I laugh in the face of White Supremacist groups

[Askthepizzaguy]

Aryan Nations Recruiting again (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/aryan_nations)


COEUR D'ALENE, Idaho – The Aryan Nations has returned to northern Idaho with what it is calling a "world headquarters" and a recruitment campaign.

Coeur d'Alene resident Jerald O'Brien, who has a large swastika tattoo on his scalp, is one of the leaders of the white supremacist group and said he expects membership to grow because of the election of President Barack Obama.

He told The Spokesman-Review newspaper that the president is the "greatest recruiting tool ever."

Residents of a Coeur d'Alene subdivision found recruitment fliers on their lawns Friday and O'Brien said more fliers will be distributed. He said the group has "several handfuls" of members in the city.

The fliers show a young girl asking her father "Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

But many in the region reject the group.

"I saw Aryan Nations and put it in the trash," said Garvin Jones. "What's wrong with these people? Give me a break. I bet if you went back in their family history, not one is 100 percent white."

The newspaper reported that most people interviewed about the fliers declined to be identified for fear of retribution.

The Aryan Nations had a compound in northern Idaho until 2000, when the group lost a $6.3 million civil judgment in favor of two people who sued after being attacked by Aryan Nations' members.

The Kootenai County Task Force on Human Relations has fought the Aryan Nations for decades and is offering its services to anyone threatened or harassed by the group.

"It's bound to be a small group of people trying once again to bring hate into the community," said Tony Stewart, a spokesman for the task force. "They don't have anywhere to operate from except a post office box."

O'Brien said he regularly flies two white supremacist flags outside his home on the east side of the city.

The newspaper reported that its files show O'Brien marching in a neo-Nazi parade in Coeur d'Alene in July 2004 and joining in a skinhead rally that drew eight people outside the Spokane County courthouse in Spokane, Wash., in June 2007.

O'Brien said he and Michael Lombard have taken over the group following longtime leader Richard Butler, who died in 2004.

The fliers are signed "Aryan Nations, Church of Jesus Christ Christian." O'Brien and Lombard are listed on the group's Web site as "pastors."

At least two residents who received the fliers called the Coeur d'Alene Police Department. Sgt. Christie Wood said no investigation is planned because distribution of fliers is protected free speech.
The newspaper reported that its files show O'Brien marching in a neo-Nazi parade in Coeur d'Alene in July 2004 and joining in a skinhead rally that drew eight people outside the Spokane County courthouse in Spokane, Wash., in June 2007.

Perhaps the only bright spot of the entire article. It gives me great hope and pleasure to see the hateful little people dare not show their faces in public in any significant number. I hope that they don't have any problems with their genetic line deteriorating due to "racial purity" and inbreeding. Or, wait... no that would actually be welcome. Perhaps they can engage in that behavior so much that they turn the same color as their bedsheets, and become just as limp, wrinkled, and ratty. I know I'm going out on quite a limb here and taking such a risky moral stand (sarcasm) but I strongly dislike supremacist groups, and wish that they would all board a nice ship and set sail for another land to live in... perhaps some tropical island where they will be able to preserve their racial purity all they like while they slowly cook themselves a nice shade of brown from the warm, bright sunlight, and become the very thing they claim to oppose. And then, when their island gets a wave of malaria-filled mosquitoes one spring, they can beg some African nation for assistance, because they won't get any from me.

:grin:

Tell you what; if they are allowed to express their hatred of non-whites, I can express my desire to deport them and imagine nasty things happening to them by accident. And I'll kindly retract those statements if they renounce their racial hatred.

[Rhyfelwyr]

oops double post

[Rhyfelwyr]

Don't denounce them all as hateful, some of them might actually believe in their 'cause'. Of course, if they actually believe in this cause, then either they know something we don't or they are misguided.

"Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

lol :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

The fliers show a young girl asking her father "Why did those dark men take mommy away?"
I didn't realize white supremacist groups were so big on non sequitur.

[Samurai Waki]

Hmmm... I wasn't aware that the Aryan Nation had actually stopped recruiting. The only problem I can see with their little "I have returned!" Theory, is that no-one except for those with something less than half a brain will actually join.

I seem to remember the People in Couer D'Alene/Spokane were quite happy to see them go.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Don't denounce them all as hateful, some of them might actually believe in their 'cause'. Of course, if they actually believe in this cause, then either they know something we don't or they are misguided.

"Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

lol :laugh4:

They can believe in their cause all they like; but their cause is stated factually as thinking non-whites are lower than them. That's *expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted* stupid at best, and hateful at worst

[Rhyfelwyr]

They can believe in their cause all they like; but their cause is stated factually as thinking non-whites are lower than them. That's *expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted, expletive deleted* stupid at best, and hateful at worst

If they really believe in it, then its not hateful, they think they are making the world a better place. We presume they are hateful becaue we think of all humans as equal, but then maybe they don't.

Forgive me for defending such a nasty ideology, but I get a bit disgruntled when people say that those who don't agree with the standard western values of today are hateful. Quite often they are not, they just view the world differently from you.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If they really believe in it, then its not hateful, they think they are making the world a better place. We presume they are hateful becaue we think of all humans as equal, but then maybe they don't.

Forgive me for defending such a nasty ideology, but I get a bit disgruntled when people say that those who don't agree with the standard western values of today are hateful. Quite often they are not, they just view the world differently from you.

Another white supremacist group, in the last century, was led by a man who thought his struggles would make the world a better place. He even wrote a book called "My Struggle".

He was indeed a hateful man. Thinking other human beings are lesser than you may not be anger, per se, but it is hateful.

[Jolt]

Pity is, most of them aren't Aryan. Or anything close. Then again it depends on what you consider Aryans. I consider Aryans the top strata of the Indian Caste Society Brahmins, which have descended practically exclusively from Aryans, due to the nature of the Caste System, which was itself imposed by the Aryans as a means to maintain themselves on top of the Indian Society.

Most of the people recruit into the Aryan nation unfortunatly have very little to do with the concept I just explained. They are at best remotely connected by Indo-European origins, which by now has been dissolved with non-white forefathers.

A curious case is that according to a recent geneology study here in Portugal, many of the proeminent members of the Nazi and Skinheads movements in Portugal had forefathers who were Jews. Most people in Portugal somewhere around 75-80% had a Jewish forefather. Of course the Nazi movements were quick to threaten the investigators and denouce the falsehood of historical scientists. Since their innexistent methods of determining their racial background are far better and convinient.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Another white supremacist group, in the last century, was led by a man who thought his struggles would make the world a better place. He even wrote a book called "My Struggle".

He was indeed a hateful man. Thinking other human beings are lesser than you may not be anger, per se, but it is hateful.

Depends. Hitler really did hate the Jews, he practically talked himself into it (and once again we have talked ourselves into talking about him, he might have failed to take Europe but he's taking over the Backroom!). But then, maybe some of these white supremacists simply believe black people are inferior and don't deserve the same rights or whatever. Are you hateful because you think animals are lesser beings?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Depends. Hitler really did hate the Jews, he practically talked himself into it (and once again we have talked ourselves into talking about him, he might have failed to take Europe but he's taking over the Backroom!). But then, maybe some of these white supremacists simply believe black people are inferior and don't deserve the same rights or whatever. Are you hateful because you think animals are lesser beings?

However, this is a thread about White Supremacy and racial hate; Hitler is actually relevant here.

I don't treat animals as lesser beings, and I resent the comparison between racial groups and animals. I don't give a flying cuttlefish what they believe or the silly reasons behind their racial hatred or ignorance; whichever you prefer to call it. I don't care what their motives are. I don't care if their entire family was gang-raped by a member of a different race; thinking other human beings are lesser than you are, less deserving of rights and life and liberty, unequal to you, is the mentality which brought about every single racial war.

It's a backwards and intolerant view which is not welcome. The difference between them and me? I don't try to take away their freedom of speech, I don't advocate "sending them back to Ireland", I don't threaten them or their families, I don't consider them sub-human, and I don't wish to eradicate them, even though in all honesty, if we could round up all the hate groups, put them inside a giant sports arena, and give them all weapons, we could witness how futile and destructive hate is, and how it has no place in civilized society.

After all, they have the option not to hate, not to kill. It's their choice. :grin:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Godwin invocation within 10 posts -- probably inevitable with the topic.

[Samurai Waki]

After all, they have the option not to hate, not to kill. It's their choice. :grin:

And many of them do learn after awhile, how futile and meaningless that struggle is. Especially ones who at one point in their lives were actively a part in Racial Supremacy Groups. Most often these groups round up young, confused, and unworldly teenagers and try to indoctrinate them. I'm not sure what the average drop out rate per group is, but I bet it's a lot higher than they'd ever be willing to admit.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Godwin invocation within 10 posts -- probably inevitable with the topic.

Wait! :no:

Is there no discussion where Hitler is actually relevant? I mean, it is a white supremacist topic. It's not Godwin if Hitler is actually a valid and relevant thing to be discussed here. The only thing MORE relevant would be a thread about the Nazis.

Am I misunderstanding Godwin?


The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that one arising is increasingly probable. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued,[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact

Even Godwin agrees that there are valid comparisons to be made. The point is that people should avoid using such references when they DON'T apply, not to discourage proper usage.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't advocate "sending them back to Ireland"

Was that aimed at me? If it was, then I may as well join the Catholics on the boat trip, since one side of my family is descended from Ulster Protestants.

ATPG I have no sympathy with racist ideology, but I refuse to denouce all racists as hateful. It might be the popular, knee-jerk reaction to take, but it doesn't really get to the root of the problem does it? If we look at Nazi Germany and just say the Holocaust happened because by an incredible coincidence a large part of a nation happened to be hateful, then we would not learn much to prevent such events happening again, would we?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Was that aimed at me? If it was, then I may as well join the Catholics on the boat trip, since one side of my family is descended from Ulster Protestants.

No, actually; it was referring to the gentleman in my article, "Jerald O'Brien".

O'Brien is an Irish name, I believe.

[Jolt]

A curious case is that according to a recent geneology study here in Portugal, many of the proeminent members of the Nazi and Skinheads movements in Portugal had forefathers who were Jews. Most people in Portugal somewhere around 75-80% had a Jewish forefather. Of course the Nazi movements were quick to threaten the investigators and denouce the falsehood of historical scientists. Since their innexistent methods of determining their racial background are far better and convinient.

Not funny? *sobs*

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG I have no sympathy with racist ideology, but I refuse to denouce all racists as hateful. It might be the popular, knee-jerk reaction to take, but it doesn't really get to the root of the problem does it? If we look at Nazi Germany and just say the Holocaust happened because by an incredible coincidence a large part of a nation happened to be hateful, then we would not learn much to prevent such events happening again, would we?

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. Their pamphlets were hateful!

"Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

That is a pamphlet designed to spread fear and hate. PREVENTING such hatred involves speaking out against it. I never said we should exterminate them. You may be trying to argue against hatred, but what you're doing is defending it, and then calling those who oppose hatred hateful, even though they don't sink down to their level.

It is "misguided" as you might call it, to do so. I feel that your defense of these hate-groups could be a knee-jerk reaction of your own. I don't see your reasoning behind it. But I'm attempting to listen.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. Their pamphlets were hateful!

"Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

That is a pamphlet designed to spread fear and hate. PREVENTING such hatred involves speaking out against it. I never said we should exterminate them. You may be trying to argue against hatred, but what you're doing is defending it, and then calling those who oppose hatred hateful, even though they don't sink down to their level.

It is "misguided" as you might call it, to do so. I feel that your defense of these hate-groups could be a knee-jerk reaction of your own. I don't see your reasoning behind it. But I'm attempting to listen.

I'm just saying if they really believe black men are out to get the nice little whites then that's not really any more different from how you would hate Stalin for mass-murdering everyone he didn't like. Presuming you do disapprove of the likes of Stalin, would you hate him with the same hatred Hitler had for the Jews? Or would it not be more of a strong moral disapproval?

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm just saying if they really believe black men are out to get the nice little whites

Then they are correct. Some of them are. And there are a lot more whites out to get them, according to the sheer amounts of white-on-white crime. It's ignorant to fear only one group.


then that's not really any more different from how you would hate Stalin for mass-murdering everyone he didn't like

Yes it is. Opposing a mass murderer is different from hating an entire racial group. There is zero comparison to be made between them.


Presuming you do disapprove of the likes of Stalin

Yes.


would you hate him with the same hatred Hitler had for the Jews? Or would it not be more of a strong moral disapproval?

It's a meaningless hypothetical. Stalin is dead, and a mass murderer who is guilty of crimes against humanity is, and always was, different from a "race" of people. I strongly and morally disapprove of what he did. And I wouldn't even characterize my dislike of racists as hatred; only disappointment and a wish that they would relent and become less ignorant.

If I hated them, as they hate minorities, I'd be calling for much worse than speaking out against them. There is no comparison between what I feel towards racists and what racists feel and do towards those they oppose. I'm dismayed by what you're saying, and wonder what drives you to defend supremacist groups from legitimate concerns that rational people have against their divisive and hateful behavior.

I don't think you're putting forth a reasoned argument, and I don't believe there is a moral reason to defend racists at all from being correctly labeled as hateful.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's a meaningless hypothetical. Stalin is dead, and a mass murderer who is guilty of crimes against humanity is, and always was, different from a "race" of people. I strongly and morally disapprove of what he did. And I wouldn't even characterize my dislike of racists as hatred; only disappointment and a wish that they would relent and become less ignorant.

If I hated them, as they hate minorities, I'd be calling for much worse than speaking out against them. There is no comparison between what I feel towards racists and what racists feel and do towards those they oppose. I'm dismayed by what you're saying, and wonder what drives you to defend supremacist groups from legitimate concerns that rational people have against their divisive and hateful behavior.

But that's my point. We disapprove of Stalin, white supremacists dissaprove of black people. We don't hate anyone, the white supremacists don't (necessarily) hate anyone. So what is the difference? Stalin is one guy, blacks are, in the minds of the white supremacists, a race. In the minds of these people, black folk have different genes or whatever which make them nasty or different from white people. Just like Stalin's genes made him what he was. Are the white supremacists right to apply such characteristics on the 'racial' level - I don't think so, but they do. They need not hate anyone because of it more than we hate nasty individuals.

[Askthepizzaguy]

But that's my point. We disapprove of Stalin, white supremacists dissaprove of black people. We don't hate anyone, the white supremacists don't (necessarily) hate anyone. So what is the difference? Stalin is one guy, blacks are, in the minds of the white supremacists, a race. In the minds of these people, black folk have different genes or whatever which make them nasty or different from white people. Just like Stalin's genes made him what he was. Are the white supremacists right to apply such characteristics on the 'racial' level - I don't think so, but they do. They need not hate anyone because of it more than we hate nasty individuals.

You can't "disapprove" of someone's existence. You can't disapprove of people. You can disapprove of their actions.

To "disapprove" of a race of people is to not approve of their existing on this planet. That's hateful.

"In the minds of these people, black folk have different genes or whatever which make them nasty or different from white people"

How is that not hatred, and instead, moral objection? There's nothing moral about it. It's hate by the definition of hate. If you don't like the word hate, that's the proper word for it, and it's not really something you can effectively argue against.

"Just like Stalin's genes made him what he was"

That's your opinion, not backed up by any evidence, and forgive me... it's a rather ridiculous thing to suggest that people are slaves to their genes. My parents were alcoholic, that doesn't make me so. I don't drink at all. Blaming people's behavior on their genes absolves people of crimes they chose to commit.

"Are the white supremacists right to apply such characteristics on the 'racial' level - I don't think so, but they do. They need not hate anyone because of it more than we hate nasty individuals"

Ask them yourself; they will tell you they hate people. Read their pamphlets; they tell you how wicked and immoral black people are, and that it is ok to hate them. Morally correct to hate them. But tt's a fact; hatred is hatred, and you can't pretend it doesn't exist when they themselves say they hate black people, and encourage fear of an entire race. You have nothing reasonable here to argue, and you've failed to make a legitimate point, in my opinion.

It's absurd to argue in defense of people who hate entire races of people, without concern about the guilt or innocence of an individual.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Look we are all what the genes, chemicals etc in our brains and bodies make us, what difference does it make if its on the individual or 'racial' level? And if we are not 'slaves to our genes' then by what other means do we operate? If you make a decision, that's just some electric signals travelling round your brain, you can't choose to overrule them, they make you what you are. That, of course, in my opinion, not a fact.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Look we are all what the genes, chemicals etc in our brains and bodies make us, what difference does it make if its on the individual or 'racial' level? And if we are not 'slaves to our genes' then by what other means do we operate? If you make a decision, that's just some electric signals travelling round your brain, you can't choose to overrule them, they make you what you are. That, of course, in my opinion, not a fact.

Identical twins have the same genes. One may become a mass murderer, the other may not.

Blaming everything on genetics is precisely the error racists make, and I encourage you not to believe that fallacy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Identical twins have the same genes. One may become a mass murderer, the other may not.

Blaming everything on genetics is precisely the error racists make, and I encourage you not to believe that fallacy.

If one is taken out the womb before the other, suddenly you have the butterfly effect and there you go one gets the Nobel Peace Prize and the other goes on a killing spree. Biology and environment/upbringing are the reasons behind everything we do. Unless of course you believe in some sort of soul, but then there's no more evidence for that than there is for the big man in the sky.

[Beefy187]

There were those days when we Japanese bragged about being allowed to be "Special Whites" for beating Russia.

And that was the day when we lost Asian pride :shame:

[Askthepizzaguy]

If one is taken out the womb before the other, suddenly you have the butterfly effect and there you go one gets the Nobel Peace Prize and the other goes on a killing spree. Biology and environment/upbringing are the reasons behind everything we do. Unless of course you believe in some sort of soul, but then there's no more evidence for that than there is for the big man in the sky.

I seem to recall someone once saying something about an argument being built upon sand; and the other one said that sand is better than nothing at all... In this case, your argument is once again built upon no evidence, and no reasoning that I can see. A vast amount of evidence, research, and reasoning has gone into the question of blaming genes for our behavior. But the fact is while genes may help form the brain, so does the environment, and unless the brain is absolutely dead, people have control over their actions, and can freely choose.

Even a certain God people believe in allows for free will. So does science. You're curiously arguing against it, even though you yourself have said that faith is a choice.

Your argument is undermined by your own argument, and as such, there is no better rebuttal than your own words. If you'll excuse me, I'd like to take a break from this one for a little while, because (a) we won't make any progress (b) I think you've effectively defeated yourself and (c) I do find the defense of racists to be a little upsetting, and as such, I take my leave and will ponder things quietly without saying things that might offend people.

:bow:


There were those days when we Japanese bragged about being allowed to be "Special Whites" for beating Russia. And that was the day when we lost Asian pride

You are an individual to me, Beefy; the crimes of others, in the past, are not yours to feel ashamed of. Whites in the past enslaved and conquered, and I feel no shame because I've done nothing wrong. Germans have nothing to be ashamed of, nor Italians, nor blacks or hispanics or persians or arabs... Blaming a race or a nation for the crimes of individuals is again, based on poor reasoning and fallacious thinking.

You have much to be proud of, Beefy... you're funny and smart and friendly, and people like you gawrsh darn it! Asian pride is perhaps nothing to miss; Asians are a vast group of diverse people, and people should be proud of their own accomplishments. I've never been a fan of racial pride. But at the same time, you, Japan, Asians.... have nothing to be collectively ashamed of either. I don't believe in collective pride, nor do I believe in collective shame. A person is judged on their own merits as an individual.

It's one of the reasons I oppose racists so much; they assign group pride and group shame. There's no room for that in my mind or in my heart.

:bow:

[Jolt]

Japanese should be ashamed to crush all the work good honest Portuguese did to evangelize Japan! :)

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm sorry, but posting a thread making fun of these idiots is not really laughing in their face.

Take Chris Hitchens, for example, and his tangle with some thugs in Beirut (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/christopher-hitchens-beirut-attack). He effectively did laugh in the face of some neo-nazis there, and got attacked.

Anyway, these folks are like a few pieces of grass in a field. They are insignificant, meaningless.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

I'm sorry, but posting a thread making fun of these idiots is not really laughing in their face.

Take Chris Hitchens, for example, and his tangle with some thugs in Beirut (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/19/christopher-hitchens-beirut-attack). He effectively did laugh in the face of some neo-nazis there, and got attacked.

Anyway, these folks are like a few pieces of grass in a field. They are insignificant, meaningless.

CR

Every racist group capable of harming others begins with one person, then a small group. None of them are insignificant... they are all a threat to human progress.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Every racist group capable of harming others begins with one person, then a small group. None of them are insignificant... they are all a threat to human progress.

:rolleyes:

A threat, maybe, potentially, but these sort of groups still are insignificant. This one used to be large. Now it's a couple of guys in Idaho.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

:rolleyes:

A threat, maybe, potentially, but these sort of groups still are insignificant. This one used to be large. Now it's a couple of guys in Idaho.

CR

A single white supremacist can commit a hate crime. 2 or 3 can cause significant damage to a community. A small, small gang can terrorize a community.

Insignificant to the nation's security as a whole... MAYBE. Insignificant to any non-whites living around there? I think not.

If I were jewish, living in a small community, and there was a group, albeit a small one, marching in pro-Nazi demonstrations, I'd fear for my family, and I'd be dismayed at the lack of backlash against them and the apathy towards them and the tacit support people show by defending them or doing nothing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

A single white supremacist can commit a hate crime. 2 or 3 can cause significant damage to a community. A small, small gang can terrorize a community.


Bah. What have these people done? They distributed leaflets so more people would apply for their special club and decoder ring. Your talk of communities being terrorized is hyperbole.

This group is insignificant. Let me know if they do anything of which you warn.


I'd be dismayed at the lack of backlash against them and the apathy towards them and the tacit support people show by defending them or doing nothing.

What do you mean, doing nothing? This is America, where even jerks and bigots can express their opinions freely.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

Bah. What have these people done? They distributed leaflets so more people would apply for their special club and decoder ring. Your talk of communities being terrorized is hyperbole.

This group is insignificant. Let me know if they do anything of which you warn.

Well, I'm sure someone else can give you a bunch of links to hate crimes committed in America by hate groups like these. How many murders must happen before you consider it a possibility that they might strike again?


What do you mean, doing nothing? This is America, where even jerks and bigots can express their opinions freely.

Of course; by terrorizing communities, spreading vicious lies about black people, encouraging racial hatred and spreading ignorance, they are exercising their rights as an American. And I am doing the same, by denouncing their worthless drivel as being harmful to America.

Lovely how that works. The same freedom they use to abuse is the freedom I use to stand up to those bullies.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Of course; by terrorizing communities, spreading vicious lies about black people, encouraging racial hatred and spreading ignorance, they are exercising their rights as an American. And I am doing the same, by denouncing their worthless drivel as being harmful to America.

Lovely how that works. The same freedom they use to abuse is the freedom I use to stand up to those bullies.

It is better that they express their opinions to the public, where they can be laughed at and ridiculed by citizens like yourself. If they didn't have the right to speak up (and we didn't have the right to ridicule them), I think their movement would be much larger than it is now, because they would silently build.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It is better that they express their opinions to the public, where they can be laughed at and ridiculed by citizens like yourself. If they didn't have the right to speak up (and we didn't have the right to ridicule them), I think their movement would be much larger than it is now, because they would silently build.

Indeed! I wholeheartedly agree!

I would never begin to act to take away their right to say such awful things. However, once their silly viewpoint has been made public, I believe wholeheartedly that a counter-demonstration, with about a thousand times more people, would show them and the world how little we think of their viewpoint, and how much we celebrate racial equality, tolerance, and the betterment of mankind as a whole.

Freedom of speech: it is the sunlight which drives away those that fester in darkness.

[Xiahou]

I laugh in the face of White Supremacist groupsCongrats?
What's the point of this thread anyway? :inquisitive:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Congrats?
What's the point of this thread anyway? :inquisitive:

Talking about the re-emergence of a white supremacist group in Idaho and discussing the article related to it, and other topics relating to white supremacy in general, and racism. So far we've had a healthy debate and an interesting discussion.

No less relevant than any other thread in the back. :laugh2:

[KarlXII]

Talking about the re-emergence of a white supremacist group in Idaho and discussing the article related to it, and other topics relating to white supremacy in general, and racism. So far we've had a healthy debate and an interesting discussion.

No less relevant than any other thread in the back. :laugh2:

Count us lucky the truth is not whitewashed, as this would turn into a very pale situation.

[Vuk]

Black Panthers, Aryan Nations, all the same. They attract insecure and hateful people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Black Panthers, Aryan Nations, all the same. They attract insecure and hateful people.

Seconded.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, I'm sure someone else can give you a bunch of links to hate crimes committed in America by hate groups like these. How many murders must happen before you consider it a possibility that they might strike again?

How many murders has this group committed? Any? Or, actually, any hate groups across the country recently?

When you say 'groups like these' you reveal that this group is insignificant - what I said in the first place- because you are forced to reference other groups in order to provide support to your argument that this and similar hate groups are dangerous.


Lovely how that works. The same freedom they use to abuse is the freedom I use to stand up to those bullies.

:rolleyes: Standing up is a bit much to describe your actions; you've made fun of them on the internet. That's it. Usually, I think standing up to someone requires them actually being at least slightly aware of your actions.

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

How many murders has this group committed? Any? Or, actually, any hate groups across the country recently? When you say 'groups like these' you reveal that this group is insignificant - what I said in the first place- because you are forced to reference other groups in order to provide support to your argument that this and similar hate groups are dangerous. :rolleyes: Standing up is a bit much to describe your actions; you've made fun of them on the internet. That's it. Usually, I think standing up to someone requires them actually being at least slightly aware of your actions. CR

Well ya got me. Speaking out against hate groups who spread vile ignorance against entire races of people makes me both a coward and a bad human being.

I concede to your superior argument.

[Fragony]

flagwaving loonies, all bravoure just ignore them.

[HoreTore]

Bah. What have these people done? They distributed leaflets so more people would apply for their special club and decoder ring. Your talk of communities being terrorized is hyperbole.

Now, as I have no idea what "Aryan Nation" is up to, I can't really comment on what they're doing.

But our own brands of neo-nazi are quite the active chaps. No-one forgets Benjamin Hermansen, who was killed a few years ago by a small gang of Nazi's, for the simple reason that he was african. I can't remember if they were looking for a random african to kill, or if they decided to kill when they saw Benjamin.

One death may not sound like all that much, but remember that this is in a tiny country with ome 50 murders per year...

Aside from that, they're very busy terrorizing asylums and the tiny Jewish community in Oslo. One of their most despicable hobbies is to terrorize one particular asylum(can't remember its name atm), where all the occupants are orphans. Can you imagine that? A 10 year old who just saw his mother raped and father killed in Afghanistan, for example, comes there thinking he's finally safe, and then some :daisy: decides to shoot randomly into the complex. One thing is when you attack adults, it's something else when you attack children, and just plain evil when you attack vulnerable children like these.

[Fragony]

What is it with scandinavian that they all want to be the most racist country. One racist murder wow, that is one more then we have had here so far.

[HoreTore]

What is it with scandinavian that they all want to be the most racist country. One racist murder wow, that is one more then we have had here so far.

Wanting to be the most racists country? No.... I don't think these groups "represent" my country in any way... They are small groups of nutters, but they are quite capable of causing trouble.

Further, I don't think we're very racists at all. And I think the reason for that is that we focus strongly on it when it does happen, and are very good at voicing our objections to it.

[Vuk]

Wanting to be the most racists country? No.... I don't think these groups "represent" my country in any way... They are small groups of nutters, but they are quite capable of causing trouble.

Further, I don't think we're very racists at all. And I think the reason for that is that we focus strongly on it when it does happen, and are very good at voicing our objections to it.

You Scandinavians are the most racist race in the world! I hate your racist race of racists you racist racist! ~;)

[Husar]

I find this thread very offensive. :shame:

Please remove comments meant to make fun of members of societies

[Vuk]

I find this thread very offensive. :shame:

Please remove comments meant to make fun of members of societies

Sorry, I am just an uncouth redneck. :embarassed:
I will place a smilie in to help those sofisticated and enlightened members of society realise that my post was a joke.

[Fragony]

Further, I don't think we're very racists at all. And I think the reason for that is that we focus strongly on it when it does happen, and are very good at voicing our objections to it.

Making an elephant out of a mosquito as we say here. Neo-nazi's are disgusting but nobody takes them seriously here. Not to say that these fruitcakes who harass orphans don't deserve a very thourough beating, idiots.

[Vuk]

Making an elephant out of a mosquito as we say here.

You can do that? ~:eek:
Remind me never to underestimate Dutch science again...

PS, why has this not caused the legal ivory business to explode? Is it an expensive procedure?

[Fragony]

You can do that? ~:eek:

Of course we can we are white we can do everything thora-boy :beam:

[Vuk]

Of course we can we are white we can do everything thora-boy :beam:

Sweet! Sign me up! Where do I go to get my white surgery?

[rajpoot]

All I'd like to do here is second what Jolt said........wherever do these chaps get their Aryan ancestors from?
Granted the Aryans originated somewhere in Asia minor, but most migrated across the mountains into India. The people in the Mahabharata and Ramayana are the original Aryans.
The fact that nitwits who consider themselves better than others just because they say they're pure Aryans, is very distressing.

[Fragony]

Sweet! Sign me up! Where do I go to get my white surgery?

watch this 3 times, tada. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QAlt4Sfl7Q Courtesy of orger who's name I can't come up with.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I seem to recall someone once saying something about an argument being built upon sand; and the other one said that sand is better than nothing at all... In this case, your argument is once again built upon no evidence, and no reasoning that I can see. A vast amount of evidence, research, and reasoning has gone into the question of blaming genes for our behavior. But the fact is while genes may help form the brain, so does the environment, and unless the brain is absolutely dead, people have control over their actions, and can freely choose.

Genes + experience = behaviour in any given situation. That's how most scientists see it nowadays isn't it? My argument isn't based on sand, I'm pretty sure you accept that our genes and our experiences influence our behaviour as well. The difference is you think there is something that allows us to choose how we act, as if every single electric signal that flickers through our brain was not an inevitable result of the previous one, and the pattern they form determines what we do. I see no reason to believe that some supernatural force gives us free will by overruling the biological machine that is our brain.


Even a certain God people believe in allows for free will. So does science. You're curiously arguing against it, even though you yourself have said that faith is a choice.

Actually, I don't, I've argued many a time with Philipvs Vallidervs Caligvla on this issue.


Your argument is undermined by your own argument, and as such, there is no better rebuttal than your own words. If you'll excuse me, I'd like to take a break from this one for a little while, because (a) we won't make any progress (b) I think you've effectively defeated yourself and (c) I do find the defense of racists to be a little upsetting, and as such, I take my leave and will ponder things quietly without saying things that might offend people.

:bow:

I think you just took what you thought to be one of my arguments from another thread, misunderstood it, then lumped it into this one and said I'm contradicting myself. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

Get on a bus in London. Doesn't really matter which one. Wait. Get off the bus. I'm sure you've met enough moronic whites to join the Black Panthers.

~:smoking:

[Vuk]

watch this 3 times, tada. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QAlt4Sfl7Q Courtesy of orger who's name I can't come up with.

If that is white, then no thank you. I think I will stay a mongrel. :P

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well ya got me. Speaking out against hate groups who spread vile ignorance against entire races of people makes me both a coward and a bad human being.

I concede to your superior argument.

:strawman2: ______ :strawman3:_____________ :strawman1:

Congratulations sir, you have constructed a strawman! And what a strawman it is! You win the weekly strawman contest and are hereby awarded a coupon redeemable for $.50 off your next purchase of bread at your local Wal-Mart.


Now, as I have no idea what "Aryan Nation" is up to, I can't really comment on what they're doing.

But our own brands of neo-nazi are quite the active chaps. No-one forgets Benjamin Hermansen, who was killed a few years ago by a small gang of Nazi's, for the simple reason that he was african. I can't remember if they were looking for a random african to kill, or if they decided to kill when they saw Benjamin.

Here they used to have a compound or some buildings in North Idaho before they lost it all in a lawsuit. They used to go on marches where everyone booed them. Certainly nothing of what you describe.

Now they're even more pathetic. Probably only a few guys who printed up some leaflets and distributed them, with a very old school website (http://www.aryannations.org/).

CR

[Askthepizzaguy]

And what a strawman it is!

Thanks! :grin:

In all seriousness, I've dealt with racists and bullies in-person plenty of times. It's simply the problem that I'm at my computer and have no way to get to Idaho that I can't form my own protest group. And there are plenty of examples of small neo-Nazi groups causing violence in any country they are in; because they are hateful little racists. So the defenses people give of these racists I find both amusing and tiresome, depending on how much of it I see. And a little troubling, to be frank.

It all boils down to "oh, they aren't hurting anyone... it's free speech, let them do what they want."

When they burn crosses and picket outside of businesses of minorities, spread vicious lies and incite hatred of another vast group of people, when they consider human beings to be nothing more than animals, when they are actively trying to recruit others to their viewpoint, then they are hurting people, and it may be free speech but nothing is stopping us from using our free speech in return against them.

It's best to keep an eye on these hate groups. When they have the numbers they need and they stop being such chicken *bleeps*, they will attack the people they hate. It's only a matter of time. Much like NAMBLA; assuming they got large enough numbers, they would attempt to legislate their viewpoint, and in the meantime, you should keep an eye on them because they are likely to molest children. With hate groups it is the same; if they were large enough they would segregate and deport people they hated, remove rights, and legislate intolerance. In the meantime, they are the most likely out of all of us to engage in racial violence, because it is consistent with their beliefs and ideology.

Others have given examples of violence done by groups like these. And it is a fair comparison; Neo-Nazi groups all have similar stated positions, goals, targets, and agendas. That's why they are all identified as Neo-Nazis, they share something in common. And because the ideology itself that they are spreading treats other human beings as inferior, it's not prejudice to lump them together. It is in fact what they teach, what they believe. If I thought all members of a group were racist, that would be prejudice, unless the group itself teaches hate and engages in racism, and is in fact a racist group. They do exist.

I admit I was a bit tired of all the defenses yesterday and didn't have the energy or desire to formulate a cogent counter-argument, so out of exasperation, I didn't do your argument justice. But even so, to be honest, I don't find your argument to have much merit. These people are literally one step away from being Nazis themselves, they even tattoo swastikas on their foreheads. The only thing missing so far is the violence, and there's ample evidence that something like that could happen again, as it has happened a thousand times over with Neo-Nazi groups.

I am saying that all Nazi-fanboy groups are essentially the same, because they base their ideology on the belief that their genetics make them inherently superior to all others. This isn't based in science, and it isn't based in reason, and it does not lead to anything good either. It leads to a division in our society which is harmful and destructive, and there's countless instances of racism throughout history leading to violence and death. So when people step forward and say, you know, a little bit (a lot, in fact) of rampant racism from a group is nothing to be concerned about because they haven't done anything YET; I really have to wonder.

If someone talks about how much they hate you, is that something to worry about?
If someone organizes a group dedicated to how much they hate you, is that something to worry about?
If someone teaches to that group how superior they are to you, and how the world would be better off without you, is that something to worry about?
If they were to then arm themselves, using their second amendment rights, and speak about defending the Aryan Brotherhood from infiltration from the lesser beings, would that be something to worry about?
What if they spoke of driving these sub-humans out of their communities, and their states, and their country, with force if necessary, would that be something to worry about?
If they approached a group of people they stated they hated, pointed their weapons at them, and were about to pull the trigger, would that be something to worry about?

After all, no violence has been committed just yet. Just because others in their position have done harm, there is no way of knowing if they too will follow in the footsteps of countless others and harm the people they incite violence against. And I'm just talking physical violence. What about verbal harassment and intimidation? What about hate speech and inciting violence?

Isn't there a rule where you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that's not protected free speech? Well if you teach that certain human beings are inferior to you, maybe that shouldn't be protected free speech either. However, the louder they shout it, the more aware of it I become, and that is why I want to see it protected. And if I had people like that in my community, spreading vile hatred, I'd very much organize my own protest group and get the proper permits and march around town, following their group, cell phone at the ready, to make sure if they turn violent or start harassing people, they are immediately taken care of. (i.e. calling the police)

Vigilance... that's all I am advocating. I never said we should bust down their doors and lynch them for hatred. People are allowed to be hateful and ignorant. I am saying keep your eyes out and DON'T dismiss them as harmless when their group's stated ideology rejects peaceful coexistence with members of our community. They are, in my opinion, a cancerous tumor on society, and if it turns out to be malignant, as I think it is, then they should all be rounded up and imprisoned. As soon as the first fist is thrown, the first victim harassed, the first bullet is shot, their entire group should be considered organized criminals and should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law, using every single possible reason to throw the book at them and lock them away for a long time.

At least that's how I think it should be. In a perfect world, we could just look at them, see what they are doing, and tell them to stop it because it's not welcome, and if we see more of it, onto a rickety raft they will go somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and best of luck to them.

Have I made it clear how much I love racists? :grin: Not welcome. Not a legitimate alternative civilized viewpoint. Never been productive, never been beneficial, and it's always led to friction, unhappiness, and hatred. Cancerous tumor. If malignant, should be removed. That's all.

Because America stands for not just protected freedoms; but also protected rights, and tolerance and acceptance. Hate is not something I want in America. :unitedstates:

[KarlXII]

I have a shirt on right now, your argument is invalid.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have a shirt on right now, your argument is invalid.

Do post one of those delightful funny pictures when you say that. I have the windmill in the beard one, and bicycles on my feet one, so far. :bow:

[Strike For The South]

Thanks! :grin:

In all seriousness, I've dealt with racists and bullies in-person plenty of times. It's simply the problem that I'm at my computer and have no way to get to Idaho that I can't form my own protest group. And there are plenty of examples of small neo-Nazi groups causing violence in any country they are in; because they are hateful little racists. So the defenses people give of these racists I find both amusing and tiresome, depending on how much of it I see. And a little troubling, to be frank.

It all boils down to "oh, they aren't hurting anyone... it's free speech, let them do what they want."

When they burn crosses and picket outside of businesses of minorities, spread vicious lies and incite hatred of another vast group of people, when they consider human beings to be nothing more than animals, when they are actively trying to recruit others to their viewpoint, then they are hurting people, and it may be free speech but nothing is stopping us from using our free speech in return against them.

It's best to keep an eye on these hate groups. When they have the numbers they need and they stop being such chicken *bleeps*, they will attack the people they hate. It's only a matter of time. Much like NAMBLA; assuming they got large enough numbers, they would attempt to legislate their viewpoint, and in the meantime, you should keep an eye on them because they are likely to molest children. With hate groups it is the same; if they were large enough they would segregate and deport people they hated, remove rights, and legislate intolerance. In the meantime, they are the most likely out of all of us to engage in racial violence, because it is consistent with their beliefs and ideology.

Others have given examples of violence done by groups like these. And it is a fair comparison; Neo-Nazi groups all have similar stated positions, goals, targets, and agendas. That's why they are all identified as Neo-Nazis, they share something in common. And because the ideology itself that they are spreading treats other human beings as inferior, it's not prejudice to lump them together. It is in fact what they teach, what they believe. If I thought all members of a group were racist, that would be prejudice, unless the group itself teaches hate and engages in racism, and is in fact a racist group. They do exist.

I admit I was a bit tired of all the defenses yesterday and didn't have the energy or desire to formulate a cogent counter-argument, so out of exasperation, I didn't do your argument justice. But even so, to be honest, I don't find your argument to have much merit. These people are literally one step away from being Nazis themselves, they even tattoo swastikas on their foreheads. The only thing missing so far is the violence, and there's ample evidence that something like that could happen again, as it has happened a thousand times over with Neo-Nazi groups.

I am saying that all Nazi-fanboy groups are essentially the same, because they base their ideology on the belief that their genetics make them inherently superior to all others. This isn't based in science, and it isn't based in reason, and it does not lead to anything good either. It leads to a division in our society which is harmful and destructive, and there's countless instances of racism throughout history leading to violence and death. So when people step forward and say, you know, a little bit (a lot, in fact) of rampant racism from a group is nothing to be concerned about because they haven't done anything YET; I really have to wonder.

If someone talks about how much they hate you, is that something to worry about?
If someone organizes a group dedicated to how much they hate you, is that something to worry about?
If someone teaches to that group how superior they are to you, and how the world would be better off without you, is that something to worry about?
If they were to then arm themselves, using their second amendment rights, and speak about defending the Aryan Brotherhood from infiltration from the lesser beings, would that be something to worry about?
What if they spoke of driving these sub-humans out of their communities, and their states, and their country, with force if necessary, would that be something to worry about?
If they approached a group of people they stated they hated, pointed their weapons at them, and were about to pull the trigger, would that be something to worry about?

After all, no violence has been committed just yet. Just because others in their position have done harm, there is no way of knowing if they too will follow in the footsteps of countless others and harm the people they incite violence against. And I'm just talking physical violence. What about verbal harassment and intimidation? What about hate speech and inciting violence?

Isn't there a rule where you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater because that's not protected free speech? Well if you teach that certain human beings are inferior to you, maybe that shouldn't be protected free speech either. However, the louder they shout it, the more aware of it I become, and that is why I want to see it protected. And if I had people like that in my community, spreading vile hatred, I'd very much organize my own protest group and get the proper permits and march around town, following their group, cell phone at the ready, to make sure if they turn violent or start harassing people, they are immediately taken care of. (i.e. calling the police)

Vigilance... that's all I am advocating. I never said we should bust down their doors and lynch them for hatred. People are allowed to be hateful and ignorant. I am saying keep your eyes out and DON'T dismiss them as harmless when their group's stated ideology rejects peaceful coexistence with members of our community. They are, in my opinion, a cancerous tumor on society, and if it turns out to be malignant, as I think it is, then they should all be rounded up and imprisoned. As soon as the first fist is thrown, the first victim harassed, the first bullet is shot, their entire group should be considered organized criminals and should be penalized to the fullest extent of the law, using every single possible reason to throw the book at them and lock them away for a long time.

At least that's how I think it should be. In a perfect world, we could just look at them, see what they are doing, and tell them to stop it because it's not welcome, and if we see more of it, onto a rickety raft they will go somewhere in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, and best of luck to them.

Have I made it clear how much I love racists? :grin: Not welcome. Not a legitimate alternative civilized viewpoint. Never been productive, never been beneficial, and it's always led to friction, unhappiness, and hatred. Cancerous tumor. If malignant, should be removed. That's all.

Because America stands for not just protected freedoms; but also protected rights, and tolerance and acceptance. Hate is not something I want in America. :unitedstates:


There are plenty of groups much more organized than these men who deserve your internet LULZ. I know there a safe target because they are white and not big scary black men but lets try and save the self richusoesnes for something that matters.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am not defending racist ideology, I am just saying you should not make blanket judgements on people with racist views. I've known people who have a bit of sympathy with the likes of the BNP. And no they are not evil skinheads, just ordinary people disillusioned with the whole political system. Why do you think such parties do well in poor areas? Is it because poor people are nastier than rich people, or is it because the socioeconomicetc conditions lead to some folk taking misguided outlets for their frustration?

We could all write big posts about how we don't like racism but maybe it would be more productive to look at the causes of racism and tackle those instead of just saying racism happens because racists are all nasty people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

There are plenty of groups much more organized than these men who deserve your internet LULZ. I know there a safe target because they are white and not big scary black men but lets try and save the self richusoesnes for something that matters.

Sure, and be sure to save the chiding about self-righteousness for something that matters as well!

:bow:


I am just saying you should not make blanket judgements on people with racist views

They shouldn't make blanket judgments about race, then! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's about not being hypocritical. If they can speak out against races, I can speak out against them.

Fair is fair.

They stop their racism, I stop hounding racists. It's absolutely equitable.

[Rhyfelwyr]

They shouldn't make blanket judgments about race, then! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. It's about not being hypocritical. If they can speak out against races, I can speak out against them.

Fair is fair.

They stop their racism, I stop hounding racists. It's absolutely equitable.

That is what YOU think. They think otherwise. Regardless of whoever is right, you can't just call them all hateful. In their minds, maybe they are just disapproving of a nasty race of people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

That is what YOU think. They think otherwise. Regardless of whoever is right, you can't just call them all hateful. In their minds, maybe they are just disapproving of a nasty race of people.

So:

Disapproving of a "nasty race of people" = Good and fair! :2thumbsup:
Disapproving of a group that thinks a race of people is nasty = Unfair and unwelcome! :thumbsdown:

Forgive me, but... if they can dish out "disapproval" to "nasty" people, I can do the same. In summary: Boo hoo?

I feel like singing a song about hypocrisy. :grin:

[Rhyfelwyr]

So:Disapproving of a "nasty race of people" = Good and fair! :2thumbsup:
Disapproving of a group that thinks a race of people is nasty

No.

Disapproving of a "nasty race of people" = probably incorrect/stupid
Disapproving of a group that think a race of people is nasty = fine

However...

Calling a "group that think a race of people is nasty" hateful = wrong and unhelpful

Racism is just one of those historic forces that emerges under the right conditions from time to time. To dismiss it as the ramblings of hateful people is dangerous, and will never lead to it being tackled effectively.

"Reason" is your favourite word, so you should apply it instead of calling all racists hateful just because they did it to the blacks. If you do that your position isn't really much more useful than theirs. You just create a 'reasonable people v hateful racists' mentality which does nothing to actually allow for reasonable discussion to take place.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Calling a "group that think a race of people is nasty" hateful = wrong and unhelpful

I could just as easily turn around and say what you're doing is wrong and unhelpful.

:shrug:

It's your opinion, Rhyf;

They are allowed to express theirs, you're allowed to express yours, I'm allowed to express mine.

:shakehands:

Fair is fair.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I could just as easily turn around and say what you're doing is wrong and unhelpful.

:shrug:

It's your opinion, Rhyf;

They are allowed to express theirs, you're allowed to express yours, I'm allowed to express mine.

:shakehands:

Fair is fair.

Everything we say here is just our opinion!

So, in your opinion, is it correct to dismiss all racists as hateful?

IMO racism is just one of those diseases like poverty. Don't say that poor people are poor because they are lazy, instead its best to understand the conditions behind it, fix them, and solve problems at their root instead of just treating the symptoms.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Everything we say here is just our opinion!

So, in your opinion, is it correct to dismiss all racists as hateful?

IMO racism is just one of those diseases like poverty. Don't say that poor people are poor because they are lazy, instead its best to understand the conditions behind it, fix them, and solve problems at their root instead of just treating the symptoms.

rac⋅ism
   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism


Rhyfelwyr, you seem to dislike what words mean; as such, your argument seems to be not with me, but with the English language.


Racism, by definition, means hatred.

:bow: I rest my case.

[Rhyfelwyr]

rac⋅ism
   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism


Rhyfelwyr, you seem to dislike what words mean; as such, your argument seems to be not with me, but with the English language.


Racism, by definition, means hatred.

:bow: I rest my case.

Notice how you only bolded the third definition because it was the only one that you were using! You have a habit of doing that with words...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Notice how you only bolded the third definition because it was the only one that you were using! You have a habit of doing that with words...

Yes, I have a habit of using them in proper context with the correct definitions.

I could post the definition of "set" which has many, many different definitions in the English language.

One could suggest that "set" does not mean something along the lines of "set in stone", it must mean what it means in the context of "complete set of cards"; I could then post the definition of set and highlight the relevant passage, and you could say "notice how you only bolded the definition you were using! You have a habit of doing that with words..."

Which is silly. Racism means hatred, according to the first dictionary that popped up in my search, and I could cross-reference that with different dictionaries and add more citations and proofs, but none of it would mean anything. Context is also what gives words their meaning; by definition racism means hatred, and groups of people who practice and believe wholeheartedly in racist ideologies, who are racist towards other groups of people, means precisely the sort of racism found in that dictionary. You can argue it all you like; it's just a matter of both contextually and by written definition, and by commonly understood language, racism means hatred. You're just deliberately ignoring that and attempting, unsuccessfully, to avoid it using semantics. But it doesn't even work in this case.

Racism does mean hatred. It's there in black and white for all to see. Take it up with dictionary.com if you disagree. I'm anxious to hear the results of your contest.

:bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Actually, white supremacists, judging by the term given to them, would more suitably fall under the first definition from the dictionary example you gave, I would think. That sounds like the context of this argument to me.

[LittleGrizzly]

Rhyf I would say your right about racists in general, they are not all hateful, but if we are talking about the kind of people who attend rallies and give out leaflets then they are very likely to be hateful towards the races they don't like...

[Askthepizzaguy]

Actually, white supremacists, judging by the term given to them, would more suitably fall under the first definition from the dictionary example you gave, I would think. That sounds like the context of this argument to me.

In your opinion, of course. And that's a shaky case as well.


1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

What does that have to do with "Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

That has nothing to do with racial superiority; that has everything to do with spreading fear and hatred of black and dark-skinned people. You're fighting a battle that cannot be won, and for people who don't deserve it, because they themselves would argue with you that they DO in fact think that black people are worthless and that they are inferior and they do fear black men around their families and children and that they do hate them.

So, it's an exercise in futility. The context, the dictionary, the common usage of the word, and the people themselves who are intolerant of black people will all disagree with you. But you'll continue to argue that you're right and I'm wrong, so... we'll make no progress. It's been fun sparring with you though.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG you are not just talking about individual groups, you made blanket statements saying all racists are hateful people. My main concern is not that you are attacking racist ideology, but the very people that uphold it. And then you say that it is OK for you to do this, since they do the same to black people, as if an eye for an eye really works.

If racists are simply racist because they are hateful people and not because of countless other factors within their society, then older people are really hateful. And poor people also seem to be pretty hateful, since they form the backbone for parties like the BNP. And Germans 70 years ago were all very very hateful people, its almost like they were a hateful race!

I wish people would start realising that every ideology is simply a historic force, racism in particular is caught up in a whole horrible web of ideologies from nationalism to imperialism. Like racism, povert y is one of these forces, or realities, whatever. Thankfully, most people nowadays realise that poverty is a force working within society, and we tackle poverty instead of the poor. The only difference with racism is that it tends to bring nasty consequences beyond those who are caught up in it, and so instead of taking the same sophisticed approach we do to poverty, having serious discussions about how to tackle the problem at the core; instead we make theads titled "I laugh in the face of White Supremacists groups". Not very helpful is it?

And sometimes, you just get an angry teenager or some bloke having a midlife crisis who gets caught up in racist ideologies, which still doesn't make them nasty people they're just badly misguided.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Labeling such groups as "hateful," is accurate. Rhyf' may well be correct that it isn't helpful, but their stated ideologies make "hateful" more or less descriptive.

They have a right to their views, however insipid. Should they act upon such views, they should receive the full punishment appropriate under the law. I DO think it reasonable for police units to consider membership in one of these hate groups as one factor in putting someone on a "person of interest" list -- as long as the other proprieties to protect a person's rights are maintained.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG you are not just talking about individual groups, you made blanket statements saying all racists are hateful people. My main concern is not that you are attacking racist ideology, but the very people that uphold it. And then you say that it is OK for you to do this, since they do the same to black people, as if an eye for an eye really works.

I do attack racist ideology as being entirely illogical and unfounded by science. I attack the hatred those views represent and say it's not welcome.


If racists are simply racist because they are hateful people and not because of countless other factors within their society, then older people are really hateful.

I never made that argument or comparison.


And poor people also seem to be pretty hateful, since they form the backbone for parties like the BNP.

I never made that argument or comparison.


And Germans 70 years ago were all very very hateful people, its almost like they were a hateful race!

I never made that argument or comparison.


I wish people would start realising that every ideology is simply a historic force, racism in particular is caught up in a whole horrible web of ideologies from nationalism to imperialism. Like racism, povert y is one of these forces, or realities, whatever. Thankfully, most people nowadays realise that poverty is a force working within society, and we tackle poverty instead of the poor.
People do address the concerns associated with racism, by spreading the facts, knowledge about genetics, educating people about the sameness of us all, and the worth of all "races" and that we are really one human race. The ignorance persists, stubbornly, because people cling to their faith that certain races are evil. They have faith in that idea, in spite of evidence to the contrary, arguments that have been presented, and the many many good people from those "races".

Now that that has been done, all those who remain are stubborn, hateful people, in my opinion.


The only difference with racism is that it tends to bring nasty consequences beyond those who are caught up in it, and so instead of taking the same sophisticed approach we do to poverty, having serious discussions about how to tackle the problem at the core; instead we make theads titled "I laugh in the face of White Supremacists groups". Not very helpful is it?

I don't find defending racists very helpful. And spreading knowledge of these groups who hate everyone, and reporting their actions to the community is helpful. being aware that racism isn't over and there is still more of that ugliness remaining is helpful. People do have a choice; not all elderly, poor, or german people are racist... who made that comparison? Not me. You did.

Because the problem is NOT systemic, it is individual choice, that is why racists HAVE to recruit people. They need to force their views on innocent children, and they need to preach their hate so that they create more ignorant racists. It's not something you're forced to have by SOCIETY, it's a choice to continue to HATE people.


And sometimes, you just get an angry teenager or some bloke having a midlife crisis who gets caught up in racist ideologies, which still doesn't make them nasty people they're just badly misguided.

Sometimes a man has a bad day and shoots his boss in the face. That doesn't make him misguided.

People are responsible for their own choices and actions; not genetics, not environment. People have free will, and will be judged and held accountable BY those actions that they freely chose to do.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You never specifically made those arguments about poor people etc but they are the consequences of your argument. And don't go blaming it on faith (gah?), these racists just badly understand what they think to be evidence of racial differences.

Anyway I'm not defending racism as an ideology, I'm just saying look at the bigger picture, there's no reason to believe racists are by nature more hateful than you or me. If I was a black slave on a US plantation I would not be very positive about white people, doesn't make me hateful it fact it would be a reasonable conclusion to come to given the circumstances.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You never specifically made those arguments about poor people etc but they are the consequences of your argument

:stars: I thought they were the consequences of YOUR argument, which I oppose?


And don't go blaming it on faith

Since there is no evidence that different races are inherently bad, it takes faith to believe in it.
:yes:


these racists just badly understand what they think to be evidence of racial differences.
Races can be different... black people tend to have darker skin than whites. Imagine that! What I object to is treating people like inferiors based on blanket judgments of entire races based on no evidence whatsoever or a really, really perverted twisting of evidence which does not reasonably lead to the conclusion that races are inherently better than others.


Anyway I'm not defending racism as an ideology, I'm just saying look at the bigger picture, there's no reason to believe racists are by nature more hateful than you or me.

Let's see... I don't go around spreading pamphlets which encourage hate and fear towards entire races of people. I don't call all whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, gays, lesbians, tall people, short people, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists, fill-in-the-blanks as evil people who must be lower than the rest of us, must be destroyed or deported. Someone did say that non-Christians are/should/will burn in hell because they are inherently rotten to the core in terms of their morality, which puts them on a lower pedestal that the person in question. And racists do, in fact, tend to hate more than you or I, because they believe in hate, preach hate, teach hate, spread fear and misinformation, and refuse to let go of their beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary, and often act on that faith to harass or assault those they think are inferior.

It's all one core concept which plagues humanity: The idea that you know for a fact that people are beneath you.


If I was a black slave on a US plantation I would not be very positive about white people, doesn't make me hateful it fact it would be a reasonable conclusion to come to given the circumstances.

Not all slaves hated white people; some of them were freed by white "masters", some of them were assisted in their freedom by white people, and white people fought a civil war and enacted legislation freeing them. Again, freedom is the watchword: choice is as well. Even people in dire circumstances do not HAVE to hate; it is not programmed into our genetics, and even our environment does not force us to hate. What is left? Choice. Choice to engage in hateful actions, believe hateful rhetoric, and spread vile hateful ideology.

Since my first encounters with non-whites didn't go pleasantly, if I were a hateful person, I might have attributed that to their race. Since entire massive groups of people such as violent extremist religious groups are dedicated to crushing the infidel, converting the heretics and the sinners, and eliminating racial impurity, I might have good reason to hate them right back.

But I have a choice. And my choice is that I do not hate them. I denounce their actions as hateful, their teachings as baseless, immoral, and ignorant, and peacefully and civilly protest everything their ideology represents and their hate groups do in general. If they act on their hate, I say lock them away. But I have a choice; and my choice, in spite of a world filled with haters, is not to hate them back. Not to hate. It is the same choice we all have.

So, those who choose to hate and be intolerant, yes, they ARE more hateful than you or me. Period.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

One of the reasons people join those groups is because it's a sort of passive aggressive way to create controversy. Join a racist group, piss people off, those people spend time and effort arguing about it on internet forums...

[Husar]

my post was a joke.

So was mine. ~;)

[Incongruous]

This is bollox, you are targeting groups which have very little influence these days, you are also targetting a small selection of thme as well, why is that? Why not laugh in the face of all racial supremecist groups? The biggest one is probabaly one of those Hindu nationalist ones in India, real bastards who like to burn people in their homes.

[HoreTore]

This is bollox, you are targeting groups which have very little influence these days, you are also targetting a small selection of thme as well, why is that? Why not laugh in the face of all racial supremecist groups? The biggest one is probabaly one of those Hindu nationalist ones in India, real bastards who like to burn people in their homes.

Uhm.... Because these are the ones we have in our backyard...? Because the Hindu one is on a different continent maybe...?

[Incongruous]

Uhm.... Because these are the ones we have in our backyard...? Because the Hindu one is on a different continent maybe...?

Do you not have any Hindu nationalists in your country? I have met about ten here in NZ, all angry young men whom confess a will to kill Muslims and some Christians back "home". No less of a public menace in a country with both those groups in it.
Are there only white racist groups in yor homeland?
They are about as harmful as flies, there will be no mass parades, the countries which will suffer the most from racism now, will be in the 3rd world. Like India and the Arab states, where it is way of life for some.

[Fragony]

So, those who choose to hate and be intolerant, yes, they ARE more hateful than you or me. Period.

If I would have to decide who's opinion is more dangerous, yours or theirs, I would have no clear-cut answer.

[Vuk]

Tell you what I will do to end all of this bickering. I will go seduce both a female member of the Black Panthers and Aryan Nation. I will judge by my experience whether they are hateful or just misguided. If I have a good time, they are misguided, but if either of them disappoint me, then they are hateful. :beam:

[Rhyfelwyr]

:stars: I thought they were the consequences of YOUR argument, which I oppose?

No, you are saying racism is not to be blamed on factors such as poverty, ignorance, social factors etc, instead you just think it is because people are hateful.


Since there is no evidence that different races are inherently bad, it takes faith to believe in it.
:yes:

Evidence is what you make of it. The facts don't change but I bet in Nazi Germany there was plenty of propaganda which the average person took as scientific evidence of 'Aryan' racial superiority. For them, it would be quite reasonable to believe white people are better than everone else.


Races can be different... black people tend to have darker skin than whites. Imagine that! What I object to is treating people like inferiors based on blanket judgments of entire races based on no evidence whatsoever or a really, really perverted twisting of evidence which does not reasonably lead to the conclusion that races are inherently better than others.

I agree with that, but remember what we know to be twisted evidence could be as good as proof to someone who doesn't have access to any other information.


Let's see... I don't go around spreading pamphlets which encourage hate and fear towards entire races of people. I don't call all whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, gays, lesbians, tall people, short people, republicans, democrats, independents, anarchists, fill-in-the-blanks as evil people who must be lower than the rest of us, must be destroyed or deported. Someone did say that non-Christians are/should/will burn in hell because they are inherently rotten to the core in terms of their morality, which puts them on a lower pedestal that the person in question. And racists do, in fact, tend to hate more than you or I, because they believe in hate, preach hate, teach hate, spread fear and misinformation, and refuse to let go of their beliefs in spite of evidence to the contrary, and often act on that faith to harass or assault those they think are inferior.

It's all one core concept which plagues humanity: The idea that you know for a fact that people are beneath you.

I do believe I said Christians deserved the same fate as non-Christians, that was the point in Christ dying on the cross. You are not spreading hate about those you listed, but you really do seem to hate white supremacists; not only for their views, but as people - you blame it all on them. You believe all racists are evil people, they sometimes believe certain races are evil. Of course, I am fairly certain the racists are wrong in thinking like this. But then I also believe you are mistaken in thinking all racists are by nature hateful, becauase you are taking one of those historic/social forces which emerges under certain conditions, and blaming it on the hatefulness of certain people.


Not all slaves hated white people; some of them were freed by white "masters", some of them were assisted in their freedom by white people, and white people fought a civil war and enacted legislation freeing them. Again, freedom is the watchword: choice is as well. Even people in dire circumstances do not HAVE to hate; it is not programmed into our genetics, and even our environment does not force us to hate. What is left? Choice. Choice to engage in hateful actions, believe hateful rhetoric, and spread vile hateful ideology.

Depends if they met decent white folk or not. If the only white people I knew were the ones who came out of nowhere on big ships, stole all my family, half killed me on a horrific journey across the ocean, then whipped me while I worked for nothing on my plantations - then I think it would not be unreasonbale to view white people with disdain. This may mean I hate them, it may mean that if I keep my emotions in check I would come to the apparently reasonable conclusion that people with white skin are all evil.


Since my first encounters with non-whites didn't go pleasantly, if I were a hateful person, I might have attributed that to their race. Since entire massive groups of people such as violent extremist religious groups are dedicated to crushing the infidel, converting the heretics and the sinners, and eliminating racial impurity, I might have good reason to hate them right back.

But I have a choice. And my choice is that I do not hate them. I denounce their actions as hateful, their teachings as baseless, immoral, and ignorant, and peacefully and civilly protest everything their ideology represents and their hate groups do in general. If they act on their hate, I say lock them away. But I have a choice; and my choice, in spite of a world filled with haters, is not to hate them back. Not to hate. It is the same choice we all have.

So, those who choose to hate and be intolerant, yes, they ARE more hateful than you or me. Period.

Why would you only attribute it to their race if you are hateful? It seems that it would be quite reasonable to conclude that for whatever reason the people with white skin are at least morally inferior. To them, it would be a good thing to drive the white away, because they are bad people - they don't have to hate them. Ridiculous example, but we don't call the good guys in Lord of the Rings 'hateful' beacuse they killed all the nasty orcs, do we?

[Rhyfelwyr]

If I would have to decide who's opinion is more dangerous, yours or theirs, I would have no clear-cut answer.

This is what I've been trying to get across. :bow:

[HoreTore]

Do you not have any Hindu nationalists in your country? I have met about ten here in NZ, all angry young men whom confess a will to kill Muslims and some Christians back "home". No less of a public menace in a country with both those groups in it.
Are there only white racist groups in yor homeland?
They are about as harmful as flies, there will be no mass parades, the countries which will suffer the most from racism now, will be in the 3rd world. Like India and the Arab states, where it is way of life for some.

Nope, none of them here. All we've got are the neo-nazi's of different flavours. There are racists of every kind I'm sure, but the only ones with any organization are the neo-nazi's. They've even made political parties for themselves.

[Fragony]

This is what I've been trying to get across. :bow:

Don't pin it on me though,

What does that have to do with "Why did those dark men take mommy away?"

This is unacceptable. But these guys are such a joke and supported by so little that this is a clear case of the medicine being worse then the cure. No offense to ATPG but some people just can't help considering themselves to be the golden standard of reason, lines get blurred that way.

[Vuk]

My (serious this time :P) thoughts on what I have been reading:
First of all, hate is an emotion, and I think that it is no worse than love and in some cases cannot exist without love. Here is a question for you ATPG, who I know does not like Christianity: Is it worse to hate God or love the Devil?
I think that people should hate evil, but hate evil itself, not necessarily those who believe in it. I also think that evil is subjective in that many people have different (and oft conflicting) standards for it, though I believe that God's standard is the right one (but look how many times that has been interpreted in different ways). What you may think is good another may think is evil, and vice versa.
Hate is an emotion, and not evil. It can be felt toward good things or evil things, but by itself is not evil. If evil were not hated, it would not be opposed.
Sorry to run around like that, but my point is that you are trying to paint people as evil because they feel hate, all the while not admitting the hate you feel toward them. In other words, I think you could use a little Christian doctrine ~;), hate the sin, love the sinner. (which isn't to say you have to carry out my experiment with them)
They are not necessarily bad people if they believe in what they think is good. After all, good is about intent. Good people do what they think is good, and if they find out they are wrong, stop. If some of them do not really believe it is good and do it only to gain power and exploit people, then I would agree with you that they are evil, and therefore hate-worthy.
I am not saying that you should hate neonazism any less, but do not confuse the message with the messenger. A dangerous person is a dangerous person though, intent aside, that I understand. If these people do become dangerous to society and attempt to infringe on the rights of others, they would need to be stopped, but that is not the same as hating them. Do you see what I mean?
I know that you did not specifically use the word evil, but I believe you were using the word hate in its place, and I wanted to illustrate the difference.


EDIT: As an example ATPG, take WWII Nazi soldiers. Sure, they may have been fighting for a cause that you and I would consider evil, but if they thought it was good, does that make them evil people? You could say "They hated Slavs and Jews though, so they had to be evil to hate their fellow men", but that does not hold up when you hate them in return. They were taught that Slavs and Jews did horrors and were as evil as we are taught they are. Sure, we may be in the right, but that does not mean that they did not believe they were, and were fighting for what they thought was the good of human kind to end misery and suffering (which was all caused by those evil Jews :P), just as you would think about fighting Nazis. Of course they were wittingly or unwittingly aiding evil, so that is regardless when considering whether you need to stop them or not. You may need to kill them because you think they are promoting evil, but that does not mean that they are evil or that they deserve hate. Rather, I would say many deserved pity.

It is a different story with modern race power groups, and I believe that many of them are just insecure, but that does not make them necassarily evil either, or worthy of hate themselves. I pity people who feel hate toward innocent people, but as long as their intent is good, I do not hate them myself.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If I would have to decide who's opinion is more dangerous, yours or theirs, I would have no clear-cut answer.

*yawn*

Yeah, those who think everyone in Africa is a lesser species than them, they aren't dangerous. On the other hand, I, a pasty white fatty who barely moves from his computer and speaks out against hatred, I'm the dangerous one. Sorry Frag, but... if you can't tell the difference between dangerous hate groups and those that wish to protect the innocent from those dangerous hate groups, then I feel sorry for you.

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is what I've been trying to get across. :bow:

Your defenses of neo-Nazi groups are baseless and weird, in my opinion. Possibly even dangerous. :bow:

But hey, standing up for and appeasing Nazis and being Nazi apologists never caused problems before.

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is unacceptable.

How intolerant of you. Perhaps your opinions have become dangerous. I am now very very afraid of you... I'm not sure which is worse; Neo-Nazis, or you.

:laugh2:

[Fragony]

*yawn*

Yeah, those who think everyone in Africa is a lesser species than them, they aren't dangerous. On the other hand, I, a pasty white fatty who barely moves from his computer and speaks out against hatred, I'm the dangerous one. Sorry Frag, but... if you can't tell the difference between dangerous hate groups and those that wish to protect the innocent from those dangerous hate groups, then I feel sorry for you.

Yes in my humble opinion you, or at least your idea's, are more dangerous, it's the difference between a car- and a traincrash. So someone hates blacks, what's it to me, you can hate whoever you want for whatever reason, you really want to correct that? That would be imposing, and tresspassing someone's right to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter how twisted it is, what is next? What else doesn't have your aproval? I consider it to be a soft variety of fascism.

[HoreTore]

So someone hates blacks, what's it to me, you can hate whoever you want for whatever reason, you really want to correct that?

Yes. That would be called "politics". We don't want to correct it by punishment, but through debate. Our entire society is based on debating issues to find a solution, and convince others of your solution to any given problem.

So, in this case, guy A hates black people. Guy B doesn't, so he tries to convince guy A that hating black people is ridiculous. This is what's called free speech and democracy.

EDIT: Sending them to a re-education camp would be called communism, and sending them to a gas chamber would be called nazism. Not sure what "do nothing" would be called though.... Apathy perhaps?

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yes in my humble opinion you, or at least your idea's, are more dangerous, it's the difference between a car- and a traincrash. So someone hates blacks, what's it to me, you can hate whoever you want for whatever reason, you really want to correct that? That would be imposing, and tresspassing someone's right to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter how twisted it is, what is next? What else doesn't have your aproval? I consider it to be a soft variety of fascism.

1. In my opinion your ideas are more dangerous. :bow: You know what they say about opinions...

2. So someone hates blacks, what's it to me? So someone marches around, telling people how much they hate blacks, what's it to me? So someone organizes mass demonstrations, giving powerful speeches about how horrible black people are, what's it to me? So someone uses threats and intimidation to spread fear about a race of people, what's it to me? So what if they identify themselves as Nazis, complete with swastikas (in the sense of Nazi swastikas), what's it to me? Charismatic Nazi fervor, marching through the streets, intimidating minorities; why, that never harmed anyone! Not even a LITTLE BIT!

3. "You can hate whoever you want, you really want to correct that?"

Yes. Hatred of other human beings who haven't done anything wrong, based on race, is vile and dangerous and wrong. You can get all high and mighty and say it's wrong to believe it is wrong, and I can point out the hypocrisy of telling someone it is wrong to tell someone it is wrong.

4. "That would be imposing, and tresspassing someone's right to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter how twisted it is, what is next?"

Really? So, if I speak out against hate, while they are speaking the hate, I'm actually the one who is in the wrong? Sounds pretty.... twisted.... to me.

5. "What else doesn't have your aproval? I consider it to be a soft variety of fascism."

WHAT? How... how... how... how DARE you speak out against fascism. That sounds like... something judgmental to me! How dare I speak out against people who are ACTUALLY fascists and nazis. That makes me a fascist and a Nazi. Actually worse because I have reasoning behind what I am doing, and I'm not trying to exterminate, threaten, or harass them into leaving the country.

I'm such a bad sick evil person for ever saying Nazis are wrong, and those Nazis who say black people are wrong, well, they are the good people. You're right Fragony. If you weren't serious, this would make for great satire; instead, it's confusing, hypocritical, and disturbing.

Have a lovely day! :medievalcheers:

[Fragony]

WHAT? How... how... how... how DARE you speak out against fascism. That sounds like... something judgmental to me! How dare I speak out against people who are ACTUALLY fascists and nazis.

Yes, think of it, as long as they don't go beyond what is acceptable, and the 'why did the dark man take away my mommy' is unacceptable imho, that is spreading hate. I rather dislike nazi's and white-supremists they are idiots, but the thing is I like myselve more then I dislike them and I don't really feel like betraying myselve because of a bunch of racist idiots. Freedom; it isn't meant for everyone if you know what I mean and imho you are on the slippery slope not them.

I laugh in the face of White Supremacist groups

That's the thread title. But no you don't, yet you should.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Yes, think of it, as long as they don't go beyond what is acceptable, and the 'why did the dark man take away my mommy' is unacceptable imho, that is spreading hate.

How judgmental of you. [/sarcasm!] :clown:


I rather dislike nazi's and white-supremists they are idiots,

Really? Are they all really idiots? Even I called them ignorant... that means there is a possibility they could, you know, see the light and improve, and become regular happy well adjusted people. According to you they are mentally handicapped. How very judgmental of you. [/sarcasm!] :clown:


but the thing is I like myselve more then I dislike them

I'm happy for ya! :bow:


and I don't really feel like betraying myselve because of a bunch of racist idiots.

How very judgmental of you, calling those poor Nazis racist idiots. [/sarcasm!] :clown:


Freedom; it isn't meant for everyone if you know what I mean

Sounds awfully fascist to me. :grin: :clown:


and imho you are on the slippery slope not them.

How very judgmental of you! [/sarcasm!] I am glad you'll side with the Neo-Nazi hate groups over me. :bow:

When people talk about how awful it is to speak out against racists, and then turn around and engage in ad hominem style attacks against them, and then judge the people who say racism is wrong as being more sick and twisted than the racists themselves, for being so judgmental.... I really gotta wonder, like... where do you get this stuff? It's so hypocritical that the room is spinning.

I'm just saying, your own argument destroys itself and your credibility.

[Fragony]

I'm just saying, your own argument destroys itself and your credibility.

If you don't mind me saying you aren't your credibility's best friend in this thread.

"How very judgmental of you! I am glad you'll side with the Neo-Nazi hate groups over me. "

Sorry but why do I deserve this?

[Tribesman]

I'm just saying, your own argument destroys itself and your credibility.

Hold on there , what credibility ?
This is the bloke who claims good citizens who were caught red handed engaged in domestic terrorism and convicted of hate crimes were really innocent and only convicted because they were not immigrants .

[Vuk]

1. In my opinion your ideas are more dangerous. :bow: You know what they say about opinions...

2. So someone hates blacks, what's it to me? So someone marches around, telling people how much they hate blacks, what's it to me? So someone organizes mass demonstrations, giving powerful speeches about how horrible black people are, what's it to me? So someone uses threats and intimidation to spread fear about a race of people, what's it to me? So what if they identify themselves as Nazis, complete with swastikas (in the sense of Nazi swastikas), what's it to me? Charismatic Nazi fervor, marching through the streets, intimidating minorities; why, that never harmed anyone! Not even a LITTLE BIT!

3. "You can hate whoever you want, you really want to correct that?"

Yes. Hatred of other human beings who haven't done anything wrong, based on race, is vile and dangerous and wrong. You can get all high and mighty and say it's wrong to believe it is wrong, and I can point out the hypocrisy of telling someone it is wrong to tell someone it is wrong.

4. "That would be imposing, and tresspassing someone's right to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter how twisted it is, what is next?"

Really? So, if I speak out against hate, while they are speaking the hate, I'm actually the one who is in the wrong? Sounds pretty.... twisted.... to me.

5. "What else doesn't have your aproval? I consider it to be a soft variety of fascism."

WHAT? How... how... how... how DARE you speak out against fascism. That sounds like... something judgmental to me! How dare I speak out against people who are ACTUALLY fascists and nazis. That makes me a fascist and a Nazi. Actually worse because I have reasoning behind what I am doing, and I'm not trying to exterminate, threaten, or harass them into leaving the country.

I'm such a bad sick evil person for ever saying Nazis are wrong, and those Nazis who say black people are wrong, well, they are the good people. You're right Fragony. If you weren't serious, this would make for great satire; instead, it's confusing, hypocritical, and disturbing.

Have a lovely day! :medievalcheers:


I don't think that is what he is saying ATPG. Everyone has likes and dislikes, and with everyone thinks they are superior to others in some way, and that others are inferior to them and their group in some way. This can be class, nationality, gender, race, etc.
Think of chauvinist and feminists. Many feminists think guys are barbaric, horrible, evil, inferior beings driven by instinct and devoid of heart or feeling. (that is actually how I have heard a feminist describe men) Meanwhile chauvinists think women are nothing but unfeeling, lying, cheating, evil :daisy: who are good for nothing but sex. (If you think I am exaggerating, just look at some of the comments freaks make on Youtube vids, or listen to guys talking in a bar) These people both think that the other is dangerous to their group, and that their group should have superiority. Likewise with classes, lower classes think of the rich as evil and corrupt, and oppressive toward them (and they aren't far off :beam:), meanwhile the upper-classes/upper middle classes think of the lowers classes/lower middle classes as stupid, uneducated, inferior beings, who are dangerous because they cannot think for themselves and do not know what is good for them. (don't think so? Listen to two professors talking about the "six pack Joe" watching football, or here two factory workers talking about wall street investors.) To be honest with you, I think the most and widest spread disgust and hatred I have ever witnessed has been by higher class, educated individuals about lower class, uneducated individuals.
A similar dislike and condescension exists between religious people and atheists I believe. (by both sides to be sure)
My point is that prejudices and hates at least as strong as that of race exist in common society everywhere. I do not think race is any worse than class, religious, national, or sexual hatred. All have led to abuses and deaths. Some have been stronger than others through times in history. Where I person stands on these is their problem, and you may consider them stuck up and stupid, but that is hardly a reason to hate them.
If these Aryan Nations people decide to abuse and kill people (or if they make it their agenda to do so), then that is something to take action against. It is no worse though than if someone did it for race, nationality, gender, or religion though. I don't think that any of these leads to violence or oppression more than the other. If you hate someone for racial prejudice, and want to do something about them, then you are gonna hate someone for national prejudice, or religious prejudice, or sexual prejudice, etc. You will end up hating the world. :P Hate the sin, love the sinner. I have friends who are racist. They are harmless, and do not treat people of other races poorly, but they think that they are stupid, and more instinct driven. I do not hate them for it, I instead try to use evidence to show them that they are wrong (and have succeeded with one). Likewise I know women who belong to the feminist chapter at my Uni and are always talking about female empowerment, and women taking control, blah, blah, blah. They are not harmful though, and I do not hate them for it. I do the same thing I do with racists and try to persuade them to stop being such idiots. Likewise, I know people who hate Israel and hate Israelis at least as strongly as anyone I know who hates other races. Once again with them, I do not hate them, but try persuade them.
Everyone has prejudices, but they are not violence, and they are oppression, they are just dumb. Everyone in the world has their own though, whether they will admit it or not. (I think yours is a loathing of people of faith ATPG, whether you will admit it or not ~;)) When people commit violence and oppress people, the fault is the violence and the violence needs to be addressed. Sure, without hatred you would not have violence, but it IS there and cannot be gotten rid of I think. As long as people are rational and do not let it lead to violence or oppression, that is what matters. If you hate the sin, and not the sinner, then you will fight the sin, and not the sinner. You fight a sinner with violence, you fight a sin with words. The problem is people not paying attention to that old adage.
See what I mean?

[Fragony]

Hold on there , what credibility ?
This is the bloke who claims good citizens who were caught red handed engaged in domestic terrorism and convicted of hate crimes were really innocent and only convicted because they were not immigrants .

That one was simply way off juridically, and the judge himself said that the punishment was harsher because of just that, so end of story it happened. Almost forgot but someone keeps reminding me. Now also mention I once posted a post where I wanted to beat up muslim-rioters (5 years ago, drunk) and so we have all made a full circle and can carry on.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Your defenses of neo-Nazi groups are baseless and weird, in my opinion. Possibly even dangerous. :bow:

But hey, standing up for and appeasing Nazis and being Nazi apologists never caused problems before.

The thing is if we took a more sensible approach to racism we wouldn't need to fight it in the first place. If we didn't want racism to emerge alongsied militant fascism then we shouldn't have kicked Germany in the teeth after WWI. We would have realised that this crappy treatment is what allows such nasty ideas as racism to breed in the first place. Get the problem at the root, racism is much more than the ramblings of some hateful people. Don't fool yourself into thinking that's all it is, that is a dangerous path to take.

[Vuk]

Oh, and just so you know, one of my neighbors, used to be a racist. He and his wife were very nice, and completely harmless people. They did not act rudely to people of other races, or hurt anyone. They had a belief though that blacks were stupid and prone to violence, and that orientals were deceitfully, and that Latins were creepy. I used to think to myself when I heard them say things like that "How positively stupid", and I delibrately would bring my Korean gf over to their place for dinner. :P (no, we did not eat her :P) Long story made short, though I thought their belief was stupid, they were my good friends who I respected, they were nice people, and both of them ended up admitting that they were wrong about those beliefs. I do not think their beliefs were anymore harmful than those who look down on Christians, or muslims, or women, or men, or Americans, or Canadians. It was a stupid idea, and one they were talked out of, but it is not inherently violent. Violence is something different entirely, and needs to be dealt with for what it is: violence. The same thing goes for disturbing the peace, intimidation, etc.

I agree with you ATPG that racism is bad, but I do not think that means all racists are bad. To join an organised group like this in todays world I think means that you are a little insecure and perhaps not very smart, but I do not think it necassarily means someone is evil or deserving of hate. If they really think they are saving people, and they do not plan to use violence, intimidation, or such dirty tactics as that poster, then I see no reason to hate them.


EDIT: Another thing to think about with racists I think is this. Racism punishes itself. Violence needs to be punished so that it will not be continued, but racism does not. Punishing someone for it will just make them firmer in their beliefs. If someone wants to deprive themselves of the company and friendship of people from other races, it is their own loss, their own stupidity, and their own punishment. It hurts no one but themselves, as does the stress they put on themselves.
The problem here isn't the racism I think, but the violence, intimidation, and harmful posters. They could wrap it in nationalism, relgious hate, gender hate, whatever, that is just the frosting.

[HoreTore]

The thing is if we took a more sensible approach to racism we wouldn't need to fight it in the first place. If we didn't want racism to emerge alongsied militant fascism then we shouldn't have kicked Germany in the teeth after WWI. We would have realised that this crappy treatment is what allows such nasty ideas as racism to breed in the first place. Get the problem at the root, racism is much more than the ramblings of some hateful people. Don't fool yourself into thinking that's all it is, that is a dangerous path to take.

That germany was treated badly in the peace settlement after WW1 is probably the greatest myth ever.

[Vuk]

That germany was treated badly in the peace settlement after WW1 is probably the greatest myth ever.

lol, care to explain that? Germany was treated very poorly. The main wound they inflicted on Germany which is what enabled Hitler to preach his nationalist message was the taking of land from Germany. If they were not punished with that, then WWII would never have happened, and Hitler would never have come to power, and the Holocaust would never have happened. Our President tried to warn the French, but they did not listen. If people had listened to the US then, there would have been no WWII. :P (sorry, I had to put a nationalist spin on it for HoreTore's sake ~;))

[Fragony]

Not sure what "do nothing" would be called though.... Apathy perhaps?

Just letting be? Things go best when you do nothing, then you aren't making a point out of anything, why the haste.

edit: Good post Vuk.

[HoreTore]

lol, care to explain that? Germany was treated very poorly. The main wound they inflicted on Germany which is what enabled Hitler to preach his nationalist message was the taking of land from Germany. If they were not punished with that, then WWII would never have happened, and Hitler would never have come to power, and the Holocaust would never have happened. Our President tried to warn the French, but they did not listen. If people had listened to the US then, there would have been no WWII. :P (sorry, I had to put a nationalist spin on it for HoreTore's sake ~;))

I give that a great, big.....

BAH!

The land Germany ceded to France after WWI was the very land France ceded to Germany 30 years before, in the Franco-Prussian war. It wasn't punishment, it was taking back what was rightfully theirs.

What enabled Hitler's rise was good old nationalism. Germany's war-veterans just could not come to terms with the fact that they were beaten. They were the greatest people on the planet, their army the greatest one. Surely they couldn't be responsible for this? There must've been someone else who threw spanners in the works of the german military machine. But who could it be.... hmmm.... IT MUST'VE BEEN DEM JEWS!!

Hitler spoke to the pride of Germany's war veterans. He told them that they weren't responsible for their defeat. Germany was still the mightiest nation on earth. The reason Germany lost was because of weaklings and cowards, communist and jewish infiltrators who sold Germany to the allies.

It wasn't the peace terms who created the holocaust. German pride and nationalism created the holocaust. Nothing else.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

No, you are saying racism is not to be blamed on factors such as poverty, ignorance, social factors etc, instead you just think it is because people are hateful.


As an aside, what is the use of making excuses for behavior like this, however true it is? Everything can be blamed on factors such as poverty, ignorance, social upbringing etc...but if you give people a pass an don't act like they are responsible for them selves then you are denying their humanity.

[Fragony]

IT MUST'VE BEEN DEM JEWS!!

No of course not we call them bankiers/capitalists nowadays.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If you don't mind me saying you aren't your credibility's best friend in this thread.

"How very judgmental of you! I am glad you'll side with the Neo-Nazi hate groups over me. "

Sorry but why do I deserve this?

Here:


Yes in my humble opinion you, or at least your idea's, are more dangerous, it's the difference between a car- and a traincrash. So someone hates blacks, what's it to me, you can hate whoever you want for whatever reason, you really want to correct that? That would be imposing, and tresspassing someone's right to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter how twisted it is, what is next? What else doesn't have your aproval? I consider it to be a soft variety of fascism.

You really have no idea why that is siding with Nazis over me? And if you don't mind me saying you aren't your credibility's best friend in this thread. :bow:




I don't think that is what he is saying ATPG. Everyone has likes and dislikes, and with everyone thinks they are superior to others in some way, and that others are inferior to them and their group in some way. This can be class, nationality, gender, race, etc.

Yes, everyone is as hateful as Neo-Nazis. And it's not hate, it's just dislike. Marginal dislike, really. Actually, Nazis love everyone. :clown:


Think of chauvinist and feminists. Many feminists think guys are barbaric, horrible, evil, inferior beings driven by instinct and devoid of heart or feeling. (that is actually how I have heard a feminist describe men) Meanwhile chauvinists think women are nothing but unfeeling, lying, cheating, evil :daisy: who are good for nothing but sex.

Yes, but do chauvanists and feminists call for the harassment of men and women, spread pamphlets around describing how men and women aren't really people, march in mass demonstrations against men and women, threaten and intimidate women, and call for them to be segregated?

Not a good comparison.



These people both think that the other is dangerous to their group, and that their group should have superiority.

Feminists want equality, last I heard.


Likewise with classes, lower classes think of the rich as evil and corrupt,

Stereotyping.


and oppressive toward them (and they aren't far off :beam:),

Judgmental.


meanwhile the upper-classes/upper middle classes think of the lowers classes/lower middle classes as stupid, uneducated, inferior beings,

Stereotyping.


who are dangerous because they cannot think for themselves and do not know what is good for them. (don't think so? Listen to two professors talking about the "six pack Joe" watching football, or here two factory workers talking about wall street investors.)

Stereotyping.


To be honest with you, I think the most and widest spread disgust and hatred I have ever witnessed has been by higher class, educated individuals about lower class, uneducated individuals.

So are they all this way? Stereotyping.


A similar dislike and condescension exists between religious people and atheists I believe. (by both sides to be sure)

Not by all of them. Stereotyping.


My point is that prejudices and hates at least as strong as that of race exist in common society everywhere.

Not everywhere. And you're whitewashing Nazism with sexual revolution; a poor argument at best.


I do not think race is any worse than class, religious, national, or sexual hatred.

All hate is wrong.


All have led to abuses and deaths. Some have been stronger than others through times in history. Where I person stands on these is their problem, and you may consider them stuck up and stupid, but that is hardly a reason to hate them.

Agreed.


If these Aryan Nations people decide to abuse and kill people (or if they make it their agenda to do so), then that is something to take action against.

The vile propaganda, mass demonstrations based on hate, verbal abuse, and slander that they engage in is a form of abuse, and if there were enough Nazis in power, what would they do? Segregate. Deport. Round up and do nasty things to them, as is their stated goal. That's what makes them... Nazis.


It is no worse though than if someone did it for race, nationality, gender, or religion though. I don't think that any of these leads to violence or oppression more than the other.

Is your entire argument based on the premise; since I am not also attacking sexists at this very moment, I must have nothing relevant to say? I am confused by what your point is.


If you hate someone for racial prejudice, and want to do something about them, then you are gonna hate someone for national prejudice, or religious prejudice, or sexual prejudice, etc. You will end up hating the world. :P

Pardon? What the heck are you talking about? I never said I hated; I said I opposed them. Please, don't strawman me. I've been chided for strawman-ing someone here, don't do the same.


Hate the sin, love the sinner.

I am not required to love Nazis, but I don't hate them. I hate what they stand for. If they renounce their ideology of hate, I'd be fine. I hate hatred itself. Which is kind of what you're asking me to do.... so it's pretty redundant. I still fail to see what your point is.


I have friends who are racist.

You have friends who would march in Klan rallies or Nazi rallies and spread vile propaganda about how evil the "dark men" are? Shameful.

There is a difference between people who have quiet distrusting feelings towards black people, and those who would march in Klan rallies. It's a matter of degree..... Nazis are hateful to an unhealthy and destructive degree, because they aren't just distrusting of black people, they think they are a lower species. Which is utterly atrocious and offensive nonsense.


They are harmless, and do not treat people of other races poorly, but they think that they are stupid, and more instinct driven.

That's pretty shoddy treatment to write off an entire race as stupid, instinct-driven animals.


I do not hate them for it, I instead try to use evidence to show them that they are wrong (and have succeeded with one).

The evidence is out there. It's not hard to find. People at this stage of the game who still are racist need to get themselves educated. I'll show them the information if they ask for it, but it's such basic stuff that it shouldn't even be necessary to qualify my argument against racists with evidence that races are not all a certain way, or different species. Just like in an argument about physics, one does not necessarily need to re-state the fundamentals of physics in every sentence, or even at all. It's implied that it is understood if you're talking about physics.

If someone is a racist who simply is uneducated, get educated before you open your mouth, I say. Everyone else is a hateful bigot because they should know better.


Likewise I know women who belong to the feminist chapter at my Uni and are always talking about female empowerment, and women taking control, blah, blah, blah.

Really? They seek to establish a collective female order which dominates men? Sounds kind of sexy, actually. :laugh4:

A fringe lunatic or two does not tear down the philosophy of female equality (feminism). What you're talking about is an entirely different concept, which involves female superiority (sexism). Do not equate the two, they are not the same.


They are not harmful though, and I do not hate them for it.

Good. Anecdotal evidence about non-sexists does not make one bit of difference in a discussion involving Nazis, racists, and other forms of intolerant hateful bigotry, and even if it was on-topic, anecdotal evidence does not a logical argument make.


I do the same thing I do with racists and try to persuade them to stop being such idiots.
How condescending and judgmental to call them idiots. :clown:


Likewise, I know people who hate Israel and hate Israelis at least as strongly as anyone I know who hates other races.

Israel is not a race. Israel is a country comprised of a large minority population of Arabs living in relative peace and harmony with a Jewish population. Your comparison is flawed.


Once again with them, I do not hate them, but try persuade them.

No comment.


Everyone has prejudices, but they are not violence, and they are oppression, they are just dumb.
You are whitewashing the oppression of racist hate groups like Nazis with the rest of humanity and saying it is all the same, and it is all based on being stupid.

Nazis consider non-whites to be trash and not human beings. It's possible that the rest of us non-Nazis DON'T think that way. Don't compare the rest of us to Nazis and say it is all the same. You're dead wrong because it isn't the same. No threats of violence, no hate, no intimidation, no rounding up, no deportation, no concentration camp, no lies and propaganda, no effort to reduce their rightful liberties.

Stop comparing us to Nazis. There is a difference between nazis and the rest of humanity: One is a group dedicated to wiping out or suppressing other human beings, and not all of us are like that. Stop whitewashing Nazism as being "just another prejudice based on stupidity". It is a dangerous and violent, hateful ideology bent on reducing the freedoms, equality, and liberties of decent people in this world. It must be tolerated as long as these things remain thoughts, but threats, intimidation, slander, and violence, which these groups always engage in, must never be tolerated, and all hate groups should be monitored as potential threats, because their stated purpose is to threaten. Period.


I think yours is a loathing of people of faith ATPG, whether you will admit it or not

If I loathe people of faith, why do I insist on speaking to them as equals and trying to convince them using reason, debate, and examples why faith can be dangerous, just as hate can be? Whether you admit it or not, you've grossly misrepresented me, Nazism, feminism, and the rest of humanity here. Is that based on loathing, or should I give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's based on bad information, not "being an idiot" which I don't think you are, but you seem to think that's what explains societies' ills.


When people commit violence and oppress people, the fault is the violence and the violence needs to be addressed.

When people commit violence, it is not the people's fault... it is the violence's fault? :stars:


Sure, without hatred you would not have violence

I accept this as a concession of the entire argument. :bow:


but it IS there and cannot be gotten rid of I think.

You cannot get rid of hatred and violence but within your own heart, and try to convince others to do the same. So yes, you can get rid of violence and hate. But we all must do it voluntarily.

Saying it isn't possible; that's your opinion and it's also not accurate. It is possible to let go of hatred and violence. Many people have.


As long as people are rational and do not let it lead to violence or oppression, that is what matters.
Is prejudice rational? Is racism rational? For that matter, you and others have argued it is OK to ignore rationalism, because embracing faith in something means rejecting or considering inferior rational argument, and embracing willfully that which cannot be proven, and accepting it as fact when it is not. That's not rational, but you advocate that. Accepting as fact that black people are a lower species, that also is irrational and requires the mind to be ignorant of the vast body of evidence accumulated to date which proves otherwise, intentional or unintentional. When a group advocates fear and intolerance of another, that is but the first step in oppression.


If you hate the sin, and not the sinner, then you will fight the sin, and not the sinner.
You're preaching to the choir, but it is you who passed them off as being too dumb and stupid to get better. I advocated that they grow up and let prejudice go; it is you who are attacking "the sinners" themselves as being dumb and stupid. I am saying they can get better. I am asking them to get better. I am asking them to get educated and stop hating people without good reason. You're saying "oh they are just dumb".


You fight a sinner with violence, you fight a sin with words.

My attempts to fight the sin of hatred and bigotry here with words have been called judgmental (hilariously, by people judging me as being worse than Nazis) and intolerant (hilariously, by people who think that we shouldn't tolerate someone not tolerant of intolerance) and dangerous (hilariously, by people who are defending and appeasing Nazis).

I don't know what your point is, but it's aimed at the wrong person. :bow:


The problem is people not paying attention to that old adage.

If you say so.


See what I mean?

Not in the slightest. I strongly disagree with everything you've said here, barring one or two sentences. But see, in spite of your arguments, I don't hate you or think you inferior to me in any way. I can disagree with you and still be your friend.

I wish you'd kindly retract the part about loathing people of faith; I don't. I have a great many on my friends list, thank you. I've dated and loved people of faith; born to faithful parents. I don't have faith because I consider it to be illogical and dangerous, and I oppose faith, but I don't hate people of faith.

Please tell me you see the difference. I oppose the actions and ideologies of people who are racist, because I oppose racism and I think it's even more dangerous. But I don't hate them, Please tell me you see the difference. Please don't pass off racism as "stupid people" because stupid people don't rally entire nations to their cause and nearly wipe out the Allies under their leadership in World War II.
Intelligent people can become racists too, and that's just as dangerous if not more, and it is NOT a harmless thing to be ignored.


The thing is if we took a more sensible approach to racism we wouldn't need to fight it in the first place.

Yes, it is our fault racism exists, not the fault of people who choose to be racist. :no:


If we didn't want racism to emerge alongsied militant fascism then we shouldn't have kicked Germany in the teeth after WWI.

German Anti-semitism did NOT start after World War I. It's been around a very long time. so it did not emerge then. And the militant fascism was BASED on that racism and nationalism, both of which have been around since before WWI, and they are both dangerous and destructive. :no:


We would have realised that this crappy treatment

You know, crazy thought, maybe Germany shouldn't have started a war against peaceful countries and engaged in chemical warfare. I consider that to be crappy treatment.


s what allows such nasty ideas as racism to breed in the first place.

Blaming the victim will get you nowhere.


Get the problem at the root, racism is much more than the ramblings of some hateful people.
I never dismissed it as stupidity or mindless ramblings. I take it VERY seriously, more than you guys do apparently. I consider it to be very dangerous and wrong.


Don't fool yourself into thinking that's all it is, that is a dangerous path to take.

Don't blame the victims, don't appease the Nazis, don't write it off as stupidity, don't ignore it, and don't say it's genetic or environmental and there's no free will involved. That is a much much much more dangerous path to take.







You guys are wrong, wrong I tells ya. :clown:

:shakehands: Let's take a voluntary break from this debate. You're missing my points, and I feel that yours are based on bad assumptions and self-defeating logic. As such, you probably feel the same way, and we won't make any progress today.

[Askthepizzaguy]

As an aside, what is the use of making excuses for behavior like this, however true it is? Everything can be blamed on factors such as poverty, ignorance, social upbringing etc...but if you give people a pass an don't act like they are responsible for them selves then you are denying their humanity.

I am delighted to know that I am not arguing alone. Thank you Sasaki and HoreTore.

[Vuk]

Here:



You really have no idea why that is siding with Nazis over me? And if you don't mind me saying you aren't your credibility's best friend in this thread. :bow:





Yes, everyone is as hateful as Neo-Nazis. And it's not hate, it's just dislike. Marginal dislike, really. Actually, Nazis love everyone. :clown:



Yes, but do chauvanists and feminists call for the harassment of men and women, spread pamphlets around describing how men and women aren't really people, march in mass demonstrations against men and women, threaten and intimidate women, and call for them to be segregated?

Not a good comparison.




Feminists want equality, last I heard.



Stereotyping.



Judgmental.



Stereotyping.



Stereotyping.



So are they all this way? Stereotyping.



Not by all of them. Stereotyping.



Not everywhere. And you're whitewashing Nazism with sexual revolution; a poor argument at best.



All hate is wrong.



Agreed.



The vile propaganda, mass demonstrations based on hate, verbal abuse, and slander that they engage in is a form of abuse, and if there were enough Nazis in power, what would they do? Segregate. Deport. Round up and do nasty things to them, as is their stated goal. That's what makes them... Nazis.



Is your entire argument based on the premise; since I am not also attacking sexists at this very moment, I must have nothing relevant to say? I am confused by what your point is.



Pardon? What the heck are you talking about? I never said I hated; I said I opposed them. Please, don't strawman me. I've been chided for strawman-ing someone here, don't do the same.



I am not required to love Nazis, but I don't hate them. I hate what they stand for. If they renounce their ideology of hate, I'd be fine. I hate hatred itself. Which is kind of what you're asking me to do.... so it's pretty redundant. I still fail to see what your point is.



You have friends who would march in Klan rallies or Nazi rallies and spread vile propaganda about how evil the "dark men" are? Shameful.

There is a difference between people who have quiet distrusting feelings towards black people, and those who would march in Klan rallies. It's a matter of degree..... Nazis are hateful to an unhealthy and destructive degree, because they aren't just distrusting of black people, they think they are a lower species. Which is utterly atrocious and offensive nonsense.



That's pretty shoddy treatment to write off an entire race as stupid, instinct-driven animals.



The evidence is out there. It's not hard to find. People at this stage of the game who still are racist need to get themselves educated. I'll show them the information if they ask for it, but it's such basic stuff that it shouldn't even be necessary to qualify my argument against racists with evidence that races are not all a certain way, or different species. Just like in an argument about physics, one does not necessarily need to re-state the fundamentals of physics in every sentence, or even at all. It's implied that it is understood if you're talking about physics.

If someone is a racist who simply is uneducated, get educated before you open your mouth, I say. Everyone else is a hateful bigot because they should know better.



Really? They seek to establish a collective female order which dominates men? Sounds kind of sexy, actually. :laugh4:

A fringe lunatic or two does not tear down the philosophy of female equality (feminism). What you're talking about is an entirely different concept, which involves female superiority (sexism). Do not equate the two, they are not the same.



Good. Anecdotal evidence about non-sexists does not make one bit of difference in a discussion involving Nazis, racists, and other forms of intolerant hateful bigotry, and even if it was on-topic, anecdotal evidence does not a logical argument make.


How condescending and judgmental to call them idiots. :clown:



Israel is not a race. Israel is a country comprised of a large minority population of Arabs living in relative peace and harmony with a Jewish population. Your comparison is flawed.



No comment.


You are whitewashing the oppression of racist hate groups like Nazis with the rest of humanity and saying it is all the same, and it is all based on being stupid.

1. Nazis consider non-whites to be trash and not human beings. It's possible that the rest of us non-Nazis DON'T think that way. Don't compare the rest of us to Nazis and say it is all the same. You're dead wrong because it isn't the same. No threats of violence, no hate, no intimidation, no rounding up, no deportation, no concentration camp, no lies and propaganda, no effort to reduce their rightful liberties.

Stop comparing us to Nazis. There is a difference between nazis and the rest of humanity: One is a group dedicated to wiping out or suppressing other human beings, and not all of us are like that. Stop whitewashing Nazism as being "just another prejudice based on stupidity". It is a dangerous and violent, hateful ideology bent on reducing the freedoms, equality, and liberties of decent people in this world. It must be tolerated as long as these things remain thoughts, but threats, intimidation, slander, and violence, which these groups always engage in, must never be tolerated, and all hate groups should be monitored as potential threats, because their stated purpose is to threaten. Period.



If I loathe people of faith, why do I insist on speaking to them as equals and trying to convince them using reason, debate, and examples why faith can be dangerous, just as hate can be? Whether you admit it or not, you've grossly misrepresented me, Nazism, feminism, and the rest of humanity here. Is that based on loathing, or should I give you the benefit of the doubt and say it's based on bad information, not "being an idiot" which I don't think you are, but you seem to think that's what explains societies' ills.



When people commit violence, it is not the people's fault... it is the violence's fault? :stars:



I accept this as a concession of the entire argument. :bow:



You cannot get rid of hatred and violence but within your own heart, and try to convince others to do the same. So yes, you can get rid of violence and hate. But we all must do it voluntarily.

Saying it isn't possible; that's your opinion and it's also not accurate. It is possible to let go of hatred and violence. Many people have.


Is prejudice rational? Is racism rational? For that matter, you and others have argued it is OK to ignore rationalism, because embracing faith in something means rejecting or considering inferior rational argument, and embracing willfully that which cannot be proven, and accepting it as fact when it is not. That's not rational, but you advocate that. Accepting as fact that black people are a lower species, that also is irrational and requires the mind to be ignorant of the vast body of evidence accumulated to date which proves otherwise, intentional or unintentional. When a group advocates fear and intolerance of another, that is but the first step in oppression.


You're preaching to the choir, but it is you who passed them off as being too dumb and stupid to get better. I advocated that they grow up and let prejudice go; it is you who are attacking "the sinners" themselves as being dumb and stupid. I am saying they can get better. I am asking them to get better. I am asking them to get educated and stop hating people without good reason. You're saying "oh they are just dumb".



My attempts to fight the sin of hatred and bigotry here with words have been called judgmental (hilariously, by people judging me as being worse than Nazis) and intolerant (hilariously, by people who think that we shouldn't tolerate someone not tolerant of intolerance) and dangerous (hilariously, by people who are defending and appeasing Nazis).

I don't know what your point is, but it's aimed at the wrong person. :bow:



If you say so.



Not in the slightest. I strongly disagree with everything you've said here, barring one or two sentences. But see, in spite of your arguments, I don't hate you or think you inferior to me in any way. I can disagree with you and still be your friend.

I wish you'd kindly retract the part about loathing people of faith; I don't. I have a great many on my friends list, thank you. I've dated and loved people of faith; born to faithful parents. I don't have faith because I consider it to be illogical and dangerous, and I oppose faith, but I don't hate people of faith.

Please tell me you see the difference. I oppose the actions and ideologies of people who are racist, because I oppose racism and I think it's even more dangerous. But I don't hate them, Please tell me you see the difference. Please don't pass off racism as "stupid people" because stupid people don't rally entire nations to their cause and nearly wipe out the Allies under their leadership in World War II.
Intelligent people can become racists too, and that's just as dangerous if not more, and it is NOT a harmless thing to be ignored.



Yes, it is our fault racism exists, not the fault of people who choose to be racist. :no:

If we didn't want racism to emerge alongsied militant fascism then we shouldn't have kicked Germany in the teeth after WWI.

German Anti-semitism did NOT start after World War I. It's been around a very long time. so it did not emerge then. And the militant fascism was BASED on that racism and nationalism, both of which have been around since before WWI, and they are both dangerous and destructive. :no:



You know, crazy thought, maybe Germany shouldn't have started a war against peaceful countries and engaged in chemical warfare. I consider that to be crappy treatment.



Blaming the victim will get you nowhere.


I never dismissed it as stupidity or mindless ramblings. I take it VERY seriously, more than you guys do apparently. I consider it to be very dangerous and wrong.



Don't blame the victims, don't appease the Nazis, don't write it off as stupidity, don't ignore it, and don't say it's genetic or environmental and there's no free will involved. That is a much much much more dangerous path to take.







You guys are wrong, wrong I tells ya. :clown:

:shakehands: Let's take a voluntary break from this debate. You're missing my points, and I feel that yours are based on bad assumptions and self-defeating logic. As such, you probably feel the same way, and we won't make any progress today.[/QUOTE]

I think you are quite misunderstanding me, my argument, my reasoning, and my audience ATPG, and I really want to respond to this, but I got class now, and I do not get out until 10 at night, at which time I go to bed. If I do not answer it late tonight, I will have to wait till tomorrow. (it would probably be smarter to wait untill tomorrow :P)

[Fragony]

You really have no idea why that is siding with Nazis over me? And if you don't mind me saying you aren't your credibility's best friend in this thread.

Excuse me? Not going to let you of with this one, explain, right now.

[Askthepizzaguy]

You really have no idea why that is siding with Nazis over me? And if you don't mind me saying you aren't your credibility's best friend in this thread.

Excuse me? Not going to let you of with this one, explain, right now.

Already explained with evidence; i.e. your own words.

:bow:

Taking a break from the discussion. :bow:

[Rhyfelwyr]

As an aside, what is the use of making excuses for behavior like this, however true it is? Everything can be blamed on factors such as poverty, ignorance, social upbringing etc...but if you give people a pass an don't act like they are responsible for them selves then you are denying their humanity.

I am a bit of a liberal lefty sometimes am I not? :beam:

In the UK, people on the left now treat poverty as a social problem, they don't blame the poor on their condition. Is it possible to work your way out of poverty?... yes, but not everyone will make it. Conservatives say blabla its up to the individual. They say we deny people their humanity... but really we do not, we are simply pointing out patterns on the larger social scale, much as Vuk did before ATPG dismissed everything as a stereotype.

Even though the Nazi's deservedly take the blame for the horrors their regime carried out, that does not mean that we (the victors from WWI) could have prevented such people from getting into power in the first place. We could have said "hmm, maybe treating a country like :daisy: when really WWI was an inevitable conflict of equally nasty imperial powers will cause militant fascism to develop", instead they just went ahead and tried to cripple the nation.

Obviosuly there were longer term factors which shaped the development of Nazism, but really Nazism was just Germany's regional variation of fascism. Imperial Japan wasn't a much nicer country at the time.

So, I think it is time we stepped of the soapbox and started treating racism with the same reasonable approach many, mostly on the left, take towards poverty nowadays.

[Fragony]

no I didn't say that

[Askthepizzaguy]

A shame I can't break anything from you.

What does that even mean?

I see this break is very warranted. :laugh2:


PS- Racism = Poverty? :inquisitive: That makes no sense.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's give this thread a nap before somebody says something they regret.