Racism is ok now?

[Scepticalscribe]

....

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.

Exactly.

If we are to be reduced to a discussion that attempts to apportion what putative "percentage" of a given ancestry allows someone to claim ancestry (or, historically, be punished or excluded from participation in mainstream society on the basis of percentages of an ancestry assumed to be somehow tainted) this is, in itself, unsettling enough.

However, as @mobilehaathi points out, it is irrelevant how "distant" or "proximate" someone's DNA may be to a given ethic group if it is considered acceptable to insult and attack that person based on their presumed membership (or not) of that group.

There is no way that can be construed as not racist.
[doublepost=1552952083][/doublepost]

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.

Agreed.

It is puerile, intellectually lazy, and allows an incredibly nasty atmosphere to develop.

It is - or, it ought to e - possible to have a political discussion - even a debate - without resorting to name calling.

 

[niploteksi]

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).

All this is true, in my opinion. The attacks are political tools because the user doesn't have any other tools in their repertoire. So what some may deem to be racist attacks are more likely to be someone's lack of analytical reasoning.

That the usage has roots in misogyny and systemic rasism is beside the point in this case. It would even be rather useless if it hadn't been, to the people using it. "See, you're not getting ahead even if you think you belong to a special class".

It's not a racist attack in itself. To the user it's equivalent with holding up a snowball and claiming there's no global warming.

The moderator's wording of the response and reason is unfortunate, but in essence I do understand what they are aiming at.

 

[MacNut]

To me there are conflicting rules, name calling be it to forum members or political people, or just your neighbor are still name calling. If the goal is to tighten up the rules why not just ban all name calling. That would make the mods decisions a lot easier. The trolling would go down considerably.

 

[AZhappyjack]

A few issues I have with the decision that I want to make. The context of the word Pocahontas used again Sen Warren is racist. It was used by the president in a derogatory way and continues to be used as such. Plenty of words on their own are not racist, but when put into context where the meaning is used to incite others it becomes a racist term. Now I won't say what those words are as that would be against the forums rules. To claim that Calling Sen Warren Pocahontas when the term only became an issue after the president used it at his rallies during the campaign as a direct insult makes all other uses by default racist.

The members that are using the term know good and well what the original intent was and continue to do it. Why are other racist terms flagged but this isn't.

Not necessarily true. I happen to be of the opinion that Elizabeth Warren brought all of this on herself with the bogus claim of Native American heritage... and as such, using the term "Pocahontas" is not racist, but rather ridiculing her outrageous claim that instigated the entire issue. And FWIW, then candidate Trump was not the first to use that name to ridicule the Massachusetts senator.

 

[MacNut]

Not necessarily true. I happen to be of the opinion that Elizabeth Warren brought all of this on herself with the bogus claim of Native American heritage... and as such, using the term "Pocahontas" is not racist, but rather ridiculing her outrageous claim that instigated the entire issue. And FWIW, then candidate Trump was not the first to use that name to ridicule the Massachusetts senator.

But how does that move the discussion along? Why bother say it at all. Who cares about the semantics about if calling her Pocahontas is bad or not. Why do people feel the need to do it.

 

[TheAppleFairy]

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.

Don't forget cheeto.

 

[AZhappyjack]

But how does that move the discussion along? Why bother say it at all. Who cares about the semantics about if calling her Pocahontas is bad or not. Why do people feel the need to do it.

How does "what" move the discussion along?

This entire thread is about racism, as it relates to people calling a US Senator, who mis-appropriated a racial heritage (and who benefitted from that mis-appropriation) "Pocahontas" ... clearly someone was offended enough to label the name "racist" as it pertains to her... so, clearly someone cares about whether or not calling her "Pocahontas" is bad.

As far as "why", it's the way people nickname tall people "Tiny", or overweight people "Slim" or a bald guy "Curly"?

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

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.

The vast majority of Warren's DNA is European just like the rest of us. So what if she can point back to an unadamixed Native American ancestor so long ago? Could she have other family members that were tribal members more recently in her family? Her DNA would show it if that was the case. The issue with her, though, is she successfully used that LITTLE bit of ancestry to gain massive advantage.

You mis-wrote this part of your sentence: "attacking someone based on their heritage is bigoted nonsense". It should read "attacking someone based on heritage they claimed to have a LOT more of than they actually do is attacking their integrity." It's no different than that white girl who darkened her skin so she could identify as black and run part of the NCAA. Warren deserves to be mocked as much as that girl did.

I found a wiki with active references that seems to have been around since Feb 7, 2013 according to what the waybackmachine has snapshots of about Warren and her claims of Native American ancestry. One of the most telling quotes is as follows:

Dr. Gavin Clarkson, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation who received both a doctorate and a law degree from Harvard while Warren was a professor, says he “personally invited” her three times to visit with Harvard’s Native American Law Student Association (NALSA), which he headed while attaining his dual degree. Warren, who had identified as a minority in law professor directories and was touted by Harvard as a Native American hire, never accepted his invites.

“I was on campus at Harvard for five years, from 1998 to 2003,” Clarkson said. “Warren was identified in the AALS law teacher directory as an American Indian faculty member.”

“Hi, we’re the Native American students on campus and it would be nice to meet the only Native American professor on the faculty,” was the message Clarkson was attempting to get across, but he says he was dismissed by Warren every time.

“I personally invited Elizabeth Warren, face to face, three separate times,” Clarkson said.

“I did it at least once per year for three straight years,” he said. “She basically dismissed me all three times.”​

https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

It is very clear to me, the use of "Pocahontas" in reference to Warren is NOT racially motivated but calling out a jack hole who falsified documents to gain advantage. She effectively took the place another Native American could have had. How can anyone defend that?

Sincerely,
Your Highness

 

[mobilehaathi]

The vast majority of Warren's DNA is European just like the rest of us.

Depends on who "us" is.

So what if she can point back to an unadamixed Native American ancestor so long ago?

She has recent Native ancestry, much more than the vast majority of people with DNA that mostly traces recently to Europe.

Could she have other family members that were tribal members more recently in her family?

Yes.

Her DNA would show it if that was the case.

Not necessarily.

The point is the DNA gives a maximum bounding estimate for how far back her Native American ancestors lived, many could have been more recent.

The issue with her, though, is she successfully used that LITTLE bit of ancestry to gain massive advantage.

You mis-wrote this part of your sentence: "attacking someone based on their heritage is bigoted nonsense". It should read "attacking someone based on heritage they claimed to have a LOT more of than they actually do is attacking their integrity." It's no different than that white girl who darkened her skin so she could identify as black and run part of the NCAA. Warren deserves to be mocked as much as that girl did.

I found a wiki with active references that seems to have been around since Feb 7, 2013 according to what the waybackmachine has snapshots of about Warren and her claims of Native American ancestry. One of the most telling quotes is as follows:


Dr. Gavin Clarkson, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation who received both a doctorate and a law degree from Harvard while Warren was a professor, says he “personally invited” her three times to visit with Harvard’s Native American Law Student Association (NALSA), which he headed while attaining his dual degree. Warren, who had identified as a minority in law professor directories and was touted by Harvard as a Native American hire, never accepted his invites.

“I was on campus at Harvard for five years, from 1998 to 2003,” Clarkson said. “Warren was identified in the AALS law teacher directory as an American Indian faculty member.”

“Hi, we’re the Native American students on campus and it would be nice to meet the only Native American professor on the faculty,” was the message Clarkson was attempting to get across, but he says he was dismissed by Warren every time.

“I personally invited Elizabeth Warren, face to face, three separate times,” Clarkson said.

“I did it at least once per year for three straight years,” he said. “She basically dismissed me all three times.”
https://elizabethwarrenwiki.org/elizabeth-warren-native-american-cherokee-controversy/

You should see my "second" point in this post: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/racism-is-ok-now.2172654/page-2#post-27193145

It is very clear to me, the use of "Pocahontas" in reference to Warren is NOT racially motivated

It is.

Sincerely,
Your Highness

I feel like you aren't understanding me or aren't interested in what I'm actually saying. Later.

 

[LizKat]

But how does that move the discussion along? Why bother say it at all. Who cares about the semantics about if calling her Pocahontas is bad or not. Why do people feel the need to do it.

Yes and we're still talking about trolling when we are talking about name calling. When someone reports a post to mods and asserts it's a troll post, the mods have acknowledged that it's sometimes a difficult call. But it shouldn't be that dicey if it's an insult entwined with race or ethnicity and clearly meant to provoke the reader, which name calling is meant to do.

The thing is, name calling is now so common in social media politics that we tend just to grimace (or nod approvingly, either one) and then keep reading, as if racially tinged name calling were no different to political stereotypes like "wild eyed liberals" or "right wing wackos".

They are different, though, because the ones related to race, ethnicity, religion are fraught with the weight of historical oppression. It's for that reason that outright use of group slurs are a violation of forum rules.

The question for a mod to ask then in the matter of a reported post in that PRSI thread is whether a posting member accepts that Warren self-identifies as a member of a racial minority, whether he thinks that racial minority (not her political lean) is inferior, and whether he means to demean Warren by calling her "Pocahontas" even if the original Pocahontas was a tribal princess.

That's a lot of mind reading for a mod to make if you ask me. Even if the obvious answer might be hell yes. It's clear the intent has been to insult Warren for at least her politics, maybe even her use of identity politics. Those are not violations. Whether it's an insult to native Americans is the question. If so, then it's a violation of forum rules.

Sure I believe Trump means to insult Warren, and likewise many of his most avid followers, and I'm not sure anyone in that thread meant to celebrate her asserted identity by calling her "Pocahontas" or being flippant as response to anyone using that name for Warren.

But how slippery is the slope if we say ok you can get moderated for calling her that name though? What's next? Banning lefties for calling Trump "cheeto" because of his skin color? I wouldn't mind but it's only a pseudo-racial insult and the "race" is just people who fake their suntans. Even so, I took offense when I was once denied meal service over my real suntan. Should Trump take offense over just being called cheeto? Yes, sure. But is it a racial slur? No, just juvenile name calling. So, not a violation.

Calling Warren Pocahontas is something deeper than that, though, no matter if it's "just" name calling as well. Trump has made it into a Presidential thumping of a political opponent who happens to be a woman, a descendant of native Americans and a Democrat. The mods letting posters here call Warren Pocahontas means they sign onto that -- because Trump signed onto all that in affirming the meme of Warren "as" Pocahontas. It's out there now. Obama "as" Sambo is a violation. Warren "as" Pocahontas appears to be ok in PRSI so long as one can claim not to mean anything racially insulting by it, the same as Trump would claim if confronted. I'm sure he could claim to have some native American friends. Maybe they even donated to his inaugural ceremonies slush fund, who knows.

But letting this PRSI thread slide is just another slippery slope, one in the direction of letting racists skate by redefining their slurs if confronted. Is it more dangerous to let it slide than to censor "free" speech? Hmm. In a privately owned social media forum like PRSI, one that is webcrawled? Probably.

 

[MacNut]

Yes and we're still talking about trolling when we are talking about name calling. When someone reports a post to mods and asserts it's a troll post, the mods have acknowledged that it's sometimes a difficult call. But it shouldn't be that dicey if it's an insult entwined with race or ethnicity and clearly meant to provoke the reader, which name calling is meant to do.

The thing is, name calling is now so common in social media politics that we tend just to grimace (or nod approvingly, either one) and then keep reading, as if racially tinged name calling were no different to political stereotypes like "wild eyed liberals" or "right wing wackos".

They are different, though, because the ones related to race, ethnicity, religion are fraught with the weight of historical oppression. It's for that reason that outright use of group slurs are a violation of forum rules.

The question for a mod to ask then in the matter of a reported post in that PRSI thread is whether a posting member accepts that Warren self-identifies as a member of a racial minority, whether he thinks that racial minority (not her political lean) is inferior, and whether he means to demean Warren by calling her "Pocahontas" even if the original Pocahontas was a tribal princess.

That's a lot of mind reading for a mod to make if you ask me. Even if the obvious answer might be hell yes. It's clear the intent has been to insult Warren for at least her politics, maybe even her use of identity politics. Those are not violations. Whether it's an insult to native Americans is the question. If so, then it's a violation of forum rules.

Sure I believe Trump means to insult Warren, and likewise many of his most avid followers, and I'm not sure anyone in that thread meant to celebrate her asserted identity by calling her "Pocahontas" or being flippant as response to anyone using that name for Warren.

But how slippery is the slope if we say ok you can get moderated for calling her that name though? What's next? Banning lefties for calling Trump "cheeto" because of his skin color? I wouldn't mind but it's only a pseudo-racial insult and the "race" is just people who fake their suntans. Even so, I took offense when I was once denied meal service over my real suntan. Should Trump take offense over just being called cheeto? Yes, sure. But is it a racial slur? No, just juvenile name calling. So, not a violation.

Calling Warren Pocahontas is something deeper than that, though, no matter if it's "just" name calling as well. Trump has made it into a Presidential thumping of a political opponent who happens to be a woman, a descendant of native Americans and a Democrat. The mods letting posters here call Warren Pocahontas means they sign onto that -- because Trump signed onto all that in affirming the meme of Warren "as" Pocahontas. It's out there now. Obama "as" Sambo is a violation. Warren "as" Pocahontas appears to be ok in PRSI so long as one can claim not to mean anything racially insulting by it, the same as Trump would claim if confronted. I'm sure he could claim to have some native American friends. Maybe they even donated to his inaugural ceremonies slush fund, who knows.

But letting this PRSI thread slide is just another slippery slope, one in the direction of letting racists skate by redefining their slurs if confronted. Is it more dangerous to let it slide than to censor "free" speech? Hmm. In a privately owned social media forum like PRSI, one that is webcrawled? Probably.

Free speech is already censored to some extant. There are profanity filters, and "trolling" is in the eye of the moderator. I guess since this is a private site there is no real free speech.

So the question is what speech is considered ok. That seems to be a sliding scale.

 

[oneMadRssn]

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?

When my buddy makes a spectacular catch in the outfield during beer-league softball, I say “hey look at Jackie Bradley Junior over there” because JBJ is an amazing outfielder that I respect, and thus likening him to my friend is endearing.

I haven’t heard anyone compare Warren to Pocahantas in an endearing way. They’ve done it to offend her. They do it to identify a racial characteristic in a mean way.
[doublepost=1552963451][/doublepost]

Not necessarily true. I happen to be of the opinion that Elizabeth Warren brought all of this on herself with the bogus claim of Native American heritage... and as such, using the term "Pocahontas" is not racist, but rather ridiculing her outrageous claim that instigated the entire issue. And FWIW, then candidate Trump was not the first to use that name to ridicule the Massachusetts senator.

Why not fall her a phoney then? Why make the insult at the expense of a whole culture?

 

[ErikGrim]

That we are even debating if "Pocahontas" is racist is just incredible. If I call a white man the N-word, doesn't make the word any less racist than if I directed it at a POC.
[doublepost=1552973709][/doublepost]And there is no such thing as free speech in a privately owned forum. How deluded are some people?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Color me a pessimist but I don't think most people are capable of disagreeing civil like (without personal insults) especially in a political setting. That's just from my life perspective and from observing PRSI. What do you think? If they are, I haven't met many of them.

I too stay out of PRSI (or try to) for this reason.

Of course, most people are capable of disagreeing about political matters without having to resort to personal insult if they choose to do so, or are compelled to do so.

Insult is not a substitute for debate.

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.

Agreed.

To me there are conflicting rules, name calling be it to forum members or political people, or just your neighbor are still name calling. If the goal is to tighten up the rules why not just ban all name calling. That would make the mods decisions a lot easier. The trolling would go down considerably.

Again, agreed.

That we are even debating if "Pocahontas" is racist is just incredible.

Again, I agree.

@LizKat's excellent earlier post (which referenced ethnicity and religion, but which also could have included gender in the context of such a discussion) is worth re-reading.

That we are debating it is incredible, that some have attempted to argue that uttering this is not racist is also incredible, and that MR would decide that some forms of name-calling of public figures - that happen to have racist connotations - can be permitted, is also incredible.

Names have power and so do words.

To allow some to be named thus, - described by an insult frighted with the weight of culture and history and legally reinforced oppression - in a public forum, is to allow someone in public life to be defined as the "other" (in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion) which allows - and deems it permissible - for them to be insulted and denigrated in those terms.

It is a short step to decide and define the rights that those deemed the "other" are allowed to hold, and to determine that their very "otherness" should determine that they be regarded as lesser beings - and treated as such - as a consequence.

 

[laptech]

I used to work for Wargaming.net as one of their game and forum moderators for many years in their EU region, 'Freelancers' we was called. The moderator boss was from Russia, there were senior mod's than came from France, Serbia and Poland, then the moderators each one coming from a country that their games officially supported the language. English was the most widely used language in their forums so it was a requirement that mod's from non English speaking countries had to speak the language.

With that out the way, i can truly understand the difficulties the mods and admins have in MR because myself and fellow moderators at wargaming had exactly the same kind of problems. What is classed as 'racist', what is classed as an insult, what is classed as derogatory and what is simply classed as trolling. Having mod's from different nations opens your eye's up to what is seen as 'racist','insult','derogatory' or just plain trolling. What could be classed as racist or an insult in one country would be perfectly ok in another, which would naturally create problems when one mod lets a comment go but another would see it as wrong, purely based on the culture of the country they were brought up in.

Many times you would be in general game chat and suddenly you see calls for mod help because someone said something that another took offense to. We would then have to use our life experience topped up with the chat rules as a guide, to make the decision if the offense is punishable or not. Some mods punished, others didn't, not because they was being lazy in their job, but because their life experiences in there own country would deem it as being OK.

Now i do not know if MR admins and mods are all native English speakers and if they all come from English speaking countries, because if they do not, then the complexities of the word "Pocahontas" being used in the context that is has, can be very problematic.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Is it more dangerous to let it slide than to censor "free" speech?

Awesome post, I agree 100%. This is a private website at the end of the day, and thus not a forum of free speech. While MR can do whatever the ownership wants, they also own what goes on here.

If MacRumors chooses not to censor racist speech, they are in fact complicit in racist speech. In other words, all the content we create here becomes MacRumor's content - including the racist speech - unless specifically rejected by MacRumors.

The decision announced by @Doctor Q above tells me that MacRumors is okay with owning and purveying racist speech. That is their right, but we users must then choose how we use this site knowing that to be true.

I use reddit even though r/t_d exists on there, but I also speak up whenever there is an opportunity to encourage the owners to ban that vile sub, I refuse to spend any money on reddit, and I block their ads as a form of internet protest. Does MR deserve the same? I'm not sure...

 

[Scepticalscribe]

........
Now i do not know if MR admins and mods are all native English speakers and if they all come from English speaking countries, because if they do not, then the complexities of the word "Pocahontas" being used in the context that is has, can be very problematic.

Very interesting and thought provoking post, and you make some very good points.

However, in the context of the political culture and history of the US, any insult that comes complete with a racist connotation carries an extra power to wound and offend, precisely because of the fraught history of race in the US, and the importance of race and ethnicity as a cultural signifier and expression of identity.

For that very reason, the deliberately offensive use of such terms needs to be challenged, not least, in order to ensure that the use of such terms does not constitute a "new normal" of coarsened political discourse and is not deemed acceptable in political debate, discussion and speech.
[doublepost=1553026411][/doublepost]

Awesome post, I agree 100%. This is a private website at the end of the day, and thus not a forum of free speech. While MR can do whatever the ownership wants, they also own what goes on here.

If MacRumors chooses not to censor racist speech, they are in fact complicit in racist speech. In other words, all the content we create here becomes MacRumor's content - including the racist speech - unless specifically rejected by MacRumors.

The decision announced by @Doctor Q above tells me that MacRumors is okay with owning and purveying racist speech. That is their right, but we users must then choose how we use this site knowing that to be true.

I use reddit even though r/t_d exists on there, but I also speak up whenever there is an opportunity to encourage the owners to ban that vile sub, I refuse to spend any money on reddit, and I block their ads as a form of internet protest. Does MR deserve the same? I'm not sure...

Excellent post, and very well said.

 

[niploteksi]

To allow some to be named thus, - described by an insult frighted with the weight of culture and history and legally reinforced oppression - in a public forum, is to allow someone in public life to be defined as the "other" (in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion) which allows - and deems it permissible - for them to be insulted and denigrated in those terms.

The moderators have to draw the line somewhere. They choose to draw the line at hate speech or insults towards forum members or hate speech against groups of people. Not public individuals. The problem the moderators face is to judge when the ethnic and misogynistic aggression passes from the individual to the group.

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 problem I see with this decision is that if I disagree with someone and voice my opinion that they are bad people and then call them "tomatoes", it sort of implies that being a tomato is a bad thing. If someone did something nice like defend peoples rights, and then I called that person a tomato, then it implies that tomatoes are something good (unless you think standing up for peoples rights is a bad thing of course).

So the moderators have a difficult situation. Did the offending person use these tools of debate because they think "indians" are bad or because they didn't know what they were saying? Even if the word Pocahontas, in this context, did have racist and misogynistic overtones (which it does). How are the moderators to judge the subjectivity of the usage? They would have to put a stop to every single ethnic or gender based insult, and not just against forum members.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

The moderators have to draw the line somewhere. They choose to draw the line at hate speech or insults towards forum members or hate speech against groups of people. Not public individuals. The problem the moderators face is to judge when the ethnic and misogynistic aggression passes from the individual to the group.



The problem I see with this decision is that if I disagree with someone and voice my opinion that they are bad people and then call them "tomatoes", it sort of implies that being a tomato is a bad thing. If someone did something nice like defend peoples rights, and then I called that person a tomato, then it implies that tomatoes are something good (unless you think standing up for peoples rights is a bad thing of course).

So the moderators have a difficult situation. Did the offending person use these tools of debate because they think "indians" are bad or because they didn't know what they were saying? Even if the word Pocahontas, in this context, did have racist and misogynistic overtones (which it does). How are the moderators to judge the subjectivity of the usage? They would have to put a stop to every single ethnic or gender based insult, and not just against forum members.

Firstly, why not "put a stop to every single ethnic or gender based insult?" They do not advance debate or discussion, and serve no useful function except as a vented conduit of bile, but allow permission for anyone deemed "the other" to be targeted with hate speech and insults simply because they are "the other" (in ethnicity, religion, gender) rather than on the basis of what they say they stand for.

And secondly, while I have no problem whatsoever with robust debate, disagreement with, dissension and discussion of a public platform or public policies, I see no reason whatsoever to justify the expression of hate speech (or writing) when aimed at, or directed at, someone in public life or a public figure.

Attack the platform, the policy, not the person. Attack what they say they will - or want to do - not who they are.

 

[Doctor Q]

Some posts here have implied that the moderators decided to allow racism. That's wrong for two reasons. First, this is a decision by the administrators, not the moderators. Second, racism as defined in the rules is not permitted. The issue here is whether attacking a person's claim of heritage is automatically an attack on that heritage. That's about a specific interpretation of a forum rule, and that's the issue for which we don't all agree. The issue is not whether racism -- when identified under the current forum rules -- is permitted, because it is not.

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

No. It's clear to all of us that it's an offensive comparison based on a almost universally acknowledged negative stereotype. That's blatant racism to which we can clearly apply the forum rules.

Rather than compare this case only with extreme cases, it might be useful to compare it with the attacks on Rachel Dolezal for claiming or implying that she was black.

 

[niploteksi]

Firstly, why not "put a stop to every single ethnic or gender based insult?" They do not advance debate or discussion, and serve no useful function except as a vented conduit of bile, but allow permission for anyone deemed "the other" to be targeted with hate speech and insults simply because they are "the other" (in ethnicity, religion, gender) rather than on the basis of what they say they stand for.

And secondly, while I have no problem whatsoever with robust debate, disagreement with, dissension and discussion of a public platform or public policies, I see no reason whatsoever to justify the expression of hate speech (or writing) when aimed at, or directed at, someone in public life or a public figure.

Attack the platform, the policy, not the person. Attack what they say they will - or want to do - not who they are.

You, as opposed to many who use these words, have the power of reasoning. So go educate!

misunderstandings and neglect create more confusion in this world than trickery and malice. At any rate, the last two are certainly much less frequent

It's not clear cut if the person are doing this in malice or ignorance.

Rather than compare this case only with extreme cases, it might be useful to compare it with the attacks on Rachel Dolezal for claiming or implying that she was black.

I believe she was called "blackface" among other things. Blackface is a person made up to look black in theatrical settings. Not sure it's the same as using Pochahontas. Unless they refer to her being a Disney actress.

Some posts here have implied that the moderators decided to allow racism. That's wrong for two reasons. First, this is a decision by the administrators, not the moderators. Second, racism as defined in the rules is not permitted. The issue here is whether attacking a person's claim of heritage is automatically an attack on that heritage. That's about a specific interpretation of a forum rule, and that's the issue for which we don't all agree. The issue is not whether racism -- when identified under the current forum rules -- is permitted, because it is not.

So it basically boils down to intent, which is very reasonable.

 

[SDColorado]

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) said in a statement in May 2017 "The name of Pocahontas should not be used as a slur, and it is inappropriate for anyone to use her name in a disparaging manner."

They again repeated much the same in November 2017 after President Trump inexplicably brought up the reference again during a White House ceremony honoring the contributions of Native Americans during the World Wars by stating "You're very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas. But you know what? I like you. Because you are special."

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was quick to condemn Mr. Trump for using a slur against Warren that overshadowed the intent of the ceremony.

"We regret that the President's use of the name Pocahontas as a slur to insult a political adversary is overshadowing the true purpose of today's White House ceremony"

The Navajo nation has also weighed in, while stating that they do not wish to get directly involved in the dispute between Senator Warren and President Trump, the group's president, Russell Begaye stated "in this day and age, all tribal nations still battle insensitive references to our people.The prejudice that Native American people face is an unfortunate historical legacy."

I think the message *should* be clear that the way the name "Pocahontas" is being used by President Trump and others is not appropriate.

 

[niploteksi]

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) said in a statement in May 2017 "The name of Pocahontas should not be used as a slur, and it is inappropriate for anyone to use her name in a disparaging manner."

They again repeated much the same in November 2017 after President Trump inexplicably brought up the reference again during a White House ceremony honoring the contributions of Native Americans during the World Wars by stating "You're very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here. Although we have a representative in Congress who they say was here a long time ago. They call her Pocahontas. But you know what? I like you. Because you are special."

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was quick to condemn Mr. Trump for using a slur against Warren that overshadowed the intent of the ceremony.

"We regret that the President's use of the name Pocahontas as a slur to insult a political adversary is overshadowing the true purpose of today's White House ceremony"

The Navajo nation has also weighed in, while stating that they do not wish to get directly involved in the dispute between Senator Warren and President Trump, the group's president, Russell Begaye stated "in this day and age, all tribal nations still battle insensitive references to our people.The prejudice that Native American people face is an unfortunate historical legacy."

I think the message *should* be clear that the way the name "Pocahontas" is being used by President Trump and others is not appropriate.

It's not a question of it being offensive and inappropriate. Everybody knows it is offensive, that's the whole point of using it. Why would it be used by the people wanting to offend if it was not a slur? The Pochahontas name calling is used to belittle and ridicule the individual Warren and have people laugh smugly at the way they can get away with it. Otherwise they would have used other words to discuss the matter of her heritage and whether she used it to get ahead inappropriately on others expense.

The only thing that's really not clear is if the people using it just think they can get away with it because they aren't being called out on it, or if they don't understand that using race and gender insults as a tool in debate is inappropriate.

"Look it's snowing", "insert-political-conviction is a mental decease", "She has blood coming out of her whatever", "birther", "basement dweller", "deplorable", "snowflake" or "Pochahontas". These are all tools of political debate for many people.

The debate has to have some kind of rules and where those lines are drawn is not a universal truth with a simple solution.

 

[laptech]

Personally, i think what has caused confusion is that fact that MR admins allow posts that insults public figures but do not allow those same insults to be used against forum members. Insulting someone, forum member or not should not be allowed. Have strong debates, have strong arguments but do not stoop to the level of having to resort to insulting someone.

This forum should not allow insults of any nature and it shows bad form on the admins for allowing it to exist when discussing about public figures. Is the word 'Pocahontas' being used in a racist way, in my opinion no, is it being used in an insulting way (belittling, ridiculing, demeaning), yes but unfortunately the forum rules allows this.

I understand that MR is based in the US and even though the forum is a private entity, i do not know how much of it is affected by the US Constitution. Many times you hear and read US citizens go on about their 'Amendment rights', 1st amendment, 2nd, 3rd 4th..etc and as such, are the forum rules written in such away that allows people to exercise those rights, including to the point of insulting someone under the amendment of free speech?.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

They’ve done it to offend her. They do it to identify a racial characteristic in a mean way.

And this is what I don't agree with. They are mocking her claims of qualifying as American Indian. There's evidence that she identifies as American Indian when it benefits her but rejects it when it doesn't. To me, that's a major integrity issue and character issue.