status-resolved Is blatant racism acceptable?

[bmugford]

It is far past the point that NamePros draws a line in the sand. This type of racism should not be acceptable.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/braden-pollock-steps-down-from-epik-bod.1194548/

I reported this specific post, but think it needs to be highlighted here.

User Charizard is saying and doing extremely racist, and unprofessional things.

First he had a link to Daily Stormer in his signature.

Now he has changed his profile to the picture of a black man, that if you do a reverse image search all the results are racist -

Good Lord....A Franken-Ni**er... - Ni**ermania Forum ...

Ni**ermania MugShot Gallery

Nestless sow of six now has five - Chimpmania

Africoon crowned "ugliest *****r" needs gibs-me - Chimpmania

This is blatantly racist. Are you really going to allow this NamePros mods?

I mean you went after a guy with a picture of Jack Nicholson from The Shining as "unprofessional".

Allowing this disgusting stuff under the guise of "free speech" is simply not acceptable.

For people who think they have free speech rights on private platforms, I suggest you read the Constitution. Those rights are only related to the government, not private platforms.

There is simply no excuse for allowing this.

Brad

---

Moderator's response:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/1194646/#post-7810976

 

[NickB]

Love the idea Brad, but there is something seriously messed up with the decision making at this forum and I can't see anything concrete coming from this unfortunately.......

The person in question will most likely get a slap on the wrist at worse, continue on their merry way and the mods will say we have done all we can and call the matter closed....

This thread will probably turn into a convoluted discussion about the right's and wrong's of Namepros, the mod's and what needs or should be done with the end result nothing changing as the management don't want it to change.....

The only positive for me is that it shows which side of the fence people are on, which makes it easy to decide who to engage with or not......

 

[Michael M]

It is far past the point that NamePros draws a line in the sand. This type of racism should not be acceptable.

https://www.namepros.com/threads/braden-pollock-steps-down-from-epik-bod.1194548/

I reported this specific post, but think it needs to be highlighted here.

User Charizard is saying and doing extremely racist, and unprofessional things.

First he had a link to Daily Stormer in his signature.

Now he has changed his profile to the picture of a black man, that if you do a reverse image search all the results are racist -

Good Lord....A Franken-Ni**er... - Ni**ermania Forum ...

Ni**ermania MugShot Gallery

Nestless sow of six now has five - Chimpmania

Africoon crowned "ugliest *****r" needs gibs-me - Chimpmania

This is blatantly racist. Are you really going to allow this NamePros mods?

I mean you went after a guy with a picture of Jack Nicholson from The Shining as "unprofessional".

Allowing this disgusting stuff under the guise of "free speech" is simply not acceptable.

For people who think they have free speech rights on private platforms, I suggest you read the Constitution. Those rights are only related to the government, not private platforms.

There is simply no excuse for allowing this.

Brad

That dude appears to be a troll trying to get a rise out of people. His actions are not how any normal person behaves. We all know this, some people just want those people to exists to justify their anger. I believe in some cases they decide to make them themselves to give other people a sense of righteousness.

I agree they should be banned and posts deleted and profile pic deleted. But I have my money on that person is a troll from the liberal persuasion IMHO.

But someone engaging in free speech that isn't outrageous - yet labeled as racist because someone decided to take it that way - they should *not* be silenced just because they have a different view.

Very thin line to walk in the day and age of trolls and public anger. Definitions and public sentiment change daily.

 

[bmugford]

That dude appears to be a troll trying to get a rise out of people. His actions are not how any normal person behaves. We all know this, some people just want those people to exists to justify their anger. I believe in some cases they decide to make them themselves to give other people a sense of righteousness.

I agree they should be banned and posts deleted and profile pic deleted. But I have my money on that person is a troll from the liberal persuasion IMHO.

But someone engaging in free speech that isn't outrageous - yet labeled as racist because someone decided to take it that way - they should *not* be silenced just because they have a different view.

Very thin line to walk in the day and age of trolls and public anger. Definitions and public sentiment change daily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

"Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied."

Regardless, this type of blatant racism can not be allowed here.

Brad

 

[Michael M]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

"Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.[1][2][3] The original statement, by Nathan Poe, read:[1]"

Regardless, this type of blatant racism can not be allowed.

Brad

Don't disagree. It is evident in all spectrums of the politicized world we live in these days. Very sad tho.

I do my best to give everyone from any side the benefit of the doubt and respect. If their expressions/message are so extreme I can't distinguish their intent as valid or not - I dismiss them and do not include anything they say in my view of the world or others.

Not that it is the end all way to live, but that's my way of handling these crazy times and crazy people. Believe in the best of people and dismiss those that have no good to give. If they aren't given attention they generally disappear quickly.

 

[Josytal]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.― Edmund Burke

It's as true today as it was 200 years ago.
You are either for or against. No sitting on the fence.
@bmugford , kudos!

 

[Charizard]

I guess you are all happy now.
They have restricted my account and removed a legitimate non-offensive profile picture.

 

[JB Lions]

I think the troll got exactly what he wanted. Played the mods, got the thread shut down (which was the intention), when he could have simply been banned. That thread is in the review forum, is now locked. While other threads in the review forum, that went off into conspiracy nonsense, still open.

 

[DomainVP]

Blatant racism is not acceptable.

This is also not a decent place.

There are a lot of great people here on this forum, but they get drowned out by the trolls, attention seekers, and know-it-alls.

 

[Peak.Domains]

I received two warnings for pointing out the blatant racism after mods initially chose to ignore it.

That's more than initially happened to the user posting blatant pro-racism, and linking to white supremacist blogs about the "white race being replaced."

So, take that as you will...

 

[Charizard]

But I still do not understand how do I make a blatant racist?
It appears like mods are actually more racist than me (they removed an Afro-American guy from my profile picture), do you find that racist too?
They will probably also censor this comment if they are racist.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

This type of racism should not be acceptable.

This type? Why would the type matter?

The Terms of Service and rules are clear:

• You agree to not use the Services to submit or link to any Content that is abusive, unlawfully defamatory, hateful, threatening, spam or spam-like, likely to offend, contains adult or objectionable content (except in explicitly designated areas), risks copyright infringement, encourages unlawful activity, or otherwise violates any laws.
  
• Rule 1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times. Do not intentionally harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, or antagonize others.

And if succinct sentences are not enough for anyone, here are many paragraphs on it:

• https://www.namepros.com/threads/expectations-for-respect-and-constructiveness.845259/

That thread is in the review forum, is now locked. While other threads in the review forum, that went off into conspiracy nonsense, still open.

It was locked while we handled an influx of reports (e.g., issued the necessary warnings and restrictions).

It may be locked indefinitely if it continues to create unnecessary headaches that are unrelated to domain names.

That's more than initially happened to the user posting blatant pro-racism, and linking to white supremacist blogs about the "white race being replaced."

Is it? Because that user's account is restricted. Yours is currently not.

---

The real problem* is impatience and certain members creating more unnecessary problems/headaches, which delay everything even more, because things are not happening exactly or as quickly as they'd like. Please stop adding to the problem and creating new problems.

There are productive ways to be heard and to help. If we are sending you warnings or messages that are unfriendly, then you are causing problems and need to stop.

* The alleged problem was that racism is allowed here, which is categorically false.

 

[bmugford]

This type? Why would the type matter?

Because that was the type at issue here. Is this a serious question?

I don't think any blatant racism should be tolerated period.

The real problem is impatience and certain members creating more unnecessary problems/headaches, which delay everything even more, because things are not happening exactly or as quickly as they'd like. Please stop adding to the problem and creating new problems.

There are productive ways to be heard and to help. If we are sending you warnings or messages that are unfriendly, then you are causing problems and need to stop.

I am sorry this caused a minor inconvenience for you. I think the bigger issue was getting this blatant racism addressed ASAP.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

But I still do not understand how do I make a blatant racist?
It appears like mods are actually more racist than me (they removed an Afro-American guy from my profile picture), do you find that racist too?
They will probably also censor this comment if they are racist.

Let me go ahead and feed the troll.

Explain to us why you were using a picture as your profile picture, that was linked to on endless obviously racist sites...This is after linking to the Daily Stormer, among other things.

Brad

 

[Peak.Domains]

Is it? Because that user's account is restricted. Yours is currently not.

I clearly said initially. More than INITIALLY happened to this user....

Who is still welcome here, posting as recently as 30 minutes ago, by the way, when all of this went down hours ago.

My first several reports were brushed off. Can't you just admit your moderation team made an error in judgement? You're really going to tone-police the people who are reporting this stuff? Saying that's the "REAL PROBLEM"? The real problem is that the manner in which people report blatant racism, after you've ignored it and brushed it off several times, gives you a headache? Unreal.

"The real problem is..."

No, lol, that's not the "real problem" at all.

Are you serious?

 

[Charizard]

Let me go ahead and feed the troll.

Explain to us why you were using a picture as your profile picture, that was linked to on endless obviously racist sites...This is after linking to the Daily Stormer, among other things.

Brad

I still do not see how that makes any of your accusations of me being blatant racist legit.
- The photo is perfectly legal and is not insulting anybody.
- The link from TDS is also not insulting anybody and does not even link to the rest of the site.
I can see that some of you guys are having issues with freedom of speech and that is a bigger problem than so-called "blatant racism".

I can not post links because I am censored from doing so.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

I clearly said initially. More than INITIALLY happened to this user....

Investigations take time because we, as moderators, do not always have access to all of the information we need and it takes time to get it from the tech team, which could take minutes, weeks, or longer, depending on their availability.

There isn't an "initially" because it was still in progress. The report aspect of it may be done because moderators did everything possible at that moment, but when appropriate, it will be in the hands of another team after that. Once that team provides the moderators with the needed information, we can take additional actions if appropriate.

You're really going to tone-police the people who are reporting this stuff? Saying that's the "REAL PROBLEM"?

Reporting is the appropriate action. No one said there is a problem with that.

If you do not agree with how a report is handled, it does not give you permission to violate the rules.

Are you serious?

Very.

 

[Peak.Domains]

It was right there, in the thread, in the posts I reported. If you need to "investigate", why were the reports closed off as "heated debate, nothing to see here, no problem..." You saw the posts, you saw nothing wrong with them at the time, now you're backtracking on that.

You're trying to re-write history here to save face or something, and it's so obvious, and nobody is buying it.

 

[bmugford]

I still do not see how that makes any of your accusations of me being blatant racist legit.
- The photo is perfectly legal and is not insulting anybody.
- The link from TDS is also not insulting anybody and does not even link to the rest of the site.
I can see that some of you guys are having issues with freedom of speech and that is a bigger problem than so-called "blatant racism".

I can not post links because I am censored from doing so.

You have failed to adequately explain your use of that photo.

1.) Freedom of speech does not exist on private platforms.
2.) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Have a good day.

Brad

 

[Peak.Domains]

And if you're admitting now that the posts were racist, why on earth is this user still allowed to POST on the forum? You take away their privilege to like comments, but they can still post?

I promise you they're laughing at you so hard for how much leeway you're giving them. "Wow, I can't believe they let me get away with this, they're really falling for it."

 

[equity78]

You have failed to adequately explain your use of that photo.

1.) Freedom of speech does not exist on private platforms.
2.) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

Have a good day.

Brad

and with the Elad avatar drama Namepros has ruled on unprofessional avatars.

 

[Bravo Mod Team]

It was right there, in the thread, in the posts I reported. If you need to "investigate", why were the reports closed off as "heated debate, nothing to see here, no problem..."

You're mixing reports. We are talking about your signature report.

You take away their privilege to like comments, but they can still post?

How many inaccurate assumptions can you make in one hour? Each time you think of something, you should change it to a question. It'll work out much better for you.

They currently cannot post anything unless we approve it. That's what happens when an account is restricted, among many other limitations.

I promise you they're laughing at you so hard for how much leeway you're giving them.

You'd be wrong, again.

You're trying to re-write history here to save face or something, and it's so obvious, and nobody is buying it.

No, you've just misinterpreted what we've written and instead of asking for clarity, you've made more assumptions.

You don't need our help to continue making derogatory assumptions, so you can do that by yourself.

nobody is buying it.

Do we sound like salespeople to you? We aren't trying to sell anything.

But since you're clearly not interested in having a civilized discussion, you can continue thinking anything you'd like. We have better things to do.

 

[Charizard]

You have failed to adequately explain your use of that photo.
1.) Freedom of speech does not exist on private platforms.
2.) Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Have a good day.
Brad

Private platforms meaning platforms partially financed (via ad revenue) by Epik.com, right?
Moderators are surpressing me because you guys make a pressure and yet fail to provide any relevant proof of me being a racist.

 

[Abdullah Abdullah]

Private platforms meaning platforms partially financed (via ad revenue) by Epik.com, right?
Moderators are surpressing me because you guys make a pressure and yet fail to provide any relevant proof of me being a racist.

How about the image? What was your intention to use that image which, as proved by @bmugford is linked to racist comments? How about the link it was said ( I didnt see) was on your sig? How about you claiming it is Freedom of Speech? Well guess what? You say you are NOT racist? Good then, if someone calls you that then that is Freedom of Speech too. What do you think? You cant play the Freedom of Speech card when it suits you.

 

[equity78]

No a private platform means a private platform, I own and run two blogs, if someone tries to leave a blatantly racist comment, it won't be approved. My advertisers play no part in that. They can say "Hey Raymond we are down with racism and will not renew our ad next quarter because of the racist comments not being allowed on your blog." To that note I would say thank you I don't want your business. Cheers.

Namepros is a private platform no one is funding it? Namepros would be here with no advertisers, @RJ did that for many a year. Namepros is not taking marching orders from advertisers.

Last but not least which advertiser is standing for racism?