How many temporary bans...

[Fiery]

Let it go guys. Shaky territory

 

[Richard]

I believe I've mentioned how I'd appreciate you not trying to encourage things to be swept under the carpet before now?

 

[Fiery]

I believe I've mentioned how I'd appreciate you not trying to encourage things to be swept under the carpet before now?

Probably have but muck-raking a bit here tbh

 

[vic_orthdox]

He's done nothing to deny it IMO - as long as he maintains that Bennett's post was not in jest, which he has, then AFAIC he's accusing him of being a racist.

You can accuse someone of making a racist comment without accusing them of being a racist.

Am not trying to speak on Sanz's behalf, that may not be his point of view. But I think that you're linking "A" and "D" here, without thought of what comes between.

 

[Richard]

You can accuse someone of making a racist comment without accusing them of being a racist.

Hmm, personally I don't think so somehow. Depends what you term "making a racist comment". The exact same comment can be made by two different people and one of them can be being racist while the other is not, yes. However, AFAIC anyone who makes racist comments is a racist. For me, saying "yeah it was a racist comment but I'm not a racist" is exactly the same as saying "I ain't being racist but I 'ate niggers". Or "I'm not ***ist, I just think women should know their place".

For me, Bennett's comment was not a racist one, because it was obviously not something he actually meant. Had he meant it, it would have been racist, and you wouldn't make comments like it without having racist leanings.

 

[Prince EWS]

Or "I'm not homophobic, I just don't think gays should marry".

With risk of opening up a whole new can of worms, that statement is quite possibly true. There are a few reasons why one would be against gay marriages other than homophobia. Marriage being what it is - tradition-filled, ritualistic and often religious - there's a line of thinking that it shouldn't be changed and it really isn't homophobic, just traditionalist and/or religious. There's a difference between gay marriage and gay unions whereby the gay couple gets virtually the exact same rights as a married couple, and to say one that for this system was automatically homophobic would be grossly ignorant of the reasoning behind it.

 

[Richard]

True, probably not the best example TBH.

 

[silentstriker]

With risk of opening up a whole new can of worms, that statement is quite possibly true. There are a few reasons why one would be against gay marriages other than homophobia. Marriage being what it is - tradition-filled, ritualistic and often religious - there's a line of thinking that it shouldn't be changed and it really isn't homophobic, just traditionalist and/or religious. There's a difference between gay marriage and gay unions whereby the gay couple gets virtually the exact same rights as a married couple, and to say one that for this system was automatically homophobic would be grossly ignorant of the reasoning behind it.

That would be true if marriages were solely under the religious umbrella. They are not, and the government grants a marriage license, so unless you want to remove government from the equation and have them grant only union licenses to everyone, while your church would handle the marriage business, it is most definitely discrimination.

 

[cpr]

dont think Sanz has denied it was intended as a joke, just said he found it completely unfunny.

Yes i agree face value is decieving in this case. Which is why steds shouldnt have posted it, because not everyone knows him, and thus he's made an ambiguous post that can be taken the wrong way by alot of people, and cause a great deal of offence.

 

[Richard]

I feel I have to say this again - I don't dispute this for a second. What I dispute is that Bennett made racist comments. Making racist comments and making comments that can easily be misinterpreted as racist, while both very much something that it's advisable against, are two completely different things.

 

[silentstriker]

The fact is that the post was reported - people did take it the wrong way. It is irrelevent how it was intended, what matters is how it came across.

 

[Richard]

I disagree that how it came across is all that matters - is everyone to treat Bennett as a racist (or, if you prefer, purveyor of racist comments) when he returns? Rubbish are they - and anyone who does deserves utter contempt.

Obviously, how it comes across does matter. But it's certainly not all that matters, at least outside the more immediate consequences and in Moderator circles.

On that note, in fact, there is one blatantly racist poster on the forum as of this post, and there's been a few down the years (usually, though not always, dealt with fairly promptly, and occasionally - remarkably - the odd one who's changed their ways). TBH, it disappoints me that nothing of this ilk has been done about this one case in particular, despite action being - rightly - taken against Bennett.

 

[Sanz]

It was for me. It's the kind of viral thing that gets passed round by email and/or text (SMS). I've received similar about the same subject and they're both funnier and infinitely more ban-worthy.

And that is your opinion, which I respect. But I dont find it funny from any angle, it is in rather very poor taste. IMO if such things are supposed to make me laugh then I would rather not laugh.

About the stuff that you recieve via email/SMS on the issue, is well out of scope of this forum discussion. If I recieved such an email/SMS on the issue from friends, I would definately tell them my opinion and politely ask them not to send it in the future, if they dont like then so be it.

 

[BoyBrumby]

And that is your opinion, which I respect. But I dont find it funny from any angle, it is in rather very poor taste. IMO if such things are supposed to make me laugh then I would rather not laugh.

About the stuff that you recieve via email/SMS on the issue, is well out of scope of this forum discussion. If I recieved such an email/SMS on the issue from friends, I would definately tell them my opinion and politely ask them not to send it in the future, if they dont like then so be it.

Fair enough, I didn't think it was funny either & it certainly had the potential to offend, no argument there. I just thought that steds's intention was to be humourous rather than to cause outrage.

I bet if you Googled "Sudan teddy jokes" you'd find dozens of a similar ilk. That's not to condone them, by the way.

 

[Sanz]

Oh and Richard continue your crusade. It wont change the fact that your friend said something that was inappropriate and offensive in nature and he was rightly given a ban, The fact is the post was reported and I didn't report it, The fact is he was banned before I even read what was said

You are making mattes worse for your friend by showing off your continous immaturity and egotistical manners on an internet forum. Before your crusade most members were sure that it was a lame joke but now, thanks to you, it (The question that Is Steds racist ?) is up for discussion on this forum. You truely know how to make a mountain out of a mole.

Go ahead put up that statement of Sean Benette in new thread and ask what people think of him and hist so called joke, that is the only thing left for you to do for your friend.

 

[silentstriker]

On that note, in fact, there is one blatantly racist poster on the forum as of this post, and there's been a few down the years (usually, though not always, dealt with fairly promptly, and occasionally - remarkably - the odd one who's changed their ways). TBH, it disappoints me that nothing of this ilk has been done about this one case in particular, despite action being - rightly - taken against Bennett.

If you feel that way, send the moderators an email with the name of the person and the offending post(s).

 

[GIMH]

I'd love to have an opinion but I missed his post

 

[Richard]

Oh and Richard continue your crusade. It wont change the fact that your friend said something that was inappropriate and offensive in nature and he was rightly given a ban, The fact is the post was reported and I didn't report it, The fact is he was banned before I even read what was said

You are making mattes worse for your friend by showing off your continous immaturity and egotistical manners on an internet forum. Before your crusade most members were sure that it was a lame joke but now, thanks to you, it (The question that Is Steds racist ?) is up for discussion on this forum. You truely know how to make a mountain out of a mole.

Go ahead put up that statement of Sean Benette in new thread and ask what people think of him and hist so called joke, that is the only thing left for you to do for your friend.

There's little point bothering with posts like this.

 

[roseboy64]

Hmm, personally I don't think so somehow. Depends what you term "making a racist comment". The exact same comment can be made by two different people and one of them can be being racist while the other is not, yes. However, AFAIC anyone who makes racist comments is a racist. For me, saying "yeah it was a racist comment but I'm not a racist" is exactly the same as saying "I ain't being racist but I 'ate niggers". Or "I'm not ***ist, I just think women should know their place".

For me, Bennett's comment was not a racist one, because it was obviously not something he actually meant. Had he meant it, it would have been racist, and you wouldn't make comments like it without having racist leanings.

Not exactly true. This comedian Carlos Menica makes racist jokes about all races including his own. He's racist?

 

[Richard]

The point I've been making all along is that a joke is not a racist comment. It's only a racist comment if it's genuinely meant. Obviously, some jokes can have some meaning behind them, and\or reveal V&A of the teller, so it's not automatically a case of joke = not-racist.

But cracking a joke which is completely devoid of endorsement for the sentiment at the root of it is in no way whatsoever being racist. And that's precisely what Bennett was doing.