Posting Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a protected group.

[missmissy 38]

The protecterd groups are race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity. It would seem to me that gun owners are the only ones not protected and therefore, that would be the only post not in violation of TOS.

[Scott & Lai 12]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

[missmissy 38]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

That wasn't the question posed.

It is against TOS to "Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a protected group." Which of the following arguments, made by certain posters in the Off Topic forum, MOST violates that section of TOS?

I don't think it is okay to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action agains ANYONE, but that wasn't what was asked.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

Like blonds????

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

Per TOS, yes.

By the way, VJ members by a narrow margin are voting in favor of gun owners instead of homosexuals. Interesting outcome.

[Scott & Lai 12]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

That wasn't the question posed.

It is against TOS to "Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a protected group." Which of the following arguments, made by certain posters in the Off Topic forum, MOST violates that section of TOS?

I don't think it is okay to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action agains ANYONE, but that wasn't what was asked.

I'm well aware what the original question was, thank you. I was asking a related question.

[missmissy 38]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

That wasn't the question posed.

It is against TOS to "Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a protected group." Which of the following arguments, made by certain posters in the Off Topic forum, MOST violates that section of TOS?

I don't think it is okay to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action agains ANYONE, but that wasn't what was asked.

I'm well aware what the original question was, thank you. I was asking a related question.

I don't think it is okay to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action agains ANYONE, protected group or not

[childress_london 3]

What is a protected group? Is that everyone except for white people?

[panamania79 2]

MY VOTE: The argument made that asian men have smaller genitalia and are thus inferior to other men.

THis is not based on facts. IT's like calling blondes dumb. It is said to attack asians.

But, but they are

I know.That summer I dyed my hair honey blonde,I felt myself getting dumb

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What is a protected group? Is that everyone except for white people?

How did I miss this gem?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

What is a protected group? Is that everyone except for white people?

How did I miss this gem?

Time for another poll, in true A.J. style?

[justashooter 430]

The argument that homosexuals do not deserve equal rights, including the right to marry. People have different views on homosexuality. Specially if you're religious, you'll not understand homosexuality. Saying that they don't deserve this or that is their opinion, therefore it doesn't violate TOS, people are entitled to their on opinions.

The argument that women must have a certain body type.

It's their preference. Most people have a certain body type preference, therefore it doesn't violate TOS.

The argument that blacks and hispanics are fairly targeted by police because they commit a disproportionate number of crimes.

It's based on facts. you're not attacking people when mentioning facts.

MY VOTE: The argument made that asian men have smaller genitalia and are thus inferior to other men.

THis is not based on facts. IT's like calling blondes dumb. It is said to attack asians.

The argument that gun owners as a group are culpable, each time a crime involving a gun occurs.

It's their opinion. It's like legalizing drugs, some people believe that it will increase consumption, and some people think it'll decrease crimes related to drug traffic.

+100 on this post, except to note that asian men do have shorter schwangs. i have lived in china a long time, and have been invited to many business clubs where men sit around naked in roman style spas and drink tea while hot naked serving girls rub oil on them and such. seen it too many times with chinese guys. also seen a bunch of japanese guys in a hotel spa in beijing. not making this stuff up.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, is it ok to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a non-protected group?

That wasn't the question posed.

It is against TOS to "Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against members of a protected group." Which of the following arguments, made by certain posters in the Off Topic forum, MOST violates that section of TOS?

I don't think it is okay to degrade, intimidate, incite violence or prejudicial action agains ANYONE, but that wasn't what was asked.

Of course it isn't - Its not OK for anyone to indulge in this sort of thing.

But OK - you're looking for political equivalence here. For sake of a protracted (and pointless) argument about political correctness - there IS a reason why certain groups are given a "protected" status. Its because historically they have been subjected to prejudice and persecution (from racist individuals and communities to political policy) - and as a result we are generally more sensitive to it.

[MsAnn 0]

My question is... did people really post these topics in the OT forum?

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

My question is... did people really post these topics in the OT forum?

you're new here, eh?