• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

Regarding when does teeds get banned, I suppose I've already made my views on that matter pretty clear.

Teeder is just a distraction and attention-whore that sometimes vaguely ventures into offensive territory though. Alfamale is on a different level. If teeds ever starts posting links to hate websites though, or starts suggesting that we deny certain ethnic groups their rights and consider shipping them all of en masse to another country, I'd certainly revise that opinion.

And really, I think corky put it succinctly when he said that most of us don't want to talk puck with a clansman. That's really what it boils down to. While there is apparantly a large number of people on this board that want to entertain teeder's attention-seeking behaviour, KB's rantings and anti-religious debates in general, I think the vast majority of us are not interested in having discussions with a neo-Nazi/white supremacist/clansman/whatever you want to call him, and don't want that kind of presence on this board.
 
worm said:
Who would have guessed HA would have the best post on the topic. Great call HA.

I tend to agree with ME that the line being drawn is subjective but I am fine with mods editing posts (alfas and others) for a bit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually sent a message to him acknowledging as much. The way he systematically exposed Alfamale's bigoted viewpoints through a gradual series of introspective questions was quite brilliant.

He got the man to expose himself rather than keeping up the pseudo-intellectual thinly-veiled facade that he was an academic who formulated his position through legitimate research.
 
hockeylover said:
I guess I'm just trying to figure out why it's such a big deal to you that a message board bans a poster that is posting something that offends most of the board. Most people don't want to have discussions with people who post links that are sympathetic to the Nazis.
Click to expand...

worm said:
Who would have guessed HA would have the best post on the topic. Great call HA.

I tend to agree with ME that the line being drawn is subjective but I am fine with mods editing posts (alfas and others) for a bit.
Click to expand...

The line has to be drawn someplace and I'm more than comfortable with that line being drawn at the exclusion of neo-Nazis and people who publicly call for the deportation of an entire ethnic group from their homes.
 
mqdefault.jpg

All I can picture now is this.
 
MindzEye said:
Yep. Absolutely gross view of the world, but one that should be protected speech.

So when do we ban KB for his anti homosexual hate speech ladies and gents?
Click to expand...

are you serious with this? is THIS what we've come to now? protecting the institution of marriage as its been constructed for centuries is now "anti-homosexual hate speech?"

a new low, even for you.
 
Well no, he's right: your continued refusal to acknowledge equal rights for homosexuals in Canada (which includes equal marriage rights) is pretty appalling.
 
It's not hate speech. It's just bigoted. I, along with many others on this forum, choose to call him out on that repulsive position though.
 
MindzEye said:
I'm pretty sure you would have offended any Muslim who reads this site at some point in time, and they would make similar arguments to what are being made against Alfa. Now we're just arguing over details, not that offensive comments about race, creed, colour or religion have been made.

I didn't think much of it other than a weird play on words, as the term is spelt "seig heil". Though his opinions laid bare over the last 24 hours have clarified somethings there.
Click to expand...

problem with discussions about "jews" is that issues of race and religion can become conflated.

I don't think anyone would have an issue with anyone condemning radical jewish terrorists, just like muslim jihadists.

When a guy with a Sig, Heil signature starts talking about Jew Blood, though, we've crossed a line.

Even in our discussions here, whenever an anti-muslim argument has edged towards "rounding up all arabs and deporting them", people have backtracked from that position quite quickly, as far as I can remember.

As far as Teeds goes, his whirlwhind of conspiracies touches so many bases that noone could seriously take any of it as racial hatred.

I do agree with your parallel to KB limiting the rights of homosexuals, though - but at least that is a current and vital debate - a battle that needs to be fought right now, and here is as good as any a place. We already converted corksens on the issue, and it's one where we need to continue converting people.

But anyone who actually starts taking a Jew Blood position in today's day and age is beyond conversion, and it's not a debate that needs to be validated any longer.
 
worm said:
Who would have guessed HA would have the best post on the topic. Great call HA.
Click to expand...

BITE ME! LOL!

I've done this on other boards and it's part of my real life past.

Of course, that doesn't get me any dates...but it comes in handy when finding out if the five year old stole the ice cream.....or harbored hate.


(Just for the record, there was a post in Greek on the beginning of the exchange to my fellow Jews, err Greek mods/admins. It was my intent to bring the garbage to the curb.....)
 
Last edited:
JaysCyYoung said:
Well no, he's right: your continued refusal to acknowledge equal rights for homosexuals in Canada (which includes equal marriage rights) is pretty appalling.
Click to expand...

I completely, utterly reject your labelling the defence of traditional marriage as "hate speech". it simply isn't, and the motivation behind doing that is to disparage your opponents to make your own argument look stronger. its one of the oldest, laziest tricks in the book, and I reject it.
 
I never labelled what you said as hate speech. Not once. So you can go on and continue to reject something that you made up in your mind.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
I completely, utterly reject your labelling the defence of traditional marriage as "hate speech". it simply isn't, and the motivation behind doing that is to disparage your opponents to make your own argument look stronger. its one of the oldest, laziest tricks in the book, and I reject it.
Click to expand...

now your defence of Israel which you turn into an attack on arabs and "the muslims" is hate speech
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
I completely, utterly reject your labelling the defence of traditional marriage as "hate speech". it simply isn't, and the motivation behind doing that is to disparage your opponents to make your own argument look stronger. its one of the oldest, laziest tricks in the book, and I reject it.
Click to expand...

I completely, utterly reject your labelling your discriminatory hate speech of gays ruining society as "defense of marriage". It simply isn't, and the motivation behind doing that is to try to disguise and justify your bigotry and make it sound like a credible argument, which it most certainly is not. its the oldest, laziest, and most cynical trick in the book, and I reject it.

your position on gays is determined entirely by what your holy book tells you to think, not by some pathetic attempt to attribute societal ills to a sexual preference.
 
zeke said:
I completely, utterly reject your labelling your discriminatory hate speech of gays ruining society as "defense of marriage". It simply isn't, and the motivation behind doing that is to try to disguise and justify your bigotry and make it sound like a credible argument, which it most certainly is not. its the oldest, laziest, and most cynical trick in the book, and I reject it.

your position on gays is determined entirely by what your holy book tells you to think, not by some pathetic attempt to attribute societal ills to a sexual preference.
Click to expand...

Is bigotry and discrimination hate?

How broadly do you want to define it?

Because the broader you define it, the more it over-runs free speech.
 
If kb hypothetically made posts suggesting that gays should be thrown out of or prohibiting from holding public office, or should not be allowed to vote, or that they should be systematically rounded up and sent elsewhere, that would IMO cross the line into clear-cut hate speech.

As things stand though, he's free to express his beliefs. I certainly consider someone who holds a position that denies gays equal rights before the law and in society to be bigoted, but he's not trumpeting their elimination from the gene pool or from participation in our society. He's not suggesting that they are inferior or have "bad blood."

Therefore he has yet to cross the line into clear-cut dangerous territory. It's certainly a bigoted belief. It may even be somewhat hateful. But it's not inciting violence and it's not harming anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top