The Lemon Fool

Woke has replaced political correctness. Its not the preserve of the Right, it now means excessive pandering to righting injustices than the user would do, so can be used by the Left to refer to the Far Left, or any pressure group that you view as silly.

csearle wrote:

RockRabbit wrote:The thread may not use the words 'Islam', 'Muslim', 'immigrant' etc but it is clearly alluding to those groups by reference to 'Enoch', 'the hell they imported' and the recent threats to MPs (which were widely reported as being from Muslim extremists). The thread is also clearly xenophobic.

RockRabbit wrote:I reported the first post in the thread, but my report was closed with no explanation.

When you reported taken2often's post at 2231 on Thursday evening there was no thread, there was just the one post, which had been made 45 minutes earlier. Your claim that that post is Islamaphobic is plainly incorrect. All further posts came after your report so implying now that your report had anything to do with them is IMO disingenuous. C.

1. You are being disingenuous here. The original post in the thread clearly broke the LF rule as stated below.


"All posters are welcome irrespective of race, faith, nationality, disability, gender or sexual orientation. Any derogatory remarks regarding any groups, whether majority or minority, will be removed".

Here is a link to your rules.
app.php/rules

2. You, as a moderator, are now aware of the original post I reported AND the rest of the thread. But you have done nothing about the posts which break LF rules.

3. Either enforce LF rules or change the rules.

csearle wrote:

RockRabbit wrote:The LF is simply becoming a unmoderated home for extremist right wing misinformation and cranks, with the occasional investment topic.

If you care to look there are many investment topics. If you choose to engage with them instead of piling into political discussions you will probably experience The Lemon Fool very differently.

If someone buys the FT then reads mainly the sports pages it doesn't mean the paper is focused on sport.

C.

Thank you for your patronising comment. So I should just ignore racist posts?

XFool wrote:

Lootman wrote:But don't those comments of yours break the rule that Clariman just outlined?


You have just identified a "specific group" (old white male right-wingers) and then maligned them, in much the same way as the original allegation attacked Muslims. And in that latter case the group was not specifically identified whereas you did identify the specific group that you personally do not like.

And therein lies the problem. Does TLF ban all such generalisations or none of them? Or does it depend on which group it is? So that it is OK to attack old, white males but not young black females?

It does seem, on TLF, being explicit is a "No Go", but insinuation is permitted.


PS. Thinks: It's all a bit like "lie" vs "wrong"...

Yes, the original post in the thread doesn't use the word muslim even though anyone with half a brain can see that is is muslims who are being referred to.

Lootman wrote:But don't those comments of yours break the rule that Clariman just outlined?

Clariman wrote:the post does not mention any specific group, which is why he left the post in place. If a specific group had been mentioned, the post and topic would have been removed.

You have just identified a "specific group" (old white male right-wingers)...

I suppose one could just shorten that to "TLF members"?

I'll get me coat...

RockRabbit wrote:Yes, the original post in the thread doesn't use the word muslim even though anyone with half a brain can see that is is muslims who are being referred to.

When Sunak in his speech referred to 'separate communities' we knew to whom he was referring, and therein lies some of the current problem, the desire for what amounts to a State within a State.

I am not aware that Jews in the UK ever had that aspiration, but some Muslims do.
Should we not call that out?

V8

88V8 wrote:When Sunak in his speech referred to 'separate communities' we knew to whom he was referring, and therein lies some of the current problem, the desire for what amounts to a State within a State.

I am not aware that Jews in the UK ever had that aspiration, but some Muslims do.
Should we not call that out?

"some Muslins do"? Yes, but so do "some" Ultra Orthodox Jews. So do "some" Fundamentalist Christians, etc.

XFool wrote:

88V8 wrote:When Sunak in his speech referred to 'separate communities' we knew to whom he was referring, and therein lies some of the current problem, the desire for what amounts to a State within a State.

I am not aware that Jews in the UK ever had that aspiration, but some Muslims do.
Should we not call that out?

"some Muslins do"? Yes, but so do "some" Ultra Orthodox Jews. So do "some" Fundamentalist Christians, etc.

It's a question of how far is a group allowed to go down that road, it's a grey area. All religions have their own rules (Canon law in the case of the C of E), some have tax collection like tithes, marriage rules, provide social services, food banks, soup kitchens, even police (churchwardens). A community like the Roma/Gipsies lives largely separate to the mainstream society. I can agree that some boundaries need setting with all this, but it's complicated and unless we maintain the C of E's privileged position, a fair amount of unpicking of history.

RockRabbit wrote:The thread linked below is Islamophobic. If the same post was made about any other religion or group it would be deleted. Its pure race/Islam baiting, similar to the anti-Semitism in 1930s Germany. It is one of many Xenophobic and racist posts on the LF which have appeared in the last few months.

I reported the first post in the thread, but my report was closed with no explanation. The LF is simply becoming a unmoderated home for extremist right wing misinformation and cranks, with the occasional investment topic. Presumably this post will be deleted and I'll be banned, but I'm past caring.

viewtopic.php?f=85&t=42612

Having given this further consideration, I have deleted the topic you have referred to. We made it clear in this 2022 announcement that TLF would take a 'zero tolerance' approach to racism and sexism viewtopic.php?f=101&t=31229 . If those words are to mean anything, we must stand by them.

In particular, we said the following,

If the site owners and moderators have any doubt about whether something falls into this category we will act on the precautionary principle and immediately delete any such message

I understand why a moderator did not remove the post for the reasons he stated. I have no issue with that. However, on the precautionary principle and in all likelihood that readers would interpret the post in the way many have, we have no choice but to remove it. Thanks for raising it. Besides it was "off topic" for the board it was on.

I'm going to lock this topic here because there is nothing more to say about it.

Clariman