"Expanded Grounds for Expulsion from Membership" Topic

I will comment on the Fez.

It's worth noting that the phrasing is "Consistently express". That part is important.

Not just the Holocaust, other genocides too.

What will constitute "consistently"?

I voted no because this is too vague.

What will constitute "consistently"?

More than once? Enough to be sure it's not a slip of the tongue?

How long before this site is shut down for violation of the First Amendment?

The lack of clear definitions, not to mention who would be qualified to enforce them are troubling at best!

Sorry, but I say no to such simple minded solutions!

Uhh, the First Amendment applies towards government actions, not contracts between private entities/individuals. The Editor has the authority to create or limit whatever speech he wants (within the limits of American law), because we agreed to let him do so when we joined. If this website was owned or operated by a local, state, or federal agency then the First Amendment would come into play.

Making it more than twice, just in case, might make sense. Still, it could be that those whose membership durations are longer will have slipped-up more often overall, so something like twice a year, rather than twice ever, could be a further refinement.

Of course, if TMP was more about the hobby than about hobbyists, this sort of issue might crop up less frequently, but with loose notions of "on topic" to begin with…

How long before this site is shut down for violation of the First Amendment?

And which government entity has the power to do that? None.

First Amendment does not apply. What Rebelyell2006 said.
Bill has the power and right to interpret "free speech" in whatever way he wishes. Some of us may wish he would do so a bit more consistently, but…

Of course, if TMP was more about the hobby than about hobbyists…

If you think I can control what you guys want to talk about, think again!

But wargaming often concerns history, and history is controversy…

+1 to Rebel. Thanks for posting the facts that the First Amendment applies only to US government entities. I can't count how many times that the First Amendment is brought up in situations like this. LOL.

Looks like the echo chamber is winning…

George Will dis-invited by Scrips, Ayaan Hirsi Ali dis-invited by Brandeis, Mozilla CEO forced out for making a donation to the wrong ballot issue.

Now Bill is to be the new Commissar of Politically Correct Thinking on TMP.

Considering the extreme dichotomy of thought on many of the issues that come up this could get interesting fast.

The next time the topic of women in combat comes up and some one expresses a negative I am willing to bet there will be a misogyny complaint. Racism gets called pretty readily as well.

As to the Holocaust Denial charge on that recent thread, I saw a questioning of details not an outright denial. But then opinions may vary (and i must admit I haven't checked today's posts)…

Now Bill is to be the new Commissar of Politically Correct Thinking on TMP.

The primary reason for complaining about political correctness is to lament society ceasing to tolerate a particular form of bigotry. So what is it here, a hatred of Jews? Or a narrative of it being a hoax to provide arguments against Israel (like Ahmadinejad)? This isn't a political issue. The Holocaust happened. Millions of Jews and millions of non-Jews were deliberately exterminated for going against Hitler's racial and religious plans. The facts back up those claims. The question facing TMP is this: what should we do with people who refuse to recognize facts and substitute their own set of facts? A bad grasp of history is counterintuitive in a community that revolves around understanding and applying history.

The primary reason for complaining about political correctness is to lament society ceasing to tolerate a particular form of bigotry.

Exactly! Well put, Rebelyell.

It is proposed that TMP members who consistently express racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic or Holocaust Denial viewpoints should be expelled from this community for the good of the community and the hobby.

What about climate change denial?

This is from a KGB defector back in 1983.

YouTube link

"The primary reason for complaining about political correctness is to lament society ceasing to tolerate a particular form of bigotry."

No it is not. This is absolutely wrong. The primary reason for complaining about political correctness is that the politically correct are the most humourless, boring people out there. They are constantly looking to be offended.

There is something tragically wrong with them that they fail to see the humour that others can find in differences, tragedy and life in general.

If we listened to you the movies Airplane and Airplane II could not have happened.

Voted no because I detested any form of censorship.

But from the numbers this looks like it will happened because of the verbiage used in the wording.

So once you get rid of these individuals…

Who is Next?

Pictors Studio, I think you are confusing irreverence for bigotry.

Mithmee, we are all known for the company we keep. That is why I left the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Do you really want to associate yourself with people deluded enough to believe that the Holocaust did not happen?

I'll just enjoy the view when it all goes wrong. Too vague and too many actions allowed on an arbitrary basis. And people though DH bait was bad.

Do you really want to associate yourself with people deluded enough to believe that the Holocaust did not happen?

Well first off I know that it did along with the many others.

Second, there are individuals out there that believe that we never landed on the Moon.

But once you start using Censorship it only increases.

So do you go after the GW & FoW haters next?

Which by the way I do fall into both of these categories.

But once you start using Censorship it only increases.

Nice slippery slope argument, but it doesn't work. The Holocaust deniers reject fact and reality because of their bigotry. That is not the same as disliking a game or a manufacturer (except for those who refuse to buy from GW and others because the person hates British people). The two are not comparable at all. I lost interest in Warhammer 40K because of GW's prices and business practices, but I do not deny their existence, nor do I denounce the Rogue Trader origins as a British conspiracy.

It's pretty easy to avoid accusations of racism. Don't say things that are racist.

Seriously, I grew up in one of the most hyper-liberal countries in the world and currently live in the people's republic of Portland Oregon, and I have /never/ had someone accuse me of being racist because I don't feel the need to say racist things or try to disguise them as "Just asking the question" or whatever.

It's not hard guys.

I grew up in the segregated south, I thought then and think now that Racism is just dumb.

People's Republic of Portland Oregon

So very true Weasel since I live in the People's Republic of Washington just to the north of the People's Republic of Oregon.

The ACLU does not agree, so I hope you all have deep pockets to defend your case!!

As long as we haven't encountered another sentient species it's quite impossible to be a racist. It would literally mean you're against your own race. Ethnicist I could understand.

But if it means I can no longer utter the correct name of Guy Gibson's dog I have to vote 'no'
Because that, as much as any genocide, is also a historical fact.

"Pictors Studio, I think you are confusing irreverence for bigotry."

Certainly I am not the one confusing the two. There will be plenty of people along here soon to make that the case if this rule goes into effect.

I'm not sure why people want to stifle what others say on here on a number of these subjects.

The ban on politics and religion is one thing, people can have two sided arguments leaving bad feelings on both sides, they were tried and the discussions spiraled down and out of control.

Certainly anyone dumb enough to argue that the holocaust never happened isn't going to spark that kind of a heated debate.

If you are debating with a holocaust denier you are basically as dumb as they are. I welcome the holocaust deniers to speak as it just shows how stupid they are.

"Nice slippery slope argument, but it doesn't work. The Holocaust deniers reject fact and reality because of their bigotry."

What are you talking about, the slippery slope is already happening. In two polls the issue went from just holocaust deniers to also including misogyny and racism.

Political correctness is a slippery slope. Once you start trying to stop offending people you're going to have people coming out of the woodwork.

If we can't say anything about this group or that group what about another group?

If we are going to make this rule we should just have a rule that says that no one can say anything bad about anyone or anything. Let us ban negative reviews of figures, rules and anything. Let's just cut right to it and make it so that it is a DHable offense to say anything bad at all.

The ACLU does not agree, so I hope you all have deep pockets to defend your case!!

The ACLU is not in the business of suing private websites on censorship grounds.

In two polls the issue went from just holocaust deniers to also including misogyny and racism.

Whoops, I didn't fully read the description of the second poll. Still, how is this a problem? How hard is it to not say misogynistic, racist, or antisemitic crap? Why should we tolerate misogyny, racism, and antisemitism? Perhaps these proposed rules would have been better in place a few months ago when TMP'ers were acting stupid over the assistant Editors.

I've voted no. The wording of the question is too vague for my taste and I think it can lead to abuse. Moreover, I think that the Dawghouse and the banning of accounts policy that it is presently in place are more than enough to get rid TMP of the most obnoxious bigots.

AS long as 'anti semitic' is not taken to mean 'the slightest criticism of the policies of the government of Israel', then fine by me.

They'll get you for politics on that one Martin ;-)

All a bit vague really but then one could argue current policy is applied in a seemingly inconsistent way anyway so what difference would it make?

Since we are voting on process, would there be an appeal process?

But more importantly who's going to keep hold of the pitchforks whilst we don't need them?

"How hard is it to not say misogynistic, racist, or antisemitic crap? Why should we tolerate misogyny, racism, and antisemitism? "

I would say that it is impossible to say anything racist. Others would disagree with me. Most people don't even have a reasonable definition of race. I for one believe that race is merely a construct and I don't see any more differences between the so-called races than there are within them.

So who is going to decide what any of this is?

Is Tango posting pictures of naked big boobed figures going to be considered misogynistic. Many people would consider the existence of those figures to be so.

I don't think this type of fascism should be tolerated here. People should be free to express their opinions. If you are offended take a look at yourself and maybe go see a therapist if you can't stand what someone posts on the internet.

Or perhaps to put it in terms you might like, this is double plus ungood.

I don't think this type of fascism should be tolerated here.

LOL, intolerance of fascism and Holocaust-denying fascists should not be tolerated?

Your vision of free speech is unobtainable because, like society as a whole, we all give up something to participate. By joining, you agreed not to use abusive language, you agreed not to discuss politics, and so on. Just like when you finish browsing and resume your daily routines, you agreed not to shout "fire" in a theater, incite riots, share child pornography, run naked through the streets slathering your body with sunflower oil while spanking yourself with a rubber spatula, and so on. Are homeowners associations within gated subdivisions a form of "fascism"? Residency there is just as voluntary as membership here. Is the TOS you agreed upon in order to use that computer a form of "fascism"? You throw that term around so loosely that it waters down the word to a mere Tourette's utterance.

No one said there shouldn't be rules.

But the rules shouldn't be defined by someone with arbitrary terms like misogyny and racism.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. You can't even define racism because you can't come up with a reasonable definition of race.

This pole is advocating an arbitrary system defined by no-one to change discourse in a forum.

You screaming about anarchy and child pornography is just an attempt by you to obscure the issue which is a lack of clarity in your own mind about what you want to be done.

Your intolerance double plus ungood.

You can't even define racism because you can't come up with a reasonable definition of race.

Racism: the belief that one race is superior to the rest. Which works for pre-20th Century; replace "race" with "ethnicity" and it still works.

Misogyny: prejudice against women, or the belief that males are superior to females.

What is arbitrary about that? Don't hate people for factors beyond their control (like ethnicity and gender)? And why should I tolerate the bigotry and intolerance of misogynists, racists, and bigots?

a lack of clarity in your own mind about what you want to be done.

My mind is quite clear about it: the TMP should be a civil website about wargaming, and bigots, racists and misogynists should be nipped in the bud before they create mass disruptions, like they did over the assistant Editors.

So there are lots of problems with your definitions:

"Racism: the belief that one race is superior to the rest. Which works for pre-20th Century; replace "race" with "ethnicity" and it still works. "

For one thing according to this if you believe that one race is inferior to other races that is not racism.

If someone were to believe that asians and blacks were equal and superior to whites that would not be racism.

Secondly define race. You can't do it. If someone has a black mother and a white father what is their race?

"What is arbitrary about that? "

The whole thing is arbitrary because you can't define the basic term upon which the whole thing is based. Not only that but I'm guessing that your own definition, as stated, fails your intent.

And answer the question about the Needs More Boobies board.

" TMP should be a civil website about wargaming, and bigots"

See, there is the slippery slope. "Civil"

So can Mithmee get on here and make his vile statements about GW. It could easily be argued, and probably accurately, that my liking GW is beyond my control.

Someone can't help if they are French or British, can we cast aspersions on one nationality or the other on the Napoleonics board?

Heck giving some nations a +1 and others a -1 in a game could be seen as bigoted.

It's Bill's house, Bill gets to decide who stays and who goes. It's actually pretty generous of him to ask us our opinions.

For one thing according to this if you believe that one race is inferior to other races that is not racism.

Of course not, that is "bigotry".

Secondly define race. You can't do it. If someone has a black mother and a white father what is their race?

"Interracial"? We use the term "race" because that is monosyllabic and simpler to use and apply than "ethnicity". But if you are struggling with defining "ethnicity" I would suggest that you find a dictionary.

And answer the question about the Needs More Boobies board.

If the sculptors and posters are acting out of prejudice against women, then the board would be misogynistic. If that is why they sculpt wildly anatomically-inaccurate fantasy miniatures (and do note the use of "fantasy" there, a genre where men wear leather loincloths and women wear chainmail bikinis because they highlight the rough, physical world that requires muscles).

So can Mithmee get on here and make his vile statements about GW.

I do not recall any of his statements about GW being vile. Perhaps you have some examples.

So you can't define race then? Obviously I've failed in using a dictionary to define race.

Here is the definition of ethnicity:

"the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition."

So by that definition we may be being bigoted by not allowing racist speech on here. If you are part of a social group that has a common cultural tradition of oppression of a certain group.

"If the sculptors and posters are acting out of prejudice against women, then the board would be misogynistic."

So we get down to it. We have to interpret what these people are thinking.

You are going to want to act as the thought police then.

Will we have to call you "sir" or will you prefer to be addressed as "officer?"

Mithmee's statements aren't vile. No statements are vile. That is the point.

You aren't clear at all about what you want. You can't define any of the terms you are basing your new rules on.
The terms you try to use contradict exactly what you are trying to do.

I'd suggest you go back to the drawing board and rethink your ideology on this point.

So you can't define race then?

I just told you to use the word "ethnicity" instead of race. What are you blathering about? Why am I wasting my time with you if you are acting intentionally obtuse and posting inflammatory and provocative statements just to get a negative response from other posters here?

Sorry Pictors, Rebel is correct. If you are more concerned about dictionary definitions, then you're missing the point he is trying to make.

The question facing TMP is this: what should we do with people who refuse to recognize facts and substitute their own set of facts? A bad grasp of history is counterintuitive in a community that revolves around understanding and applying history.

Ultimately, this is all moot until the polls are over.

Rebel is not correct. I want to know what we are and are not going to be able to post.

If he wants me to use ethnicity instead of race then fine.

He is being a bigot by his own definition for wanting to eliminate some of the speech he objects to. So should he be banned for being what he is, a bigot?

He is being a bigot by his own definition for wanting to eliminate some of the speech he objects to. So should he be banned for being what he is, a bigot?

Why don't you take a time out to read a dictionary, and then come back, since these words are obviously confusing you. Then you will be able to participate more fully.

Let's just look at the definitions here:

Ethnicity: "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition."

You want to use that instead of race, since you can't define race.

If you call bigotry : the belief "that one race is inferior to other races"

Which you have done.

And want to substitute ethnicity for race, then bigotry could also be that one ethnicity is inferior to an other ethnicity.

Is that not true?

since you can't define race

"Race" is not applicable to humans, since humans belong to one genetically-distinct race. The term, as applied to humans during the pre-20th Century period, was used because people believed that Africans, Europeans, etc., were members of different genetic races (as in divergent lines on Carl von Linne's genetic tree), either through literal belief in the Christian Bible and the story of Ham or through other reasons. People continue to use the word "race" as a substitute to the word "ethnicity" because (1) the word race is far more common in English parlance and (2) it is easier to spell, pronounce, and modify with prefixes and suffixes. In modern English, "race" is an idiom for "ethnicity". But congratulations on looking up a definition for "ethnicity".

You are avoiding the issue. Perhaps because you don't like where I'm leading you.

You are avoiding the issue. Perhaps because you don't like where I'm leading you.

The issue is Holocaust denial and other disruptive actions that are blatantly racist, misogynistic and bigoted. I do not know why you are trying to derail the conversation.

You are avoiding the issue. Perhaps because you don't like where I'm leading you.

And you are being willfully obtuse, perhaps because you can't muster a real argument. At this point you are doing your business a disservice by posting.