"Nazrat dawghoused for raising an eyebrow?" Topic

Nazrat has been dawghoused for expressing surprise at racist remarks made by Otto. He is in the can for saying: "But it was very eye-opening to see Otto's true stripes with regard to people of other races…". This apparently constitutes a personal attack on Nazrat's part.

TMP link

Just so I am clear on the rules, is Nazrat in the can because what Otto said isn't racist or because it is wrong to point out that it is racist?

TMP link

Seems like one person derailed the discussion and took a couple of reasonable people down with him.

Can't see much wrong with what Ochoin and Nazrat said – but what do I know? TMP is a funny place …

Phil

He is in the Dawghouse because his comments crossed the line into a personal attack.

This week in "Let's hate Europeans – TMP edition".

Sorry to see good people dog housed, although one individual deserved it.

Perhaps with better moderation this would not have happened. I do not see things like this on Lead Adventure or Wargamers Website. Things of this nature do not happen there but are common here. Makes me consider why I have paid money to support management here.

that thread is a disgrace and for the editor to call what Nazrat said a "personal attack" begs seriously his credibility. It was disgusting. Will I now be doghoused?

I guess calling someone who says racist things a racist is personal attack. We can't hurt the feelings of racists. They are so gentle.

Funny how that rant didn't get snipped away. I guess words are more dangerous then what people actually say.

So what did Otto say, exactly?

C'mon,Chris. C'mon.

I'm with Gunfreak, Nazrat & SJDonovan on this one. Bill, thats' going TOO far, IMHO.

This week in "Let's hate Europeans – TMP edition".

I'm going to take this to heart, its a good point.

I would like to point out that many times when discussions come off like that they are reputations of Americans by Americans. Simply taking a blueprint of a European societal organization and applying it to the United States as if its a miraculous cure-all is intellectually lazy and would fail.

Europe has countless great things that we would be well advised to mimic, adapt, and adopt. I'd like to think that the US has much to share also and that our best days for helping humanity are actually ahead of us.

Snafu – All our systems, anywhere in the world are flawed works in progress, in an ideal world, we'll all learn from each other, everywhere.

Maybe some day we all will :-)

IMHO, Nazrat did not make a personal attack.

HOWEVER--this would have been better handled by simply flagging the original post.

Nazrat has only himself to blame, he has been on here long enough to know that there are certain members ( no NOT Klan members) that one does just not critize, and he has also been here long enough to know who they are.

There are ways to express an opinion without attacking someone personally.

I miss 'em already(sniff).

It's a re·pu·di·a·tion, oops

So, to clarify, as Otto has apparently been banned for what he said to nazrat, rather than his initial comments, is it the case that racist comments don't count as personal attacks Bill?

Is it possible to get clarification on what it was that he said that constitutes a personal attack, because I'm not seeing a personal attack.

There are ways to express an opinion without attacking someone personally.

That's fair enough. But Otto did, among other things, refer to a whole class of people as "ghetto trash". I don't think it is a personal attack to point out that this is racist.

"ghetto trash" surely that would also be a "group attack" under the rules.

I think it would be a nice gesture if Nazrat were to be let out and Otto was told that in future racism won't be tolerated.

I second that.

I like SJDonovan's suggestion. Reduce Nazrat's sentence please!

That thread should have been deleted from the start. It was never going to end very well.

Third

Phil

I thought links to the Lounge were Verboten anyway.

Silly Hafen! Those were Tuesday rules, and today is Wednesday.

Silly me.

So, to clarify, as Otto has apparently been banned for what he said to nazrat…

Nobody has been banned.

It's a temporary ban on posting rather than a permanent ban, Bill.

Please clarify regarding personal attacks.

May I point out one thing here, Ochoin is not British or European. He was discussing Australia.

and I'm an American living in the Netherlands!

Actually Rapier, a little know fact is that Australia and the Isle of Man is actualy the same place. So when you spend 20 hours by plane from London to get to Sidney, the plane simply fly to a far away asian country, you then board a new plane before you fly back to the English Channel.

There are ways to express an opinion without attacking someone personally.

I know, Bill has DH'd me many, many times for number of violations … Live and learn … or not …

Nobody has been banned.

He's in the Dog House … been there done that … often … He'll be out in a couple of days or less.

He is in the Dawghouse because his comments crossed the line into a personal attack.

It does not always happen. But I agree with Bill. Having been on both sides of the "offense".

I'm sure some have hit the [!] on me … often … It's part of being on TMP and even on the net in general. Many people, many opinions, from many different places.

And all have a button or two that when pressed … well … it may not be a very cordial reply.

@ Rapier
Actually I am British (Scottish to be precise) as well as Australian. Two passports, two nationalities.

I don't think my Dawghousing was justified but as I've been let out early, it seems The Man agrees.

You can end up in the Dawghouse for trolling or for simply being a nasty piece of work. Or you can stand against such horrors as genocide or racism & get a sentence.

Nazrat is serving time for the right reasons.

Glad you're back, Ochoin!

Ochoin – I think it's a poor situation when 'the right reasons' include calling out racism though.

Anyway, as there's no response to my query from Bill, I guess racist comments count as neither personal or group attacks on TMP. Looks like the FAQs need updating:

'Anyone who treats people with hatred and intolerance solely on the basis of their race, ethnicity, religion, gender or gender preference, is breaking forum rules. [BIGOTRY RULE]'

Not to speak for him,Ben,but I don't think that's exactly what Ochoin was saying,though you could interpret it that way.

Hafen – I don't think nazrat should have been banned at all. I assume ochoin feels the same. If people choose to make racist comments, board members should be able to call them out on it without fear of being punished.

On that, we agree.

If people choose to make racist comments, board members should be able to call them out on it without fear of being punished.

If they do so in a civil manner.

…it seems The Man agrees.

I let you out in honor of having a poll running.

"But it was very eye-opening to see Otto's true stripes with regard to people of other races…"

Someone is banned for several days for that 'attack' but someone isn't sanctioned for racist comments?

Maybe you need to consider use of the 'family friendly' label whilst you're updating the FAQs.

It's family friendly if you live in the right place, in the right country, believe the right things and hate the right people.

Personal Attack:

You are a racist.

Criticism:

The statement you made is flawed because …

A personal attack addresses the person. A criticism addresses the behaviour.

I would say that nazrat's comment leaves it to the reader rather than stating out loud.

I would assume 'Ghetto trash' meets your criteria though? I wonder why not Bill's. Perhaps it's merely a Haddockism.

Personal Attack:

You are a racist.

Criticism:

The statement you made is flawed because …

Helpful Advice:

The statement you made is flawed because you are a racist.

A personal attack addresses the person. A criticism addresses the behaviour. Helpful advice combines the two.

I assume ochoin feels the same

Yep.

Helpful Advice:

The statement you made is flawed because you are a racist.

Interesting since that advice is not helpful. Nor is it correct. The fact that someone is a racist doesn't mean that every statement they make, even every statement they make concerning race, is flawed.

And pretty much nobody goes around saying things that they believe are fundamentally flawed, so throwing a tautology at them doesn't provide any assistance. In general, it does the opposite. "I made an argument. My opponent called me a name … looks like they don't actually have a counter argument. I must be right." (That train of thought is also flawed, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.)

There is no guarantee that confronting someone with a flaw in their logic will help them get past it. There is a guarantee not confronting them with a flaw in their logic provides no assistance in them getting past it.

Past logic, this is a value statement (my value statement), whether or not what Otto said was a violation, wrong, immoral, vile, or illegal, has nothing to do with how a response to that statement is adjudicated. Again, focusing on the statement that caused the response rather than the merits of punishing the response itself makes you look like you don't actually have an argument why punishing the response was unjust.

It is a perfectly legitimate moral theory to say that if one person violates morals, decorum, of the law then that justifies another violating those same morals, decorum, or the law in response. It's just not my moral theory, nor one I would want others to live under.