BR Reminder?

[Greyblades]

There is a whale stuck in your sarcasm detector, get the poor thing out

Ah the internet where the absence of a smilie automatically designates a comment as 100% serious.

[Hax]

Faen, Sigurd, you're ruining everything.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't believe there is an exact definition of what "white" means, exactly. But then, some things are more easily definable by exclusion, not inclusion.

Extremely broadly speaking I have found that [nope] seem more civilized than people of [nope]. IMHO still mainly a cultural thing, but then I do find [nope] to be trash

With the latest infraction, I guess I got the answer to the initial question.

Deleted words are, in no specific order:

1. sub-saharan legacy
2. white guys
3. sub saharan cultures

So basically... If I understand this right... Some political ideas and thoughts are not allowed here?

I honestly do find sub-saharan cultures to be trash (infraction no. 2 now I guess). Their general look on women could be used as a typical example of what I find uncivilized about them, not to mention horrible.



Do I have to pander to some black guys who get upset when I write what I think, or can we have an open international political discussion? If we can not talk about stuff like that, there isn't much use in having an international politics board, no?

[Beskar]

Do I have to pander to some black guys who get upset when I write what I think, or can we have an open international political discussion? If we can not talk about stuff like that, there isn't much use in having an international politics board, no?

But as I said in my PM at the time, your statements are far to general and stereotypical and it was clear you was bringing up ethnicity and race into the equation. Then you start using terms such as 'trash' when applying these statements.

This isn't what is allowed.

*Rant version when not wearing my moderator cap *

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Racism isn't allowed on the forum. This is clear by your 'white guys' and 'trash sub-saharan legacy' which is code for 'Black people', your public post on this matter as i clearly quoted states 'black guys' which fully justifies my action as you state that you fully intended to mean as such.

It is nothing to do with an 'open discussion' when you simply refer to people as inferiors based which hole they popped out of randomly in the world, it simply isn't tolerated here. There are communities out there which pander to that sort of thing but not here and society in general for good reason.

Law in the land also dictates 'Innocent before Proven Guilty' as a way to stop prejudice by attempting to have the law qualify to a jury of peers why a persons liberty should be taken. How come it is acceptable to condemn people as 'trash' 'rapists' and other such terms when the vast majority of innocent of such crimes ? Do you think people should hold you to account for actions you have not performed yourself ?

Would it be acceptable for me to label you with such terms and shrug my shoulders and go "Why should I pander to Kadagar_AV ?"

I am not a religious person, but there is one message in there which rings true is "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". So don't condemn innocents unless you want to be condemned yourself.

[Kadagar_AV]

Racism isn't allowed on the forum.

Am I allowed to say that black guys seem to trend to run better than white guys?

That is racism, you know. It is of course also true.

This is clear by your 'white guys' and 'trash sub-saharan legacy' which is code for 'Black people', your public post on this matter as i clearly quoted states 'black guys' which fully justifies my action as you state that you fully intended to mean as such.

Actually I meant a word that starts with "n" and ends with "oes", but I have been warned to use that fully functional word.

It is nothing to do with an 'open discussion' when you simply refer to people as inferiors based which hole they popped out of randomly in the world, it simply isn't tolerated here. There are communities out there which pander to that sort of thing but not here and society in general for good reason.

I think I have kept to talking about cultures. PEOPLE from a certain culture of course will have certain advantages / disadvantages. Are we allowed to talk about cultures as inferior?

Law in the land also dictates 'Innocent before Proven Guilty' as a way to stop prejudice by attempting to have the law qualify to a jury of peers why a persons liberty should be taken. How come it is acceptable to condemn people as 'trash' 'rapists' and other such terms when the vast majority of innocent of such crimes ? Do you think people should hold you to account for actions you have not performed yourself ?

If you accept a ****load of Swedes into your culture, you WILL start to have to deal with dental problems concerning the use of snus.

Does that mean every Swede use snus? C'mon, you are not an idiot. Just like some cultures are more prone to use a drug like snus, some cultures are more prone to, say, rape. Does that mean that every individual from that culture will snus/rape? OF COURSE NOT, and it's an absolutely idiotic argument you bring up here. Also certainly one I haven't used.

Bring a ****load of Swedes to Africa and snus-addiction levels will sky rocket.
Bring a ****load of Africans to Sweden and rape levels HAVE sky rocketed.

Should we NOT be able to discuss things like this on an international political discussions board? Seriously??

Would it be acceptable for me to label you with such terms and shrug my shoulders and go "Why should I pander to Kadagar_AV ?"

Yes, of course. I would accept if a country didn't much like Swedish immigration because we brought cultural problems with us, like snus. It doesn't mean I would, or that every Swede would. It would just mean that if you accept Swedish people, you have to accept Swedish problems.

Same goes with Africa... If you accept Africans, you will have to accept African problems.

I am not a religious person, but there is one message in there which rings true is "Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself". So don't condemn innocents unless you want to be condemned yourself.

Well I don't give a **** about religion... Also, the quote you gave is simple human morals, seems completely idiotic to try and make it a religious one. Heck, monkeys get that message, and they can't even read.

[Fragony]

I don't disagree with you but I do question you sometimes, it's just a feeling, not something I can back up with arguments.

[Beskar]

Actually I meant a word that starts with "n" and ends with "oes", but I have been warned to use that fully functional word.

'negroes' is against the rules, yes.

If you accept a ****load of Swedes into your culture, you WILL start to have to deal with dental problems concerning the use of snus.

But we are not discussing how some one in place X prefers snus or eat spicey-foods or drink tea or other mundane examples, are we?

The example of "Tiaexz is a tea drinking Brit" doesn't compare to "Tiaexz is a trash rapist" does it?

Bring a ****load of Swedes to Africa and snus-addiction levels will sky rocket.
Bring a ****load of Africans to Sweden and rape levels HAVE sky rocketed.

Lets put some perspective on that. I will even be generous here when I pull these figures from thin-air, but 'sky-rocket' in reality is a single digit percentage increase. Never-mind the fact Sweden has the most stringent 'rape' laws and its zeal in its classification.

Simply because there is a slightly higher percentage doesn't automatically mean this even small minority of a minority speaks for a whole. I am sure the reason they are 'rapists' isn't because they are 'black' either. I could make an argument saying why there are higher rape statistics without even mentioning 'black' or 'white' and the argument would be valid for whoever the nationality/ethnicity involved is. There are such things as 'White Swedish' rapists you know, perhaps the reason Sweden has those is similar to why Somalia has theirs? Your argument of 'because Sweden has higher rape statistics than Britain, that means all Swedes are rapists' doesn't really hold true.

It is not right and trying to justify it by in theory stating 'it is not racist because it is true" because there are currently 'black' people I can run faster and those who can run faster than me. Such silliness is so broad sweeping that it loses any intelligible meaning in any argument. For that argument to have real validity, 'black' people have to almost always run faster than the 'white' person, period and this really is not the case.

[Kadagar_AV]

But we are not discussing how some one is place X prefers Snus or eat spicey-foods or drink tea or other mundane examples, are we?

No, we are supposed to discuss political issues. Race is one, culture is another, ethnicity a third...

What can we debate? I openly think black people tend to give less back to society than other RACE. Why? Because it seems to be a trend. It's not like the Asians who came here (or anywhere else) had better starting positions, nor the south Americans. Yet it always seem to be the blacks who struggle, need extra help, and should be hush hush to question.

Is it because they are black and they have it in their blood? Is it because of culture? Is it because of something else?

I honestly don't know, hence we have boards like this to discuss it. No? I for one claim it's mainly cultural, and that "black" cultures generally are, well, trash seen in western eyes. Is it the cultural heritage that keep them back generation after generation?

I don't know, let's discuss it so people can learn.

Lets put some perspective on that. I will even be generous here when I pull these figures from thin-air, but 'sky-rocket' in reality is a single digit percentage increase. Never-mind the fact Sweden has the most stringent 'rape' laws and its zeal in its classification.

Simply because there is a slightly higher percentage doesn't automatically mean this even small minority of a minority speaks for a whole. I am sure the reason they are 'rapists' isn't because they are 'black' either. I could make an argument saying why there are higher rape statistics without even mentioning 'black' or 'white' and the argument would be value for whoever the nationality/ethnicity involved is. There are such things as 'White Swedish' rapists you know, perhaps the reason Sweden has those is similar to why Somalia has theirs?

It is not right and trying to justify it by in theory stating 'it is not racist because it is true" because there are currently 'black' people I can run faster and those who can run faster than me. Such silliness is so broad sweeping that it loses any intelligible meaning in any argument. For that argument to have real validity, 'black' people have to almost run faster than the 'white' person, period and this really is not the case.

I disagree. I live in a country where we accept more than 1% of our population a year as immigrants, often from the worlds worst hell holes.

After 10 years, that means that one out of ten people you meet is borne and bred in a hell hole.

After 30 years, about one in three you meet is borne and raised in a hell hole.

This has HUGE impacts on the structure of society. HUGE political ramifications. If not on an international politics board, where would you discuss it? If there is nothing rotten with the sub-Saharan culture and breed - why don't we just laugh any such arguments off, or pile on the studies?

Heck, reverse the argument: If someone wrote a post about white people being prone to rape or stupidity... You could just absolutely shower that person with data showing he is wrong...

Reverse it back again: And people run to a moderator because "buhu buhu hE Iz RazisT".

Africa didn't do to well before the white guy came. They didn't do to well while the white guy was there. They sure haven't done to well after the white guy decided to bug out.

Is it the white guys fault?

Is it my fault for pointing it out?

[Beskar]

What can we debate? I openly think black people tend to give less back to society than other RACE. Why? Because it seems to be a trend. It's not like the Asians who came here (or anywhere else) had better starting positions, nor the south Americans. Yet it always seem to be the blacks who struggle, need extra help, and should be hush hush to question.

Yet it doesn't stop with 'Blacks', next person will bring up 'Arabs', than the other will bring up 'Jews', then the other brings on 'Asians'...

It is always some outgroup being mislabelled, being characterised in some fashion which simply isn't true. Are all the 'black' people I see contributing more to society than 'white' people simply unreported invisibles in racist rant blogs? Is the hardworking taxpaying 'black' neighbour getting cussed out by 'white' benefit cheats for draining the economy really have logical basis to stand on?

There are a great many answers and they are all sadly pathetic when you look at them. It is people pinning their problems on scapegoats, because facing reality is far harder than whitewashing millions of people as simply evil barbarians. Sorry to say, all bicycle thieves don't simply look like Liverpudlians, all rapists are not simply 'black', all paedophiles don't simply look like Jimmy Saville, all genocides aren't simply led by men with moustaches. You might ask "What do these got to do with this?" but it is the same exact story, it is labelling a stereotype as a mental crutch, covers up a very dark part of the truth.

Evil doesn't have a mask, it is seen every day in the people all around you and even in the mirror, that is the scary reality of it all, it could be -you-.

So how are we going to discuss it? Going to discuss driving factors such as poverty, lack of security, the price of liberty, justice, pogroms and misinformation ? It is all pretty much existent it doesn't need repeating to the n'th degree. You can simply realise the errors of stereotyping and how dreadfully wrong you are by applying such labels on a mass scale.

If there is nothing rotten with the sub-Saharan culture and breed - why don't we just laugh any such arguments off, or pile on the studies?

Because they mostly roll their eyes and go "Not again... seriously..." it is such a broad and flawed argument that simply understanding the concept of stereotyping makes it pretty clear how invalid it is. You don't really need any grand studies to throw it in the bin, it is like wondering if a fur covered apple with a repugnant aroma could be classified as 'fresh'.

The whole premises of the argument is flawed to begin with that such efforts are simply not worth it. Even the label 'White' has so many conflicts, with people calling people from Spain 'Hispanics' as if another race, then others think that 'Slavs' are not white, then you have nationalist Greeks who think Greek is their own race. Then you have others who say 'Slavs' 'Greeks' and 'Spanish' are all categorised as 'White'. It just gets so tedious that there is no point in even beginning to de-construct an imaginary construct which simply doesn't exist in reality but in the minds of those who fantasise about such things and attempt to enforce it on other people. With such broad and open ended categories with no logical pattern or order to them, almost any information can be twisted and abused to make completely incorrect arguments which are flawed from the offset then are presented as 'facts'.

Also, don't get started on that 'one-drop' theory stuff either...

Africa didn't do to well before the white guy came. They didn't do to well while the white guy was there. They sure haven't done to well after the white guy decided to bug out.

If you consider many of the early civilians sprung up around Africa and the Middle East, I think 'didn't do too well before the white guy came' is being a little ignorant of history. After all, we all come from Africa originally anyway, or is that fact simply forgotten?

[Lemur]

Hi all,

If anybody needs to move to a White Pride or EuroVictim forum, please do so now.

@Tiaexz, please use maximum force on the next person who formulates a new and interesting variant on "race X is bad and here's the reason why."

We're done with this.

[Fragony]

Fully agree, this is not the place. I don't even disagree all that much but it doesn't belong here. It makes the place unpleasant and unwelcomming. Nothing wrong with free speech but it ain't an invitation, I would rather not see some things here.

[caravel]

Lynch mob mentality. "He's <insert colour of skin/culture> so must be <insert description of offence/crime/vice/whatever>". Of course if all the people with big noses in your part of town are bad at gardening, then that absolutely has to be true of all big nosed people worldwide...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Stereotyping is, unfortunately, going to remain with us for the foreseeable future.

Stereotyping -- labeling/evaluating an entire group based on a set of pre-conceived characteristics -- starts out as mental short-hand. We chunk phenomena into groups in our memories in order to avoid all the extra cognitive "processing" work of treating every individual as an individual.

When this is based on occupational role, for example, and not carried to an extreme, it is a useful cognitive tool. You can establish the category "convenience store clerk" in your mind, attach the needed communication protocols (politeness, clarity of message, degree of emotional display) to the category label and function effectively without having to treat each individual clerk as an individual with whom you must negotiate and enact a unique identity and relationship. This type of "stereotyping" saves time and effort.

Unfortunately, we tend to do this sort of short hand with entire groups based on our negative associations of having encountered a few individuals from that group or -- less forgivably -- having learned those characteristics third-hand from others experiences. We then extrapolate those negative labels to the entire group and cease dealing with those individuals as individuals. Inevitably, this begins to channel our perceptions into perceiving those things we want to perceive (selective attention) and thus reinforcing the "rightness" of our label. In practice, none of the groups so stereotyped can be accurately labeled en toto -- there are simply too many individuals with too many differing characteristics for the stereotype to be accurate. Of course, treating them all as individuals requires actual effort.....

Take, for example, Jews: Jews, Jews, Jews, a Jew, and Jews.

Obviously, they are all "the same".............not.

[rvg]

Stereotyping works more often than not, i.e. it is useful in day-to-day life. Which is why it's here to stay no matter what. It's a simple (often oversimplified) way of measurement. Often inaccurate, but usually accurate.

[Beskar]

There is a difference from the casual usage of how to treat a shop keeper to the "all of group x are rapists" category level of stereotyping.

[Lemur]

Expressions of racism are against backroom policy. Have been since 1892, when the Org functioned as an extended series of telegraphs.

Most Orgahs do not respond to blatant racism, but instead shake their heads, and PM some admin asking, "Why do we put up with this?"

Yes, there is, in fact, a reasonable discussion to be had about genetics, inherited traits, culture, and population trends. Cultures are not equal. People are not equal. Heck, men and women are not exactly the same.

But you know what? It takes tact, skill, and good taste to talk about it without sounding like an ass.

So for now, I'm going to strongly encourage the BR mod squad to take the harshest measures against those who play with racism.

[rvg]

So for now, I'm going to strongly encourage the BR mod squad to take the harshest measures against those who play with racism.

We can still hate on the whitey though, right?

[Kadagar_AV]

Nap-time.