So sad

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, you've gotta realize people have the right to be whoever they want—even if that means being thieves or killers. But at the end of the day, their actions are still gonna trigger a massive social backlash.
It’s just like racists. People have the right to be whoever they want and say whatever they please. It's their choice. But at the end of the day, their actions trigger reactions, and whether those reactions are fair is definitely up for debate.

Nicholas King said:If I were to address you in this manner, what exactly would happen?

You don't need this.

Edit: Just to be precise regarding terminology—to "have a right" means to base one's actions (whether spoken or otherwise) upon some written or unwritten law, or perhaps an unwritten "social contract." People can certainly be racists, but they possess absolutely no right to be racists. Anything someone "has a right" to do cannot be subject to any kind of sanction—claiming a "right" to racism would imply that racism itself carries some form of legitimacy.

Edit to the edit: To prevent us from descending into a debate over who holds more authority here, it would be quite helpful if Vojky weighed in on the (non)existence of a "right to racism." In this particular matter, he undoubtedly possesses the greatest 😁.

cosmicrider5 said:And honestly, that’s where the real issue lies: the inappropriate response from the forum leadership. This should have been nipped in the bud immediately. If it had been, this whole farce wouldn't have escalated. I truly hope you can take a long, hard look in the mirror and reflect on that. A real leader knows how to admit when they've messed up.

Daniel Ward87 said:Look, you've gotta realize people have the right to be whoever they want—even if that means being thieves or killers. But at the end of the day, their actions are still gonna trigger a massive social backlash.
It’s just like racists. People have the right to be whoever they want and say whatever they please. It's their choice. But at the end of the day, their actions trigger reactions, and whether those reactions are fair is definitely up for debate.

It’s the same logic applied to racists. People have the right to be whoever they want and say whatever they want. It's their choice. Of course, their actions are subject to consequences. Whether those consequences are warranted is something people can argue about.

coppersailor28 said:Bottom line: they have no right.
"Listen, officer, I have every right to kill this man, and you can wait until then to react according to whatever protocol you claim to follow. Actually, scratch that—you don't have any authority over me. I have the right to kill him."

It’s the same logic applied to racists. People have the right to be whoever they want and say whatever they want. It's their choice. Of course, their actions are subject to consequences. Whether those consequences are warranted is something people can argue about.

Picture this: someone posts some racist garbage on a forum and gets banned—presumably because nobody actually has the right to spew that kind of hate. So, they hop over to a second site, get banned there too. They move to a third. Eventually, they find themselves with nowhere left to go. But suddenly, everyone starts acting like they have a "right" to be a racist? Follow that logic. It doesn't hold up.

Daniel Ward87 said:People don't have the right to kill, rape, or steal. But they do have the right to say they’re going to do those things. As long as it's just words, you can't touch them. That's The law.

To be clear, people have the right to be racists. They can walk down the street being racist. But once those thoughts leave their mouths or turn into actual actions, that's a whole different ballgame. It's worth talking about because it's often subtle rather than blatant. I'm not claiming to be some genius or saying my take is the only truth, but I definitely have the right to my opinion, right?

One last thing: just because something hasn't been penalized doesn't mean an admin, supermod, or moderator supports whatever nonsense a user posted. The management team is here to guide the conversation, not cheerlead for bad behavior. Sure, we make mistakes—just like anyone else does at work—but let me be clear: none of us are backing, encouraging, or justifying that kind of stuff.

Hatred toward Jews (during the era of WWII) is a perfectly normal reaction.....
When a superior nation settles in your country and advances ahead of the native population through their superior upbringing, connections, and traditions—while openly showing off their arrogance—they inevitably threaten that nation's values and wealth......

In that scenario, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction... as is acting upon that hatred.....

Eric Newman75 said:I’m all for the initiative to scrap Judolina once and for all.

Steven Reed said:I agree that racism shouldn't be treated as a taboo subject—it needs to be addressed—but justifying genocide or ethnic cleansing on a public forum? Absolutely not. Not unless the administration steps in with appropriate penalties.
The truth remains—even if the author you're quoting did call Jews a "superior people"—that he also argued that hating them is perfectly logical. A response is required—one that actually meets this hatred with appropriate action..
We all know—or at least I’m fairly certain we do—exactly why Hitler targeted Jews as his primary target for destruction. But this author didn't just lay out the facts regarding how WWII kicked off; they actually went a step further by framing those actions as both logical and necessary. That isn't history—it's pure, unadulterated racism.

It’s obvious to everyone here—Judolino crossed the line. What he posted was nothing short of a direct insult to the community. That being said, it doesn't change the fact that this thread has veered quite heavily into Nazi rhetoric and blatant racism on several occasions—behavior that, on an American public forum in this day and age, really shouldn't go unpunished. 😉

velvetmaker3 said:Look, I didn't see it as an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism, but rather as an attempt to clarify what the Nazis actually believed. And I don't think there's any doubt they believed their reaction was both logical and necessary.

So, it's not that the author thinks the Nazis were right; he's just explaining that the Nazis viewed their own actions as logical and necessary—something we already know regardless of him. Nobody does anything without thinking that what they are doing is logical and necessary. He just wanted to explain the mindset behind why they did what they did; he wasn't glorifying the act itself.

I didn't see any justification of genocide in that thread, and anyone looking for it is just grasping at straws. If that's the most racist post in the whole discussion, then all this moralizing hysteria is honestly just laughable.

Besides, does it even make sense to talk about racism without racists present? What would be the point if only people who agree with each other discussed it? That would be like burying our heads in the sand regarding a phenomenon that isn't exactly rare in the world.
It's better to have both sides debating racism than to have the only allowed conversation be nothing but anti-racist hysteria.

velvetmaker3 said:I didn't see any actual racism in that thread—just some minor undertones, but nothing worth making a massive scene over. The reaction from Judolino was completely unjustifiable. Just a totally useless response.

And then there’s this famous post:

Hatred toward Jews (during the era of WWII) is a perfectly normal reaction.....
When a superior nation settles in your country and advances ahead of the native population through their superior upbringing, connections, and traditions—while openly showing off their arrogance—they inevitably threaten that nation's values and wealth......

In that scenario, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction... as is acting upon that hatred.....

The guy being quoted to "prove" the author's horrific racism felt more like an attempt by the author to explain why Nazism became so widespread back then, rather than an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism as something justifiable.
Besides, in this specific context, Jews aren't being described as inferior, just superior.

Why treat this as a taboo subject? Shouldn't we be able to talk freely about the phenomenon of racism?
There's nothing wrong with discussing it. There’s no reason why fanatic racists, fanatic anti-racists, or people who find both sides ridiculous shouldn't be able to talk openly about why they think what they think. Provided, of course, they can express their views politely, regardless of what they are.
A forum exists for discussion; there shouldn't be any taboo topics. If someone is a racist, they aren't going to stop being one just because someone decides they aren't allowed to be. That doesn't make racism disappear. In this thread, people weren't attacking a racist; they were attacking benign observations and thoughts that would have been labeled as racism, Nazism, or Hitler-worship by the most hysterical forum users.
Totally over the top.

velvetmaker3 said:Look, I didn't see it as an attempt to rehabilitate Nazism, but rather as an attempt to clarify what the Nazis actually believed. And I don't think there's any doubt they believed their reaction was both logical and necessary.

So, it's not that the author thinks the Nazis were right; he's just explaining that the Nazis viewed their own actions as logical and necessary—something we already know regardless of him. Nobody does anything without thinking that what they are doing is logical and necessary. He just wanted to explain the mindset behind why they did what they did; he wasn't glorifying the act itself.

I didn't see any justification of genocide in that thread, and anyone looking for it is just grasping at straws. If that's the most racist post in the whole discussion, then all this moralizing hysteria is honestly just laughable.

Besides, does it even make sense to talk about racism without racists present? What would be the point if only people who agree with each other discussed it? That would be like burying our heads in the sand regarding a phenomenon that isn't exactly rare in the world.
It's better to have both sides debating racism than to have the only allowed conversation be nothing but anti-racist hysteria.

but we actually know that without him telling us.

If that's the most racist post in the thread,

Nicholas King said:And I’m basically giving him a free pass—absolving him of any wrongdoing whatsoever—but where exactly? 😕 Look, I’ll be the first to admit the guy was throwing gasoline on the fire and being straight-up insulting—he absolutely was. But at the end of the day, he was fueling the flames. Now, regarding the moderator's post—it’s sitting right there among the first ten comments in the thread. You can't just hide behind that tired old excuse of "mods aren't online 24/7" when it's that visible. He saw the opening post, and he chose not to step in or issue a sanction. This isn't some minor oversight that requires a user to report it; it’s a failure to act on something clearly presented from the jump.

With that being said, Freedom of speech is something we absolutely have to respect—it’s the bedrock of everything we stand for. I mean, if we start picking and choosing who gets to voice their opinions based on what's considered "acceptable" at any given moment, then we've already lost the plot. It might feel uncomfortable sometimes—and let's be honest, some people say things that are frankly infuriating—but the principle itself remains non-negotiable. If you start chipping away at the right to speak, even for people you personally can't stand, you're essentially inviting the government to decide what your own thoughts are allowed to be. It's a slippery slope, and once you go down it, there's no easy way back. We have to protect the right to dissent, period.And, let’s say, even when it comes to debating racism—the whole "why" and "how" of it all—it's just... well, I suppose we could dive into those discussions too.
So, you can't exactly go around closing, deleting, or handing out punishments to every single thread that dares to touch upon this subject—not if you want to maintain any semblance of fairness.
(...)
That’s what I thought—well, at least that was my initial takeaway when I first sat down to read the opening post. I mean, let's be honest—the way he's positioned is just blatantly racist....

For crying out loud, just make up your mind. 😁

Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m actually advocating for closing things down? Honestly, I have no clue where you're pulling that from—it's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I suppose I should address this—though I'm not entirely sure where to start given how much has been left unsaid. It feels like we're just drifting through these discussions without any real sense of direction, which is... well, let's just say it's frustrating. Maybe I'm being too pedantic, but there seems to be a recurring pattern here that everyone is simply ignoring. It’s almost as if we've collectively decided to look the other way, which—if you ask me—is a bit much. I guess I'll just lay it out plainly, even if it feels like shouting into a void. What kind of topics would even touch upon this—I mean, what specific areas could we possibly dive into to address such a thing?

Sandra Parker3 said:and arrogant (according to him)

Black people are also, in his view, superior because their skin handles the sun better than white skin—which is great if you're looking for field workers in the cotton belt (especially if you don't plan on paying them, but hey, where does it end...)

"Superiority" isn't really a fixed thing, is it?

then he would have just written it that way

but we actually know that without him telling us.

but why spend an entire thread explaining stuff we already know 🤷

If that's the most racist post in the thread,

and there are more? Careful now, I honestly thought there was a completely unjustifiable uproar brewing here🙄

vividtiger922 said:Do you see the subtle distinction between these two sentences?

1. a) "In that case, hatred is a perfectly logical and expected reaction. As is acting in accordance with it."

b) "In that case, hatred is a perfectly logical and necessary reaction. As is acting in accordance with it."

We could also play around with different tenses to change the equation. For instance,

2) "In that case, hatred was a perfectly logical reaction..."

In the first example, we’re looking back at past events and attempting to explain them from our current vantage point. The difference lies entirely in that one word, "necessary." If we weren't discussing "action," perhaps pairing "necessary" with "hatred" might pass... It's unpleasant to read, certainly, but that isn't the same as justifying a crime.

With the second example, the use of the past tense tells us we are describing historical events, yet again, the choice of wording remains the pivot point.

Using the present tense combined with such specific word choices leaves almost no room for doubt, because it's presented as an assertion—a definitive stance. We are talking about very specific occurrences and a very specific timeframe. Historical events. Hatred might be logical to some, but that doesn't make it necessary. And as for taking action... well, action can be neither logical nor necessary.

Now, you might argue this is just nitpicking and that the person simply misspoke, but we are dealing with media here. Written media. A post is a text, a self-contained entity. One is responsible for their own errors that lead to misunderstandings. If they are misinterpreted, the opportunity to correct the record remains. This particular user hasn't taken it. And they certainly had plenty of time and opportunity to do so...

Steven Reed said:First off, I don't see any "hysteria" happening here—certainly not in my own posts.
Second, I have nothing against people expressing their views, provided they respect the Constitution of the US and the laws currently in effect in America. If they fail to do that, they should be sanctioned by the administration.

Regarding how the post was interpreted, silvertiger11 really hit the nail on the head. 😉

Nobody is stopping anyone from drawing conclusions about "Hitler's mindset" or his "reasons" for starting a genocide, but the author of the post we're discussing didn't claim that "it was logical and necessary in their heads"—they stated that the action itself was logical and necessary, presenting it as a personal opinion rather than a historical fact. There is a vital distinction there. If you can't see that... 🤷