NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is it that aryan tribes, who claims that the Jews are evil and taking over the world and that whole races are inherently less intelligent, never called on flaming?

I asked more or less this question a month and a half ago - the answer was freedom of speech and lack of resources. As long as they do not attack specific players or incite violence, it is OK. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Plus when you delete them they pop right back up with names so similar and so swiftly that you don't even notice that they are gone. And since IP ban is only for extreme cases it would do no good.

I see, but then what's the point of bannin?

Heh. They delete the prominent anti-Nazi, and let the Nazis off without as much as a harsh word. Its all 'free speech' until someone gets a passing whim to delete you.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are asking.

Edit: That is to Letila.

I ment what is the point of banning someone if they can just come back?

No, if you ban somebody they need to change their IP.

Only [violet] can ban somebody however.

It is fun when you manage to catch them out on an inappropriate flag, currency or national animal... especially when they have already received a warning.

The only good nazi nation is a dead one (unless they are merely RPing as pantomime villains).

Simple, they follow the rules.

Heh. They delete the prominent anti-Nazi, and let the Nazis off without as much as a harsh word. Its all 'free speech' until someone gets a passing whim to delete you.

This is rubbish, actually. You're not talking about wanting people deleted for flaming here, you're talking about wanting people deleted because you don't agree with their views.

Quite of a few of the ones you call "nazis" have been deleted at some point when things degenerated into personal flames. I got into a personal flamewar with Beeker a few weeks ago and received a couple of warnings.. since then I've been more careful. In fact my original nation did get deleted for a naughty national animal, which is fair enough.

Several "nazis" post on controversial subjects but they don't personally insult other players.. You're all crying over Beeker getting deleted when he was in fact one of the biggest flamers on this game.

Let's have a look at how many of the threads go when a "nazi" posts on a controversial subect. Pick any subject you please. Then an anti responds going...

ANTI: "Die! You horrid nazi! Waaah! Idiot!

NAZI: Would you care to discuss what I've posted?

ANTI: "No! Die! Urrrghhh! Moron!"

Then, when the anti gets deleted they turn around with a great big innocent look on their face and go, "Wwhhhuuuu? What did I doooo?"

I will state once again: You folks don't want people deleted for flaming, you want people censored if you don't agree with them.

It's also laughable how you describe Beeker as a "prominent anti nazi" when he never, ever entered into any kind of reasonable debate whatsoever.. his "anti nazi" posts were limited to flames.

It's also laughable how you describe Beeker as a "prominent anti nazi" when he never, ever entered into any kind of reasonable debate whatsoever.. his "anti nazi" posts were limited to flames.
He was still voted the biggest anti nazi in a recent poll

I asked more or less this question a month and a half ago - the answer was freedom of speech and lack of resources. As long as they do not attack specific players or incite violence, it is OK. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Doesn't make it right though.

Aryan Tribes should be deleted as that is all that he talks about in the forums. All the threads that he creates are about how Jewsw have made the world worse in some way etc.

Other Nazi's also participate in different, 'non-racial' threads but he doesn't really seem to...

It's also laughable how you describe Beeker as a "prominent anti nazi" when he never, ever entered into any kind of reasonable debate whatsoever.. his "anti nazi" posts were limited to flames.
He was still voted the biggest anti nazi in a recent pollI think your under the mistaken belief that the polls in these forums somehow apply to the realm of reality. 8)

It's also laughable how you describe Beeker as a "prominent anti nazi" when he never, ever entered into any kind of reasonable debate whatsoever.. his "anti nazi" posts were limited to flames.
He was still voted the biggest anti nazi in a recent poll

He was also voted the biggest panty sniffer.... is he?

I asked more or less this question a month and a half ago - the answer was freedom of speech and lack of resources. As long as they do not attack specific players or incite violence, it is OK. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Doesn't make it right though.

Aryan Tribes should be deleted as that is all that he talks about in the forums. All the threads that he creates are about how Jewsw have made the world worse in some way etc.

And why should he be deleted for speaking about something he believes strongly in?

I agree. Now, if he hounded Jews in every thread, cursing at them and such, that would be one thing. But if he is just sharing his thoughts in the right venue, deleting him makes zero sense.

I asked more or less this question a month and a half ago - the answer was freedom of speech and lack of resources. As long as they do not attack specific players or incite violence, it is OK. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Doesn't make it right though.

Aryan Tribes should be deleted as that is all that he talks about in the forums. All the threads that he creates are about how Jewsw have made the world worse in some way etc.

And why should he be deleted for speaking about something he believes strongly in?

Well, he posts things which could easily be considered offensive or even flame to other players, he posts so many threads saying almost exactly the same thing it could be considered spam, he should know by now that those topics almost always disintigrate into flamewars, so posting them could be considered flamebait...

I agree. Now, if he hounded Jews in every thread, cursing at them and such, that would be one thing. But if he is just sharing his thoughts in the right venue, deleting him makes zero sense.

Agreed.

We moderators would prefer for politically controversial stuff to be debated rather than censored. If someone posts something racist, then challenge them to a logical debate. I would debate them myself if I had enough free time. However, I don't have the time to thoroughly research the subject and prepare adequate logical arguments to properly refute the arguments of racists. If someone who did have time for that would debate the racists, that would, in my personal unofficial opinion, be a good thing.

Controversial topics will generally be tolerated as long as no personal insults are thrown around (though we are talking about a very gray area very close to the borderline, here).

If you look carefully, you'll probably notice that posts that are both racist and personally insulting of specific players are not tolerated; not because they're racist, but because they're insulting specific players. If you see such a post that you think we missed, let us know.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Forum Moderator

I asked more or less this question a month and a half ago - the answer was freedom of speech and lack of resources. As long as they do not attack specific players or incite violence, it is OK. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Doesn't make it right though.

Aryan Tribes should be deleted as that is all that he talks about in the forums. All the threads that he creates are about how Jewsw have made the world worse in some way etc.

And why should he be deleted for speaking about something he believes strongly in?

Well, he posts things which could easily be considered offensive or even flame to other players, he posts so many threads saying almost exactly the same thing it could be considered spam, he should know by now that those topics almost always disintigrate into flamewars, so posting them could be considered flamebait...

Oh come on... ANYTHING can be considered offensive by ANYONE.

He DOESN'T direct flames at other players..

and if you're going to consider his posts spam, then you may as well consider every single post on the forum to be spam, including yours.

Why is it that aryan tribes, who claims that the Jews are evil and taking over the world and that whole races are inherently less intelligent, never called on flaming?

Becuase this is just controversy. It isn't flaming unless it's attacking a specific person. Nazis have the right to speak freely just like you do!

Let's have a look at how many of the threads go when a "nazi" posts on a controversial subect. Pick any subject you please. Then an anti responds going...

ANTI: "Die! You horrid nazi! Waaah! Idiot!

NAZI: Would you care to discuss what I've posted?

ANTI: "No! Die! Urrrghhh! Moron!"

Then, when the anti gets deleted they turn around with a great big innocent look on their face and go, "Wwhhhuuuu? What did I doooo?"


Actually, you have to admit there are just as many Nazi flamers as there are Anti-Nazi. Many Anti-Nazis (including myself: if you'd notice all my Nazi debate posts, none contain any flaming and retort someone else's points) are perfectly happy to discuss these things.

For example, what about in the BNP thread, where one Nazi (I forget his name, sorry) wished that someone would die of AIDS and called him a paedophile. If that isn't flaming, I don't know what is.

Both sides are just as culpable flame-wise. It's no use saying that it is purely the preserve of one side or another.

Aryan tribes contributes nothing to the forum but crazy conspiracies.

It's also laughable how you describe Beeker as a "prominent anti nazi" when he never, ever entered into any kind of reasonable debate whatsoever.. his "anti nazi" posts were limited to flames.
He was still voted the biggest anti nazi in a recent pollI think your under the mistaken belief that the polls in these forums somehow apply to the realm of reality. 8)
Most polls in the real world don't really apply to the whole truth, at the most just a snippet of it, if that. ...Also, why is it necessary for there to be an anti-"nazi" if every argument we have is so easy to shoot down? There would be no need if everything we said was easy to refute.

Beeker is certainly the most vocal anti-nazi here on the NS forums. As for 'flaming' the Nazis: anyone who affiliates him or herself with that hateful and moronic ideology has publicly proclaimed him or herself to be an idiot. Is it so wrong to affirm this self-accusation? Not really, but in my opinion it is usually redundant and unnecessary. If someone wants to go around shouting “I’m a half-wit!”, I usually let them go on doing this without my input. I usually do not reply with a hearty “damn right you are!”, but sometimes it just makes my day a little brighter to do so. Is that so wrong?

(1) As for 'flaming' the Nazis: anyone who affiliates him or herself with that hateful and moronic ideology has publicly proclaimed him or herself to be an idiot.

(2) Is it so wrong to affirm this self-accusation? Not really, but in my opinion it is usually redundant and unnecessary. If someone wants to go around shouting “I’m a half-wit!”, I usually let them go on doing this without my input. I usually do not reply with a hearty “damn right you are!”, but sometimes it just makes my day a little brighter to do so. Is that so wrong?

[Numeration by me.]

(1) That is not considered an automatic given on these forums; you have to logically refute their ideologies. I'd do this, myself, but I don't have the time to prepare an adequate counter-argument. Even if this were an automatic given, see point (2), below.

(2) If someone literally proclaimed themselves to be a half-wit,
I AM A HALF-WIT!then affirming this in a clearly jestful manner would be acceptable. In all other cases that I can imagine, though, I agree on the point that it's redundant and unnecessary to affirm this, but assert that it would also be wrong to affirm this as it constitutes flaming.

For example, if I were to claim that God created the Earth 10,000 years ago in a seven-day period of time as told in the story of Genesis, that is not an automatic proclomation that I am a half-wit.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."
NationStates Forum Moderator

Why is it that aryan tribes, who claims that the Jews are evil and taking over the world and that whole races are inherently less intelligent, never called on flaming?


When did i say either of these things? Provide a link to where exactly i said "jews are evil" or "whole races are less intelligent".

I'll be waiting.

Aryan is an intelligent, well learned individual, who is skilled in the art of debate. Most of the flames that are sent AT him are generally caused by people getting frustrated because they can't actually argue a point against him (providing supporting evidence for their side of the debate.)

Aryan himself does not spam (some of his postings are interesting, if from a different point of view to my own) and he generally tries to promote debate, even if it does centre on a few topics. Lets face it, we can't actually HAVE a debate if no-one takes an opposing view!

He does not incite violence against anyone, not does he attack people personally.

My advice is, if you don't like his threads, don't read them. If you don't agree with his posts, say so, politely, giving examples to support your side if the discussion.

Thank you for listening

(please note, whilst I will defend his right to speak and debate, I do not actually agree with ANY of his ideas!!)

For example, if I were to claim that God created the Earth 10,000 years ago in a seven-day period of time as told in the story of Genesis, that is not an automatic proclamation that I am a half-wit.
But if you proceeded to say that all those who do not believe this should be rounded up into camps and gassed, or express a strong solidarity with those who have done such things, then it is quite a different story. A half-wit should certainly be allowed some leeway, but a genocidal half-wit understandably arouses certain emotions. In fact, such proclamations (along with proclamations of 'racial inferiority’ and other such tripe) could well be construed as flamebait. Not that I have anything against flamebait mind you.

So what's the ruling then? You can post any half-assed hate filled bile you like, as long as it's polite?

Let's have a look at how many of the threads go when a "nazi" posts on a controversial subect. Pick any subject you please. Then an anti responds going...

ANTI: "Die! You horrid nazi! Waaah! Idiot!

NAZI: Would you care to discuss what I've posted?

ANTI: "No! Die! Urrrghhh! Moron!"

Then, when the anti gets deleted they turn around with a great big innocent look on their face and go, "Wwhhhuuuu? What did I doooo?"


Actually, you have to admit there are just as many Nazi flamers as there are Anti-Nazi. Many Anti-Nazis (including myself: if you'd notice all my Nazi debate posts, none contain any flaming and retort someone else's points) are perfectly happy to discuss these things.

From what I see here on a daily basis the "antis" are way more prone to mindless flaming than the "nazis".. but yes, you're right, both sides do it to an extent.

For example, what about in the BNP thread, where one Nazi (I forget his name, sorry) wished that someone would die of AIDS and called him a paedophile. If that isn't flaming, I don't know what is.

And that person was rightfully deleted a while ago (I think, correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, the anti who told me that my five year-old daughter should be killed to stop her from growing up to be like me is still here.

Both sides are just as culpable flame-wise. It's no use saying that it is purely the preserve of one side or another.

True, it's just that, as I said above, the antis are more prone to it. They seem less calm, and get all hysterical more easily.

Beeker is certainly the most vocal anti-nazi here on the NS forums. As for 'flaming' the Nazis: anyone who affiliates him or herself with that hateful and moronic ideology has publicly proclaimed him or herself to be an idiot.

Blatant flaming... has a Mod seen this?

Beeker is certainly the most vocal anti-nazi here on the NS forums. As for 'flaming' the Nazis: anyone who affiliates him or herself with that hateful and moronic ideology has publicly proclaimed him or herself to be an idiot.

Blatant flaming... has a Mod seen this?

Yes dear. Do try reading a thread before posting, there's a love.

Beeker is certainly the most vocal anti-nazi here on the NS forums. As for 'flaming' the Nazis: anyone who affiliates him or herself with that hateful and moronic ideology has publicly proclaimed him or herself to be an idiot.

Blatant flaming... has a Mod seen this?

Yes dear. Do try reading a thread before posting, there's a love.

I had. I was just messing. :wink:

When did i say either of these things? Provide a link to where exactly i said "jews are evil" or "whole races are less intelligent".


Every single thread you post is about the supposed Jewish conspiracy. Show me one that isn't.

When did i say either of these things? Provide a link to where exactly i said "jews are evil" or "whole races are less intelligent".


Every single thread you post is about the supposed Jewish conspiracy. Show me one that isn't.

He asked you to point out where he had said that Jews were evil and other races are less intelligent than whites.

When did i say either of these things? Provide a link to where exactly i said "jews are evil" or "whole races are less intelligent".


Every single thread you post is about the supposed Jewish conspiracy. Show me one that isn't.

He asked you to point out where he had said that Jews were evil and other races are less intelligent than whites.

Oh come on, don't be coy. All the 'Jewish' posts are punched up for one reason, we all know it. It is highly implicit in every one that Jews are 'taking over' and hence evil. And I have read at least twice, his comments, when he uses his trick of pretending to be reasonable and 'impartial', that Asians are more intelligent than whites. People who promote racial discord should have the courage to be consistant and honest. Or must it be only the anti-hatists that are clear and genuine?

So what's the ruling then? You can post any half-assed hate filled bile you like, as long as it's polite?
It is like walking a tightrope across an abyss, but if you get to the other end, you made it.

When did i say either of these things? Provide a link to where exactly i said "jews are evil" or "whole races are less intelligent".


Every single thread you post is about the supposed Jewish conspiracy. Show me one that isn't.

What Jewish conspiracy?

You know very well what I'm talking about. You're always claimin that the holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy.

Debate = Good
Debate + Mod Forum = Bad

Please move this debate to other forums.

http://www.weirdozone.0catch.com/projects/nationstates/salusasecondus/salusasecondus2.jpg
SalusaSecondus
Tech Modling

You know very well what I'm talking about. You're always claimin that the holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy.

The holocaust was a German conspiracy, by any account.

So what's the ruling then? You can post any half-assed hate filled bile you like, as long as it's polite?

Prove to me that it's "half-assed hate filled bile" and we'll maybe do something about it. However, remember that a political viewpoint you dont agree with does not necessarily constitute "half-assed hate filled bile."

Now, in the past (and currently) I've been called the "neo-Nazi Mod" because I defend the right of all players to post their opinions in a non-flaming manner. Which ironically is quite different from the original Nazi party's political standpoint (they'd prefer not to have any kind of opposition to their political views).

I take flak from the "anti-Nazi" crew every time I warn an "anti-Nazi" about flaming, and am cheered by the neo-Nazis. Conversely, every time I warn a Nazi, I take flak from the other neo-Nazis and am cheered by the "anti-Nazis." Yet, every time I stick to my warning - against whichever side it may be.

Most often it's the "anti-Nazis" which break ranks and begin flaming first, and thus they are more often warned. Is that the fault of the neo-Nazis for voicing their political opinions, or the fault of the "anti-Nazi" for not being able to show self-control?

So what's the ruling then? You can post any half-assed hate filled bile you like, as long as it's polite?

Prove to me that it's "half-assed hate filled bile" and we'll maybe do something about it. However, remember that a political viewpoint you dont agree with does not necessarily constitute "half-assed hate filled bile."


I'm sorry, but this is the sort of theoretical college politics that overlooks the very real fact that this sort of stuff acts as an incitement to violence against certain members of the community.

This site also attracts a very large numer of young people - pulled in because it's a game - and it saddens me that Max has provided a platform for right wing neo-nazis to recruit from.

It saddens me that it is acceptible to deny the holocaust, or to defend it by saying that those in power new nothing about it, or even that has simply been exagerated. It saddens me that the people who run this site think it's acceptible to put forward opinions that, however indirectly, lend creedance to the idea that some members of the community should be regarded as the "enemy" and therefore fair targets.

As for flaming - which is the more offensive: telling someone they're a moron, or saying that it wan't the nazis fault that there family died in a concentration camp?

I'm sorry, but this is the sort of theoretical college politics that overlooks the very real fact that this sort of stuff acts as an incitement to violence against certain members of the community.

This site also attracts a very large numer of young people - pulled in because it's a game - and it saddens me that Max has provided a platform for right wing neo-nazis to recruit from.

It saddens me that it is acceptible to deny the holocaust, or to defend it by saying that those in power new nothing about it, or even that has simply been exagerated. It saddens me that the people who run this site think it's acceptible to put forward opinions that, however indirectly, lend creedance to the idea that some members of the community should be regarded as the "enemy" and therefore fair targets.

As for flaming - which is the more offensive: telling someone they're a moron, or saying that it wan't the nazis fault that there family died in a concentration camp?

So surely it's for those of us who disgree with white supremist policies to counter all of their arguements? In which case, which do you think is more likely to sway a young impressionable mind? A well thought out post, answering points raised and offering evidence to support the points, or a rant just telling Nazi's to go home or worse?

Sometimes it seems like the anti-nazi's are incapable of defending their position!

So surely it's for those of us who disgree with white supremist policies to counter all of their arguements? In which case, which do you think is more likely to sway a young impressionable mind? A well thought out post, answering points raised and offering evidence to support the points, or a rant just telling Nazi's to go home or worse?

Sometimes it seems like the anti-nazi's are incapable of defending their position!

This is my point. This is a forum for debate/discussion of political views. If all you can muster to argue against the neo-Nazis is "Nazis are bad, mmmkay?" and/or "Nazis are bad and shouldn't be allowed to post because we disagree with their views" or simply to flame the Nazis, then is it really the fault of the Nazis that the "young impressionable mind[s]" are swayed towards their cause - or is it more the fault of those "anti-nazis" that find it easier to "discredit" the Nazis by flame rather than debate?

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

I agree with you. I think that the NeoNazi's incite hatred against other races (most of them anyway) and so this is why they should not be given a 'platform' in my opinion.

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

Agreed... but not all of them advocate violence. AT in particular has never said anything that could be construed as inciting violence.

And if you see someone who is, instead of telling them to shut up... call a Mod, get it dealt with calmly and without the need for flaming, otherwise the ANTI-nazi's just lose another nation!

So, if what they "spout" is as bad as what you claim, why do you not show the general populace, those impressionable teens you're worried about, the "truth." Argue your side. Prove that what the Nazis say is as terrible or wrong as you claim. By flaming, you yourselves are no better than what you claim they are...

So, if what they "spout" is as bad as what you claim, why do you not show the general populace, those impressionable teens you're worried about, the "truth." Argue your side. Prove that what the Nazis say is as terrible or wrong as you claim. By flaming, you yourselves are no better than what you claim they are...

Can you please stop accusing me of flaming. I'm attemtping to give a rational reason for why it is not always best policy to engage in debate with people who would advocate doing you real physical harm.

And please, when you say that "By flaming, you yourselves are no better than what you claim they are" I'm afraid it does sort of denegrate the death and suffering of millions of people. I'm not accusing them of being rude here. I'm accusing them of promoting a belief system that advocates violence - a big difference in my book.

Interesting how telling someone to 'shut the fuck up' will get you an IP ban while kindly asking several million people to 'please die in the name of the glory of the superior white race, if that is all right with you' will get you wholehearted praise from the entire administrative team for 'playing nice.' Perhaps we should allow them to utilize the swastika in their flags if it is accompanied by the word 'please' and perhaps a fuzzy bunny.

Interesting how telling someone to 'shut the f--- up' will get you an IP ban while kindly asking several million people to 'please die in the name of the glory of the superior white race, if that is all right with you' will get you wholehearted praise from the entire administrative team for 'playing nice.' Perhaps we should allow them to utilize the swastika in their flags if it is accompanied by the word 'please' and perhaps a fuzzy bunny.

Simply saying "shut the F up" has never resulted in an IP ban. Just because players ask they be used doesn't mean they are.
Threads that advocate the extermination of a race are locked as soon as Mods become aware of their existance, repeated postings of such results in deletion.
Considering the number of complaints by people of all belief-sets about the swastika ban, you'd be surprized by the number of people who would like the idea of being able to bring it back.
Finally, once again, say we delete any post with Nazi leanings. You'll be happy. But then someone will want any mention of the USSR or Stalin purged. Then communism. Then capitalism. Pretty soon, all that will be left is the Jennifer Government forum.

Of course, considering the endless complaints I get to read, maybe that wouldn't be so bad...

I'm not advocating censorship here mind you- I'm just pointing out that given currant policy (or rather 'enforcement') we are already well on that slippery slope of which you speak. I'm not trying to push anyone down it, I am merely pointing into the abyss and laughing.

Really? We're enforcing the rules, and not censoring viewpoints. I'd hardly call that falling into the abyss.

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

What about communists? They advocate violence against the bourgeoisie.

Can you please stop accusing me of flaming. I'm attemtping to give a rational reason for why it is not always best policy to engage in debate with people who would advocate doing you real physical harm.



I'm reasonably certain Neut didn't mean to accuse you personally of flaming.. I'm pretty sure his comments were aimed at those anti nazi's who DO flame.

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

I agree with you. I think that the NeoNazi's incite hatred against other races (most of them anyway) and so this is why they should not be given a 'platform' in my opinion.

Hello! Is it worth my pointing out again that I'm not a neo Nazi, but a British Nationalist? Probably not, but I will! ;)

Anyway... I would just like to answer these points about not giving nazis (or whatever you want to call them) a platform. It might come as something of a suprise to you, but we have a platform merely by the fact that the world exists and there are people in it.

We don't just have this forum, we have the whole Internet. For those of us who are politically active, who go out campaigning etc, we have.. well, the world, really. The world is our platform. Do you see what I mean? Do you think that by banning anyone you deem a nazi from this forum, you're going to crush our beliefs?

No, when you say, "Don't give them a platform," what you really mean is "Silence these people that we don't agree with!" Hello, Bolshevik Russia, anyone?

As for using the fact you don't want to give us a platform as an excuse not to engage us in debate... what a cop-out. What are you afraid of, that people are going to agree with us rather than you? If your politics and beliefs are so great, why would you not want to promote them by pointing out all the flaws that you perceive in ours?

As for all these viewpoints that you think might lead to violence against people.. What about the many antis such as the Anti-Nazi League who promote violence as a means of dealing with people they don't agree with?

I usually tend to the free-speech side of every debate, but there are no absolutes in the idea of free speech. If a forum is over-run with neo-Nazis, then this is a chill on the free speech of targetted groups. That's why many countries outside the US restrict neo-Nazi publicity. Germany bans it for good reasons. Allowing hate speech in high schools was the subject of a court fight here in Canada, and the result was that it is not allowed. A Jewish kid in that school would have their right to free speech and freedom from implicit violence violated by a teacher with Nazi views. Other countries view free speech differently than the US, and those interpretations of the right to freedom of speech are also valid.

As to debating Nazis intellectually, no thanks. That would be to give credence to views that are beyond the pale, to make a casual reader think that these are views in the mainstream of a democratic society. If Jeffrey Dahmer was released from prison and started posting to say that cannibalism was a valid viewpoint, he should not be engaged intellectually and politely.

I dont necessarily want the mods to change their policy, and i think they do a good job on the whole. But i also think it's a bit much to claim that there is not a problem. There are neo-nazis and other stripes of racist recruiting impressionable young people. That's a problem (anyone see American History X?). I don't have an answer, but it'd be nice to see an admission that this is indeed a problem.

I usually tend to the free-speech side of every debate, but there are no absolutes in the idea of free speech. If a forum is over-run with neo-Nazis, then this is a chill on the free speech of targetted groups. That's why many countries outside the US restrict neo-Nazi publicity. Germany bans it for good reasons. Allowing hate speech in high schools was the subject of a court fight here in Canada, and the result was that it is not allowed. A Jewish kid in that school would have their right to free speech and freedom from implicit violence violated by a teacher with Nazi views. Other countries view free speech differently than the US, and those interpretations of the right to freedom of speech are also valid.

As to debating Nazis intellectually, no thanks. That would be to give credence to views that are beyond the pale, to make a casual reader think that these are views in the mainstream of a democratic society. If Jeffrey Dahmer was released from prison and started posting to say that cannibalism was a valid viewpoint, he should not be engaged intellectually and politely.

I dont necessarily want the mods to change their policy, and i think they do a good job on the whole. But i also think it's a bit much to claim that there is not a problem. There are neo-nazis and other stripes of racist recruiting impressionable young people. That's a problem (anyone see American History X?). I don't have an answer, but it'd be nice to see an admission that this is indeed a problem.

As to debating Nazis intellectually, no thanks. That would be to give credence to views that are beyond the pale

Yet another cop-out.

I dont necessarily want the mods to change their policy, and i think they do a good job on the whole. But i also think it's a bit much to claim that there is not a problem. There are neo-nazis and other stripes of racist recruiting impressionable young people. That's a problem (anyone see American History X?). I don't have an answer, but it'd be nice to see an admission that this is indeed a problem.

It's a problem to YOU because you think we might recruit people to a political stance that you don't personally agree with.

Hey, I think the same of communism. Every time there's a thread on here pushing communism I'm worried that some impressionable young people might see it and be recruited.

Get my point?

As for your comment about American History X... if you're taking your views from that piece of junk (which is, after all, merely a piece of Jew produced anti-nazi propaganda), then I'm not suprised you don't want to debate anyone.

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

I agree with you. I think that the NeoNazi's incite hatred against other races (most of them anyway) and so this is why they should not be given a 'platform' in my opinion.

Hello! Is it worth my pointing out again that I'm not a neo Nazi, but a British Nationalist? Probably not, but I will! ;)

Anyway... I would just like to answer these points about not giving nazis (or whatever you want to call them) a platform. It might come as something of a suprise to you, but we have a platform merely by the fact that the world exists and there are people in it.

We don't just have this forum, we have the whole Internet. For those of us who are politically active, who go out campaigning etc, we have.. well, the world, really. The world is our platform. Do you see what I mean? Do you think that by banning anyone you deem a nazi from this forum, you're going to crush our beliefs?

No, when you say, "Don't give them a platform," what you really mean is "Silence these people that we don't agree with!" Hello, Bolshevik Russia, anyone?

As for using the fact you don't want to give us a platform as an excuse not to engage us in debate... what a cop-out. What are you afraid of, that people are going to agree with us rather than you? If your politics and beliefs are so great, why would you not want to promote them by pointing out all the flaws that you perceive in ours?

As for all these viewpoints that you think might lead to violence against people.. What about the many antis such as the Anti-Nazi League who promote violence as a means of dealing with people they don't agree with?

HELLO!! Is it worth pointing out to you that I never mentionned your in my post?

So what's the ruling then? You can post any half-assed hate filled bile you like, as long as it's polite?

Prove to me that it's "half-assed hate filled bile" and we'll maybe do something about it. However, remember that a political viewpoint you dont agree with does not necessarily constitute "half-assed hate filled bile."


I'm sorry, but this is the sort of theoretical college politics that overlooks the very real fact that this sort of stuff acts as an incitement to violence against certain members of the community.

This site also attracts a very large numer of young people - pulled in because it's a game - and it saddens me that Max has provided a platform for right wing neo-nazis to recruit from.

It saddens me that it is acceptible to deny the holocaust, or to defend it by saying that those in power new nothing about it, or even that has simply been exagerated. It saddens me that the people who run this site think it's acceptible to put forward opinions that, however indirectly, lend creedance to the idea that some members of the community should be regarded as the "enemy" and therefore fair targets.

As for flaming - which is the more offensive: telling someone they're a moron, or saying that it wan't the nazis fault that there family died in a concentration camp?
It saddens me, truly saddens and offends me, to see so many comments directed against my people, whites. I think that it's a danger to the self-esteem of every white child that happens on one of these comments and could be influenced to feel negatively about there own race for crimes of the past that they had nothing to do with. All of you that make blanket comments about whites are just using us as a safe scapegoat .

And is it really any beter for this site to be, almost, a site for people that consider themselves to be Communists and Anarchists? Both of those ideologies were very violent and even vicious in the past. Why aren't you worried about all the impressionable kids when it comes to all the casual discussions about drug usage or all the talk about homosexuality being as natural as heterosexuality? Different things offend different people.

My reason for not wishing to give the neo-nazis a platform is because I believe the rhetoric they spout is not only disagreeable, but actually harmful. Debate with people by all means, but when they start advocating a point of view that may actually lead to violence against the person (and despite what they say this is often the ultimate expression of their beliefs) then I think I'm justified in telling them to shut up.

I agree with you. I think that the NeoNazi's incite hatred against other races (most of them anyway) and so this is why they should not be given a 'platform' in my opinion.

Hello! Is it worth my pointing out again that I'm not a neo Nazi, but a British Nationalist? Probably not, but I will! ;)

Anyway... I would just like to answer these points about not giving nazis (or whatever you want to call them) a platform. It might come as something of a suprise to you, but we have a platform merely by the fact that the world exists and there are people in it.

We don't just have this forum, we have the whole Internet. For those of us who are politically active, who go out campaigning etc, we have.. well, the world, really. The world is our platform. Do you see what I mean? Do you think that by banning anyone you deem a nazi from this forum, you're going to crush our beliefs?

No, when you say, "Don't give them a platform," what you really mean is "Silence these people that we don't agree with!" Hello, Bolshevik Russia, anyone?

As for using the fact you don't want to give us a platform as an excuse not to engage us in debate... what a cop-out. What are you afraid of, that people are going to agree with us rather than you? If your politics and beliefs are so great, why would you not want to promote them by pointing out all the flaws that you perceive in ours?

As for all these viewpoints that you think might lead to violence against people.. What about the many antis such as the Anti-Nazi League who promote violence as a means of dealing with people they don't agree with?

HELLO!! Is it worth pointing out to you that I never mentionned your in my post?

You never mentioned my WHAT? :P

You never mentioned my WHAT? :P

Sorry...I meant to say - never mentionned you in my post.

[quote="

As for your comment about American History X... if you're taking your views from that piece of junk (which is, after all, merely a piece of Jew produced anti-nazi propaganda), then I'm not suprised you don't want to debate anyone.[/quote]

There it is again ......'Jew produced'. If that's not meant to be offensive, why say it? Please desist from pointing out that 'it's true'......I could say 'white produced' and the point would be? So your reasoned argument is: The previous poster was using Jewish junk to make a point. Tanah Burung made a calm, reasoned argument and received hate in return from at least two 'nazis'. Is this what you mean Sputnik, when you say the nazis usually give a better argument? I agree with every word of TB's post. When you begin arguing with the hatists and receive great chunks of decades-old 'evidence' as 'proof' of their hate, it tends to give them credibility to people who have not had too much exposure to the dark side of life. And you only have to read some posts to see just how innocent and naive a lot of our friends are here..........thank God.

You never mentioned my WHAT? :P

Sorry...I meant to say - never mentionned you in my post.

I know, I know...... :P

I was responding to the "don't give them a platform" theory in general, not your post specifically.

There it is again ......'Jew produced'. If that's not meant to be offensive, why say it? Please desist from pointing out that 'it's true'......I could say 'white produced' and the point would be? So your reasoned argument is: The previous poster was using Jewish junk to make a point. Tanah Burung made a calm, reasoned argument and received hate in return from at least two 'nazis'. Is this what you mean Sputnik, when you say the nazis usually give a better argument? I agree with every word of TB's post. When you begin arguing with the hatists and receive great chunks of decades-old 'evidence' as 'proof' of their hate, it tends to give them credibility to people who have not had too much exposure to the dark side of life. And you only have to read some posts to see just how innocent and naive a lot of our friends are here..........thank God.

The whole point of American History X was to make white people look bad. That's why the film was made. The entire point of it, is "If you're a white person and you love your race, then you're evil. The only way you can be saved is by loving black people!!" I don't believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against whites, but it is obvious that those who are in a position to do so DO spread a lot of anti-white propaganda.

There it is again ......'Jew produced'. If that's not meant to be offensive, why say it? Please desist from pointing out that 'it's true'......I could say 'white produced' and the point would be? So your reasoned argument is: The previous poster was using Jewish junk to make a point. Tanah Burung made a calm, reasoned argument and received hate in return from at least two 'nazis'. Is this what you mean Sputnik, when you say the nazis usually give a better argument? I agree with every word of TB's post. When you begin arguing with the hatists and receive great chunks of decades-old 'evidence' as 'proof' of their hate, it tends to give them credibility to people who have not had too much exposure to the dark side of life. And you only have to read some posts to see just how innocent and naive a lot of our friends are here..........thank God.

The whole point of American History X was to make white people look bad. That's why the film was made. The entire point of it, is "If you're a white person and you love your race, then you're evil. The only way you can be saved is by loving black people!!" I don't believe in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy against whites, but it is obvious that those who are in a position to do so DO spread a lot of anti-white propaganda.

Okay, but what you're saying is that wherever and whenever a Jew gets power, he or she use it against 'whites' (I assume you mean non-Jews). That's racism. If you're a racist, say so. Are you, or are you not anti-semetic?

Take the debate elsewhere...

As for your comment about American History X... if you're taking your views from that piece of junk (which is, after all, merely a piece of Jew produced anti-nazi propaganda), then I'm not suprised you don't want to debate anyone.

Always with the Jews.

Take the debate elsewhere...

What debate? They keep buggering off and leave me/us lingering on a tantalising thread. Oy vey, the suspense.

Take the debate elsewhere...

Yeah. Can this be moved to General?

Maybe you could split the thread? It went waaay off topic a couple of pages ago . . .

As for your comment about American History X... if you're taking your views from that piece of junk (which is, after all, merely a piece of Jew produced anti-nazi propaganda), then I'm not surprised you don't want to debate anyone.

Always with the Jews.Yes, those damned Jews are always picking on the poor innocent Nazis. Remember the time that 6 million of them were beamed up to their secret moon base just so that they could blame the Nazis for their murders? :roll:
If I were the sort that flames, I would point out that it is of great scientific interest how such an utterly brainless creature can survive outside of the womb long enough to post such nonsense on an internet forum. But as I am staunchly against flaming I will say nothing of the sort.

Allowing hate speech in high schools was the subject of a court fight here in Canada, and the result was that it is not allowed. A Jewish kid in that school would have their right to free speech and freedom from implicit violence violated by a teacher with Nazi views."

Allowing National Socialists to express their opinions does not affect the free speech of other groups like Jews. You're not making any sense.

Germany has laws similar to those that existed in the communist Soviet Union. Many nationalist symbols and opinions are banned. It is not even legal to freely discuss world war II history in "democratic" germany.

But i suppose you think that's ok, cos it might make some Jews feel better?

Anyone who does not denounce Hitler and his gang of ghouls as the monsters that they were really shouldn't be talking about 'freedom of speech' being that they are indeed apoligists for some of free expression's most determained enemies.

Anyone who does not denounce Hitler and his gang of ghouls as the monsters that they were really shouldn't be talking about 'freedom of speech' being that they are indeed apoligists for some of free expression's most determained enemies.

I don't believe the Nazis were any worse than the communists. In fact, the communists killed far more people especially in russia.

Anyone who does not denounce Hitler and his gang of ghouls as the monsters that they were really shouldn't be talking about 'freedom of speech' being that they are indeed apoligists for some of free expression's most determained enemies.

I don't believe the Nazis were any worse than the communists. In fact, the communists killed far more people especially in russia.

As sly as ever. Do you mean Russian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotian, French, German, British, even......yes it's true, even American communists?......or do you mean something else? Sly and confusing, your trademark.

As for your comment about American History X... if you're taking your views from that piece of junk (which is, after all, merely a piece of Jew produced anti-nazi propaganda), then I'm not surprised you don't want to debate anyone.

Always with the Jews.

Well, if Nazis made a movie about Jews do you think it'd be unbias? Hell no! So why would a movie produced by a Jew about Nazis be unbias?

As for your comment about American History X... if you're taking your views from that piece of junk (which is, after all, merely a piece of Jew produced anti-nazi propaganda), then I'm not surprised you don't want to debate anyone.

Always with the Jews.

Well, if Nazis made a movie about Jews do you think it'd be unbias? Hell no! So why would a movie produced by a Jew about Nazis be unbias? Lets keep this in perspective: The nazis are a cohesive political movement. The Jews are a diverse people. Believe it or not there are Jewish Nazis. There are also other sorts of Jewish idiots. Your generelization about this people seems to be a brief flash of your true colors.