You should get into the sensitivity training field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jplpjCaec

Ariel Bitran wrote:

A friendly reminder

Please watch

Unfortunately, those your reminder is aimed at will ignore the point.

Those it should be aimed at will assume it is for others...

JIMV, are you suggesting I should assume it's for me? Are you saying my exposing someone for being a racist means that I should back off? LS has been making disparaging comments about black people for quite some time. I can't be the only one who has noticed. I'm just fed up with his racism becoming more overt.

That anyone at all who has to resort to labeling another a racist so as to stop an argument or debate is admitting defeat in the argument...It is like Godwins Law...

"Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)[1][2] is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (100%)."[3][2] In other words, Godwin put forth the hyperbolic observation that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.

Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread Reductio ad Hitlerum form.[citation needed] The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

I highlighted the applicable part....when one raises the cry of 'racist' one both loses the argument and degrades the term...

Another good example would be the use of the word genocide with wild abandon to describe anything from the holocaust to the arrest of a few score perhaps oppressed minority folk by an abusive police. The word loses all serious meaning.

One should be able to produce an argument without the use of silly labels of perjuritives, like 'racist', a term that is so misused as to have no real impact on an argument.

I somehow think it would be naive to think it's not aimed at all of us who have been  participating in the "Our Hero" topic of late.

It has gotten a little vicious and impetuous at times.

Jeff

OK, how about I call LS a bigot. I'm not calling him a racist to stop argument or discussion. I'm doing so to bring it to everyones attention. As Jef0000 has pointed out some of the posts in one thread have come close to the line. LS constantly steps over it. Never having been the object of racism or bigotry you guys don't see the forest for the trees. I've been there so I can and do speak from personal experience. JimV, if you had ever experienced racism and bigotry you wouldn't find it so humorous. You certainly wouldn't make lite of it.

Ask soulful_terrain how he felt when affirmative action caused job changes that made him feel discriminated against. How would you feel if your whole life was a series of discriminatory comments and actions. You conservatives claim that discrimination, racism and bigotry don't exist any more. I say, "You're looking at the world the way you think it should be, not the way it really is". LS is proof that it's still here. For some reason you guys are unable to see that. 

I should be feel bad because JoeE is race baiting.  I shouldn't make him feel worse about it.  I agree.

LS asked if Joe's mother was made of shit, because of her blackness.

Rrrrrrreally?  I think you can clearly see that is a direct violation of RESPECT, while being a part of 'one's views'.  RACIST, and I believe the term still hold very real meaning.  Only racist assholes keep pretending otherwise.

Somehow I knew this response was coming- right after you sent me a personal message where you reprimanded me for comments about Jim (in the audio forums), which was a direct reaction to insulting comments he directed towards me.  In that area of the forum it was appropriate. 

I thought this area is 'Anything Goes', and for the very reasons you guys haven't stepped in to specific affronts in the Open Bar.  It is clear that the writers of Stereophile don't want this type of communication in their forums, but the editor allows similar, ad hominem insults to permeate the magazine's letter section almost every month (though recently not so much). The attack on SM in recent months comes to mind. It is obvious that MF and AD have had several love letters from readers that amount to little more than 'You're a Luddite!'

Stereophile should stick to audio-only forums, and ban people for being off-topic, personally insulting, etc.  (I know that would include me, for a variety of infractions, however intentionally reactionary they may be.)  Point is, you would have a way to actually police for a reason, not "Be nice, guys", in an 'anything goes' forum.

If Stereophile wants to improve the level and quality of posts in the audio forums, perhaps find ways to continue the discussion under editor-created topics in the current issues area of the forum.  A little direction on a topic goes a long way. For instance, what discussion can be furthered from the 'As We See It' column each month?  You're the professionals- direct us with pointed questions if you desire higher quality input (in the areas of the forum 'that matter'). With all due credit, JA has done that in every area of the forums, but perhaps created topics would server better.

But, what's the point of the Open Bar forum any way?  The ideal or the reality?  I will give you this- The Open Bar keeps LS chained to the trailer hitch, as opposed to letting him run wild in the audio forums.  To that end, I can see why you want to keep things civil, or there will be those that will run amok and infect your whole site.  A cancer to be sure, but I'm guessing that's how you view me as well, so I guess the point is moot, right?  (Sometimes my rabid side comes out to bullies who need their balls ripped off.)  

Ironically, in the name of 'letting people be', you want to give us anger management classes, or control the outcome of what or how people write. 

That's pretty much a complete hypocrisy. Did Stereophile control Corey Greenberg when he wrote his way 20 years ago?  Perhaps they inevitably did, or perhaps he left before that could happen.

In the name of staying unbiased, anarchy has broken out, and the morning after is scary indeed.  I made my point, and knew what the outcome would be in the first place.  I did enact some small change, but few will see it that way. I spent a scant few days repeating the same point, and it rocked a few boats that don't like their boats to be rocky.  They clearly spent their time focused on me, as opposed to business as usual.

I cease to care about the OB at this point, so don't worry, I will remain in the audio-only forums, and stay civil.  I guess there's no point otherwise.

"LS asked if Joe's mother was made of shit, because of her blackness."

Not what I said or asked at all.

JoeE was insulted by the word, "mulatto".  He also claimed he was black.  So, I asked him what he thought about his mother being white...,"shit?"

So, Glitter Glotz in his spitting insane madness got it all wrong.  Now Glotz has made JoeE feel bad by claiming his mother is black?  It's possible.   This is how liberals try to win arguments.  In this case we have a two man mob trying to raise enough hell to force the establishment to write them a a blank check.  I know a thing or two about extortion.

wouldn't that be boring?

Ariel, I guess I should have put "sarc" in my reply :-)

BTW, I agree.