Racism is ok now?

[ericgtr12]

It's my opinion that this will eventually come back to bite those who made this decision. It seems like the logic that "it depends on the circumstances" is what's in question here but in the end a racist statement is a racist statement no matter how you parse it.

If nothing else it'll surely spark debate amongst the mods, adding that much more headache to what's likely an already divisive internal discussion.

 

[997440]

<SNIP>
Unfortunately, the forum admins have left themselves open to heavy critic because as you saw in Doc's post, insulting a public figure is within the rules. Therefore it then leans on them to make the decision, is the comment against a public figure a racist comment or an insulting comment. If it's not deemed racist then it must be an insult.

If insults of any kind against any person, forum member or not were banned then we wouldn't be having this discussion because even if the admins considered the comment to not be racist, it would still fall under the category of an insult, and thus would have been removed. Until that policy is change, discussions like this could be more commonplace.

My apologies if you get the impression I've snipped your post with ill will; that's not my intention. I just want to give a different interpretation (not a criticism of yours) of the gist of this section.

Rather than unfortunate I'd say it's fortunate that the forum has admins and mods who are willing to leave themselves open to heavy and sometimes unfair criticism. They have to, and accept that they have to, make tough decisions on a regular basis.

I've no idea what happened behind closed doors (that's rightfully held as private), but I'm pretty sure it was as generally described in this thread by the admins––honest discussion. Whether you agree or disagree with the result, their posts clearly show a seriousness of purpose and ability. Whatever the forum's future may be or its past has been, for this brief moment in its life take some time to appreciate its current state and the human beings who've demonstrated in this case that they've done their best to enforce the rules in a thoughtful way.

I hope in the future they're (and every member and the forum itself is) treated in the same way that they've acted here.

 

[LizKat]

I do think the Warren-as-Pocahontas issue is a very difficult one to sort out for a number of reasons I detailed in previous posts here. I don't think it's a good issue on which to decide to rank the admins or mods either as as to their "racism." There are better ways to say you disagree with a decision taken by admins at MacRumors on a guidelines issue than to fling a blanket slur at them (and at some members you may think are "a reflection" of them).

 

[leekil]

There's a significant racist aspect to calling Warren "Pocahontas" that hasn't come up here. Calling her Pocahontas is reducing all Native Americans to that one particular person -- Pocahontas -- for no good reason. It's like if you referred to a Chinese guy as "Jackie Chan", as if Jackie Chan is somehow representative of all Chinese people.

But there's also a second level of racism with that type of reduction. Native Americans are from different tribes, and you are further reducing all Native Americans to Pocahontas as if they are all in her tribe. This is like calling a *Japanese* guy "Jackie Chan".



Separately, why does MacRumors even have a politics section? Hasn't the past two years (or maybe even the past 10 years, or 20 years) shown it has much more negative aspects than worth? (On all sides.)

 

[decafjava]

Separately, why does MacRumors even have a politics section? Hasn't the past two years (or maybe even the past 10 years, or 20 years) shown it has much more negative aspects than worth? (On all sides.)

I would guess that it exists for a similar reason as on another forum I frequent, because otherwise politics would likely bleed into other sections, certainly the community section and even the tech forums.

 

[I7guy]

It's my opinion that this will eventually come back to bite those who made this decision. It seems like the logic that "it depends on the circumstances" is what's in question here but in the end a racist statement is a racist statement no matter how you parse it.

If nothing else it'll surely spark debate amongst the mods, adding that much more headache to what's likely an already divisive internal discussion.

FWIW, Divisive is your interpretation. I'm sure there was a discussion and hopefully it was productive. I guess the point is, people can have different viewpoints and yet not be a "divisive". The word itself conjures up images of people with baseball bats trying to get their point across.

 

[LizKat]

FWIW, Divisive is your interpretation. I'm sure there was a discussion and hopefully it was productive. I guess the point is, people can have different viewpoints and yet not be a "divisive". The word itself conjures up images of people with baseball bats trying to get their point across.

Right. That imagery might seem only slightly over the top for political discussions in the current era... but the admins and mods here are long accustomed to having to review guidelines versus posts that may break those rules.

They're used to looking at posts on divisive issues and even if the discussion becomes heated sometimes I wouldn't expect them to regard each others' remarks as "divisive". They may well disagree but in their roles there's no reward for stirring a pot, only in trying to ensure each gets to provide input based on their own experience of moderating posts related to the particular sort of issue at hand.

I'd expect some of the discussions of reported posts in the iPhone / iPad forums have received some strongly differing takes among admins and mods as well, not just stuff in PRSI. It probably depends on what all they've run into in picking up posts that have been reported by regular members. Their focus in that regard has to be on what the expectations are from people who may mostly drop into MacRumors for rumors, sure, but also for reliable information and/or technical assistance, but definitely not for a bird's eye view of brand-partisan warfare.

It's a little more complicated for PRSI since regular members may well drop into that forum precisely for the warfare. Always hard to referee a war: it's not like everyone in the UN agrees with each other on this or that conflict, right?

 

[ixxx69]

That certainly strikes me as a blanket slur of a bunch of hardworking people who are not paid to undertake the job of trying to help the mods administer guidelines regarding posts on difficult issues like "what's trolling" and "what's racist" versus what's a legitimate challenge to some point of debate or a biased assessment but not a racial slur.

I was clearly aiming for those who have the ultimate say on the forum rules and how those are interpreted and moderated, the PRSI subforum specifically, and the overall forum more generally.

Figuring out trolls and bigots is pretty easy. Whether the forum rules are set up to and mods empowered to aggressively weed them out is another matter. Having a honey pot like PRSI suggests the there's little genuine interest in preventing their patronage of MR in general.

I do think the Warren-as-Pocahontas issue is a very difficult one to sort out for a number of reasons I detailed in previous posts here. I don't think it's a good issue on which to decide to rank the admins or mods either as as to their "racism."

Yeah, I read your posts. No it's not difficult. The use of "Pocahontas" as an insult is blatantly, indisputably racist. This is really simple to understand. Bigots and cowards want it to seem difficult. It's not, it's a very clear example of racist language in that context.

And it's not just "Pocahontas". PRSI is filled with racism, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. It eventually infects all the forums to some degree. Yes, mods will censor the most vial of well-known terms, but it's the use of coded language, like "Pocahontas" that the bigots and the ignorant traffic in here. It's no less reprehensible.

 

[LizKat]

Yeah, I read your posts. No it's not difficult. The use of "Pocahontas" as an insult is blatantly, indisputably racist. This is really simple to understand. Bigots and cowards want it to seem difficult. It's not, it's a very clear example of racist language in that context.

And it's not just "Pocahontas". PRSI is filled with racism, homophobia, transphobia, and so on. It eventually infects all the forums to some degree. Yes, mods will censor the most vial of well-known terms, but it's the use of coded language, like "Pocahontas" that the bigots and the ignorant traffic in here. It's no less reprehensible.

I agree the language in "Pocahontas" is coded. However, the politicized migration of "Pocahontas" --from its origin as a slam on Warren's apparent willingness to play identity politics, to where Trump clearly has it as an experimentally "acceptable" racial epithet-- is to me an example how language becomes "coded". Things like that are complex enough in the context of a PRSI wrangle for the admins and mods to have had a number of different opinions on how guidelines would apply, particularly with reference to public figures.

 

[bpeeps]

I would guess that it exists for a similar reason as on another forum I frequent, because otherwise politics would likely bleed into other sections, certainly the community section and even the tech forums.

Then those posts should be removed like MR mods are diligent at doing. They've said time and time again that most of their moderation is consumed by the PRSI thread. Get rid of that entire forum and all you'd have to moderate is instances of politics taking other discussions off topic.

 

[AngerDanger]

On the unlikely chance that I'm not missing something, I don't think calling somebody Pocahontas is intrinsically racist.

They're mocking Warren for claiming to be Native American by comparing her to somebody who definitely is. It'd be like calling a stupid person "Einstein" sarcastically; it's not an insult to Einstein or smart people in general—it only works because the stupid person fails to match him in comparison.

To clarify, I have no problem with Senator Warren, and I think the comments are stupid and childish. Not racist.

 

[LoveMyMacPro]

Only if you are selectively reading. A significant number of posters here think the answer is yes.

Why are people referring to Warren as Pocahontas? What is it about Pocahontas that they are alluding to?
Is it because Pocahontas was known for being dishonest? No.
Is it because Pocahontas was Native American? Yes.
Is there literally anything else about Pocahontas that is relevant to her name being used? No.
It's only about her race.

Thus, objectively, it is racist.

I also think it's because the vast majority of Americans couldn't name another historically significant Native American if their lives depended on it.

 

[C DM]

I also think it's because the vast majority of Americans couldn't name another historically significant Native American if their lives depended on it.

So throwing in an overgeneralized insult about a group of people in relation to a discussion about another ethnic insult?

 

[bruinsrme]

I also think it's because the vast majority of Americans couldn't name another historically significant Native American if their lives depended on it.

Geronimo

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Geronimo

Sitting Bull.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Sitting Bull.

Crazy Horse

 

[bruinsrme]

Crazy Horse

Chief Wild Eagle.

 

[annk]

Wilma Mankiller

 

[chown33]

I also think it's because the vast majority of Americans couldn't name another historically significant Native American if their lives depended on it.

I further think that at least 1/3 of Seattle residents would be unable to do so.

 

[spacebro]

pocahontas meant “slut” in her language. This is part of why the right wing loves this insult because it is sexist and racist at the same time.

 

[MacDawg]

pocahontas meant “slut” in her language. This is part of why the right wing loves this insult because it is sexist and racist at the same time.

Actually, here is a definition of her name found in an article by The Smithsonian
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pocahontas-180962649/

Pocahontas was her nickname, which depending on who you ask means “playful one" or “ill-behaved child.”

As the "favorite" daughter of a powerful leader, I doubt he allowed his daughter to be routinely called "slut" as a nickname
Which by the way, according to Webster's dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut) means:

Definition of slut

1 disparaging + offensive : a promiscuous woman : a woman who has many sexual partners

Now your turn @spacebro... site a reference where Pocahontas means "slut"

[doublepost=1556734004][/doublepost]Oh, and I will play along naming naming another historically significant Native American
And I'll even pick a female

Sacagawea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea

As a kid in elementary school, my favorite book was Bird Woman, which was the story of Sacagawea

 

[ericgtr12]

Actually, here is a definition of her name found in an article by The Smithsonian
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-pocahontas-180962649/



As the "favorite" daughter of a powerful leader, I doubt he allowed his daughter to be routinely called "slut" as a nickname
Which by the way, according to Webster's dictionary (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut) means:



Now your turn @spacebro... site a reference where Pocahontas means "slut"

[doublepost=1556734004][/doublepost]Oh, and I will play along naming naming another historically significant Native American
And I'll even pick a female

Sacagawea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacagawea

As a kid in elementary school, my favorite book was Bird Woman, which was the story of Sacagawea

It's great to see the true origin pointed out like this. However, I honestly don't think the President meant it as a anything but a pejorative term in her case. It's really too bad if you ask me.

 

[MacDawg]

It's great to see the true origin pointed out like this. However, I honestly don't think the President meant it as a anything but a pejorative term in her case. It's really too bad if you ask me.

Oh, I'm not defending his use of the name by any means, and I do think he obviously meant it in a less than flattering manner
But I don't think it is fair to twist the meaning of the name and ascribe that to the President to prop up an agenda

 

[Gasu E.]

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.

I'm curious as to which evidence you are referring. I've seen claims that she has used a Native American identification in certain situations, which have turned out to be easily disproven. So I'm curious as to whether you are referring to one of these, or to something of which I'm not aware. Either response would be interesting to me.

 

[drumcat]

From the administrators:

Bottom line: Referring to Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" is not itself prohibited

Comments that insult Native Americans, rather than just a senator, will continue to be prohibited.

I don't believe these two thoughts can be compatible.