NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549781

I clearly stated:

Off topic trolling/thread jacking will be reported. This has nothing to do with the thread.

Get back on topic or get out.

Yet this thread is just filled with "this is racist, I don't want to talk about it, you're racist for bringing it up."

I think it's a legit discussion and TIME magazine did too, which is why they posted it. The article I posted shows the stagnation and regression of The Congo from when it was under White rule, so the premise for the conversation is, were things better then than now...and would it improve if a hypothetical white rule came back.

Just because this discussion does not sit well in some stomach's does not mean it should not be discussed.

I'm not asking for the Mods to give anyone bans, just please tell people to stay on topic and stop thread-jacking and trolling with attacks on me and "racism" or on "I don't want to discuss race-related issues" instead of addressing the issue at hand.

If they don't like the topic, don't post there....

It's mainly Greater Trostia...who just can't seem to live his life if it doesn't include trolling and putting words in my mouth and attacking the POSTER and NOT the arguement.

Yes but that discussion was one relevant to the OP....your talks about my personal opinions are NOT relevant.

If you want to make another thread that says that all people who discuss African racial politics are Racist...go do so in your own thread.

Or, for that matter..if you want to go make another thread that says anyone who likes Ron Paul is racist....that's for your own thread.

The point is you have this little annoying habit of totally avoiding the OP and going on some kind of "anti-racist crusade" and attacking THE POSTER and NOT the argument, which is "no, no" numero uno in NSG.

Yes, you "clearly stated" that you didn't want certain kinds of thoughts to be said in your thread. Kind of like in your Ron Paul thread, where you gave the same kind of demand/declaration about how discussing Ron Paul was verboten too.

I think you just really hate it when people point out something (i.e Ron Paul, or your views) is racist.

Well, let me offer you some words of wisdom someone told me:

Just because this discussion does not sit well in some stomach's does not mean it should not be discussed.

While we're reporting parts of that thread, allow me to report this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456372&postcount=1) post.

According to forum rules, an OP can not contain a simple link or copy/paste but must contain at least some individual thoughts and commentary by the poster. This does not, as admitted to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456416&postcount=13).

You know, as long as we're reporting stuff, we might as well point out the most obvious rules violation.

The point is you have this little annoying habit of totally avoiding the OP and going on some kind of "anti-racist crusade" and attacking THE POSTER and NOT the argument, which is "no, no" numero uno in NSG.

You made no argument. You made no discussion. You gave no commentary. You merely posted an article. Since you made no effort to engage the thread in any substantive argument, there is no argument of yours to discuss, leaving why you posted it a valid topic of conversation.

If you wished to have your arguments addressed, you should have posted one. You just posted an article without any commentary.

Yes but that discussion was one relevant to the OP....your talks about my personal opinions are NOT relevant.

As I said, your racism is central to the issue. It's obviously why you posted it - because you clearly support "White" rule - so me addressing your side of the argument is on-topic and relevant. And your side is based upon racism.

I apologize if pointing this out offends you and you would really prefer it if no one pointed it out.

If you want to make another thread that says that all people who discuss African racial politics are Racist...go do so in your own thread.

Or, for that matter..if you want to go make another thread that says anyone who likes Ron Paul is racist....that's for your own thread.

Enjoying the strawman bonfire over there?

The point is you have this little annoying habit of totally avoiding the OP and going on some kind of "anti-racist crusade" and attacking THE POSTER and NOT the argument, which is "no, no" numero uno in NSG.

See above. I addressed your argument - it's based on racism.

While we're reporting parts of that thread, allow me to report this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456372&postcount=1) post.

According to forum rules, an OP can not contain a simple link or copy/paste but must contain at least some individual thoughts and commentary by the poster. This does not, as admitted to here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13456416&postcount=13).

You know, as long as we're reporting stuff, we might as well point out the most obvious rules violation.
I didn't "admit" to anything...except that I posted the article, and didn't write that article, thus am not responsible if someone doesn't like that the article used the word "white" instead of "european".

Can we twist my words a little more please?

Perhaps y'all could slow your roll and allow the mods to address this.

TAI, you really didn't include any commentary in the initial post and it is called copy-and-paste spam. Absent commentary, what did you expect people to discuss? The weather?

I'm clearly NOT a Mod, but having read the thread:

1. The reason TAI did not cite any specific posts by Greater Trostia or anyone else is clearly because there is no history of trolling/flaming/threadjacking to which he can point.

2. Greater Trostia and others have been discussing substantive issues related to the thread. It is TAI, who after the OP and 8th post, has contributed nothing substantive to the thread. (And the OP is copy-and-paste).

3. As for some discussion of the racist nature of the thread, TAI own words explain why that isn't objectionable:

Deal with it.

The article is describing this as a racial issue, which involves racial politics, which would then involve racially related discussion of the racial issue, which could then inspire the offshoot of a racially-based poll.

Just because you don't want to personally discuss race doesn't mean it's a non-issue elsewhere and here it's obviously not a non-issue, as the article says.

So like I said,

DEAL.

Okay, oKAY! (1) Moderation is not General. (2) I've gotta go out to buy a bigger cauldron for mass turning-into-toads sessions. So please hang on until someone's had a chance to look it over.

Y'know, there are times I think NSG would benefit from having OOC threads attached to the main topic -- threads in which people could say, "okay, I'm gonna be the nitpicker in this thread ... Yeah? I'm gonna be the one who comes up with the really outrageous hypotheticals ... Meh, I'm just gonna name-call, maybe toss in a TL, DR ...".

Anyway, dealt with (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13457939&postcount=141)

GT, the topic, by itself, is not asserting any racist ideals. Saying "the topic is racist" is just an indirect way of saying, "You're a racist for posting this topic." So skip the flame.

TAI, re copypasta: the way you set up the thread, it would have been justifiable to discuss everything from the concept of Belgium returning to the Congo to a very generalised consideration of whether it would be helpful to have nations act as temporary administrators for other nations.

Also, polls should help crystallise the topic. Yours inadvertently became another topic because it prejudges its responses: it allows only for divisions based on skin colour, and it doesn't include all skin colours.

This is the sort of thing you should have posted it in your OP:
The article I posted shows the stagnation and regression of The Congo from when it was under White rule, so the premise for the conversation is, were things better then than now...and would it improve if a hypothetical white rule came back.