereotypes are true and thus stating them may be offensive to some but is not incorrect. If a truth hurts, should we hide the truth to spare the feelings of certain groups of people?

Stereotypes based solely on race, ethnicity, etc., are never true.

Did you ask the French?

Did you? (I was also going to ask you if you had their email address but thought was was to snarky )

I mean has one French person on TMP ever complained about one of these jokes?

Your forum your rules, I just hope it isn't going to be like the no politics rule which is unfathomable due to their being a board that seems to be totally filled with modern politics.

Did you ask the French?

Most French military people I know and have worked with will chuckle at those stereotypes and dish back some trite, hackneyed misperception about the national origin of the speaker. Then again, in these situations, all the people have been military personnel who work routinely with the military personnel of other countries.

I think there's a relationship to the idea that if we were all US military, as a Navy guy, I would pick on the Army and Marines (the Air Force is too easy! ), but if we were all Navy, I would pick on the aviators, supply corps, and submarine force. And I would expect them to pick back.

I don't think this is about the truth or intent of the statements. I think the relevant question is, in a forum such as TMP, can you have that same expectation of mutual understanding?

Despite the fact that I have engaged in such jibes in the past and expect to do so in the future, in a forum where I don't know (in the sense of a colleague) everybody, for TMP, I would say no.

+1 etotheipi. Arabs tell Egyptian jokes,the French tell Belgian jokes. Doesn't always translate,though:

Q: "How do you know you've crossed the Belgian border?"

A: "By the big pile of French fries."

Ahahahaha!

I really wish we could edit our posts for obvious spelling mistakes for longer….was was instead of that was and their instead of there, I'm so ashamed.

If I can't make fun of surrender monkey's no one can make fun of gun toting Americans. I'd be offended and it would be bigotry to disparage our country and its constitutional foundation.

Of course if you are American you can bash the current state all you want, it wouldn't be disparaging, it would be political discourse. Oops, that's politics so it would get you DH'd.

I can live with being offended.

All this discussion is getting silly on these various threads.

GETTING silly?

No, getting sillier.!

Indeed!

If I can't make fun of no one can make fun of gun toting Americans. I'd be offended and it would be bigotry to disparage our country and its constitutional foundation.

I am 100% behind the right of American citizens to own firearms as part of a well regulated militia (which is not only not the same as a standing Army, but pretty much the exact opposite of it) though I do not now nor never have personally owned a firearm (used a lot of them for work).

So … can I be offended either way?

Earl,don't forget "Autocorrect". The other day for no reason I could discern,mine started changing every "that" to "the hat".

Maybe I should have left them alone,might have made the posts more interesting . . .

Well I'm not saying we can't take the and you expect all this nonsense about the French surrendering and Italian tanks going in reverse form the public at large but we are the guys who know the history.

all this nonsense about the French surrendering and Italian tanks going in reverse form the public at large but we are the guys who know the history.

That's the point: we, usually, know our history; therefore, if those remarks are used will be in a context of humor, not bigotry.

Our society at large loses a lot of time feeling offended by anything and at everything. We are becoming a bunch of boorish petite-burgeois, constrained by a short of Victorian morality that put in peril creativity, freedom, and original, non-conformist thinking.

Sometimes I believe that the film Idiocracy wasn't a comedy, but an accurate reflection of a not-so-far future.

I see so we know the history and still mock them. Hey Frenchie and Itie you're nations of cowards. Maybe the Americans could be the jungle bunglers for Vietnam or the Brits could be the webbed feet brigade for getting driven into the sea at Dunkirk.It's not some politically correct kick I'm on here I just don't want to be a moron.

It's not some politically correct kick I'm on here I just don't want to be a moron.

Neither do I, but I want not to prohibit others for making a fool of themselves in public if that is their wish, either.

"I want not to prohibit others for making a fool of themselves in public if that is their wish"

We can certainly agree on that :)

Jungled bunglers….I'm more fond of decadent capitalist pigs. Oh, I've offended myself, but I'm not offended by it so no harm no foul.

For example, someone who endorses the use of harsh military measures against terrorists has not broken the forum rule against bigotry.

As someone who Bill has DH'd over some such post. As long as the measures are not WMDs or violates any GCs, etc.,… And legal and within the Laws of Warfare, etc., those methods could be used. At least that is the way I and I'm sure many other Veterans were trained to be effective warfighters. That is the way we were trained … to be tactically and technically proficient in fieldcraft and all manner of legal lawful warfighting.

As far as bigotry … I'd and other soldiers could/would use those legal "harsh military measures" as Bill put it on any enemy. It has nothing to do with bigotry … it's has to do with the reality of what occurs on a battlefield, etc.,… As most of us being students of history … we should at least understand or be aware, etc., of that.

Regardless of who the current "enemy" is, jihadis, Amish, Wiccan, Martians, Orks, demons, etc., … those legal and lawful "harsh military measures" will be used and are expected to be used.

It's not like a wargame where you remove a figure/model or counter off the table or board because it has been "eliminated". Remember the old Combat Results Tables from Avalon Hill or SPI, etc. … DE = "Defender Eliminated" … It appears it is not at all that "clean" in the real world.

someone who says the entire Arab world should be nuked is obviously expressing bigotry against Arabs.

As I have heard this type of talk, etc., being bandied about here on TMP, etc.,.

AFAIK … So let me say again, I nor anyone else has never said, alluded to, concurred with, recommended, etc., such a heinous act. Here on TMP at least …

Everyone is a special snowflake, words hurt, see Bill for your participation trophy after the show…

AFAIK … So let me say again, I nor anyone else has never said, alluded to, concurred with, recommended, etc., such a heinous act. Here on TMP at least …

I have seen such things (so your AFAIK is valid). I have hit the complaint button and seen such content removed within a few hours or so (I check TMP pre- and post- work.).

I have also seen people rail about such a comment and how the Editorial staff advocates such behaviour within five minutes of it being posted. AFAIK, they didn't think to hit the complaint button instead.

Well I'm glad I missed those posts. But if I did see them, I would have hit [!] …

Actually Flashman14, for most of the population of most of the countries that make up the world beyond the secular, 'advanced' western democratic nations, religion is primarily a function of inheritance and geography. People are obliged by tradition and culture to follow the faith of their family and region, and whatever limited education they receive is often tied that faith. They simply don't have the social and intellectual freedom we in the West do to select their own belief/non-belief system. In some communities people can suffer social ostracism, physical attack, or even death if they attempt to do so.

So when discussing National Characteristics in eg Napoleonic rules (Russians are stubborn, English +1 first firing etc etc) is bigotry???

Could just call those "Special Abilities"….

I don't think "Special Abilities" would work. That would mean someone has something the other doesn't poses. That wouldn't be fair. Everyone hits on a +4 or no one does…

possess ;-)