A suggestion about trolling...

[Matnum PI]

If by racists, you mean... treat sexists like Hamas supporters.

Not actively supporting acts of violence. Just replying with "yeah but..." posts after a gay is thrown off a building. More than this, replying with a post that turns the gay into the aggressor and the gay-thrower into the victim. If one month (to the day) after 9/11, someone was within our forum repeatedly saying Al Qaeda is the real victim and the americans are the aggressors. FanLax Forum people have people they know and love who were effected in a very real way by 9/11, including losing friends and family, and someone is posting about america being an imperialist nation and how the people of Iraq etc. suffer more, would we be ok with this?

[44WeWantMore]

My vote is that you treat them exactly the same.


If somebody advocates what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who advocates lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

If somebody rationalizes what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who rationalizes lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

If somebody contextualizes what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who contextualizes lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

[youthathletics]

My vote is that you treat them exactly the same.


If somebody advocates what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who advocates lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

If somebody rationalizes what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who rationalizes lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

If somebody contextualizes what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who contextualizes lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

+1

I would add. these BBcode forums also allow the admin to take note of IP addresses/username logins. Maybe, they even have tools these days to run reports for admins to find out which users are using the same IP address, while alternating username. I have personally watched it happen while viewing who is on line...this was quite some time ago.

[MDlaxfan76]

My vote is that you treat them exactly the same.


If somebody advocates what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who advocates lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

If somebody rationalizes what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who rationalizes lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

If somebody contextualizes what Hamas is doing, treat them the same as somebody who contextualizes lynching blacks, raping women, killing homosexuals, etc.

+1

I would add. these BBcode forums also allow the admin to take note of IP addresses/username logins. Maybe, they even have tools these days to run reports for admins to find out which users are using the same IP address, while alternating username. I have personally watched it happen while viewing who is on line...this was quite some time ago.

+1 as well.

However...I think Matnum is asking about posters tiptoeing a line, wink wink, of providing "context" not directly, but obliquely. Not excusing the atrocity, but rather focusing on the traumas faced by those the violators purport (falsely IMO) to represent. Focusing on back and forth of traumas and the legitimacy of alternative perspectives.

Up to a point, IMO these inputs are valuable to a fulsome discussion and need not be understood as the same as "advocates for" atrocities. At what point does "rationalizes" or "contextualizes" really the same as "advocates for" or applause for the atrocities?

It's not obvious to me where that line is actually crossed, but Matnum points out a potential pattern of avoidance of direct questions which, at least IMO, reveals the intent behind the rationalization, contextualization to be more than merely discussing the complexities of the observed realities.

IMO, we've seen that sort of tiptoeing, rationalization, contextualization and avoidance in the reactions to both the Russian atrocities in Ukraine and the Hamas atrocities of Oct 7. Different posters, as well as one who has appeared in both situations.

It's not a surprise, IMO, that the same posters constantly pound narratives in other topic threads that are filled with propaganda against their perceived 'enemy' and refuse to admit fault within the ranks of their own 'team'. Lots of dancing, tiptoeing, but fundamentally not with integrity.

Back to the topic of Hamas, I think there's a world of difference between empathetically discussing the traumas faced by Palestinians, whether in the immediate term or over many generations, and excusing the actions of Hamas, whether on Oct 7 or indiscriminate rocket fire or using civilians as human shields.

I think the moderators should be careful to not quash discussion of alternative perspectives that are from a place of empathy not propaganda.

And let us consider for a moment whether it's ok to "advocate for" violence with language like "bomb them back to the Stone Age" or "the Palestinians deserve what ever happens to them".

[Matnum PI]

Thank you for the responses, helpful, and... I think my question is literal, after 9/11, someone was within our forum repeatedly saying Al Qaeda is the real victim and the americans are the aggressors, would we be ok with this? Keep in mind, within this lacrosse-forum, many of us have friends and family who died on 9/11. hen, second question, what if this Al Qaeda sympathizing person was to shift away from the discussion and become more of a lone voice of propaganda? Just post after post that highlights Al Qaeda and lambasts the US.

[MDlaxfan76]

Thank you for the responses, helpful, and... I think my question is literal, after 9/11, someone was within our forum repeatedly saying Al Qaeda is the real victim and the americans are the aggressors, would we be ok with this? Keep in mind, within this lacrosse-forum, many of us have friends and family who died on 9/11. hen, second question, what if this Al Qaeda sympathizing person was to shift away from the discussion and become more of a lone voice of propaganda? Just post after post that highlights Al Qaeda and lambasts the US.

My own view is that this would violate the decorum intended for these threads.

Perhaps Hamsterdam can accept whatever, but not the threads where we're trying to have generally respectful, reasonable discussions with disparate views. Discussing differing views and actually being able to learn from each other doesn't benefit from outright propaganda and certainly not intentional, deeply hurtful offense, whether directly personal or generally so.

Personally, I'm fine with people getting a little hot at times, pushing back and forth, and a bit of comic relief at times as well that may tiptoe or even crossover into the transgressive, but I appreciate that there are mutual expectations on here of decorum and a 'ref' to occasionally remind/warn and if necessary punish behavior that goes too far, too often.

Your example is apt, as indeed many fellow readers and posters can be expected to be personally connected to those who died on 9-11 or from its aftermath. Same for those who are likely to be connected to families of victims on Oct 7.

Of course, it's also the case that there may be readers who feel connected to the Palestinian community and would feel quite hurt and deeply offended by highly bellicose statements justifying 10,000+ dead Gazans as if nothing more than "vermin"...I don't think we've seen such on here, but it's definitely in the atmosphere around us.

Back to your question about Al-Qaeda...and Iraq...and America being an imperialist nation:

Justifying or applauding 9-11 as a response to America's imperialism, not ok. Period.

However, discussing the plight of Iraqis after our invasion of Iraq ostensibly in response to 9-11 (but oops, that wasn't Al Qaeda) does not seem out of bounds to me. Nor would a discussion of America as imperialist or hegemonic and what that means in the world to others.

We needn't agree on these topics.
But we should all try to keep the heat down, respecting that someone may have a very personal stake.

[Matnum PI]

... respecting that someone may have a very personal stake.

I think that's the key issue. America sucks! doesn't bother Joe the Poster. America sucks! immediately after 9-11 when his roommate from boarding school was one of the victims, very different. I think that's the heart of the issue. And, though I could be wrong, I think Joe the Poster just needs to avoid our forum. That bothers me some but I think that may just be the reality.

[Matnum PI]

... respecting that someone may have a very personal stake.

I think that's the key issue. America sucks! doesn't bother Joe the Poster. America sucks! immediately after 9-11 when his roommate from boarding school was one of the victims, very different. I think that's the heart of the issue. And, though I could be wrong, I think Joe the Poster just needs to avoid our forum. That bothers me some but I think that may just be the reality.

MD, with that said, it doesn't seem right that people should feel a need to leave the party because someone is spouting hateful posts repeatedly. I dunno. Is that really what we want FanLax to be?...

[MDlaxfan76]

... respecting that someone may have a very personal stake.

I think that's the key issue. America sucks! doesn't bother Joe the Poster. America sucks! immediately after 9-11 when his roommate from boarding school was one of the victims, very different. I think that's the heart of the issue. And, though I could be wrong, I think Joe the Poster just needs to avoid our forum. That bothers me some but I think that may just be the reality.

MD, with that said, it doesn't seem right that people should feel a need to leave the party because someone is spouting hateful posts repeatedly. I dunno. Is that really what we want FanLax to be?...

I agree that the concept is to have a place where people can discuss issues, agree or disagree, share information, perspectives and experiences with some basic guard rails of civility as the rules of the road. That leads to better, more open discussions. However, it's obviously difficult to not get subjective when evaluating what is out of bounds and what is ok, and that's the dilemma for a moderator. But rampant bigotry and trolling of "hate" certainly would be better to at least minimize, especially of posts which can easily be predicted to be very painful for other posters to be confronted with on here.

In the current controversy, I can easily imagine incendiary posts which would be highly offensive and painful to those naturally inclined to either 'side' of the conflict. Over the top, bigoted garbage.

On the other hand, not every post or poster discussing the issues, including vehemently, necessarily would be out of bounds. However, in general, an unwillingness to acknowledge the merits of other perspectives, and more importantly any concern for the emotions of other posters, is a heck of 'tell' as to whether the poster is acting in good faith, and is contributing to the discussion as part of a community with basic respect for others.

[Matnum PI]

On the other hand, not every post or poster discussing the issues, including vehemently, necessarily would be out of bounds. However, in general, an unwillingness to acknowledge the merits of other perspectives, and more importantly any concern for the emotions of other posters, is a heck of 'tell' as to whether the poster is acting in good faith, and is contributing to the discussion as part of a community with basic respect for others.

Agreed.. and hard to legislate. But very much agree.

As a semi-aside, the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn speaking yesterday about whether what's going on on their campuses is acceptable, the "Is calling for the genocide of Jews constitute harassment according to the rules of MIT, Harvard, etc.?" and their responses, I found it parallel to our discussion. There's free speech. Then there's free speech that crosses a line. e.g. threatening blacks with the n-word, threatening gays verbally, etc. For obvious reasons, this is not OK. Strangely (or maybe not), verbal micro-aggressions have been explored and lashed out against on college campuses. Free speech but the speaker being held responsible for their speech, in our case, for their posts (so we don't lose that this is metaphorical) and then... students in numbers are verbally harassing Jews, verbally assaulting Jews and... The presidents have a very different reaction. Blacks, gays, women... and for some reason, these same rules don't apply to Jews. It's a strange thing...

[MDlaxfan76]

On the other hand, not every post or poster discussing the issues, including vehemently, necessarily would be out of bounds. However, in general, an unwillingness to acknowledge the merits of other perspectives, and more importantly any concern for the emotions of other posters, is a heck of 'tell' as to whether the poster is acting in good faith, and is contributing to the discussion as part of a community with basic respect for others.

Agreed.. and hard to legislate. But very much agree.

As a semi-aside, the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn speaking yesterday about whether what's going on on their campuses is acceptable, the "Is calling for the genocide of Jews constitute harassment according to the rules of MIT, Harvard, etc.?" and their responses, I found it parallel to our discussion. There's free speech. Then there's free speech that crosses a line. e.g. threatening blacks with the n-word, threatening gays verbally, etc. For obvious reasons, this is not OK. Strangely (or maybe not), verbal micro-aggressions have been explored and lashed out against on college campuses. Free speech but the speaker being held responsible for their speech, in our case, for their posts (so we don't lose that this is metaphorical) and then... students in numbers are verbally harassing Jews, verbally assaulting Jews and... The presidents have a very different reaction. Blacks, gays, women... and for some reason, these same rules don't apply to Jews. It's a strange thing...

I agree that the wishy washy answers of the Presidents was alarming, as it seems so obvious that they could have said straightforwardly not only that they personally found the rhetoric awful (which they did) but that calling for genocide, etc is over the line of Code Of Conduct. Free speech can be had, but not threatening speech. Not a close call. Make clear that action is being taken to follow procedures to hold students and faculty accountable for violations of the Code of Conduct.

Anti-semitism is painfully insidious, even well-meaning people can get caught up in rationalizations and equivocations.

So is Islamaphobia, so are various other bigotries. Insidious.

To your earlier point about context, while some chanting about "free Palestine" would be one thing in normal times, and likewise speeches about apartheid treatment of Palestinians, etc, these are not 'normal' times, the demonstrations are in the immediate aftermath of a horrific, barbaric day of rampant evil. Intifada Revolution chants, "to the sea", can only be received as genocidal threats.

Of course, gathering to show support for innocent Palestinian lives being sacrificed is entirely appropriate too, but when there are calls for genocidal response, beyond the pale...as would be calls to "bomb Gaza into the Stone Age" or some such rhetoric.

IMO, the schools should state a clear position and then hold people accountable thereon.

[44WeWantMore]

On the other hand, not every post or poster discussing the issues, including vehemently, necessarily would be out of bounds. However, in general, an unwillingness to acknowledge the merits of other perspectives, and more importantly any concern for the emotions of other posters, is a heck of 'tell' as to whether the poster is acting in good faith, and is contributing to the discussion as part of a community with basic respect for others.

Agreed.. and hard to legislate. But very much agree.

As a semi-aside, the Presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn speaking yesterday about whether what's going on on their campuses is acceptable, the "Is calling for the genocide of Jews constitute harassment according to the rules of MIT, Harvard, etc.?" and their responses, I found it parallel to our discussion. There's free speech. Then there's free speech that crosses a line. e.g. threatening blacks with the n-word, threatening gays verbally, etc. For obvious reasons, this is not OK. Strangely (or maybe not), verbal micro-aggressions have been explored and lashed out against on college campuses. Free speech but the speaker being held responsible for their speech, in our case, for their posts (so we don't lose that this is metaphorical) and then... students in numbers are verbally harassing Jews, verbally assaulting Jews and... The presidents have a very different reaction. Blacks, gays, women... and for some reason, these same rules don't apply to Jews. It's a strange thing...

Yes, as the joke goes, Harvard student needs to rush from her seminar on micro-aggressions to go to a kill-the-Jews rally.

Seriously, I really like the way Arnold Kling reduces much of politics to thee axes (liberty/coercion; civilization/barbarity; oppressor/oppressed). Here is a recent essay on that topic: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/thre ... discussion

After the Nifong prosecution the entire Duke community was split between evil responses and cowardly non-responses. Why? Because not a single person on that entire campus dared publicly challenge the oppressor/oppressed narrative. Do you really expect Penn, Harvard, and MIT are any less monolithic today than Duke was then?

I am old enough to know Jews with close connections to the Holocaust, and even closer to some who helped Jews escape the USSR. But the Jewish ancestral memory of oppression is not just older than that; it is ancient; endlessly retelling the story of Exodus. I am unaware of any culture with anything comparable. So it shocks Jewish friends my age to hear that *they* are the oppressors. I grew up on LI, public schools, but I could imagine a WASPy prep schooler, not much older than I, hearing adults saying something like, "Well of course I am not prejudiced, my tax accountant is Jewish, but they have their own country clubs." Now, they are considered oppressors, so anything goes. And that is the problem. Violence (real violence, not silence is violence) is tolerated, hecklers' vetoes are encouraged at these places, so long as the target can be labeled an oppressor.

The only solution for civility here is to insist on exacting equivalence. If you make excuses for a Hamas rapist, that is exactly the same as making excuses for any other rapist. Do not take your cues from those three witnesses.

[Matnum PI]

Yes, as the joke goes, Harvard student needs to rush from her seminar on micro-aggressions to go to a kill-the-Jews rally.

Seriously, I really like the way Arnold Kling reduces much of politics to thee axes (liberty/coercion; civilization/barbarity; oppressor/oppressed). Here is a recent essay on that topic: https://arnoldkling.substack.com/p/thre ... discussion

After the Nifong prosecution the entire Duke community was split between evil responses and cowardly non-responses. Why? Because not a single person on that entire campus dared publicly challenge the oppressor/oppressed narrative. Do you really expect Penn, Harvard, and MIT are any less monolithic today than Duke was then?

I am old enough to know Jews with close connections to the Holocaust, and even closer to some who helped Jews escape the USSR. But the Jewish ancestral memory of oppression is not just older than that; it is ancient; endlessly retelling the story of Exodus. I am unaware of any culture with anything comparable. So it shocks Jewish friends my age to hear that *they* are the oppressors. I grew up on LI, public schools, but I could imagine a WASPy prep schooler, not much older than I, hearing adults saying something like, "Well of course I am not prejudiced, my tax accountant is Jewish, but they have their own country clubs." Now, they are considered oppressors, so anything goes. And that is the problem. Violence (real violence, not silence is violence) is tolerated, hecklers' vetoes are encouraged at these places, so long as the target can be labeled an oppressor.

The only solution for civility here is to insist on exacting equivalence. If you make excuses for a Hamas rapist, that is exactly the same as making excuses for any other rapist. Do not take your cues from those three witnesses.

[Matnum PI]

Another question: If a holocaust denier was to join our forum and start espousing what holocaust deniers espouse, would we still sit on our hands? "Sure, Jews were killed but not 6 million!!!" "The holocaust is just a Zionist political tool." "Enough with this Jews are victims trope! The Jews are responsible for their own 'persecution' ". etc. How would we react as a group to this poster? Separately, how should we be reacting to a post-er who is blatantly anti-Israel (which unto itself, is not small) who is saying "...as with the stories about children getting beheaded and imaginary tunnels, the Israeli propaganda myths are exposed for the lies they are." Just let these perspectives sit within our forum?...

[MDlaxfan76]

Another question: If a holocaust denier was to join our forum and start espousing what holocaust deniers espouse, would we still sit on our hands? "Sure, Jews were killed but not 6 million!!!" "The holocaust is just a Zionist political tool." "Enough with this Jews are victims trope! The Jews are responsible for their own 'persecution' ". etc. How would we react as a group to this poster? Separately, how should we be reacting to a post-er who is blatantly anti-Israel (which unto itself, is not small) who is saying "...as with the stories about children getting beheaded and imaginary tunnels, the Israeli propaganda myths are exposed for the lies they are." Just let these perspectives sit within our forum?...

ugh, tough question, albeit with the Holocaust denier, the evil is incredibly well documented, thanks largely to the tendencies of the Nazis to document themselves, as well as the thousands of survivor accounts that have been verified. The Holocaust denier is a perpetuator of the evil. IMO, It should be called out for what it is, and if persists, the author banned from participation.

By comparison, if a historian or merely a commentator discussing the history of the rise of Hitler, Nazism and WWII was to discuss the roots of German Nationalism and the "indignities" of and economic pain caused by the Versailles Treaty, in such a way that seemed to support German sentiments of the era, etc, that would or at least could be another matter. But denial of the realities of the Holocaust are denials of fact, and are support for a continuation of such acts of complete genocidal barbarity.

We're in the midst of a conflict today in which documentation is incomplete and is being purposely infused with misinformation from various parties. And in which disagreement is understandable, if uncomfortable. There are many victims.

So, such disagreement feels bad, but perhaps is worth something to allow.

However, if B calls for genocide of the Jews (or Palestinians), in form or substance, and refuses to reject such, then we're in the same realm as the Holocaust denier.

Are we there?
Is critique of the policies of the government of Israel towards Palestinians the same as calling for genocide?
mmm, I don't think so.

Is disagreement over the right of existence of a Jewish state of Israel the same as calling for genocide?
Getting close.

Is denial of confirmed realities of direct atrocities purposeful misinformation at this point?
Yes.

[Matnum PI]

.

Babies, children were killed. Whether they were beheaded is contested. Adults were beheaded so it's not like the babies being beheaded came out of thin air. The tunnels are not contested. The tunnels 1,000% exist. The billions of dollars that were given to Gaza went towards building these tunnels. And still, "children getting beheaded and imaginary tunnels...".

[Matnum PI]

If similar statements were being made about blacks, gays, or otherwise, I'd for sure want the post-er, at least temporarily, removed from the forum. But, as this forum mirrors the real world, since the comments are about Jews, we're slower to be offended. Why we're slower was spoken to by 44WWM above. But the why we're slower to react is less important than the fact that what is happening is wholly inappropriate and that, though more slowly, we still have an obligation, moral and otherwise, to react. From day one, the FanLax Forum was referred to as a metaphorical party. Our party. My question is, Why are we allowing this post-er to stay at our party. If he was saying what he's saying about blacks, gays, etc., he'd be in the penalty box. Why isn't this the case for what he's saying about Jews?

[MDlaxfan76]

.

Babies, children were killed. Whether they were beheaded is contested. Adults were beheaded so it's not like the babies being beheaded came out of thin air. The tunnels are not contested. The tunnels 1,000% exist. The billions of dollars that were given to Gaza went towards building these tunnels. And still, "children getting beheaded and imaginary tunnels...".

Agreed.

[MDlaxfan76]

If similar statements were being made about blacks, gays, or otherwise, I'd for sure want the post-er, at least temporarily, removed from the forum. But, as this forum mirrors the real world, since the comments are about Jews, we're slower to be offended. Why we're slower was spoken to by 44WWM above. But the why we're slower to react is less important than the fact that what is happening is wholly inappropriate and that, though more slowly, we still have an obligation, moral and otherwise, to react. From day one, the FanLax Forum was referred to as a metaphorical party. Our party. My question is, Why are we allowing this post-er to stay at our party. If he was saying what he's saying about blacks, gays, etc., he'd be in the penalty box. Why isn't this the case for what he's saying about Jews?

Fair question, but is he saying this about "Jews" or is he saying this about the Israeli government?
If about "Jews", I agree.

Or are we saying that "Jews" = Israeli government?

[Matnum PI]

Or are we saying that "Jews" = Israeli government?

No, of course not. With this said, Israel is a Jewish state, is the homeland for the Jews. So when a post-er repeatedly says the Israelis, it sounds a lot like the Jews. I find the language to be very similar to when someone says, I'm not talking about blacks! I'm talking about blacks who live in black ghettos! It's true. The person isn't talking about all blacks. The person/post-er is talking about specific blacks but... Does it really make a difference? The person who says, I have a problem with *those* blacks, not all blacks. Does that really preclude the person from being a racist? I don't have an issue with gays. I have two friends at work that are gay and I have zero issue with them. The gays in the West Village of NYC, that's different! I definitely have a problem with *those* gays. For me, that's a homophobe. That's a racist. Admittedly, that means people need to tip-toe when they talk about Israelis. And there's a reason why. We tip-toe for the same reason we tip-toe when discussing the West Village, Harlem, Koreatown, etc. And some post-ers for sure are not tip-toe'ing. And, personally, I really don't like it. Not because of political views. But because of bigotry. For me, it smells a lot like straight-up bigotry.