What would you like to see less or more of around here?

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Lightknight said:
Lil devils x said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Lil devils x said:
Sexual Harassment Panda said:
Lil devils x said:
The Lunatic said:
I'd just be happy with the forums featuring less SJWs passive aggressive berating people for "Wrongthink".

Generally, the forums would be improved if we actually did something about the members who've been 1-2 warnings away from getting banned for like a year and yet have never changed their attitude.
I would rather just see racist, sexist or bigoted statements moderated so that people wouldn't have to say something. If you allow people to just say racist, sexist or bigoted statements all over your forums, your forums ARE racists, sexist and bigoted and unwelcoming to those who those statements are bigoted against. When you allow such things to run rampant, you are telling people they are not welcome here.
You seem to want non-discussions, presumably moderated by people whom you completely agree with in their estimations of when sexism/racism/bigotry is occurring. Let's acknowledge how incredibly broad "bigotry" is. If we moderate anything that could fall under the umbrella of "bigotry", we shouldn't then act surprised when there's nobody left on the forum.

Just be honest and say that you want a hug-box for yourself and people who happen to agree with you.

Honestly, I think the general tone of the forum, as created by the more prolific posters is likely to be far more off-putting to new-users than an iffy opinion being expressed here and there (unless the target demographic is "whiny babies" that is). I know how often the community glad-hands itself, how often it places itself on a pedestal above all the other forums... But this isn't a place worth celebrating. It barely was before, it definitely isn't now. Unless you think passive-aggressive insults and snark are worth celebrating that is.
not at all, we can have discussions, but just as you are not allowed to insult someone directly, you should not also be allowed to insult someones race, gender, or sex as well, as you are actually insulting them. No one ever asked for a hug box, but the lines should be drawn somewhere otherwise this would be no better than stormfront.
Ok. Willing to have a crack at drawing these lines in a way that doesn't rely on definitions that people disagree on, and that won't lead to people being even more unhappy with the moderation than they already are?
They do not have to give a warning/ ban for every post they moderate. Other sites remove the offensive material with a " mod edit" and an explanation without having to ban all the users unless that user doesn't let it go.
Insulting/ spreading ignorance a persons race, gender, and sex should be included in with the "Don't be a jerk" rules.
Saying things like " girls are attention whore", " Blacks are drug dealers", "gays are pedophiles" or anything ignorant about people should be considered under the "Don't be a jerk" rules. Most sites do not allow for people to promote hate speech, not sure why this one would promote it.
Hate speech is when you advocate violence against a group. You're misusing terms here.
n law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Being told everywhere you go that if you are black you are a criminal is pretty fucking disparaging. No misuse here according to the definition.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
Lil devils x said:
n law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Being told everywhere you go that if you are black you are a criminal is pretty fucking disparaging. No misuse here according to the definition.
I'm sorry for jumping in out of nowhere here, but if you'll allow me:

Is saying "White men are privileged and directly, or subconsciously, oppress minorities" hatespeech, then?
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
s0denone said:
Lil devils x said:
n law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.
Being told everywhere you go that if you are black you are a criminal is pretty fucking disparaging. No misuse here according to the definition.
I'm sorry for jumping in out of nowhere here, but if you'll allow me:

Is saying "White men are privileged and directly, or subconsciously, oppress minorities" hate speech, then?
White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them. Subconsciously oppressing people may be, there would need to be context, but I have yet to ever see anyone say they are subconsciously oppressing people... That is an accusation that would need some sort of evidence. Being privileged isn't something necessarily within someone's control,as that most often starts many generations prior to someone even being born and people really do not have a say in the matter as to whether or not they are privileged. Being privileged isn't an insult , it is a state of society, and may not be limited to one group. People are privileged in all sorts of ways, it isn't an insult. It is kind of like saying " Black men are sexy" .. it isn't insulting them. " attractive people have privileges others do not". None of those are insults meant to disparage someone.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
Lil devils x said:
White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them. Subconsciously oppressing people may be, there would need to be context, but I have yet to ever see anyone say they are subconsciously oppressing people... That is an accusation that would need some sort of evidence. Being privileged isn't something necessarily within someone's control,as that most often starts many generations prior to someone even being born and people really do not have a say in the matter as to whether or not they are privileged. Being privileged isn't an insult , it is a state of society, and may not be limited to one group. People are privileged in all sorts of ways, it isn't an insult. It is kind of like saying " Black men are sexy" .. it isn't insulting them.
Saying "Black men are sexy" would be racist though, wouldn't it? The same as saying "Asians are good at math" or indeed "White people are privileged".

If I take it for granted that you are privileged, I may be less inclined to offer you opportunities, as I believe you will forge your own way regardless, yes? What if I said "Black people are privileged", is that hatespeech?

I'm just curious because your definition seems to include "slogans" that would otherwise be quite benign and classifying them as "hatespeech". Nobody is saying "Kill all white people" or "Lynch all the blacksters", because that is obviously hatespeech - but what about "Asians are good at math"? It is racist, absolutely - is it hatespeech? It isn't hatespeech because it is something positive?

"Black people have good street smarts", is that hatespeech?

I'm sorry for bombarding you here, genuinely, I am just very curious and hope you don't mind! :)

EDIT: I should rephrase the opening sentence. "Black men are sexy" obviously isn't actually racist, but merely an expression of preference. I feel as though I have been touched by the nonsensical bullshit I've been reading from "fat shaming" to "colour shaming". God damn. The rest of the sentence still rings true though, but I digress.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lil devils x said:
n law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Being told everywhere you go that if you are black you are a criminal is pretty fucking disparaging. No misuse here according to the definition.
The definition you provided is just describing how some laws define hate speech around the world and some do prevent people from saying things that might hurt someone's feelings. If there were no laws anywhere in the world making it illegal to hurt a protected group's feelings then that would not be included in that section.

By and large (particularly in the US), hate speech requires a call to action. Otherwise by your definition saying anything anything you ever say negative to a member of any protective group would constitute "hate speech". I mean... you do see that in that definition, right? That it is vague to the point where calling a black pedophile scum would constitute "hate speech" just because the individual also happens to be a member of a protected group. Since being a member of a gender automatically places you in a protected group then almost the entire world would qualify for this.

White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them.
Actually, it does, it provides the mythos that just by being white a person is better off ergo it is more beneficial to hire someone of another race or to enact laws that benefit the poor members of a particular race rather than just all poor people for fear some poor white people many benefit from it too along with equally poor minorities.

Again, who gets the be the judge of what is ignorant racism or what is not? In my book you just perpetuated a racist stereotype. A white homeless man is not more privileged than a black employed man. Class is the ultimate differential.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Barbas said:
Features, articles, videos, reviews, badges, quizzes, competitions, layouts, backgrounds, functionality, go crazy - the more suggestions, the better.
The obvious 'Less of the people I don't like, more of the people I do' sniping aside, there are some clear functionality things that should be looked into.

1. Explanation of why you are flagging a post. This has been brought up before (including by me) and in this thread, and I want to bring it up again. Very long overdue functionality. There are plenty of times I want moderators to look at something, and not necessarily because I want someone warned. Writing my own posts explaining and flagging those is a cumbersome work around.

2. Portions of the community are wildly opposed to like/dislike buttons, but some form of feedback that posts are actually read/witnessed is good for engagement, particularly with the forums slowing to a crawl. No one likes screaming into a void, and I think you see a rise in overly antagonistic posting for the simple reason that it GETS REPLIES.

3. Forum merging. The forums are no longer active enough to have as many sub forums as they do. Stuff like user reviews (which has always been an under-frequented forum) and forum games should probably be returned to the bosom of parent categories. Actual games industry discussion should be returned to gaming, the gulag acknowledged for what it was, and stricter moderation standards applied to the idiocy that was banished there.

4. Find some way to incentivize good community content, perhaps by taking the best of it and making it part of the site's content. You SORT of do that already with the community gallery, but it's hard to find and the idea could be greatly expanded upon. You want to find ways to get people involved/invested in the community, posting regularly, and interacting.

5. Better HTML markup tools on the edit post page. Stuff like youtube plug ins, bolding/italicizing, quoting, etc, etc, should be a simple button push. Writing my own HTML code for posts is just straight silly. There are times these forums feel absurdly antiquated.

6. Relax if not completely abolish your low/no content posting rules. Continue to punish pointless nonsense if you want, but allow for more casual posting. Use the extra flexibility in warning health to be more punitive of caustic/hostile/endlessly combative posters. You desperately need to increase forum traffic. Finding some way to reward active posters with clean health bars would be a good start too.

7. This is ostensibly still a gaming website. Start organizing some gaming leagues/get-togethers with your staff and community. That there's never been Escapist guilds or clans or leagues in ANYTHING I can remember is kind of comical.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
s0denone said:
Lil devils x said:
White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them. Subconsciously oppressing people may be, there would need to be context, but I have yet to ever see anyone say they are subconsciously oppressing people... That is an accusation that would need some sort of evidence. Being privileged isn't something necessarily within someone's control,as that most often starts many generations prior to someone even being born and people really do not have a say in the matter as to whether or not they are privileged. Being privileged isn't an insult , it is a state of society, and may not be limited to one group. People are privileged in all sorts of ways, it isn't an insult. It is kind of like saying " Black men are sexy" .. it isn't insulting them.
Saying "Black men are sexy" would be racist though, wouldn't it? The same as saying "Asians are good at math" or indeed "White people are privileged".

If I take it for granted that you are privileged, I may be less inclined to offer you opportunities, as I believe you will forge your own way regardless, yes? What if I said "Black people are privileged", is that hatespeech?

I'm just curious because your definition seems to include "slogans" that would otherwise be quite benign and classifying them as "hatespeech". Nobody is saying "Kill all white people" or "Lynch all the blacksters", because that is obviously hatespeech - but what about "Asians are good at math"? It is racist, absolutely - is it hatespeech? It isn't hatespeech because it is something positive?

"Black people have good street smarts", is that hatespeech?

I'm sorry for bombarding you here, genuinely, I am just very curious and hope you don't mind! :)

EDIT: I should rephrase the opening sentence. "Black men are sexy" obviously isn't actually racist, but merely an expression of preference. I feel as though I have been touched by the nonsensical bullshit I've been reading from "fat shaming" to "colour shaming". God damn. The rest of the sentence still rings true though, but I digress.
No, those are not the same thing. LOL
Actually none of those statements are the same. Claiming "Jews are good negotiators" or "Asians are good at math" are ignorant stereotypes. Being privileged is neither an opinion, or a stereo type it is a "state of" that they really do not necessarily have control over. How society treats you, the wealth accumulated by society prior to you entering it, and the opportunities given to you may very well beyond your control. You do not really control your state of privilege , society as whole does. Just as they state certain groups are underprivileged they state certain groups are privileged neither of those are disparaging so much as they are describing the state of being for those groups.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
Lil devils x said:
No, those are not the same thing. LOL
Actually none of those statements are the same. Claiming "Jews are good negotiators" or "Asians are good at math" are ignorant stereotypes. Being privileged is neither an opinion, or a stereo type it is a "state of" that they really do not necessarily have control over. How society treats you, the wealth accumulated by society prior to you entering it, and the opportunities given to you may very well beyond your control. You do not really control your state of privilege , society as whole does. Just as they state certain groups are underprivileged they state certain groups are privileged neither of those are disparaging so much as they are describing the state of being for those groups.
But what if the person you tell or describe as being "privileged", for example, doesn't feel as though they are privileged? And you spreading the sentiment that they are privileged (and thus have it easy) may be detrimental to not just their mental health but also their opportunities?
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Lightknight said:
snip

White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them.
Actually, it does, it provides the mythos that just by being white a person is better off ergo it is more beneficial to hire someone of another race or to enact laws that benefit the poor members of a particular race rather than just all poor people for fear some poor white people many benefit from it too along with equally poor minorities.

Again, who gets the be the judge of what is ignorant racism or what is not? In my book you just perpetuated a racist stereotype. A white homeless man is not more privileged than a black employed man. Class is the ultimate differential.
They are better off in multiple ways, That's what privilege is, is not necessary related to individual wealth. People/ groups are privileged/ underprivileged in different ways. No, that isn't a stereotype as that is a state within society. A white homeless man is better off than a black homeless man. A white employed man is better off than a black employed man. At least if you are going to compare something compare apples to apples. That is what Privilege is. Privilege is not an insult.

Under the " dont be a jerk " rules. Not insulting gender, sexes or races should be considered the same as not insulting the person, since that person very well may be the gender sex or race you are insulting.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
s0denone said:
Lil devils x said:
No, those are not the same thing. LOL
Actually none of those statements are the same. Claiming "Jews are good negotiators" or "Asians are good at math" are ignorant stereotypes. Being privileged is neither an opinion, or a stereo type it is a "state of" that they really do not necessarily have control over. How society treats you, the wealth accumulated by society prior to you entering it, and the opportunities given to you may very well beyond your control. You do not really control your state of privilege , society as whole does. Just as they state certain groups are underprivileged they state certain groups are privileged neither of those are disparaging so much as they are describing the state of being for those groups.
But what if the person you tell or describe as being "privileged", for example, doesn't feel as though they are privileged? And you spreading the sentiment that they are privileged (and thus have it easy) may be detrimental to not just their mental health but also their opportunities?
That is like saying you don't feel white, black, rich or poor.. that doesn't change that is how you are still seen by society. There should be lines drawn.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lil devils x said:
Lightknight said:
snip

White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them.
Actually, it does, it provides the mythos that just by being white a person is better off ergo it is more beneficial to hire someone of another race or to enact laws that benefit the poor members of a particular race rather than just all poor people for fear some poor white people many benefit from it too along with equally poor minorities.

Again, who gets the be the judge of what is ignorant racism or what is not? In my book you just perpetuated a racist stereotype. A white homeless man is not more privileged than a black employed man. Class is the ultimate differential.
They are better off in multiple ways,
Great, thank you for continuing a racist stereotype that pitches all white people as being better off than all members of all other groups. Have fun with your fight against other people's racism and bigotry and not your own...

Not insulting gender, sexes or races should be considered the same as not insulting the person, since that person very well may be the gender sex or race you are insulting.
Right, and while we're at it we shouldn't complain about any groups, like pedophiles, because the person we're talking to might very well be a child fucker and who wants to offend them? [/sarcasm]

There is no right not to be offended. Someone telling a lie is just an opportunity for someone else to tell a truth. Censorship of ideas is not the answer.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
Lil devils x said:
That is like saying you don't feel white, black, rich or poor.. that doesn't change that is how you are still seen by society. There should be lines drawn.
So "hatespeech" isn't "hatespeech" if it is something you feel is fact when you present it, rather than your opinion?

I'm sure some people with very aggressive rhetoric of both extremely sexist and racist persuasions would be very happy to hear that.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
s0denone said:
Lil devils x said:
That is like saying you don't feel white, black, rich or poor.. that doesn't change that is how you are still seen by society. There should be lines drawn.
So "hatespeech" isn't "hatespeech" if it is something you feel is fact when you present it, rather than your opinion?

I'm sure some people with very aggressive rhetoric of both extremely sexist and racist persuasions would be very happy to hear that.
That isn't hate speech to say someone is white, black, rich, poor, privileged, underprivileged. It is their state of being and that state of being can limit their opportunities but it isn't that idea of the state of being that is the cause of it, it is just giving it a name. There is a difference. It is like calling the grass green. Yes the grass doesn't get the opportunity to be called pink, but calling the color green green doesn't change that the grass is green, that is just the name we gave to the color. Giving it a name is not hate speech.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
Lightknight said:
Lil devils x said:
Lightknight said:
snip

White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them.
Actually, it does, it provides the mythos that just by being white a person is better off ergo it is more beneficial to hire someone of another race or to enact laws that benefit the poor members of a particular race rather than just all poor people for fear some poor white people many benefit from it too along with equally poor minorities.

Again, who gets the be the judge of what is ignorant racism or what is not? In my book you just perpetuated a racist stereotype. A white homeless man is not more privileged than a black employed man. Class is the ultimate differential.
They are better off in multiple ways,
Great, thank you for continuing a racist stereotype that pitches all white people as being better off than all members of all other groups. Have fun with your fight against other people's racism and bigotry and not your own...

Not insulting gender, sexes or races should be considered the same as not insulting the person, since that person very well may be the gender sex or race you are insulting.
Right, and while we're at it we shouldn't complain about any groups, like pedophiles, because the person we're talking to might very well be a child fucker and who wants to offend them? [/sarcasm]
Sorry, but if you are going to chop posts and ignore the context I am done with this discussion. Compare apples to apples, not apples to orangutans. Race, gender and sex has nothing to do with pedophiles. Compare poor to poor , employed to employed, wealthy to wealthy. YIKeS. Good Day.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
Lil devils x said:
That isn't hate speech to say someone is white, black, rich, poor, privileged, underprivileged. It is their state of being and that state of being can limit their opportunities but it isn't that idea of the state of being that is the cause of it, it is just giving it a name. There is a difference. It is like calling the grass green. Yes the grass doesn't get the opportunity to be called pink, but calling the color green green doesn't change that the grass is green, that is just the name we gave to the color. Giving it a name is not hate speech.
Are you being completely intellectually honest when you equate calling white people "privileged" to grass being called "green"?

It brings me back to my other question though: What if I said "Black people are privileged" would that be hatespeech? Would that be wrong?

If it is wrong, why are you the arbiter of when a statement is true or false when neither has any scientific backing or roots in anything but pathos?
 

Cycloptomese

New member
Jun 4, 2015
313
0
0
Baffle said:
Drathnoxis said:
Also a way to 'like' posts would be pretty good. I wouldn't want to rank posts by likes or keep statistics on it or anything. It's just, sometimes you spend a lot of time writing a post, organizing your thoughts, maybe trying to fit a couple jokes in, and unless somebody quotes you (to tell you how wrong and dumb you are) it just kind of feels like nobody has actually read your post. It'd just be nice to have a way to give people recognition when you have nothing to add to the discussion (especially since quoting them to say "I agree" or "that was funny" is low content and will get you banned.)
I kind of agree with this, but I don't think it should be apparent (to anyone) who has liked the post, as that promotes division and cliques. But sometimes someone has posted something that I've found particularly insightful or clever (or funny) and I've wanted to make a nod in that direction without going down the whole quote-you-to-say-I-agree-now-add-something-of-my-own route.
This feature you guys are mentioning would be of particular use in this exact thread.
 

Lil devils x_v1legacy

More Lego Goats Please!
May 17, 2011
2,728
0
0
s0denone said:
Lil devils x said:
That isn't hate speech to say someone is white, black, rich, poor, privileged, underprivileged. It is their state of being and that state of being can limit their opportunities but it isn't that idea of the state of being that is the cause of it, it is just giving it a name. There is a difference. It is like calling the grass green. Yes the grass doesn't get the opportunity to be called pink, but calling the color green green doesn't change that the grass is green, that is just the name we gave to the color. Giving it a name is not hate speech.
Are you being completely intellectually honest when you equate calling white people "privileged" to grass being called "green"?

It brings me back to my other question though: What if I said "Black people are privileged" would that be hatespeech? Would that be wrong?

If it is wrong, why are you the arbiter of when a statement is true or false when neither has any scientific backing or roots in anything but pathos?
Yes a state of being privileged is like giving a color a name. Black people may be privileged in certain areas, no that is not hate speech, however, they are still not as privileged in society as whites, nor could they possibly be unless we completely restructure the current economy due the accumulation of wealth drastically offsetting the privilege long term.. It is a matter of context. It would not be hate speech or wrong to say " blacks are privileged in multiple ways." just be prepared to explain the ways in which they are.

I do not think asking a site to be more consistent with moderation in terms of sexism, racism, bigotry against LGBT isn't too much to ask, nor do I think they have to go overboard with censorship in order to do so to effectively allow people to feel welcome. It should be covered already under the " don't be a jerk" but it is not always treated the same as being a jerk about other things, such as Anime.. You can be less of a jerk with Anime fans than you can be to Women and Blacks, and that is messed up.
 

s0denone

New member
Apr 25, 2008
1,195
0
0
Lil devils x said:
Yes a state of being privileged is like giving a color a name. Black people may be privileged in certain areas, no that is not hate speech, however, they are still not as privileged in society as whites, nor could they possibly be unless we completely restructure the current economy due the accumulation of wealth drastically offsetting the privilege long term.. It is a matter of context. It would not be hate speech or wrong to say " blacks are privileged in multiple ways." just be prepared to explain the ways in which they are.
So "black people are privileged" is wrong but "black people are privileged in multiple ways" however, is not. That's very interesting.

...But "white people are privileged" is not wrong?
What?

Don't you see how making yourself the arbiter of truth and justice is a mistake?
You are not infallible or without your own biases.

Don't you realise that if you enter rules constituting that things loosely-defined-as hatespeech are disallowed you're opening up Pandora's Box?

I do not think asking a site to be more consistent with moderation in terms of sexism, racism, bigotry against LGBT isn't too much to ask, nor do I think they have to go overboard with censorship in order to do so to effectively allow people to feel welcome. It should be covered already under the " don't be a jerk" but it is not always treated the same as being a jerk about other things, such as Anime.. You can be less of a jerk with Anime fans than you can be to Women and Blacks, and that is messed up.
What!?
Can you give me a ficticious example of this kind of moderation in use? Where "hatespeech" against Anim? fans is punished harder than "hatespeech" against women or black people?
 
Apr 24, 2008
3,912
0
0
s0denone said:
Lil devils x said:
I don't know if S0denone's approach to trying to disseminate what you proposed, Lil devils, would be how I would, but I am grateful in that he actually bothered to try... And in doing so helped make my point.

He (and lightknight too) rightly has questions, because what you propose raises an absurd amount of questions. It really is that simple. That's why I asked you to be specific and try to actually create this set of rules. If you can do so in a way that pleases even these 2 posters, I'll be really bloody impressed.

I'd just like to acknowledge that only a few posts removed from me engaging you (which may have been in a too confrontational manner. If so, I apologise) what's being discussed is the nature of privilege as a means of disseminating what is and isn't racist (I did say there'd be problems). It's just funny. We really have become the buzz-feed of gaming websites.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Lil devils x said:
Lightknight said:
Lil devils x said:
Lightknight said:
snip

White men being privileged, no, that would not qualify, as that is not stating anything that would harm them.
Actually, it does, it provides the mythos that just by being white a person is better off ergo it is more beneficial to hire someone of another race or to enact laws that benefit the poor members of a particular race rather than just all poor people for fear some poor white people many benefit from it too along with equally poor minorities.

Again, who gets the be the judge of what is ignorant racism or what is not? In my book you just perpetuated a racist stereotype. A white homeless man is not more privileged than a black employed man. Class is the ultimate differential.
They are better off in multiple ways,
Great, thank you for continuing a racist stereotype that pitches all white people as being better off than all members of all other groups. Have fun with your fight against other people's racism and bigotry and not your own...

Not insulting gender, sexes or races should be considered the same as not insulting the person, since that person very well may be the gender sex or race you are insulting.
Right, and while we're at it we shouldn't complain about any groups, like pedophiles, because the person we're talking to might very well be a child fucker and who wants to offend them? [/sarcasm]
Sorry, but if you are going to chop posts and ignore the context I am done with this discussion.
You made an overt racist stereotype pertaining to all white males as being better off in many ways than their black counterparts which is not always the case. This is a textbook stereotype. By your own logic here your post should be thrown out regardless of additional context. So you would have me treat you differently than you would have others treated? You and I have had many meaningful and enlightening discussions together, I do not chop up your posts often and here it is to make the point I made. Forgive the bluntness, I'm not trying to be a dick but am trying to make a point.

Compare apples to apples, not apples to orangutans. Race, gender and sex has nothing to do with pedophiles. Compare poor to poor , employed to employed, wealthy to wealthy. YIKeS. Good Day.
Your reasoning for someone not to say something is for fear that saying it to a person who identifies with a group may hurt their feelings. If the danger is that of hurting someone's feelings then that would apply to other areas too. People don't have a right to not be offended. That isn't something to enforce. If you have a problem with someone saying racist comments, that is one thing, but people not being able to say anything negative of any group isn't sound logic when some groups need correction. I'll agree with you that races don't need "correction", they are nebulous demographics with any number of permutations of members that can have any variety of strengths or weaknesses and addressing such a group as a whole is entirely worthless and usually wrong.

But it is not unethical to allow the ignorant to speak. That is the only way they will ever learn. Silencing them will only anger and reinforce their ignorant and potentially dangerous ideologies.

Better the racist you know than the one you don't.

But also, consider this dialogue below:

"The black community has re-enforced actions and values which perpetuate poverty and criminal activity. For the betterment of the community these must be identified and addressed."

Now, would you find that sentiment to be offensively racist and in need of banning? If so, why? If not, why?