[Report] Racism in Lazarus GP Thread

[East Posadas]

Prima facie, Galiantus III -- quoted below -- made a rather racist comment in the, "Lazarus - Wolfism Spreads to the Philippines!", thread: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=421299&start=350#wrap

This post is just a bunch of dog-breath. Philippines doesn't want you in their region, except maybe to eat. "Wolfism" is just another name for totalitarianism. Stop pretending you are doing anything good, because you have no moral claim that can justify your gross infringement on the regional sovereignty of Philippines.

[...]

That's hardly "Wolfism growing". It's more likely that the natives of the region just dislike so-called "Wolfism" even more now. So "Wolfism Declining" would easily be a more accurate title.

It's rather difficult to read the aforesaid quote by Galiantus III in a charitable light that wouldn't read the bolded text therein in anything but a racist fashion; for, the consumption of canines is a stereotype of East Asians within the West, and clearly the implication made by Galiantus III.

[USS Monitor]

Racism is not against site rules. Some racist posts fall afoul of our rules on trolling, but I'm not seeing that here. Dog-eating isn't inherently negative.

[East Posadas]

Racism is not against site rules. Some racist posts fall afoul of our rules on trolling, but I'm not seeing that here.

If we look at violet has stated on, "Acceptable Flag Policy", then it's easy to extrapolate to forum post behaviour and content. Specifically, to quote [violet],

As per the FAQ, flags are subject to the same minimum standard as any other content: they can't be obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, defamatory, spam, or have the primary aim of offending or upsetting people.

[...]

If a flag celebrates death, slavery, violence, or other not-nice things against real people, that's malicious, and will have the primary effect of offending.

Given that the above Galiantus III statement indicates that Filipinos are people that consume dog-meat -- the biggest issue being that it is a quality to Filipinos and people of East Asian descent consume dog-meat --, and the quoted material, I think it easily follows that the statement falls within the criteria of being malicious. Furthermore, if we were to examine the criteria of trolling as per, "Forbidden Actions",

Trolling/Baiting/Gloating: Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example)... Honest belief does not excuse trolling.

then, it would seem it would follow that saying, to quote Galiantus III, "Philippines doesn't want you in their region, except maybe to eat", would be within the parameters of trolling given that they're easily stating that the only reason why people in the Philippines would be interested in the presence of dogs would be to eat them. If we were use the quoted example of "Jews", or people of African descent, or any other particular ethnic group, and a dish that's stereotypically associated with them, then I'd question if this wouldn't be seen as trolling -- let alone prejudice.

Dog-eating isn't inherently negative.

Firstly, the statement of racism isn't about dog-eating in the abstract, but the articulation of East Asians qua dog-eaters that's rather racist. Secondly, this isn't about meta-ethics specifically, but if we go there, then it could easily follow, "nothing is inherently negative"; however, this isn't what's in question; for, it is easy to articulate a normative standard of ethics without an appeal to an inherit nature to a particular object or behaviour being good, bad, orange, and/or blue; rather, what's in question is if a particular behaviour/claim falls within a category of being racist, and given what I stated above, I think it follows rather easily.

[USS Monitor]

Forum posts and flags have different rules, and mild stereotyping is allowed. I'll go ahead and fire a 2nd opinion flare, though.

[Ransium]

I also do not find it to be actionable.

[East Posadas]

Forum posts and flags have different rules, and mild stereotyping is allowed. I'll go ahead and fire a 2nd opinion flare, though.

Assuming that the rules are hermetically sealed from each other, and there is no reasonable way to infer intention of the spirit of the rules, that doesn't exactly object to two-thirds of the rest of the post with respect to the first bit of your sentence. However, stating that dog-eating as a mild stereotype of East Asians is extremely absurd to me; for, would you say the same thing for other ethnic groups, e.g.; people of African-descent only enjoy the presence of chickens due to the absurd and toxic stereotype that said group of people enjoy chicken being cooked in a particular way in some a priori sense that holds for all members to be a "mild [form of] stereotyping?"

[Ransium]

This isn't a debate, two mods have ruled the post non-actionable, we're done here. Locked.