Racism is ok now?

[ericgtr12]

Bottom line: Referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" is not itself prohibited, but users who make such posts must stay within other rules that prohibit insults to other forum members, trolling, and negative-stereotyping against groups of people. Comments that insult Native Americans, rather than just a senator, will continue to be prohibited. We've provided our moderators with some examples where "Pocahontas" references would be considered acceptable or not acceptable.

So if one were to refer to Obama as Sambo, would that also be acceptable? I'm just trying to determine where the line is drawn here. IMO, it's clearly racist when you use a person's color or race in a pejorative way, the clear intent is to compare them to the worst of "their kind".

At this time our political climate is toxic, white supremacy/nationalism has taken a seat at the mainstream table and has a voice, and sympathy in the current Government. I applaud FB and Twitter for taking a firmer stance on what is clearly racist and divisive hate speech. It would be nice to see MR follow suit.

 

[SDColorado]

This probably explains why I have no interest in political discussions the vast majority of the time. Calling the ability to denigrate and insult someone a "tool of political discussion" is ridiculous; it isn't a tool I'd ever want to use.

Agreed. One of the main reasons I stay out of PRSI on this forum. I do participate in another forum that allows political discussion, but the rules state that discussion must maintain decorum of respect and that proper titles or names must be used. So when discussing President Trump or Senator Warren, only titles such as President Trump, Mr. Trump or Donald Trump are allowed and likewise Senator Warren, Elizabeth Warren, Ms. Warren. Mutual respect is non-partisan and keeps the discussion more on the actual topic being discussed, rather than circling the drain of name calling and insults.

I will carry on avoiding PRSI

 

[laptech]

The word Pocahontas being used in the context that it is, is being used as a pejorative term for those who want to ridicule ones heritage.

Referring to Sen Warren in any communication as 'Pocahontas' shows intent to ridicule her heritage. To ridicule her is to insult her and as such using the word should be prohibited as per the forum rules.

 

[tobefirst ⚽️]

So if one were to refer to Obama as Sambo, would that also be acceptable?

Interesting. I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this.

 

[MacNut]

Interesting. I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this.

There are a bunch of racist derogatory terms that would in theory be ok now.

 

[dotzero123]

Right Wing = Racist. Nice generalization. Its ok to stereotype some but not others. BTW - I do not believe in discriminating against anyone. I'm against hate and bigotry for anyone. Down to my toes. Also have a right to disagree with democrat party issues.

 

[MacNut]

Right Wing = Racist. Nice generalization. Its ok to stereotype some but not others. BTW - I do not believe in discriminating against anyone. I'm against hate and bigotry for anyone. Down to my toes. Also have a right to disagree with democrat party issues.

Disagreements are fine, as long as they are done civil and with respect. Name calling or racist remarks are where lines get crossed. I don't care what side says it. We need to grow as a nation and get away from the bigotry.

I honestly think we could solve all of our problems if everyone just went out for a beer.

 

[mobilehaathi]

So am I to believe that it is okay to insult people based on their heritage now on these boards? How disappointing you came to this conclusion.

 

[BigMcGuire]

So am I to believe that it is okay to insult people based on their heritage now on these boards? How disappointing you came to this conclusion.

If I read this clearly, that's not what they said. Political figures - yes. This board has always let people bash political figures, but not members/other people/or groups of people. Correct me if I'm wrong - but that's what I understood.

 

[ericgtr12]

If I read this clearly, that's not what they said. Political figures - yes. This board has always let people bash political figures, but not members/other people/or groups of people. Correct me if I'm wrong - but that's what I understood.

Bashing political figures in general terms, yes, but now they've made a collective decision to allow racist terms to be used as well and that sets a terrible precedent. Regardless of the target, this type language should not be tolerated.

 

[BigMcGuire]

Bashing political figures in general terms, yes, but now they've made a collective decision to allow racist terms to be used as well and that sets a terrible precedent. Regardless of the target, this type language should not be tolerated.

Have to agree, I find this incredibly distasteful, hostile, and unnecessary. I can only imagine the effort needed to successfully moderate it though. Too many people enjoy upsetting others by doing stuff like this.

 

[niploteksi]

So am I to believe that it is okay to insult people based on their heritage now on these boards? How disappointing you came to this conclusion.

It depends on if they are on the board or not. There's also the whole point that insults and racist remarks are not the same. Using heritage is not the same as being racist, even if it might be juvenile.

If the mods had seen racist remarks, I feel confident they would have taken action.

I just got done reading through that thread and I didn't see any actual racist comments. I did see several posts that made Indian references about her.

Not agreeing with some posts due to the sophomoric nature, should not be used as the reason to call said posts racist, in my opinion.

Disagreeing with the lack of moderation action happens a lot around here. Given the size of the membership and various backgrounds, it is to be expected. I think it is way over the top, to infer that this forum is KKK based, because you disagree with your reports not being acted upon in a manner you agree with. That kind of ill-founded, acerbic rhetoric is not accurate or productive. In my opinion, you owe the staff an apology. Better yet, consider editing your post to remove the KKK reference / insult towards the staff and by extension, membership.

Words have meanings for a reason, and it benefits everyone here, when words are used in their proper context.

I just have to agree and when judging people's intent you have understand what the proper context is for using certain phrases.

Well said.

And I think that the question - as posed - is clearly rhetorical.



As @tobefirst points out, an insult does not - or ought not - really constitute "a tool of political discussion".

For one thing, insult is not debate or discussion, still less when it adds to relations already smarting from the experience of centuries of discrimination and oppression, whether reinforced in law, politics, the economy or culture.

However, apart from the intellectual lack in substituting insult for debate (and doing so to reinforce and recall older oppressive and profoundly unequal race relations), allowing this not only normalises offensive speech (and writing ) "as tools of political debate" but also normalises racist expressions when used in this context.

Again, I would ask the mods to reconsider this decision.



Agreed and well said.

To you and others, it might not be a tool for political debate, but for others it is. It's also possible that it's not racist or an insult if the one saying it doesn't think it is racist. Now it has also been stated that it's not racist because it's about the person Warren and not about the native Americans (or Indians). Who is to say who has interpretative prerogative? The one actually using the words or the recipient? I know I am not alone in thinking it's subjective and that it's not so clear cut.

I think the Mods do a pretty good job when it comes to this stuff. Especially considering people are volunteering their time to respond to reports from members, we should cut them a little slack when it comes to controversial things like this.


What is considered racist is subjective. The Mods just have to use their best judgement when determining how to handle complaints. For most actions/inactions taken by the mods, there will always be people unhappy with the decision.


This is probably the better way to go.

So if one were to refer to Obama as Sambo, would that also be acceptable? I'm just trying to determine where the line is drawn here. IMO, it's clearly racist when you use a person's color or race in a pejorative way, the clear intent is to compare them to the worst of "their kind".

At this time our political climate is toxic, white supremacy/nationalism has taken a seat at the mainstream table and has a voice, and sympathy in the current Government. I applaud FB and Twitter for taking a firmer stance on what is clearly racist and divisive hate speech. It would be nice to see MR follow suit.

Yes, unless he is on the forum as stated in the response. We can debate whether it's OK or not to use derogatory and misogynistic words based ethnicity, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is who is the recipient of those words (and the particular word "Pochahontas" is not deemed to be racist enough).

From the administrators:

We appreciate hearing from users, even if it's to complain about forum rules and how we enforce them.

We've reviewed public statements and articles about the negative remarks directed at Elizabeth Warren based on her claim of Native American heritage. Some argue that it's clearly racist, some argue that it isn't, and some find it worrisome for its undertones but not outright racist. We've also tried to gauge opinions among forums users by surveying comments we've heard and post reports we've received, and comparing these statistics against similar cases. Finally, we had a discussion among administrators and moderators about just where to draw the line.

A few points are clear. Hate speech and insults toward forum members are still prohibited, while negative personal comments directed at public figures is still allowed in most cases. So insulting Senator Warren doesn't break forum rules, while insulting Native Americans as a group would break the rules. The question becomes whether insulting Senator Warren because of her heritage issue also constitutes an insult to Native Americans, and therefore breaks the forum rules. We decided not to treat it as such. We know that not everyone will agree with this conclusion.

The result of our research and discussions was a healthy disagreement among our volunteers, which is rather unusual for us. In such cases, our policy is to err on the side of leniency, rather than enact restrictions that we don't all support.

Bottom line: Referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" is not itself prohibited, but users who make such posts must stay within other rules that prohibit insults to other forum members, trolling, and negative-stereotyping against groups of people. Comments that insult Native Americans, rather than just a senator, will continue to be prohibited. We've provided our moderators with some examples where "Pocahontas" references would be considered acceptable or not acceptable.

As it happens, we were already discussing possible changes to the rules to add more explicit prohibitions regarding racism and discrimination, and discussions like this one give us useful input.

As I see it the moderators have a very difficult job catering to both sides, and they go out of their way to get it right, which I think they deserve a lot of credit for.

 

[gnasher729]

President Trump has made a name for himself by going out of his way to upset other people and do what some people consider offensive. Others consider it free speech. There is definitely a fine line there. PRSI has been a hot topic, especially in the last few years.

President Trump has an extraordinary talent for insulting people, and not many others. Probably comes from being raised with a golden spoon in his mouth. Now insulting people just points back at the person who does the insulting, but that doesn't mean it's not free speech.
[doublepost=1552945878][/doublepost]

So if one were to refer to Obama as Sambo, would that also be acceptable?

I think of Barack Obama as a highly intelligent person of great personal integrity. I think "Sambo", which refers to a dimwit of limited intelligence, would be more fitting for Donald Trump.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

..... There's also the whole point that insults and racist remarks are not the same. Using heritage is not the same as being racist, even if it might be juvenile.

Agree that insults and racist remarks are not the same , but when an insult takes the form of a racist remark, given the history and political and cultural fault lines of the US, it carries an extra power to wound and cause offence, and to overlook that runs the risk of being disingenuous.

I


To you and others, it might not be a tool for political debate, but for others it is. It's also possible that it's not racist or an insult if the one saying it doesn't think it is racist. Now it has also been stated that it's not racist because it's about the person Warren and not about the native Americans (or Indians). Who is to say who has interpretative prerogative? The one actually using the words or the recipient? I know I am not alone in thinking it's subjective and that it's not so clear cut.

The test is not whether the person saying it considers it racist, but whether it could be considered that the person who is the recipient might consider it so.

To argue otherwise is to deny the power of culturally freighted language to cause offence, especially when reinforced by history, custom, law and culture and when the person "deliberately" using the term hails from the dominant cultural or ethnic or gender group.

Given how Mr Trump flagrantly used this term in a public context, it is not possible -now - to use it - when describing Senator Warren - in any way that could be viewed as "innocently".

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

You can't use Obama and Sambo in comparison to Warren and Pocahontas. What I think just about everyone is missing here is she CLAIMED Native American Heritage to get ahead of others in several ways. She effectively lied. At most, she's 1/32nd American Indian, at the least she's 1/512th. By calling her Pocahontas, you are calling her out on her BS claim. It's not racist.

I made the claim of political positioning earlier with the other two posters because of the way they tried calling Trump. They, and others here apparently, seem to think if Trump said it, must be racist. Just as any and every liberal I have ever known have claimed. I'm personally on the fence about Trump's positions on race. One one hand, some evidence points to occurrences in the 70's - woo hoo. On the other, he opened Lago-Mar to minorities after the locality it's in stated he couldn't - they were racists there, he was not.

Obama is black and it does lean towards racism if you call a black man or woman Sambo. And I don't care if they are a politician or not.

 

[nouveau_redneck]

The word Pocahontas being used in the context that it is, is being used as a pejorative term for those who want to ridicule ones heritage.

Referring to Sen Warren in any communication as 'Pocahontas' shows intent to ridicule her heritage To ridicule her is to insult her and as such using the word should be prohibited as per the forum rules.

The term was not being used to ridicule Warrens heritage, rather to ridicule what she falsely believes to be her heritage.

However I don't agree with its usage, as it is derogatory, but more so to people with Indian heritage, not so much those that appropriate it.

 

[LizKat]

I actually took the original tag "Pocahantas" to be a ding aimed at Warren, not at native Americans. A ding for her having at least initially believed (without verification?) some family lore about her heritage, and for possibly having tried to singularize herself as special, i.e. a minority, in a larger group of people, say in school or work situations.

That said, I'm aware that some people still view minority applicants to mainstream positions with suspicion anyway. That in my mind makes them possibly racist or at least jealous of the kind of singularity some say Warren wanted to achieve.

Not sure about the PRSI thread under discussion here. The "Pocahantas" call and response posts are pretty juvenile, which doesn't make them trolling posts... but they're the sort of thing make you roll your eyes when enough of them pop up to make the thread a pain to bother reading through.

Pocahantas herself was the daughter of a tribal chieftain in eastern coastal North America. So it's not clear that tagging Warren by that nickname insults native Americans. Some American Indians might think Warren has inappropriately referenced their identity as her own.

Would be amusing if people intending insult to Elizabeth Warren and to native Americans don't even realize that the real Pocahantas was the equivalent of a crown princess. I don't think they mean to honor Warren by the tag but... they may be defaulting to an idea that she can't hold a candle to true royalty like that of an American Indian. Oops. One could lose the white supremacy ID card for that.

Dear mods: there's always the unceremonious lock-and-wasteland option when the tossed coin ends up on an edge... maybe should go back to using that more often.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I agree with @MacNut and @Scepticalscribe on this. Calling her Pocahontas is no different than calling Salma Hayek a bean eater, Rami Malek a towel head, or Kevin Hart a porch monkey. Alone and without context, there is nothing racist about beans, towels, monkeys, and Pocahontas. Those words alone aren't racist, but how they are used can be racist. Context is important.

Due to how the word Pocahontas is being used, it is difficult to imagine any context where it isn't racist if it is used to any way to describe Elizabeth Warren. I don't think anyone can credibly dispute that Trump's use of the term is racist. Thus anyone mimicking Trump is also being racist.

 

[mobilehaathi]

First, the genetic analysis she had done clearly indicates she had a relatively recent Native American ancestor (although I’ll also say that with an ancestor that many generations back, not finding genetic evidence wouldn’t exclude such an ancestor as well). I say this as an expert in the field (which you can choose to believe or not).

Second, I think it was a mistake for her to fall into the trap of publicly releasing and making a big stink of the results. The politics of identity here is, obviously, extremely complicated. I suspect she was using her Native American ancestry as a political tool. And given that she never actually grew up on a res, or adopted the culture, or was ever a member of a tribe, I think it was a mistake born of political cynicism that she made. Criticize her all you want about that.

However, calling her Pocahontas is a plainly derogatory attack on her heritage. She does, in fact, have Native American heritage. To insult her based on that is really ugly, and I’m surprised the mods continue to allow it, whether she’s a public figure or not.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

I agree with @MacNut and @Scepticalscribe on this. Calling her Pocahontas is no different than calling Salma Hayek a bean eater, Rami Malek a towel head, or Kevin Hart a porch monkey. Alone and without context, there is nothing racist about beans, towels, monkeys, and Pocahontas. Those words alone aren't racist, but how they are used can be racist. Context is important.

Due to how the word Pocahontas is being used, it is difficult to imagine any context where it isn't racist if it is used to any way to describe Elizabeth Warren. I don't think anyone can credibly dispute that Trump's use of the term is racist. Thus anyone mimicking Trump is also being racist.

Please tell me how you can really come to the conclusion calling Warren (not Native American but falsely claimed to be) Pocahontas is the same as calling Salma Hayek (Clearly a Latin American) a bean eater, Rami Malek (Clearly a middle easterner - Egyptian) a towel head or Kevin Hart (Clearly a Black Man) a porch monkey? HOW?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Please tell me how you can really come to the conclusion calling Warren (not Native American but falsely claimed to be) Pocahontas is the same as calling Salma Hayek (Clearly a Latin American) a bean eater, Rami Malek (Clearly a middle easterner - Egyptian) a towel head or Kevin Hart (Clearly a Black Man) a porch monkey? HOW?

I suggest that you read @mobilehaathi's post.

It seems that her claim to have American Indian ancestry may not have been false.

And - germane to this thread - even if it were false, - given the fraught history of race relations in the US, when and where insults based on race carry an extra culturally freighted frisson - would it not be more appropriate to attack her integrity rather than offer insults based on the membership of the ethnicity or race she may - or may not - have inherited some elements of her ancestry from?

It is telling that those who have chosen to attack her have chosen to do so on the basis of race - and again, I would respectfully request MacRumors to have a further discussion on this matter - rather than her perceived lack of integrity re matters of ancestry.

Telling, because in that political culture, insults that derive their potency and power from their link to race clearly carry a greater heft and power to wound than do insults querying someone's integrity.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

I read what mobilehaathi had to say. Warren's DNA test revealed 6 to 10 generations back she may have had an American Indian ancestor. That's hardly recent as mobilehaathi stated. Heck, 6 to 10 generations back is relevant then you may now refer to me as LORD OriginalAppleGuy or even Your Highness as I have European royalty ancestors that fit that definition.

I've seen Warren get attacked on many things, including her improper usage of stating she was American Indian. There are stated guidelines where it's proper to use American Indian to gain favor in higher education. I've long forgotten what they were but I know it was much higher than 1/32nd (her best outcome).

 

[LizKat]

If calling Warren "Pocahantas" is meant as insult to American Indians, it's racist. If it's only meant to mock her for having asserted her minority status, to me that's not at all the same thing as calling Obama a N-word or even an "oreo cookie".

Warren's use of personal identity politics seems to me to have muddied the water. Trolls and racists will always find that an attractive opportunity to exploit, particularly in political campaigns. Hence we now have Donald Trump picking up on Warren as "Pocahantas".

What Trump means by it is nothing, past certifying to his base a whole new meme: that Pocahantas is Bad. Translation to white nationalists: I am on your side, I get it, she's maybe a Fake Indian but they're all Bad and so is She. (I hope I got enough of his favorite capital letter style in there).

So what we have after Trump having picked it up is this: that a possibly satirical attack on Warren in the wayback now becomes a sitting President's personal and racist attack on a candidate for President of the opposite party. Hard for a racist of Trump-fan persuasion to ignore such a cue.

To the stump! All's fair in love, war and social media politics! ​

But, does that mean a post by anyone who calls Warren "Pocahontas" should get the heave-ho?

I think the mods who suggest we err in favor of free speech here are correct. It's a dicey call.

 

[mobilehaathi]

I read what mobilehaathi had to say. Warren's DNA test revealed 6 to 10 generations back she may have had an American Indian ancestor. That's hardly recent as mobilehaathi stated. Heck, 6 to 10 generations back is relevant then you may now refer to me as LORD OriginalAppleGuy or even Your Highness as I have European royalty ancestors that fit that definition.

I've seen Warren get attacked on many things, including her improper usage of stating she was American Indian. There are stated guidelines where it's proper to use American Indian to gain favor in higher education. I've long forgotten what they were but I know it was much higher than 1/32nd (her best outcome).

That is, actually, recent. And it is the estimated time back to her first “non-admixed” Native American ancestor. Many Native Americans have European and other admixture as a result of large scale migrations, so it’s perfectly plausible that she had many other family members that were tribal members more recently in her family.

You’re seizure on this idea that somehow her “true” Native American ancestor is “too distant” is actually irrelevant to the point that attacking someone based on their heritage is bigoted nonsense that this board has decided is acceptable discourse.

 

[MacNut]

If calling Warren "Pocahantas" is meant as insult to American Indians, it's racist. If it's only meant to mock her for having asserted her minority status, to me that's not at all the same thing as calling Obama a N-word or even an "oreo cookie".

Warren's use of personal identity politics seems to me to have muddied the water. Trolls and racists will always find that an attractive opportunity to exploit, particularly in political campaigns. Hence we now have Donald Trump picking up on Warren as "Pocahantas".

What Trump means by it is nothing, past certifying to his base a whole new meme: that Pocahantas is Bad. Translation to white nationalists: I am on your side, I get it, she's maybe a Fake Indian but they're all Bad and so is She. (I hope I got enough of his favorite capital letter style in there).

So what we have after Trump having picked it up is this: that a possibly satirical attack on Warren in the wayback now becomes a sitting President's personal and racist attack on a candidate for President of the opposite party. Hard for a racist of Trump-fan persuasion to ignore such a cue.

To the stump! All's fair in love, war and social media politics! ​

But, does that mean a post by anyone who calls Warren "Pocahontas" should get the heave-ho?

I think the mods who suggest we err in favor of free speech here are correct. It's a dicey call.

Honestly I think PRSI could have a better atmosphere if all the name calling was banned. Killary, Crocked Hillary, Pocahontas. Lying Ted...... Just because Trump says it does that make it OK for others to follow suit? All those names do is insight hate.