Re: Islamophobia

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-11-10, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 09/11/2023 um 18:02 schrieb webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>> Please do not call another poster racist.
>
> And why not? Being a racist is not a personal quality or defect. It's an
> action that has legal consequences.
>
> Besides, another poster called the OP a racist but his post was allowed in.
>
> How is this style of Goderation not a circlejerk?

Your post broke the rules, it got rightly rejected. Deal with it.

[Roger Hayter]

On 10 Nov 2023 at 12:19:25 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:

It is perhaps also worth pointing out that my post might be considered racist
did so politely and fairly respectfully; indeed, I replied that it probably
was.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

I mean:

It is perhaps also worth pointing out that the other person who suggested my

post might be considered racist did so politely and fairly respectfully;

indeed, I replied that my post probably was racist.





--
Roger Hayter

[Fredxx]

On 10/11/2023 09:34, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
> Am 09/11/2023 um 18:02 schrieb webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>   Please do not call another poster racist.
>
>
> And why not? Being a racist is not a personal quality or defect. It's an
> action that has legal consequences.
>
> Besides, another poster called the OP a racist but his post was allowed in.
>
> How is this style of Goderation not a circlejerk?

I think you could have used different words. By referring the post as
having a "tinge of racism" should have been fine, judging by other
acceptable posts.

>> The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a
>> moderator.
>>
>> Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to
>> another contributor.
>>
>> The group charter and moderation policy can be found at
>>    https://uklegal.weebly.com/
>> Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup
>>    uk.net.news.moderation
>>
>> ============================================ Full text of your message
>> follows
>>>  From webs...@chiark.greenend.org.uk Thu Nov 09 09:52:20 2023
>>> Return-path: <webs...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
>>> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
>>> Received-SPF: pass (mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com: domain of
>>> eternal-september.org designates
>>> 2a01:238:4322:f100:97c6:a04c:74ee:429e as permitted sender)
>>> client-ip=2a01:238:4322:f100:97c6:a04c:74ee:429e;
>>> envelope-from=ne...@eternal-september.org;
>>> helo=smtp.eternal-september.org;
>>> To: uk-legal-...@usenet.org.uk
>>> From: Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com>
>>> Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
>>> Subject: Re: Islamophobia
>>> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2023 09:52:15 +0000
>>> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
>>> Message-ID: <uiia4g$2519h$1...@dont-email.me>
>>> References: <kr2ekq...@mid.individual.net>
>>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>>> User-Agent: Betterbird (Linux)
>>> Cancel-Lock: sha1:oFYp2n7HSIyv+nvV/QKBNpAJOhk=
>>> X-No-Archive: Yes
>>> Content-Language: en-GB
>>> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1+Tr4SxcxdJqV6JcXvs0XVCcVRZnuECXuk1/CHfZMIOXQ==
>>> X-Mythic-Source-External: YES
>>> X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 20
>>> X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.0
>>> Delivered-To: usenet-uk-le...@usenet.org.uk
>>> X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-le...@usenet.org.uk
>>> X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com
>>> X-STUMP-Warning-0: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received:
>>> Received: Received: Received: Received:
>>
>>> Am 08/11/2023 um 21:58 schrieb Roger Hayter:
>>>> It is noteworthy that the two politicians baying for the Met to ban the
>>>> Palestinian march, Sunak and Braverman are both of Hindu origin.  As
>>>> we know,
>>>> especially under the present Hindu nationalist prime minister Modi,
>>>> the Hindus
>>>> in India are not averse to the occasional anti-Muslim pogrom.
>>>>
>>>> Are we sure we want such racists to govern our country; or is it ok
>>>> as long as
>>>> they support Israel?
>>>>
>>>> Do you think their demands to ban the pro-Palestine march just
>>>> because of its
>>>> political position, when the police have said it is not likely to
>>>> offend
>>>> against the actual law set to govern protests, amounts to soliciting
>>>> racial
>>>> discrimination? Is a private prosecution a possibility?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Methinks the racist in this case is you.
>>
>>> --
>>> Ottavio Caruso
>>
>>
>>
>

[Roger Hayter]

I'd just mention that proving my comment was racist does not suddenly,
triumphantly prove the people I was talking about aren't.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 10 Nov 2023 at 15:37:48 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Am 10/11/2023 um 14:44 schrieb Fredxx:
>> On 10/11/2023 09:34, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>> Am 09/11/2023 um 18:02 schrieb
>>> webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>>> Please do not call another poster racist.
>>>
>>>
>>> And why not? Being a racist is not a personal quality or defect. It's
>>> an action that has legal consequences.
>>>
>>> Besides, another poster called the OP a racist but his post was
>>> allowed in.
>>>
>>> How is this style of Goderation not a circlejerk?
>>
>> I think you could have used different words. By referring the post as
>> having a "tinge of racism" should have been fine, judging by other
>> acceptable posts.
>>
>

> And why should I say so? There wasn't just a "tinge of racism". It was
> full-blown good old fashioned English racism.
>
> Because, we know, the English are not racist. Immigrants are.

Because the moderation policy says you are not allowed to abuse other posters.
Whether what you say is true is totally irrelevant. It is still abuse.

For instance, I assume that you regularly and deliberately troll the group,
because no-one could be quite as stupid as you appear to be. But if I tried to
point that out in ulm it would be a breach of the moderation policy.




--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 10 Nov 2023 at 16:37:16 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Am 10/11/2023 um 16:29 schrieb Roger Hayter:
>> On 10 Nov 2023 at 15:37:48 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso"
>> <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10/11/2023 um 14:44 schrieb Fredxx:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 09:34, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>>> Am 09/11/2023 um 18:02 schrieb
>>>>> webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>>>>> Please do not call another poster racist.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And why not? Being a racist is not a personal quality or defect. It's
>>>>> an action that has legal consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, another poster called the OP a racist but his post was
>>>>> allowed in.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is this style of Goderation not a circlejerk?
>>>>
>>>> I think you could have used different words. By referring the post as
>>>> having a "tinge of racism" should have been fine, judging by other
>>>> acceptable posts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And why should I say so? There wasn't just a "tinge of racism". It was
>>> full-blown good old fashioned English racism.
>>>
>>> Because, we know, the English are not racist. Immigrants are.
>>
>> Because the moderation policy says you are not allowed to abuse other posters.
>> Whether what you say is true is totally irrelevant. It is still abuse.
>

> There's no explicit mention in the charter that calling out racism is
> abuse. I see racism where there is and I call it out. Is that abuse? Who
> decides?
>
There is no explicit mention in the policy that accusing people of
paedophilia, theft or failure to wash themselves properly is abuse. Your point
is?

You might also reflect on the important semantic difference between "calling
out" racism by pointing out that a statement made appears to have racist
implications and actually calling another person a racist. It is important
because one may be abusive or not but the other is straight personal abuse.

>>
>> For instance, I assume that you regularly and deliberately troll the group,
>> because no-one could be quite as stupid as you appear to be. But if I tried to
>> point that out in ulm it would be a breach of the moderation policy.
>

> Smart ass comments like yours have regularly appeared on ulm and I have
> been more than once the direct recipient but Goderators still allowed
> them through.

Possibly a function of the whitelist? You might reflect on whether trolling
the group is making you unpopular, however?



--
Roger Hayter

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-11-10, Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Am 10/11/2023 um 16:29 schrieb Roger Hayter:

>> On 10 Nov 2023 at 15:37:48 GMT, "Ottavio Caruso"
>> <ottavio2006...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Am 10/11/2023 um 14:44 schrieb Fredxx:
>>>> On 10/11/2023 09:34, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>>> Am 09/11/2023 um 18:02 schrieb
>>>>> webstump+u...@chiark.greenend.org.uk:
>>>>>> Please do not call another poster racist.
>>>>>
>>>>> And why not? Being a racist is not a personal quality or defect. It's
>>>>> an action that has legal consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, another poster called the OP a racist but his post was
>>>>> allowed in.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is this style of Goderation not a circlejerk?
>>>>
>>>> I think you could have used different words. By referring the post as
>>>> having a "tinge of racism" should have been fine, judging by other
>>>> acceptable posts.
>>>
>>> And why should I say so? There wasn't just a "tinge of racism". It was
>>> full-blown good old fashioned English racism.
>>>
>>> Because, we know, the English are not racist. Immigrants are.
>>
>> Because the moderation policy says you are not allowed to abuse other
>> posters. Whether what you say is true is totally irrelevant. It is
>> still abuse.
>

> There's no explicit mention in the charter that calling out racism is
> abuse. I see racism where there is and I call it out. Is that abuse? Who
> decides?

The moderators? Obviously? That's the entire point of having them.

>> For instance, I assume that you regularly and deliberately troll the
>> group, because no-one could be quite as stupid as you appear to be.
>> But if I tried to point that out in ulm it would be a breach of the
>> moderation policy.
>

> Smart ass comments like yours

It's funny, he called you stupid and you replied with a stupid response.

> have regularly appeared on ulm and I have been more than once the
> direct recipient but Goderators still allowed them through.

No they haven't and no you haven't.

[GB]

FWIW, I think Braverman's remarks have less to do with racism than with
an attempt at personal advancement, although that appears to have gone
down like a lead balloon within the party. I don't think Sunak ever
agreed with what she said.

What Braverman should have done is ask the march organisers to postpone
it a couple of hours, to avoid any risk of clashing with the Remembrance
Day ceremonies. It's a reasonable request, the organisers would have
refused, and she'd have come out of it smelling of roses.

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2023-11-11, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
> FWIW, I think Braverman's remarks have less to do with racism than with
> an attempt at personal advancement, although that appears to have gone
> down like a lead balloon within the party. I don't think Sunak ever
> agreed with what she said.
>
> What Braverman should have done is ask the march organisers to postpone
> it a couple of hours, to avoid any risk of clashing with the Remembrance
> Day ceremonies. It's a reasonable request, the organisers would have
> refused, and she'd have come out of it smelling of roses.

I think you've got that a bit backwards. As far as I'm aware the
organisers have been quite careful with both the timing and the
route of the march to keep it well apart from Remembrance events.
Today isn't even the day when most of those happen, which is
tomorrow, Remembrance Sunday.

[Roger Hayter]

On a purely factual note, the Met already asked them to do that and they have
already agreed. And that was *before* Braverman's outburst.

--
Roger Hayter

[Pamela]

On 10:17 11 Nov 2023, Ottavio Caruso said:

> Am 10/11/2023 um 16:48 schrieb Roger Hayter:
>>
>> Possibly a function of the whitelist? You might reflect on whether
>> trolling the group is making you unpopular, however?
>

> Unpopular to whom? This is not social media, mate, where you put a
> like on your mates. Or do you mean unpopular with the goderators?

Your incessant trolling is getting boring.

[GB]

On 11/11/2023 13:38, Roger Hayter wrote:

>> What Braverman should have done is ask the march organisers to postpone
>> it a couple of hours, to avoid any risk of clashing with the Remembrance
>> Day ceremonies. It's a reasonable request, the organisers would have
>> refused, and she'd have come out of it smelling of roses.
>
> On a purely factual note, the Met already asked them to do that and they have
> already agreed. And that was *before* Braverman's outburst.
>

In the end, the march itself seems to have gone ahead pretty smoothly.
The EDL were out to demonstrate what wonderful people the English can be.

[Steve]

Can be? Nearly always are!. The English are the scum of the earth.
Trouble wherever they go, and still lots of trouble in places where
they historically stuck their arrogant noses in.