Banned for 'anti-semitism.'

Dangerous Man

Hi,

I was banned by Biko for supposed 'anti-semetic' comments. I made no such comments. All I did was point out a fact that a person, who was attacked by a shark, was Jewish.

That is all I did. It is some stretch, not to mention extremely offensive, to call me an anti-semite.

I would appreciate it if this ban were rescinded, and an apology issued.

Thanks.

g'em

I'm going to waive the usual "Have you contacted the Mod" here because it's only a three day ban. But I'm intrigued...

Dangerous Man wrote: »

I was banned by Biko for supposed 'anti-semetic' comments. I made no such comments. All I did was point out a fact that a person, who was attacked by a shark, was Jewish.

That is all I did. It is some stretch, not to mention extremely offensive, to call me an anti-semite.
.

...what possible reasoning do you have - in a thread where people were discussing whether it was "Ignorance, Arrogance, or just pure Stupidity" why a man got bitten by a shark - to point out that the man was Jewish?

Dangerous Man

Thanks for waiving the usual routine although I did contact Biko, who in turn told me to contact you - you've saved me some time so thanks.

Anyway, to answer your question - zero. It was a simple statement of fact. I may as well have pointed out that he was wearing shorts. Or that he had black hair. However, had I pointed out those particular facts nothing would have happened. They are after all just mundane facts.

That Biko or some other (s) decided to infer a simple statement of fact as racist, is beyond my control. I can't help but wonder if the man was a Catholic or a Protestant, Muslim, Hindu etc and someone pointed that out, would be they considered racist? I doubt that.

You might make the case that certain statements of fact are emotionally or irrationally weighted but again, I have no control over that. I understand that free speech is not guaranteed on boards but receiving a ban / infraction for simply pointing out something that is true - is frankly ridiculous.

Pointing out a fact does not make a person a racist / anti-Semite. Ergo, my ban is not warranted.

Biko overreacted in a major way; to brand somebody an anti-Semite is pretty serious and I think Biko should be made to back up his / her words with some facts or retract the accusation.

Thanks.

g'em

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Anyway, to answer your question - zero. It was a simple statement of fact. I may as well have pointed out that he was wearing shorts. Or that he had black hair. However, had I pointed out those particular facts nothing would have happened. They are after all just mundane facts.

You seem like an intelligent person so I'm going to credit you with the ability to see that stating someone's religious beliefs is an entirely different 'fact' to the mundanity of describing someone's clothing.

So let's put this in context here:

The question was: "Did he deserve it?"

Your answer "he was Jewish".

Your defense falls a little flat here. You implied he deserved it because he was Jewish. The Moderator read it as such, I read it as such and, in fact, a fellow poster read is as such and replied to you with the same intentive tone of the inferrence you made.

DangerousMan wrote:

That Biko or some other (s) decided to infer a simple statement of fact as racist, is beyond my control. I can't help but wonder if the man was a Catholic or a Protestant, Muslim, Hindu etc and someone pointed that out, would be they considered racist? I doubt that.

But the onus is on the user to ensure that statements made cannot be mistakenly interpreted. I'm quite confident that the AH Mods are fully well able to guage the implications of the posts on their forum, and in this case biko's reading was backed up by Mods and users alike.

DangerousMan wrote:

Biko overreacted in a major way; to brand somebody an anti-Semite is pretty serious and I think Biko should be made to back up his / her words with some facts or retract the accusation.

Actually he banned you for an anti-semitic remark (which it was), he did not brand you an anti-semite.

It's a three day ban, I won't be lifting it, and I suggest that in future you pay greater heed to the "facts" that you choose to bring to a discussion on-thread.

Dangerous Man

g'em wrote: »

You seem like an intelligent person so I'm going to credit you with the ability to see that stating someone's religious beliefs is an entirely different 'fact' to the mundanity of describing someone's clothing.

So let's put this in context here:

The question was: "Did he deserve it?"

Your answer "he was Jewish".

Your defense falls a little flat here. You implied he deserved it because he was Jewish. The Moderator read it as such, I read it as such and, in fact, a fellow poster read is as such and replied to you with the same intentive tone of the inferrence you made.


But the onus is on the user to ensure that statements made cannot be mistakenly interpreted. I'm quite confident that the AH Mods are fully well able to guage the implications of the posts on their forum, and in this case biko's reading was backed up by Mods and users alike.


Actually he banned you for an anti-semitic remark (which it was), he did not brand you an anti-semite.

It's a three day ban, I won't be lifting it, and I suggest that in future you pay greater heed to the "facts" that you choose to bring to a discussion on-thread.

Since we're discussing 'context' let's put the original question into context. The guy in question ignored a variety of warnings that a Great White Shark was in the water and went in anyway. It was an act of rank stupidity and one that resulted in him having his legs bitten off. Now, the context behind the original question was that in light of these facts (not just in general) -did he deserve it? There is no easy answer to the question - some may say yes he did because he ignored a series of warnings, others may say no because the 'punishment' of having his legs bitten off is too severe. The point is, the question insists upon a narrow logical arrangment - one which doesn't allow for exterior considerations.

That's the actual context. When I pointed out that he was Jewish, it had nothing to do with the context of the question; it was completely and utterly irrelevant / irreverant.

If there were a suggestion of anti-Semitism it could have been dealt with in a much easier and less offensive fashion. Put it all together, 1, 2, 3, and you'll see what I mean. This is how it goes:

Q - 'A man ignored a variety of warnings signs to not swim in a area where a shark was spotted. He swam and had his legs bitten off by the shark. Do you think he deserved this? Yes or no?'

A - 'He was Jewish.'

Q - 'Are you implying that because he was Jewish he deserved to have his legs bitten off?'

A - 'No.'

Q - 'Then why mention it?'

Q - 'Why not?'

I'll point it out again, I simply stated a fact in isolation. What I said was a fact. A fact. I never made any negative statement of any kind. And I disagree with you that the onus should be on the poster to ensure that their posts are not misintepreted. The onus should be on the reader to ensure that they understand what they read and more importantly - the onus should be on mods to do the same, and where they're not sure, to ask questions before shooting, so to speak.

I don't think you, or Biko, understand how serious it is to label a person's remarks as anti-Semetic.