Why is such blatant racism allowed go unchallenged by admins?

Slowyourrole

I refer you to two posts in Current Affairs.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'm definitely talking about migrants OH, specifically those from developing world crapholes and those of an ideological bent. I'm also definitely talking about the BS that is "diversity" and "multiculturalism". We've already been infected with it here on the back of freeloaders who showed up during the "boom" and ivory tower idealogues in the Dail and other vested interests. So far it's at a low enough level thank christ, but no more and we should resist this mental politic as much as possible. I certainly don't want here to become Sweden or have our cities reflect the ghettos of Britain, France, Germany et al. Sod that. Hell we can't even "integrate" Travellers in this country. It's already kicked off on a low level and needs to be nipped in the bud and Sweden should be an example of how not to do it.

biko wrote: »

Story now picked up by mainstreamers once the alternatives have broken the story last week
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/23/iraqs-defence-minister-accused-benefit-fraud-sweden

Goes to show that no matter who these immigrants are, many/most/all will try to defraud the system.
Also it shows the government agencies total lack of any clues whatsoever.

One poster describes all immigrants as fraudsters, the other describes multi culturism and diversity as an infection. These are outrageous claims. Both posters points could be made without such disgusting and offensive language. Neither poster was sanctioned. I was sanctioned for being uncivil by calling them out and referring their mod status. My post was deleted too. One poster got told by an admin to watch it. That's it.



I'm not going to argue my warning. It seems a bit silly that I was the only one sanctioned but I did respond to the admin on thread which is technically against the rules. But I'm struggling to see why such effort was put into my post and not the other two which I would argue are much worse. Why weren't the disgustingly offensive and racist posts deleted or edited? It's obviously something the admins are prepared to do if a post is objectionable to them, as the deletion of my post shows, so is it that racist and offensive stuff is not considered objectionable anymore?

Beasty

Firstly just to point out I left my office early yesterday afternoon for a flight and only arrived back a few minutes ago. hence IU am only now catching up on this.

The second post you mention was sanctioned with an in-thread warning, and the poster openly acknowledged his post could be read more widely than intended and acknowledged the point.

You subsequently made what I though as an odd comment - that racism includes discrimination by nationality. that's the first time I've seen such a claim made. All the definitions I see of racism refer to race and not nationality.

The comments quoted make reference to immigrants, and not particular races. You seem to have therefore misinterpreted what racism actually means, or if you can manage to show it does include discrimination by nationality I would consider it a very easy mistake to make as I've indicated already I am certainly unaware of any such definition.

Hence from my perspective I am not seeing anything in this that warrants further action, although I do still need to find some time to go through the thread in more detail.

Slowyourrole

The UN definition of racism agreed by 80 signatories and 180 parties defines racial discrimination as

"any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cerd.aspx

But what you are saying is that although you recognised the posts were offensive, you let it go because it technically didn't fit your definition of racism. That's very enlightening. Thanks for your candour.

Beasty

That refers to the application of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Neither were the topic of discussion, which was immigration. It is not a human right nor a fundamental freedom to be able to enter another country.

In terms of the posts in question, as I have already stated I have very clearly dealt with one of them. Obviously not to your satisfaction, but I am happy with how I did deal with it.

I also said I had not had time to fully catch up with the thread, and so your attempt to put words into my mouth was entirely inappropriate.

Now I am not saying I agree or disagree with what Wibbs posted, but that is irrelevant - he is allowed to express his own opinions. You obviously consider it offensive. That is your prerogative. However the threshold I consider is was it appropriate commentary in the context of site and forum rules. I consider it was and see no reason to take further action

Slowyourrole

Beasty wrote: »

That refers to the application of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Neither were the topic of discussion, which was immigration. It is not a human right nor a fundamental freedom to be able to enter another country.

What are you talking about? Racism is allowed as long as it's on topic?

Beasty wrote: »

In terms of the posts in question, as I have already stated I have very clearly dealt with one of them. Obviously not to your satisfaction, but I am happy with how I did deal with it.

Yet the post is still there.

Beasty wrote: »

I also said I had not had time to fully catch up with the thread, and so your attempt to put words into my mouth was entirely inappropriate.

You acknowledge the post was offensive to immigrants in your warning. Your argument here was that it didn't meet the definition of racism as you understood it. What words did I put in your mouth?

Beasty wrote: »

Now I am not saying I agree or disagree with what Wibbs posted, but that is irrelevant - he is allowed to express his own opinions. You obviously consider it offensive. That is your prerogative. However the threshold I consider is was it appropriate commentary in the context of site and forum rules. I consider it was and see no reason to take further action

It's not about what he said but how he chooses to say it. Describing diversity or multiculturalism as an infection or disease is an unnecessarily inflammatory and offensive way of talking about people. He's not the first poster to do it either. There's also been people referring to immigrants as rodents or insects. I'd just like to know why this kind of language is allowed. It's very easy to argue the points in a more respectful and non-offensive way.

Beasty

Well I'm done here. I've made my points. You clearly have differing views, but there is no point in just going round in circles