Use of racial/ethnic slurs on this forum

[Graham]

Far better men than you have used insulting language

[Fleur-de-Lys]

Far better men than you have used insulting language

Indeed, but they were better men despite using insulting language, not because of it.

[trentcath]

Such a Jayne thing to do, really nothing has changed in all her years of online posting 

As for the question, I think this kind of stuff is covered under any sort of requirement to be charitable. Anything else will just get silly with people whining and getting offended about any old thing.

[The Curt Jester]

It is, therefore, reasonable for observers of this forum to think that ideas and behaviours of some posters are representative of the group, especially if nobody voices any objections and seems to accept it. 

This is as unreasonable as lumping all traditionalists together and saying that we're all sedevacantists. We're not all racists just because a minority of people use racist terms.

Agreed.  Very unreasonable to make assumptions.  There is a level of responsibility for correcting the behavior of others.  We're not required to correct people on a forum.  Furthermore, we can already see that harping on the matter repeatedly only brings out said behavior even more.  Prudence sometimes dictates that one back off and realize that certain things are outside the realm of one's authority.

And, yes, we are still strangers.  It doesn't matter that we choose to interact with each other, the truth is that this is NOT REAL SOCIALIZATION and we still really do not know the people here. 

Sorry, Jayne (and everyone else), but y'all are just strangers to me.   And sometimes just plain strange!
 

[coffeeandcigarette]

Not to worry, coffeeandcigarettes, this time I'm the one who did zero research, because I've had enough experience with Sikhs and other Indians in real life to know that they are carrying real knives and that their racial personality is clearly unstable. Most of them would admit this themselves, because they rightly know that being crazy gives them a certain je-ne-sais-quoi.

So when you and Jayne said you couldn't think of any reason for hostility towards Sikhs, my first thought was that they end up on the morning news brandishing an ax after often frequenting your place of business. Turns out I was remembering wrong- it was just a meat cleaver.
So, I will modify my hostility from Level Ax to Level Cleaver.

Where are you from that you have had so much experience with Sikhs that you think they and all Indians are "all crazy?" Your one or few news articles on Sikhs are really not proving your point.

[clau clau]

Not to worry, coffeeandcigarettes, this time I'm the one who did zero research, because I've had enough experience with Sikhs and other Indians in real life to know that they are carrying real knives and that their racial personality is clearly unstable. Most of them would admit this themselves, because they rightly know that being crazy gives them a certain je-ne-sais-quoi.

So when you and Jayne said you couldn't think of any reason for hostility towards Sikhs, my first thought was that they end up on the morning news brandishing an ax after often frequenting your place of business. Turns out I was remembering wrong- it was just a meat cleaver.
So, I will modify my hostility from Level Ax to Level Cleaver.

Where are you from that you have had so much experience with Sikhs that you think they and all Indians are "all crazy?" Your one or few news articles on Sikhs are really not proving your point.

I reckon Southall, Middlesex or maybe Alperton.   

[Vetus Ordo]

Far better men than you have used insulting language

Indeed, but they were better men despite using insulting language, not because of it.

Thank you for pointing out what should be an obvious truth to all.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Prov. 15:1)

[Bernadette]

There is a level of responsibility for correcting the behavior of others 

This is what I always thought. Correcting other people is usually above my pay grade.

[Jayne]

There is a level of responsibility for correcting the behavior of others 

This is what I always thought. Correcting other people is usually above my pay grade.

We are rarely in a position to correct each other here. We don't have any authority other than for fraternal correction and that should usually be done privately. But disagreeing or objecting are not the same as correcting. 

It is traditionally taught that one of the ways to participate in the sin of another is by silence.  This is because of the tendency for silence to be taken as acceptance or consent. 

[Bernadette]

And I did object by voting in the poll and stating my reason. Maybe I should have said something at the time. I'll ask my priest when I go to confession.

[Jayne]

And I did object by voting in the poll and stating my reason. Maybe I should have said something at the time. I'll ask my priest when I go to confession.

I'm not even going as far as saying that you should have said something at the time.  I'm just saying that it is understandable for new people coming to the forum to think that members don't object to racial slurs if nobody expresses objections.  It is not fair to call that a rash judgment.  It is the usual way to interpret a situation like this that silence means agreement. 

[MundaCorMeum]

I don't think I agree, Jayne.  For one thing, I have enough life experience at this point to know that a few people's actions or opinions are not necessarily representative of the entire group.  For another, on a forum, if I saw one person's posts as objectionable,I would probably read some backlog posts of that particular person, as well as look around at other threads, to see if it's common to that person only, or if it's the atmosphere of the entire place.  That seems more reasonable, in my opinion. 

Another example maybe that not many people said anything because they knew it would fall on deaf ears. Prudence allows for silence sometimes, even in the face of sinful behavior (or so I understand). Or maybe not everyone was following the thread to begin with. There are many reasons that people may have said nothing, besides compliance or agreement. I would think the benefit of the doubt should apply atleast to members who are not even participating in said discussion.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think your family's position is the only reasonable one.

[Jayne]

I don't think I agree, Jayne.  For one thing, I have enough life experience at this point to know that a few people's actions or opinions are not necessarily representative of the entire group.  For another, on a forum, if I saw one person's posts as objectionable,I would probably read some backlog posts of that particular person, as well as look around at other threads, to see if it's common to that person only, or if it's the atmosphere of the entire place.  That seems more reasonable, in my opinion. 

Another example maybe that not many people said anything because they knew it would fall on deaf ears. Prudence allows for silence sometimes, even in the face of sinful behavior (or so I understand). Or maybe not everyone was following the thread to begin with. There are many reasons that people may have said nothing, besides compliance or agreement. I would think the benefit of the doubt should apply atleast to members who are not even participating in said discussion.

I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think your family's position is the only reasonable one.

I agree that there are many reasons that a person might not say something.  I am not claiming that silence is always wrong.  But when there is only one position being expressed and nobody disagrees or objects,  this gives the impression that this position is accepted by the group.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, people would realize that this impression might not be correct and withhold judgment, but that isn't how things usually work.

[Tatum Forshway]

I voted depends on the specific usage for cases where you are describing a real event or talking about history and are describing people's labeling of each other.  Something not in normal daily conversation-  not used with emotion, frequency or to fit-in.

[Padraig]

[yt][/yt]