Page 3 of 5 First 123 45 Last

Thanks!

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? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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



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.

So:

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

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.

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.

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



It's your opinion, Rhyf;

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



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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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...

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


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.

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.

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.

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.

I never made that argument or comparison.

I never made that argument or comparison.

I never made that argument or comparison.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


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.

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.

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.

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...

So was mine.

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...?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Page 3 of 5 First 123 45 Last