Zero Tolerance In Action

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xzRfR0Kgbc[/youtube]

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 19 Oct 2010, 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LOL! That's funny.

It's amazing how many stories you get like that these days.

That is truly idiotic. If a tiny plastic statue of an armed soldier violates the "no weapons" policy, they will have a hard time teaching these children any history. History books all have pictures of armed soldiers.

The poll is also idiotic. Yes, I realize it's satire. Just like I realize a toy soldier is neither a weapon nor an actual soldier. But really lame satire.

The poll is half serious. I am not advocating a Zero Tolerance policy against offensiveness, and as such I'm one who has voted no, however it was suggested in another thread that there ought to be Zero Tolerance by a person who got upset at a stupid statement of another poster. Zero Tolerance is stupid, especially when actually put into practice even if it may sound good on paper, so of course any suggestion of its implementation would also sound idiotic.

who is suggesting this? why can't you just ridicule them for it in that thread? wouldn't that make more sense?

Friskygurl suggested it, in anger, when some random poster made a racial slur against her. The racial slur was wrong, however the suggestion of Zero Tolerance is also wrong - if not just a bad idea - since it entails absolute censorship of anything which could be interpreted, according to the letter, to fit the policy.

haha i think i just ran across the specific post you were referring to and i see exactly why you can't just ridicule them for it in that thread.

i have a very low tolerance for zero tolerance policies but it's not hard to see them for what they are: knee-jerk reactions. for all your recent talk of being acceptable as a target of racism, it might do you some good to read the exchange that prompted you to create this thread again.

I saw that what the other poster said to Friskygurl was wrong and she ought to be upset, however, the demand for Zero Tolerance due to the abuse of tolerance is still improper.

Absolutely not. The fact of someone finding someone else offensive only proves someone feels offended and *not* that the other person has done anything wrong at all.

The problem I see here is there's been quite a few people on the right acting like bullies lately. Hanotaux, John Browning, and most recently this Mojave character just to name a few. All three of these posters have used racist slurs and reacted with blustering glee and more taunting when some people reacted angrily. Then what do the majority of conservatives do? Instead of condemning and distancing themselves from those people they go and side with them on everything single thing they say and call out people on the left for daring to fight back just as dirty. This is the kind of behavior that leads to people going to the moderators and getting people banned.

i agree with you.

however, i do not have a zero tolerance policy toward the knee-jerk reaction that is the promotion of zero tolerance policies.


also: you get bonus respectpoints for catching that underhanded "how christian of you" remark before i edited it out. it really didn't fit well with what i had said and i got distracted from the paragraph it should have accompanied.

i find it interesting that you have such an obvious interest in anti-white racism, recently, and yet seem so willing to overlook an obvious instance of racism to rail against the knee-jerk reaction of the victim in the instance of racism you're referencing. "how christian of you" was supposed to be a barb to go with that but i can't remember what was in my head that made it sound harsh and gave up on it.

because i feel that this is easy to misunderstand, i want to be clear. i find advocacy for the "meek" to be a good thing about christian ideals and "how christian of you" was supposed to be a chastising "you're not being very christian in your handling of this situation" but i couldn't think of a way to say it that sounded right to me without sounding somewhat more insulting than i had intended.

not that i meant it as much of an insult..... more of a "really now?"

hmm... i don't know that that helps either.

f-all. ^^what all of my posts look like about 30 seconds before i delete the bottom several paragraphs and hit submit.

hmm....

tell me what you think of my creative editing?

I haven't been siding with people when they say stupid things, although I do admit that if they have otherwise been sociable to me I have ignored what they say - party because I want to pretend that I'm misreading what they've written. Often enough I will argue with friends on points, but when they say something completely ridiculous I want to assume that they are attempting, however poorly, at being ludicrous instead of inadvertently being ridiculous. Hanotaux may sincerely think of white people as being superior for some reason, I don't. John Browning's use of an alteration of the N-word which is also, coincidentally, a title of a denizen of a country from which a lot of spam and other e-mail scams comes from, was inappropriate. Mojave I do not know and he seems really eager to abuse this temporary freedom of speech on PPR, possibly so as to accelerate its loss, but I do not know that for certain as he could just sincerely be behaving as a Middle English term for a male donkey.

There is the most joyous and ironically entertaining about "Freedom Of Speech". Invariably those who are most vocal in their demands to use it are those who just want to use it to be f*****g nasty and rude. "Its my right of Freedom of Speech to say Nigerian even though its quite clear I'm just being a smartass to disguise the fact I'm just being f*****g racist". Seen it so many times before. Its not big, its certainly not clever or original.

I think you have just made a hasty generalization.

Far from it. Years of experience. I've never met anyone who hasn't demanded their right to free speech who hasn't promptly used it to be rude. nasty, insulting or just a twat. This is online or off, at work or after years of IRC moderation. So no, not hasty, nor generalising. When I meet someone who says "I have the right to say something quite pleasant about jews, or be complimentary about asians." who genuinely means it then I might decide otherwise.