So sad

velvetmaker3 said:Completely unjustifiable.

If Black people have skin that's more resistant to the sun, what's the big deal in saying that?

More than unjustifiable, actually.

There's no issue at all if you're talking about health, tanning, UV rays, advantages, drawbacks, or anything like that.

But, if skin resistance is being used as a way to justify slavery or racism, then yeah, we have a problem.

Of course, nobody said that outright, but that exact thesis keeps sliding through these posts—it’s even showing up in three different threads now, don't think I haven't noticed.
ae, you've taken the whole damn burden upon yourself, or 😁

Come on, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by hiding behind "freedom of speech" or anti-racist hysteria. 🤣

This is pure racism propagation, just using a slightly more sophisticated model... the kind where you can't quite pin them down on anything specific; as soon as someone refutes one point, they just swap the premise and start over. It's just verbal gymnastics.
And that's why this isn't just "expressing an opinion," it's promoting ideas, and someone who isn't particularly "stable" could easily fall for this presented "logic."

They did the same thing with Nazism; the only mistake they made was getting a bit too carried away in that one post and going too far, which triggered the backlash. And here we go—the moderators and admins are too afraid to hand out bans, so it's just self-censorship. I don't believe it's anything else. ☕

Honestly, it's a shame the thread got closed. They should have pushed back with actual arguments; it was working well for Apophis, but the moderator failed to do their job and things just boiled over. I see the moderator is grayed out, but I bet they're still typing somewhere. 🙄
So, a ban is pretty much useless in this situation.

velvetmaker3 said:The author isn't some academic who can perfectly articulate every single thought. Honestly, even academics don't always pull it off. You have to understand the spirit of the post.

I wouldn't say he expressed himself poorly; he expressed himself quite clearly, and I understood exactly what he meant. Others, however, failed to grasp it and took the stance that he was justifying crimes as both logical and necessary. I suppose there's a chance I misunderstood him.

What he meant was that in the minds of Nazis, it was justified to crush a successful community that became a target of hatred due to its very success.
When someone hates and possesses the power to suppress the object of that hate, it's logical that they will do so. The Nazis believed this was necessary for a higher purpose, making it essential to them. That's what he was saying; it's not an attempt to glorify it.
If I recall correctly, some user on Reddit said they'd put a bullet in a racist's head, expressing their own hatred toward them. How much does a person like that actually differ from a Nazi? Is there any difference at all? Maybe just in the nuances? Or perhaps just in the target they're projecting that hate toward?

Look, if someone lacks the basic ability to write down what they actually mean, maybe they should just stay home and practice.

It’s not just about the specific quote you're pulling—even though it’s pretty clear what the guy was trying to say there—but the original post itself provided plenty of justification for being deleted.

Freedom of speech and expression is incredibly important, and it's protected under American law. If other laws are used as a pretext to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be exploited like that.

Honestly, you sound just like someone who starts shouting about their constitutional rights the second they get banned. Freedom of speech absolutely does not mean you can say anything you want. We aren't talking about internal forum rules here; we are talking about the US Penal Code. Take a look at Section 174:

(3) Anyone who, with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or hatred based on skin color or gender identity, or for the purpose of disparagement, publicly expresses or delivers ideas regarding the superiority or inferiority of a race, ethnic or religious community, gender, or nation, or ideas regarding superiority or inferiority based on skin color, gender identity, or other characteristics, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to three years.

(4) Anyone who, with the intent described in paragraph 3 of this section, uses a computer system to scatter or otherwise makes available to the public materials that deny, significantly diminish, approve, or justify the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.

Is that still not clear enough for you?

I honestly have no idea how you, being the lone white guy in the frat house, even manage to find the time to post on this forum

It would probably be best if our intellectual elite just got together and drafted an official list of approved topics and mandatory introductory posts; then everyone else could just fall in line, thinking and acting exactly how they're told, which would effectively prevent any more outbursts from those eternal students of social science and political science

Sandra Parker3 said:There's no issue at all if you're talking about health, tanning, UV rays, advantages, drawbacks, or anything like that.

But, if skin resistance is being used as a way to justify slavery or racism, then yeah, we have a problem.

Of course, nobody said that outright, but that exact thesis keeps sliding through these posts—it’s even showing up in three different threads now, don't think I haven't noticed.
ae, you've taken the whole damn burden upon yourself, or 😁

Come on, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes by hiding behind "freedom of speech" or anti-racist hysteria. 🤣

This is pure racism propagation, just using a slightly more sophisticated model... the kind where you can't quite pin them down on anything specific; as soon as someone refutes one point, they just swap the premise and start over. It's just verbal gymnastics.
And that's why this isn't just "expressing an opinion," it's promoting ideas, and someone who isn't particularly "stable" could easily fall for this presented "logic."

They did the same thing with Nazism; the only mistake they made was getting a bit too carried away in that one post and going too far, which triggered the backlash. And here we go—the moderators and admins are too afraid to hand out bans, so it's just self-censorship. I don't believe it's anything else. ☕

Honestly, it's a shame the thread got closed. They should have pushed back with actual arguments; it was working well for Apophis, but the moderator failed to do their job and things just boiled over. I see the moderator is grayed out, but I bet they're still typing somewhere. 🙄
So, a ban is pretty much useless in this situation.

See, that's the issue. When people try to split hairs, they end up being labeled as "something"—in this case, a racist.

Nothing out of the ordinary happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. Taboo topics and taboo ways of thinking shouldn't exist.

If conversation is only permitted when it aligns with official policy, then we're just like North Korea. There, you can only express views that fit the state line.

Freedom of speech is allowed, provided you stay within the bounds of official policy.

Nicholas King said:Look, if someone lacks the basic ability to write down what they actually mean, maybe they should just stay home and practice.

It’s not just about the specific quote you're pulling—even though it’s pretty clear what the guy was trying to say there—but the original post itself provided plenty of justification for being deleted.

Freedom of speech and expression is incredibly important, and it's protected under American law. If other laws are used as a pretext to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be exploited like that.

Honestly, you sound just like someone who starts shouting about their constitutional rights the second they get banned. Freedom of speech absolutely does not mean you can say anything you want. We aren't talking about internal forum rules here; we are talking about the US Penal Code. Take a look at Section 174:

(3) Anyone who, with the intent to spread racial, religious, sexual, national, ethnic hatred, or hatred based on skin color or gender identity, or for the purpose of disparagement, publicly expresses or delivers ideas regarding the superiority or inferiority of a race, ethnic or religious community, gender, or nation, or ideas regarding superiority or inferiority based on skin color, gender identity, or other characteristics, shall be punished by imprisonment from three months to three years.

(4) Anyone who, with the intent described in paragraph 3 of this section, uses a computer system to scatter or otherwise makes available to the public materials that deny, significantly diminish, approve, or justify the crime of genocide or crimes against humanity, shall be punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.

Is that still not clear enough for you?

Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way.
Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?

Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.

If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?

Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?

Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.

Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.

That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?

velvetmaker3 said:Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way.
Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?

Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.

If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?

Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?

Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.

Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.

That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?

Look, if you’re so desperate to keep this little smear campaign going, fine—just say the word, because I honestly don't have the energy to keep going in circles with you.

The thing is, you were the one who started invoking the US legal system and constitutional rights regarding free speech in the first place:

"Free speech and the right to express opinions are incredibly important, and they are protected under American law. If other laws are used as a way to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be abused. "

I laid out exactly what the US legal framework dictates regarding this situation, and yet, suddenly, you've morphed into someone who—in the name of what you claim is "free speech"—is willing to just scoff at the actual laws of the United States and act as if you're somehow above them.

velvetmaker3 said:Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way.
Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?

Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.

If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?

Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?

Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.

Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.

That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?

Actually, I wouldn't say the topic is taboo so much as it is—well, poor. Based on editorial standards, which is really what matters here, bad topics shouldn't be allowed on the forum. Generally speaking, I don't see why we would permit this one—for whom, or for what purpose? Is it meant to educate or spark a debate? If the authors behind these specific theses—assuming that's what we're dealing with—actually care about having a real discussion, they could always try starting a polemic within academic circles. They could ask for opinions from professors at, their chosen university, find an appropriate interlocutor, and then perhaps voice their thoughts on forums later in a more composed manner. I imagine even debate clubs have certain frameworks and guidelines regarding what constitutes a valid topic versus what doesn't—a better or worse selection process, if you will.

And if someone is a pure, unadulterated racist, the question remains the same. For what greater good of humanity should a racist (and I assume we all know the definition) theoretically be granted unlimited freedom of speech? Are there any topics that have been settled by a consensus that they serve the common good? What ceilings, or what misguided paradigms, would racism attempt to shatter? I suppose that is the crux of the matter.

Nicholas King said:Look, if you’re so desperate to keep this little smear campaign going, fine—just say the word, because I honestly don't have the energy to keep going in circles with you.

The thing is, you were the one who started invoking the US legal system and constitutional rights regarding free speech in the first place:

"Free speech and the right to express opinions are incredibly important, and they are protected under American law. If other laws are used as a way to suppress that freedom, then those laws aren't in the spirit of the Constitution. They shouldn't be abused. "

I laid out exactly what the US legal framework dictates regarding this situation, and yet, suddenly, you've morphed into someone who—in the name of what you claim is "free speech"—is willing to just scoff at the actual laws of the United States and act as if you're somehow above them.

Regarding this specific case, US laws don't say anything because there is no hate speech happening here.
But the constitutional right to free speech does apply.

It's so much easier to throw labels around—calling people fascists or racists and whatnot—than it is to just have an actual conversation.

And it's even easier to obstruct free speech once you've finished labeling people.

It’s nice that you’re such a legalist; I assume you’d feel the exact same way even if hate speech were legally mandated.

I’m not using hate speech, so I have no idea where you got the notion that I think I'm above the law.

Besides, I wasn't asking for forum users to be protected by citing constitutional rights; I was reacting to the posts that first labeled certain comments as hate speech, and then started mentioning the possibility of suing Reddit if it isn't stopped and things like that. It's hysteria bordering on paranoia, and it's completely unnecessary. But clearly, these are the kind of people who would love nothing more than to prevent others from freely expressing their views. What are they so afraid of?
Someone should probably ask them if they'd like a bullet to the racist forehead. Now *that* would be hate speech.

The only question left is who here actually wants individuals to have the freedom to express their own opinions and stances, and who wants to limit that through various excuses.

amiggga said:Hate speech on forums isn't handled by debating arguments; it's just flagged, deleted, and punished right from the jump.

Yeah, which is exactly why that anti-racist user got banned—he was practically bordering on hate speech himself.

I didn't notice any actual racists in those quotes.

Lisa Hernandez3 said:Actually, I wouldn't say the topic is taboo so much as it is—well, poor. Based on editorial standards, which is really what matters here, bad topics shouldn't be allowed on the forum. Generally speaking, I don't see why we would permit this one—for whom, or for what purpose? Is it meant to educate or spark a debate? If the authors behind these specific theses—assuming that's what we're dealing with—actually care about having a real discussion, they could always try starting a polemic within academic circles. They could ask for opinions from professors at, their chosen university, find an appropriate interlocutor, and then perhaps voice their thoughts on forums later in a more composed manner. I imagine even debate clubs have certain frameworks and guidelines regarding what constitutes a valid topic versus what doesn't—a better or worse selection process, if you will.

And if someone is a pure, unadulterated racist, the question remains the same. For what greater good of humanity should a racist (and I assume we all know the definition) theoretically be granted unlimited freedom of speech? Are there any topics that have been settled by a consensus that they serve the common good? What ceilings, or what misguided paradigms, would racism attempt to shatter? I suppose that is the crux of the matter.

True, the topic was poorly handled, but it didn't have to be. If people hadn't jumped straight to insults, it could have stabilized into a meaningful conversation.

But those self-proclaimed anti-racists wouldn't allow that; it's way too easy to slap a "hate speech" label on someone else's opinion.

This forum isn't some academic circle; it's just regular people talking about stuff, that's it.
Does every single discussion need to be at an Ivy League level?

Why shouldn't it be? And why should anti-racists have unlimited free speech while racists don't?

It would actually be useful for the anti-racists, too. They'd get a sense of how many racists are actually out there, how they think, and have a chance to actually engage with them to try and win them over to their side. Wouldn't that be beneficial?

Both racism and anti-racism are social science constructs, much like how politics and legislation view them. It’s one way today, but it could be totally different tomorrow.

Just because there's a broad consensus today that racists are evil, doesn't mean it couldn't be the complete opposite in the future.

The "greater good" always leaves someone out, no matter how you slice it. It's impossible for everyone to benefit from actions taken in the name of the common good.

velvetmaker3 said:See, that's the issue. When people try to split hairs, they end up being labeled as "something"—in this case, a racist.

Nothing out of the ordinary happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. Taboo topics and taboo ways of thinking shouldn't exist.

If conversation is only permitted when it aligns with official policy, then we're just like North Korea. There, you can only express views that fit the state line.

Freedom of speech is allowed, provided you stay within the bounds of official policy.

Just be specific, where exactly is the problem? What part of that is the emphasized "that"?

Nothing special really happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. There shouldn't be any taboo topics or forbidden ways of thinking.

I'm not a fan of taboo topics either, at least not when they get shut down right after the opening post—especially an opening post like that one, in my opinion.
It just gives the impression that something is being hidden or covered up, or whatever.
An opening post like that triggers everything, and then depending on how the discussion goes, it gets closed rather than deleted.
I'll say it again: the moderator messed up by being out of their depth here.
Judolino should have been given a warning for that first profane post; if a second one followed, he should've been removed from the thread entirely.
That way, you and people like you wouldn't be pushing him into the spotlight right now.

There’s no such thing as taboo thinking—nobody can stop you from thinking what you want—but if you're in a public space, your freedom ends where someone else's right begins, specifically their right to dignity.

And yeah, hatred was being justified in that thread; people could argue for it or explain it, but they were definitely acting in accordance with it.
Nobody knows any other way to vent hate.🤷

If conversation is only allowed if it aligns with official policy, then we're basically North Korea. Over there, only views that fit the state agenda are permitted.

Freedom of speech is only granted as long as you stick to the official line.

No, we aren't. You're intentionally misrepresenting things; we are nowhere near North Korea.

velvetmaker3 said:Look, this isn't a school where you need to go off and practice, and he actually made himself quite clear; it's just that not everyone interpreted him the same way.
Are you really sure everyone always understands you exactly the way you intend them to? If they don't, should they be practicing their understanding, or is it you who needs to work on being understood?

Sure, freedom of speech has limits, but you and I are coming at this from different angles. I’m advocating for free speech, whereas you aren't really fighting for free speech—you're fighting for the rule of law and the limited freedom of speech that stems from it.

If you were, say, a white person in South Africa during apartheid, would you also play the legalist and quote segregation laws, claiming they must be followed because they are supreme above all else?

Or if a majority in America ever voted in racist laws, would you stand behind them and quote them here just to silence anti-racists?

Freedom of speech, yes, but only if it aligns with official policy, which is how it works in North Korea, too.

Besides, there was no actual spreading of hate here.

That whole racism topic was pretty pointless; there were maybe five or six good posts, and the rest was just filler. But it shouldn't be a taboo subject.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they are a racist or why they believe what they believe. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily beat them with arguments. Or are they just afraid they won't be able to?

He should check if he was actually understood, because if these situations keep happening, then he *is* practicing.🙄
Basically, that guy needs to work on himself, though that's not even the point and is just a distraction from the topic.

Look, free speech has its limits, but we’re coming at this from totally different angles here. I’m out here fighting for actual free speech, whereas you seem more interested in just following the law and sticking to those legal restrictions that hem it all in.

By that logic, Judolino should have been allowed to say whatever he wanted without getting slapped with sanctions, too.

Anyway... it just occurred to me, I think I saw that guy—I haven't double-checked, but I can—sending some really crude stuff via PM earlier...
He was acting all composed, polite, and calm on the thread, despite everything I’ve already pointed out, which you didn't even address.

It’s a classic tactic: baiting people into having reactions like Judolino’s, especially when the moderator isn't doing their job.

Besides, there wasn't any hate speech being spread.

Hardly. It was straight-up justifying and promoting hate as if it were just some normal reaction that leads to perfectly normal behavior when someone "gets in your way."
Using the Holocaust and racism as examples to back that up, too.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they hold those views or what they believe in. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily shut them down with better arguments. Or maybe they're just afraid they won't be able to?

They aren't afraid.
I'll say it again: this is entirely on the moderator, and honestly, the admin too. In a stroke of pure irony, they handed a hate speech ban to the one person who was actually screaming against the justification of hate.🙄
(And yeah, he was screaming, because apparently nobody wanted to hear a rational tone.)

velvetmaker3 said:Yeah, which is exactly why that anti-racist user got banned—he was practically bordering on hate speech himself.

I didn't notice any actual racists in those quotes.

Nah, that's not it. He was just being desperately vulgar and blunt.

Unlike that other guy, who was basically just trying to carve out some breathing room for his racist and Nazi ways of thinking and acting.

I didn't even catch that guy being a so-called racist.

Yeah, they’re obsessed with Black people, who just can't seem to reach a civilized level. They think Black people are superior to white people because they reproduce faster and more efficiently, and since their skin is resistant to the sun, they represent a threat to those who have every right to be concerned.🙄 They claim they're "threatened"... please. How exactly are they at risk when they're sitting right at the top of the food chain? 🙄It’s pretty obvious they’re going to shut down those first ones, isn't it? Follow that logic.

Apply all of this to the Jews as well.

I know those tactics all too well. Bye.

Sandra Parker3 said:Just be specific, where exactly is the problem? What part of that is the emphasized "that"?

Nothing special really happened in that thread, other than one user insulting others. There shouldn't be any taboo topics or forbidden ways of thinking.

I'm not a fan of taboo topics either, at least not when they get shut down right after the opening post—especially an opening post like that one, in my opinion.
It just gives the impression that something is being hidden or covered up, or whatever.
An opening post like that triggers everything, and then depending on how the discussion goes, it gets closed rather than deleted.
I'll say it again: the moderator messed up by being out of their depth here.
Judolino should have been given a warning for that first profane post; if a second one followed, he should've been removed from the thread entirely.
That way, you and people like you wouldn't be pushing him into the spotlight right now.

There’s no such thing as taboo thinking—nobody can stop you from thinking what you want—but if you're in a public space, your freedom ends where someone else's right begins, specifically their right to dignity.

And yeah, hatred was being justified in that thread; people could argue for it or explain it, but they were definitely acting in accordance with it.
Nobody knows any other way to vent hate.🤷

If conversation is only allowed if it aligns with official policy, then we're basically North Korea. Over there, only views that fit the state agenda are permitted.

Freedom of speech is only granted as long as you stick to the official line.

No, we aren't. You're intentionally misrepresenting things; we are nowhere near North Korea.

He should check if he was actually understood, because if these situations keep happening, then he *is* practicing.🙄
Basically, that guy needs to work on himself, though that's not even the point and is just a distraction from the topic.

Look, free speech has its limits, but we’re coming at this from totally different angles here. I’m out here fighting for actual free speech, whereas you seem more interested in just following the law and sticking to those legal restrictions that hem it all in.

By that logic, Judolino should have been allowed to say whatever he wanted without getting slapped with sanctions, too.

Anyway... it just occurred to me, I think I saw that guy—I haven't double-checked, but I can—sending some really crude stuff via PM earlier...
He was acting all composed, polite, and calm on the thread, despite everything I’ve already pointed out, which you didn't even address.

It’s a classic tactic: baiting people into having reactions like Judolino’s, especially when the moderator isn't doing their job.

Besides, there wasn't any hate speech being spread.

Hardly. It was straight-up justifying and promoting hate as if it were just some normal reaction that leads to perfectly normal behavior when someone "gets in your way."
Using the Holocaust and racism as examples to back that up, too.

If someone is a racist, it's perfectly fine for them to explain why they hold those views or what they believe in. If they're wrong, anti-racists can easily shut them down with better arguments. Or maybe they're just afraid they won't be able to?

They aren't afraid.
I'll say it again: this is entirely on the moderator, and honestly, the admin too. In a stroke of pure irony, they handed a hate speech ban to the one person who was actually screaming against the justification of hate.🙄
(And yeah, he was screaming, because apparently nobody wanted to hear a rational tone.)

Who is "like me"? Who exactly are these people similar to me?

That sounds like a favorite little catchphrase used by labelers.

Can dignity even be defended that way? Does he even need that kind of defense?
Was dignity even threatened in this specific thread? And whose?

You think we're far away, but we're closer than you think—not just us, but many people west of here too. There are very few places in the world where you can freely say something that doesn't align with the political consensus of the ruling elite.
Politics in North Korea and in Western democracies both dictate what can and cannot be said. The only difference is the specific topics where free speech is restricted. And it's always in the name of higher reasons, usually for the "greater good."

Judolino insulted his interlocutors, which is a completely different matter. He can express his views without being insulting.

I haven't been studying who was playing what role there, but I saw the thread while it was on the second page and followed it a bit. I wasn't interested enough to jump in, just enough to see how it would unfold. Nothing particularly racist happened there; what caught my eye was the excessive, totally unnecessary, and unjustified insulting of anti-racist users, followed by a user with a few decent posts and nothing else I could single out. That's why the uproar over this thread surprises me. It was pure anti-racist hysteria over nothing.

He didn't have anything to scream about; he's just blowing smoke in the cold.

Sandra Parker3 said:Nah, that's not it. He was just being desperately vulgar and blunt.

Unlike that other guy, who was basically just trying to carve out some breathing room for his racist and Nazi ways of thinking and acting.

I didn't even catch that guy being a so-called racist.

Yeah, they’re obsessed with Black people, who just can't seem to reach a civilized level. They think Black people are superior to white people because they reproduce faster and more efficiently, and since their skin is resistant to the sun, they represent a threat to those who have every right to be concerned.🙄 They claim they're "threatened"... please. How exactly are they at risk when they're sitting right at the top of the food chain? 🙄It’s pretty obvious they’re going to shut down those first ones, isn't it? Follow that logic.

Apply all of this to the Jews as well.

I know those tactics all too well. Bye.

Nobody wanted to suppress anyone; you're exaggerating. And you're doing it easily, way too easily.
It's not right to slap a stigma like that on someone.

velvetmaker3 said:Who is "like me"? Who exactly are these people similar to me?

That sounds like a favorite little catchphrase used by labelers.

Can dignity even be defended that way? Does he even need that kind of defense?
Was dignity even threatened in this specific thread? And whose?

You think we're far away, but we're closer than you think—not just us, but many people west of here too. There are very few places in the world where you can freely say something that doesn't align with the political consensus of the ruling elite.
Politics in North Korea and in Western democracies both dictate what can and cannot be said. The only difference is the specific topics where free speech is restricted. And it's always in the name of higher reasons, usually for the "greater good."

Judolino insulted his interlocutors, which is a completely different matter. He can express his views without being insulting.

I haven't been studying who was playing what role there, but I saw the thread while it was on the second page and followed it a bit. I wasn't interested enough to jump in, just enough to see how it would unfold. Nothing particularly racist happened there; what caught my eye was the excessive, totally unnecessary, and unjustified insulting of anti-racist users, followed by a user with a few decent posts and nothing else I could single out. That's why the uproar over this thread surprises me. It was pure anti-racist hysteria over nothing.

He didn't have anything to scream about; he's just blowing smoke in the cold.

The ones who are using Judolina right now to push her to the forefront just to create a smoke screen for the actual main topic.

Can dignity even be defended that way? Does he even need such a defense?
Was anyone's dignity actually compromised regarding the specific topic at hand? And whose?

You can defend it within the law, obviously. You defend the law and the dignity of the state...

Yeah, it was compromised.

It seems to me we aren't that far off; we're closer than you think, and not just us, but many places west of here too. There are very few places in the world where you can freely say something that doesn't align with the political consensus of the ruling elite.
Politics in both Korea and Western democracies dictate what can and cannot be said. They just differ on which topics have restricted freedom of speech. It's always done in the name of higher causes, usually for the "greater good."

I'll say it again, we are nowhere near Korea.
And... it’s irrelevant to the current situation, so you can't compare us based on that.

Judolina insulted her interlocutors, and that's a whole different thing. Someone can express their view without being insulting.

Judolina is a side character; she could have avoided it, but she didn't, fine.

She cursed out her conversation partners, while some others were "cursing" entire races and nations.

I haven't studied who played what role there, but I saw the thread when it was on page two and followed it a bit. I wasn't interested enough to jump in, but just enough to see how it would play out. Nothing particularly racist happened there; what caught my eye was the excessive and completely unjustifiable insults toward the anti-racist users, then some user from the divisions with a couple of decent posts, and nothing else worth mentioning. So, I'm surprised by the uproar surrounding this thread. Pure anti-racist hysteria over nothing.

There was nothing to scream about; they're just shouting into the wind.

You're missing the point.🤷

edit:

velvetmaker3 said:Nobody wanted to suppress anyone; you're exaggerating. And you're doing it easily, way too easily.
It's not right to slap a stigma like that on someone.

I was specifically talking about Nazis and Jews, and you know that perfectly well

you're twisting my words completely
and I'm really not a fan of that......

Sandra Parker3 said:The ones who are using Judolina right now to push her to the forefront just to create a smoke screen for the actual main topic.

Can dignity even be defended that way? Does he even need such a defense?
Was anyone's dignity actually compromised regarding the specific topic at hand? And whose?

You can defend it within the law, obviously. You defend the law and the dignity of the state...

Yeah, it was compromised.

It seems to me we aren't that far off; we're closer than you think, and not just us, but many places west of here too. There are very few places in the world where you can freely say something that doesn't align with the political consensus of the ruling elite.
Politics in both Korea and Western democracies dictate what can and cannot be said. They just differ on which topics have restricted freedom of speech. It's always done in the name of higher causes, usually for the "greater good."

I'll say it again, we are nowhere near Korea.
And... it’s irrelevant to the current situation, so you can't compare us based on that.

Judolina insulted her interlocutors, and that's a whole different thing. Someone can express their view without being insulting.

Judolina is a side character; she could have avoided it, but she didn't, fine.

She cursed out her conversation partners, while some others were "cursing" entire races and nations.

I haven't studied who played what role there, but I saw the thread when it was on page two and followed it a bit. I wasn't interested enough to jump in, but just enough to see how it would play out. Nothing particularly racist happened there; what caught my eye was the excessive and completely unjustifiable insults toward the anti-racist users, then some user from the divisions with a couple of decent posts, and nothing else worth mentioning. So, I'm surprised by the uproar surrounding this thread. Pure anti-racist hysteria over nothing.

There was nothing to scream about; they're just shouting into the wind.

You're missing the point.🤷

edit:

I was specifically talking about Nazis and Jews, and you know that perfectly well

you're twisting my words completely
and I'm really not a fan of that......

He is in the spotlight, and it's because anti-racists put him there, treating him like some heroic victim who fell on the front lines of defense. I'm not the one who pushed him into the spotlight. As for why that happened, I won't speculate.

No, it wasn't threatened.

It's much closer than you think, and not just to us, but to many people further West than we are.

You talked about Black people and racists, then you said to shift all this onto Jews, and you got a green light—basically, you missed the whole point.

velvetmaker3 said:He is in the spotlight, and it's because anti-racists put him there, treating him like some heroic victim who fell on the front lines of defense. I'm not the one who pushed him into the spotlight. As for why that happened, I won't speculate.

No, it wasn't threatened.

It's much closer than you think, and not just to us, but to many people further West than we are.

You talked about Black people and racists, then you said to shift all this onto Jews, and you got a green light—basically, you missed the whole point.

Sure you aren't, then why do you keep bringing him up constantly?

I wouldn't speculate on why that is.

and is 😁

No, it wasn't threatened.

It's obvious it was, considering how Black people are portrayed as a burden to civilization while Jews are blamed for the Holocaust just for daring to be better.🙄

btw, that sentence about "extinguishing" appeared somewhere, but I really don't feel like digging through old threads to prove it to you—it feels pointless at this stage.

You were talking about Black people and racists, then said to shift all of this onto Jews, and you got the green light—basically, you missed the point.

I didn't miss anything.
I was paraphrasing the whole narrative involving Black people, racists, and Jews... and you responded as if I were talking about the people in this specific thread.

You failed to register more than half of what I actually wrote (that's my polite way of putting it), and now you're twisting the rest or just repeating yourself.

How am I supposed to talk to you... do you even have a brother? 🤣

I've had enough of you and this entire site.

Locked?😕

velvetmaker3 said:True, the topic was poorly handled, but it didn't have to be. If people hadn't jumped straight to insults, it could have stabilized into a meaningful conversation.

But those self-proclaimed anti-racists wouldn't allow that; it's way too easy to slap a "hate speech" label on someone else's opinion.

This forum isn't some academic circle; it's just regular people talking about stuff, that's it.
Does every single discussion need to be at an Ivy League level?

Why shouldn't it be? And why should anti-racists have unlimited free speech while racists don't?

It would actually be useful for the anti-racists, too. They'd get a sense of how many racists are actually out there, how they think, and have a chance to actually engage with them to try and win them over to their side. Wouldn't that be beneficial?

Both racism and anti-racism are social science constructs, much like how politics and legislation view them. It’s one way today, but it could be totally different tomorrow.

Just because there's a broad consensus today that racists are evil, doesn't mean it couldn't be the complete opposite in the future.

The "greater good" always leaves someone out, no matter how you slice it. It's impossible for everyone to benefit from actions taken in the name of the common good.

Would the same thing work outside the safety of online anonymity? That's why I brought up exchanging views with subject matter experts, since that implies stepping away from being anonymous and moving toward more public communication. Personally, I don't think we should treat general, surface-level topics with such weight, but when it comes to serious arguments—real theses—they really ought to be presented seriously. Ideally right from the very first post.

I shortened the rest of the quote, even though you were pretty clear enough, but I didn't see much point in dwelling on speculations or getting carried away by all that grandiosity.

Sandra Parker3 said:Sure you aren't, then why do you keep bringing him up constantly?

I wouldn't speculate on why that is.

and is 😁

No, it wasn't threatened.

It's obvious it was, considering how Black people are portrayed as a burden to civilization while Jews are blamed for the Holocaust just for daring to be better.🙄

btw, that sentence about "extinguishing" appeared somewhere, but I really don't feel like digging through old threads to prove it to you—it feels pointless at this stage.

You were talking about Black people and racists, then said to shift all of this onto Jews, and you got the green light—basically, you missed the point.

I didn't miss anything.
I was paraphrasing the whole narrative involving Black people, racists, and Jews... and you responded as if I were talking about the people in this specific thread.

You failed to register more than half of what I actually wrote (that's my polite way of putting it), and now you're twisting the rest or just repeating yourself.

How am I supposed to talk to you... do you even have a brother? 🤣

I've had enough of you and this entire site.

You think you're some kind of comedian, don't you?

Did you even bother reading the opening post for this thread? It doesn't look like it.

Go read it, and then take a look at how many posts were already here before I even chimed in.

it's obvious, because he presents Black people as a burden to civilization, and blames Jews for the Holocaust just because they dared to be better.🙄

By the way, that sentence about "extinguishing" was mentioned somewhere, but I really don't feel like proving it to you (maybe it was in a deleted thread); there's just no point anymore.

I didn't get anything wrong.
I was just paraphrasing the story about Black people, racists, and Jews... and you responded to me as if I were talking about the people participating in this thread.

You didn't register more than half of what I wrote (if I'm being honest), and for everything else, you either twist my words or just repeat yourself.

How am I supposed to ask you...? Anyway, do you even have a brother? 🤣

I'm done with you and this whole site.

And I'm done with people who make drama out of absolutely nothing.