← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Avalanche
Thread ID: 5049 | Posts: 39 | Started: 2003-02-16
2003-02-16 17:24 | User Profile
** In the future we are going to improve them by not using graphic crudities of a sexual nature, barnyard epithets are to be avoided as well, and no racial slurs. We also don't want to see any sort of incident to violence, and that includes remarks like "the day of the rope."** I am continually making what are generally perceived to be "racial slurs" -- I am against many of the groups we talk about here -- things that in "public, civilized society" would result in me being shunned, if not atttacked.
Is it possible to talk about jews without "using racial slurs"? Or is that not what you mean? And if not, will you please expand on what you mean? Is it possible to add articles that speak 'ill' (that'd be the truth, no?) of blacks and mexicans and the 'immvasion' withOUT using racial slurs?
** We don't need any of that sort of emotional nonsense displayed here. Most of you are highly intelligent- act like it. For those of you who don't understand the above, it is quite simple. Don't use language that you would use in a public, civilized society. Use good judgement.**
One of the most important things (to me) about OD is that I CAN say the things here that I cannot in "public, civilized society." Here, protected by Texas Dissident's forum and such anonimity as OD allows, I can speak openly and freely about stuff that is NEVER acceptable in "our" American society.
I'm afraid both your message and the one Tex Diss sent earlier are just too vague (or I'm not highly intelligent enough to suss your intended meanings ;) ) about what you are and aren't objecting to. And what you are and aren't allowing on the forum.
I support a moderator making whatever rules s/he wants, and allowing or disallowing anything s/he wants -- it's your party. BUT, vague comments about "I'll know it when I see it." or "You KNOW what I mean." don't help ME to figure out what you know or want.
I have ABSOLUTELY no idea if these 'warnings' are directed at ME personally or not -- is it MY messages y'all find objectionable or someone else's -- and how am I to know?! And how are they know? The things I am saying ARE impolite and not acceptable in polite society -- but I was assuming this is the "free room" in polite society, and I COULD say the things I'm not "allowed" to in polite society...
But "here's a warning," without much substance -- am I the intended target or is someone else? How can I figure that out?
2003-02-16 19:52 | User Profile
Hi Avalanche,
I don't think you were the target. I'll define the problem BROADLY and leave it at that.
The topic of "Good Jews, Bad Jews" is just about impossible to discuss because: Neocon philosemites and VNN-type antisemites are two sides of the same adamantine coin. These people have a duty to admit that they want no discussion at all but they won't. So a good topic goes undiscussed. I'd go so far to call it a crucial topic that the two extremes are synoptic about; they seem to have agreed with each other to smother any honest discourse wherever it appears.
The topic might be locked here, and for good reason, but anyone wanting to read the JTR thread I supplied is invited to see that the subject is more involved than either the neocons or the nazis want to admit.
Extremists of any sort are not our friends. :angry:
2003-02-16 20:26 | User Profile
Ragnar,
I don't think you need to rehash the topic so soon. I now see that I should have weighed in, but having failed to do so I will bite my tongue for the time being.
Avalanche,
"KIK*E" is a slur; "Jew" is not.
As for references to the Jewish collective, I presume "the Tribe" is OK, and I would hope that artistic formulations like Il Ragno's "Team Shmuel" would be acceptable. I am not the arbiter, however.
2003-02-17 01:00 | User Profile
"KIK*E" is a slur; "Jew" is not. How about "filthy snakes"? <_< :P Is there a difference between a racial slur and an intentional insult? (Or an accurate description?)
2003-02-17 01:43 | User Profile
Although not all intentional insults are racial slurs, all intentional racial slurs are intentional insults. How accuracy plays into things, I don't know. Does it make the insults hurt more?
2003-02-17 02:53 | User Profile
**darkeddy: Although not all intentional insults are racial slurs, all intentional racial slurs are intentional insults. ** But can you unintentionally MAKE a racial slur, when you're intending only an insult? Or does the insult, by virtue (by vice? :lol: ) of containing a racial component, automatically become a slur?
E.g., if you are describing a "filthy lying jew," does "jew" supercede filthy and lying to become the sine qua none to constitute a racial slur, rather than an accurate description of a person/group you wish to INSULT as liars and dirty?
(Okay, Sert and Tex, I'm sorry.. I'm just playing.... I'll quit.) :rolleyes:
2003-02-17 03:24 | User Profile
I'd written my longest-winded, most cant-ridden & sanctimonious post EVER in response to this thread...and it got error-messaged into oblivion. Which may have been an act of mercy, at that.
So - rather than reconstruct, let's go for the Cliff Notes version instead.
First, I don't think this is a "harsh language" issue, but a "harsh tone" issue.
I hang out here for free. I pay neither the rent nor the light bill. At some point, my right to rant has to take second place to the (minimal) rules and regs here. Such as emptying the ashtrays I'm helping to fill, and lifting the toilet seat before responding to nature's call. That's not ideological cowardice; it's common courtesy.
As W Bales noted elsewhere,the steadily-mounting "numbers of comment removed by moderator indicate the great magnitute of censorship at Freerepublic". Politics, and political movements, are a numbers game ; disaffected Freepers and stragglers alike who are looking for a board like OD (whether they realize it or not) are potentially being frightened away by a creeping tendency towards a kind of no-neck brown-shirtism sometimes exhibited here (and I'm pointing the finger directly at myself here, no one else). Clinking our steins together in praise of mass-murder is not exactly sound marketing strategy. While I lean towards a sort of sardonic humor, I cannot rightly expect a newcomer to understand that a post like
*What's the best thing ever to come out of Poland?
An empty train.*
is gallows humor, and nothing more. However, a blanket ban of every single potentially incendiary remark is ridiculous. White people simply are not angry [u]enough[/u] and it is our responsibility to Our Own to articulate the reasons they ought to be angry, and to absolve them of the kind of prefabricated guilt inculcated in them by the Gods of the Propasphere. Every single word ever worth uttering always carries the potential of being taken to heart & acted upon (whether "rightly" or "wrongly"). Otherwise, why a board like OD?
We know why FR exists - like Horowitz's FRONT PAGE, it's there to generate cash via endless "fundraisers" & mailing-lists-for-sale, and so the sheer numbers on the membership rolls can be brandished like a club by Zionist 'conservatives' seeking to railroad debate, crush dissent and implement the Larger Agenda. Remember that every enemy of the republic hides behind "the majority": "the majority"of Americans wants this or supports that or demands such-and-such (and when it clearly doesn't, add a modifier: the majority of "right-thinking"/"patriotic"/"value-oriented"/etc Americans wants bla bla bla......it's always numbers in politics, even -especially - when it's nothing more than [u]perceived [/u]numbers.)
Our only "weaponry" at OD is our rhetoric. Period. Quash that and we might as well all turn on Fox News and say 'nighty-night'. However.....in the heat of passion & anger, men are wont to forget where their best interests truly lie and let emotion carry the day.
This should be a sort of evangelical enterprise. A big-tent approach. A recruitment effort. We do not yet have the numbers to effect any sort of change in the West and yet I see too many white flags of "worse is better", too much elitist exclusion, too much fetishizing of "The New Hardness", too many of us drawing up lists of People To Be Rounded Up And Killed come the glorious New Dawn....and too few of us willing to even appear "soft and conciliatory" in the name of converting the fence-sitters and heathens alike who outnumber us 100-to-1, and who could be our most valuable allies - if we would make the effort required to establish commonality of cause with them!
The hard facts are if the Day Of The Rope came tomorrow, we'd be utterly routed in an hour or two, and the only names on the roundup lists would be ours. And this is especially thorny for me because my own rhetoric leans towards "extremely harsh", and I truly feel that the anger and rage of good people betrayed by tricksters and con-men to be Holy Anger, and a prerequisite of any meaningful political and cultural change in the West. But if you lock a suspect in an interview room with two Bad Cops, you're not gonna get very many confessions that aren't thrown out of court later when the judge sees the raised welts on the defendant's face.
You need a Good Cop for good cop/bad cop to work. And we need a balance of rhetoric in order to make ultimate victory even feasible. And I say this as someone who unashamedly loves and supports extremist venues like VNN. But VNN is VNN, and OD is OD. We're not the same thing; we should be an appealingly sane and rational escape-ramp for people catching on to the natureof the circle-jerks offered by the Horowitzim and the JimRobs and the Joe Farahs. There is no reason we can't be. NONE.
One last point. To Tex, Sertorius, Ay and any other moderators here: please do not ban any present members. If you have serious issues with anyone here, at least have the courtesy to PM the individuals and talk to them rather than yanking authorizations, which I consider the coward's way out. (Actually, if you feel this or that post to be beyond the pale, I'd sooner see you set an example by repudiating those sentiments in a public reply before a PM. Encourage spirited debate by engaging in it.)
Ok, rant over. Smoke em if you got em.
2003-02-17 05:42 | User Profile
**This thread is an absolute disgrace because of certain ugly posts that have been removed, and for that reason I have closed it.
To ALL Of Those Who This Applies:
In recent months the standards of language and civil discourse here have declined on the part of a few of us. I admit that I have been guilty of this as well on occasion. For some of you this has become a bad habit.
In the future we are going to improve them by not using graphic crudities of a sexual nature, barnyard epithets are to be avoided as well, and no racial slurs. We also don`t want to see any sort of incident to violence, and that includes remarks like "the day of the rope."
We don`t need any of that sort of emotional nonsense displayed here.
Most of you are highly intelligent- act like it. For those of you who dont understand the above, it is quite simple. Dont use language that you would use in a public, [u]civilized[/u] society. Use good judgement.
If you don`t, the following will occur.
(1) The first time I will removed the offending word(s) and you will be informed.
(2) The second time the post will be deleted and p.m. mailed back to you as to why.
(3) The third time I will remove you.**
================================ Avalanche
**Is it possible to talk about jews without "using racial slurs"?ÃÂ Or is that not what you mean? And if not, will you please expand on what you mean?ÃÂ Is it possible to add articles that speak 'ill' (that'd be the truth, no?) of blacks and mexicans and the 'immvasion' withOUT using racial slurs? **
In my case it is more of a case of not cussing too much whenever I see the loathsome Charles Krauthammer or the slimy Bill Kristol on my T.V.
What we mean here is that one can show contempt for these creatures without using obscene language. I think that U.S. Grant was right when he said the more a person cursed the madder he got, which in view of these people we are dealing with is understandable. Despite that anger we simply cant and wont have people posting obscene and vulgar posts just because they are angry. As an example of what I refer to I refer you to this [URL=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&d[/URL] that only recently came to my attention. This sort of language used by the thread starter to other is unacceptable and will dealt with if he persist. Whatever point that he was trying to make is completely lost for all because of the nastiness that he displays.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated about Free Speech a long time ago that it doesn`t mean being able to shot fire in a crowed theater applies here as well. One cannot go into a private business or a public building and start yelling crude epithets in a civilized society without suffering for his actions. The same is true here as well and even more important I would ask you to consider the following.
This board provides a useful service by allowing people to express ideas, opinions and suggestions on how we can make American better for ourselves and future generations. Allowing the above ugly conduct will only accomplish the following:
[list] [*]It makes the members this board look stupid and ignorant,
[*]People that see those remarks will never take our ideas seriously,
[*]and most importantly, the calls for violence can only lead to one thing-- the shutting down of this board by either legal or commercial means. [/list]
This board is too important to allow that to happen because there are some people want to make this a "free speech" issues when what they really are supporting, whether they realize it or not is the Jew Lenny Bruce`s old "Filthy Speech Movement." No, it is much more important to keep this as viable alternative to the "mainstream" media for the reason that so much good information and commentary is coming from this source.
I am continually making what are generally perceived to be "racial slurs" -- I am against many of the groups we talk about here -- things that in "public, civilized society" would result in me being shunned, if not atttacked.
Why do you need to do it at all when there is so many rich words in the English language to use upon them? Think about this, they are already used to being called the terms of endearment used by some here, think of the consternation it causes them when they are referred to as a collection of hydrochephaluses. You get the idea. One can be creative here.
One of the most important things (to me) about OD is that I CAN say the things here that I cannot in "public, civilized society."ÃÂ Here, protected by Texas Dissident's forum and such anonimity as OD allows, I can speak openly and freely about stuff that is NEVER acceptable in "our" American society.
And so shall you may continue to do so. We are not about censoring ideas as long as they are presented in an intelligent, civil manner. We believe that the power of the word presented in an intelligent and articulate way will persuade more people to our views than all the foul language and threats of death will ever do.
I'm afraid both your message and the one Tex Diss sent earlier are just too vague (or I'm not highly intelligent enough to suss your intended meaningsÃÂ ÃÂ ;) ) about what you are and aren't objecting to.ÃÂ And what you are and aren't allowing on the forum.
I disagree here. I have found you to be highly intelligent and furthermore, that is exactly the people we wish to attract. Allowing things the other way will do just the opposite.
**I support a moderator making whatever rules s/he wants, and allowing or disallowing anything s/he wants -- it's your party. BUT,ÃÂ vague comments about "I'll know it when I see it." or "You KNOW what I mean." don't help ME to figure out what you know or want. **
Hopefully, what I have written will give you greater understanding.
**I have ABSOLUTELY no idea if these 'warnings' are directed at ME personally or not -- is it MY messages y'all find objectionable or someone else's -- and how am I to know?!ÃÂ And how are they know?ÃÂ The things I am saying ARE impolite and not acceptable in polite society -- but I was assuming this is the "free room" in polite society, and I COULD say the things I'm not "allowed" to in polite society...
But "here's a warning," without much substance -- am I the intended target or is someone else?ÃÂ How can I figure that out?**
If it were you would have been p.m.d. Fortunately, it is only a few. The vast number of posters here are fine people who dont engage in these things and their interests come before those who would use this board for other purposes.
2003-02-17 05:53 | User Profile
Ragnar,
**The topic might be locked here, and for good reason, but anyone wanting to read the JTR thread I supplied is invited to see that the subject is more involved than either the neocons or the nazis want to admit.
Extremists of any sort are not our friends. :angry: **
Exactly. That is my view as well. There is alot more to this than most people realize.
2003-02-17 06:24 | User Profile
**.....anyone wanting to read the JTR thread I supplied is invited..... **
I'll bite. But what thread does "JTR" refer to?
Extremists of any sort are not our friends.
Got a good laugh out of this. Not only is this demonstrably untrue, but look at the sentence again. Such a sweeping condemnation and dismissal could only be made by an extremist! Tsk, tsk....
2003-02-17 06:33 | User Profile
Il Ragno,
I`m sorry you lost that rant. It must have been a real doozy. :o :D
Nonetheless, I think you did well with this one. I started writing what is posted earlier today and only recently posted it. I hope that it addresses most of your concerns.
** I hang out here for free. I pay neither the rent nor the light bill. At some point, my right to rant has to take second place to the (minimal) rules and regs here. Such as emptying the ashtrays I'm helping to fill, and lifting the toilet seat before responding to nature's call. That's not ideological cowardice; it's common courtesy. **
Thats all were asking. Some folks seem to think as an example that they can go into someone else`s house, drink all his beer without permission, put cigarettes out on the carpet, and top it off by defecating on the coffee table.
** You need a Good Cop for good cop/bad cop to work. And we need a balance of rhetoric in order to make ultimate victory even feasible. And I say this as someone who unashamedly loves and supports extremist venues like VNN. But VNN is VNN, and OD is OD. We're not the same thing; we should be an appealingly sane and rational escape-ramp for people catching on to the natureof the circle-jerks offered by the Horowitzim and the JimRobs and the Joe Farahs. There is no reason we can't be. NONE. **
You got it. Each one appeals to a certain segment from the population with their own approach. There is a certain crossover and the ones who decide to come over here should leave the rhetoric over there because as you noted above, each is different.
One last point. To Tex, Sertorius, Ay and any other moderators here: please do not ban any present members. If you have serious issues with anyone here, at least have the courtesy to PM the individuals and talk to them rather than yanking authorizations, which I consider the coward's way out. (Actually, if you feel this or that post to be beyond the pale, I'd sooner see you set an example by repudiating those sentiments in a public reply before a PM. Encourage spirited debate by engaging in it.) **
Anyone who gets banned is banned for a short time. There is one person who is taking a vacation at this time, but he will be allowed to come back on as long as he abides by the standards. The reason for the vacation is because despite repeated p.m.s to cease the behavior that I have written about above the person continued to do so. A person can be asked politely to take a certain action only so many times. When he refuses to do so then one most take action of his own to get ther person`s attention and in this case it was well deserved because of the absolute trash that he posted. That has been done.
There is alot of mailing that goes on in the background that doesn`t get posted out here. Nobody here wants to have the sort of Zionist Circus like "Free Republic," where the dancing goyim is expected to preform all sorts of tricks and abasments for the amusement of the so- called "chosen people."
**Ok, rant over. Smoke em if you got em. **
Capital idea!
2003-02-17 07:50 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Feb 17 2003, 06:24 ** I'll bite. But what thread does "JTR" refer to?
Extremists of any sort are not our friends.
Got a good laugh out of this. Not only is this demonstrably untrue, but look at the sentence again. Such a sweeping condemnation and dismissal could only be made by an extremist! Tsk, tsk.... **
That was me, The Jewish Tribal Review link was to Israel Shamir and his hope that Jews will become Americanized before Americans are all Jewified. A doozy of a piece, it's the first of four exchanges at JTR, below.
[url=http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/critique.htm]http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/critique.htm[/url]
I agree "extremist" was a rotten choice. It was the first word that seemed to do the heavy-lifting I needed, then I remembered that America's only real association with the word was Barry Goldwater, when it became a joke.
So, alright, predictably goofy kneejerking is not our friend. (It lacks gravitas though.)
2003-02-17 08:21 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 16 2003, 20:53 (Okay, Sert and Tex, I'm sorry.. I'm just playing.... I'll quit.) :rolleyes:
Thank heavens. I was beginning to think you were morphing into Theodor Adorno.
2003-02-17 08:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 17 2003, 02:21 Thank heavens. I was beginning to think you were morphing into Theodor Adorno.
Or more properly, Betty Frieden, or other womyn.
I'll tell you before AV does. Quit being so phallocentric.
Maybe Miss Bushie :wub: :wub: would come back.
2003-02-17 14:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sertorius@Feb 17 2003, 00:42 **
What we mean here is that one can show contempt for these creatures without using obscene language. **
I agree.
As the sage old rabbi said, "Profanity is a crutch employed by limited, inarticulate sons-of-btchs."
So talmudic, yet so true.
2003-02-17 14:57 | User Profile
Sertorius: Think about this, they are already used to being called the terms of endearment used by some here, think of the consternation it causes them when they are referred to as a collection of hydrochephaluses. You get the idea. So, we're to pick up "euphemizing," because THEY have made us hyper-sensitive to THEIR feelings, and we don't want to be too open about OUR feelings?!
If we call them hydrocephali THEY will understand, but the white American sheep WON'T! ;)
But I do take your point, and in general agree there is a balance to be maintained, I'm certainly not disagreeing with your goals -- just not sure 'not hurting their feelings' is a particular goal of MINE! :P (And ESPECIALLY having been over to racialistforums.org or whatever link it was Franco recommended -- NOT my cup of tea! No conversations, just a lot of angry ranting... As Franco said, not as high-brow as here -- I much prefer here!
So, I WILL try to be a bit more circumspect in my ranting -- while still flinging around such insults as I find just irresistable!! :) :lol: :D
2003-02-17 18:09 | User Profile
Avalanche
You misunderstand me. Hurting their feelings doesnt even enter the picture with me. I couldnt care less about them. They already hate us. What I mean here is that I want lurkers to read what is posted here. People today are so conditioned to have a pavolian response to certain things that it doesnt help one minute for someone to see what I have described above. They see that and they will decide what our enemies say about us is true-- that we are a collection of stupid, ignorant folks who shouldnt be given the time of day. Perception is the key here.
The others interest me not.
My example above with langauge was extreme, I admit, but you see what I am saying and this should be an incentive for people to broaden their education at every chance.
2003-02-17 20:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 17 2003, 08:57 ** No conversations, just a lot of angry ranting... As Franco said, not as high-brow as here -- I much prefer here!
So, I WILL try to be a bit more circumspect in my ranting -- while still flinging around such insults as I find just irresistable!! **
Av: There has to be some common sense in any discussion. Again, not to call you out but your constant use of (!!!!) makes it sound like you do enjoy "angry ranting"
I myself have noticed a sharp increase in name calling/arrogant posts directed my way. I'm at the point where I'll start asking TBF, Wintermute & others what I should think. That way, I won't say anything that offends them or proves my utter ignorance.
Is that any different than the P.C. thought police? No. So, if people want to complain about "censorship", they need to look at themselves and ask, "Have I attacked a poster for his comments lately?" B/c if they have, they're guilty of a form of censorship, plain & simple.
-jay
2003-02-17 21:24 | User Profile
I'm at the point where I'll start asking TBF, Wintermute & others what I should think. That way, I won't say anything that offends them or proves my utter ignorance. Is that any different than the P.C. thought police? No. So, if people want to complain about "censorship", they need to look at themselves and ask, "Have I attacked a poster for his comments lately?"
Jay:
Not true. I've both chided AND defended you. Which indicates either
a) schizophrenia (not true; I only wear this Napoleon hat as an affectation, dammit!)
or
B) I'm reacting/responding to content on a post-by-post basis
You're doing Wintermute, Avalanche, et al, a disservice here by lumping them in with someone like TBF who obviously has a personal problem with you (which many of us have upbraided him for).
The only honorable form of "attack" between regs here is IF they're being taken to task for the content of their comments.
I think I understand your beef here, but you need to rethink your wording. Censorship is when I'm not allowed to disagree with you, or you with me. If I wanted that, I'd hang around at News Max.
2003-02-17 22:28 | User Profile
Jay's post was not directed at you, Ragno. He's right; several posters have been unduly harsh to him.
2003-02-17 22:46 | User Profile
I understand that, MW. But my reply wasn't a defensive reflex, but a comment upon the content in his post.
Surely that is the entire point of debate - here or anywhere!
2003-02-17 23:06 | User Profile
Originally posted by mwdallas@Feb 17 2003, 15:28 Jay's post was not directed at you, Ragno. He's right; several posters have been unduly harsh to him.
jay is hardly tactful himself. Not to defend some of the responses he got, but he's inviting it. I remember him, because once he attacked me in the old days of SFF out of the blue.
2003-02-18 16:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by madrussian@Feb 17 2003, 17:06 ** jay is hardly tactful himself. Not to defend some of the responses he got, but he's inviting it. I remember him, because once he attacked me in the old days of SFF out of the blue. **
Don't recall that. Please give the topic and my "attack", please. I am really not that passionate a person, so I doubt I "attacked" you. I know for a fact I don't name-call or lecture.
-Jay
2003-02-18 16:36 | User Profile
**Not true. I've both chided AND defended you. Which indicates either **
Why chide me? I don't "chide" you when I disagree with things you post.
**You're doing Wintermute, Avalanche, et al, a disservice here by lumping them in with someone like TBF who obviously has a personal problem with you (which many of us have upbraided him for). **
I never mentioned you or Av in that group.
I think I understand your beef here, but you need to rethink your wording. Censorship is when I'm not allowed to disagree with you, or you with me. If I wanted that, I'd hang around at News Max.
I'm not sure about that. Lecturing/insults are a form of intimidation, designed to either inflame the other person or get them to drop the discussion.
Really, I"m not trying to be an insensitive ninny here - but rather, saying that the discourse here has fallen in the past few weeks and I would like to know why. People want to know why Paleo-Con fails, and I can easily see why: even the people (like me) that are 90% on your side get attacked. You're right, I can go to News Max for that.
(Except I got banned there. I didn't "respect the office of the Presidency" while enduring profanities from the "conservatives")
-Jay
2003-02-18 17:15 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Feb 18 2003, 10:36 Why chide me? I don't "chide" you...
I like my baked potatoes with butter and chides.
:ph34r:
2003-02-18 22:12 | User Profile
Lecturing/insults are a form of intimidation...
Insults, yes. "Lecturing" is fuzzier. It's interesting that Flaubert's definition of blasphemy ("your irreverence towards my deity") never goes out of date.
I'm no Christian (and don't pretend to be) but I'd rather have Christianity in the world than no Christianity. I respect its practice if not all of its practitioners.
But if someone can explain to me how derisive comments towards a seven-year-old kid beaten to death by his 'parents', or gleeful mockery of people stomped to death in a panic-rush to an exit door, or turning over a "good woman" who is begging you for her life to an death squad rounding up undesirables to execute, is in any way consonant with "Christianity" or "Western Civilization" or any of the principles we claim to be animated by, please....I'm all ears.
In the end, morality is defined less by what you stand for than what you won't sink to. At least, that's my two cents.
2003-02-19 00:10 | User Profile
its only ok for negroes to call one another negroes.
2003-02-19 00:11 | User Profile
haha i actually typed the N-Word there, and it appeared as Negroes. I sense a big brother here.
2003-02-19 00:18 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Feb 19 2003, 00:11 ** haha i actually typed the N-Word there, and it appeared as Negroes. I sense a big brother here. **
It's automatic. If you try writing the word for latino that starts with s, it comes up... latino. It helps people be unoffensive, I suppose, but it's a problem when you are trying to make a necessary point, as you were.
(Mine was similar. Something like, "If they can call us gringos, why can't we call them "sp__cs"? But it came out "latinos" which destroyed the point.)
2003-02-19 00:28 | User Profile
Originally posted by Exelsis_Deo@Feb 18 2003, 18:11 I sense a big brother here.
[img]http://storetn.cafepress.com/5/4694385_F_store.jpg[/img]
Five to one, one in five No one here gets out alive
2003-02-19 01:49 | User Profile
**It's automatic. If you try writing the word for latino that starts with s, it comes up... latino. **
Censorware. A thread in itself.
I know of a board that installed a censor program in the interests of civil discourse. Only the program was designed in Great Britain by people unaware or unconcerned with offensive American slang. End result: you could slur/defame anyone you wished....but the hammer came down every time you typed "wank"!
I discovered this when attempting, over and over, to type the word "swanky": it came out s****y every time. Needless to say, hilarious confusion ensued, and I got a lot of angry responses for "defaming" something I was trying to praise. (It zapped out "bollocks" too: I checked. But it just didn't cause the same kind of comical misinterpretations.)
2003-02-19 10:48 | User Profile
I've just thrown every vulgar term I can think of for Whites at this board and not one of them was edited by the censorware, excepting the ones that denigrate Italians and Spaniards but are widely used for Mexinjuns. Now why would that be? Did you buy your censorware from a mysterious bearded peddlar Tex?
2003-02-19 11:26 | User Profile
Originally posted by na Gaeil is gile@Feb 19 2003, 04:48 I've just thrown every vulgar term I can think of for Whites at this board and not one of them was edited by the censorware, excepting the ones that denigrate Italians and Spaniards but are widely used for Mexinjuns. Now why would that be? Did you buy your censorware from a mysterious bearded peddlar Tex?
:lol: No. There is no pre-installed censored word list in this software. Every word that has been added has been done by me on a case-by-case, as needed basis.
I'm not a big fan of it, but the hard reality is that 1) there are posters who will jump-in and post never giving a moment's thought to observing or respecting the guidelines I have put up, and 2) myself and the other moderators only do this part-time. If I had nothing else to do but monitor this board, then I would feel comfortable having no built-in censor. Every instance of crude profanity or abusive language could be addressed in real time. But this is not my full-time job, nor am I a man of leisure. I'm just a regular working man like most folks, so while I am doing the things I have to do to provide for my family, the censor just gives the board an added layer of security that gives me some peace of mind.
I don't really have any anti-white slurs entered because that hasn't been a problem here. We've had some disruptors from that corner, but I just banned 'em and erased everything they put up. That's not my approach for those on the other side of the spectrum. I don't pretend to be fair to everyone. The ADL/Neo-con disruptors have plenty of boards and sites to air their degenerate views. This site will be biased towards pro-Western traditionalism and nationalism. That's not to say an ideological foe cannot step-up, participate and intelligently argue their case here. Rather that there is zero tolerance for any disruption from them. I believe I bend over backwards to accomodate those with sympathetic views to the site's philosophy. Of course some here may disagree, but all I can do is try to roll with the flow. I make no pretensions of doing everything perfectly.
2003-02-19 15:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Texas Dissident@Feb 19 2003, 05:26 ** There is no pre-installed censored word list in this software. Every word that has been added has been done by me on a case-by-case, as needed basis.
**
Well there goes my conspiracy theory... ;)
2003-02-20 20:18 | User Profile
Um, isn't this still the Chides of FEBRUARY?!
2003-02-21 04:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by il ragno@Feb 16 2003, 22:24 **While I lean towards a sort of sardonic humor, I cannot rightly expect a newcomer to understand that a post like
What's the best thing ever to come out of Poland? An empty train.
is gallows humor, and nothing more.**
I'm reminded of a story. Lee was having a staff meeting and an officer came up. He asked if there were any ladies present as he had a joke. Lee instantly replied "There are no ladies present sir, but there are gentlemen." The embarrased officer left immediately.
As you and others have pointed out the best thing we can do for our ideas is to present them in a way that will allow people to accept them. Using slurs and bad language does not help our cause. We arent targeting the MTV crowd. We are targeting decent folks who still think that the system works for them. We must gain and keep their confidence. And to do this we must present ourselves as decent folk with similar goals.
2003-02-21 20:42 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 20 2003, 14:18 ** Um, isn't this still the Chides of FEBRUARY?! **
I believe he's referring to the "Beware the Ides of March" in reference to the month Julius Caesar was killed. I think that's who it was, if memory serves.
-Jay
2003-02-22 00:49 | User Profile
Hats Off to Tex ( I'll call you that ok ? ) for making all this available and relevant, and still fairly inclusive enough not to be as passable ( meaning this forum ) as the rest of the internet. You and I choose to participate here because we know we can and will be challenged in a responsible manner, and therefore this Original Dissent forum is a diamond in the rough. I just want to say thank you, and if i type negro and mean negro, in my context you can still tell exactly what I meant, because our verbage should transgress the base street level we use, considering the experience, attitude, awareness, and intelligence of all who participate in Original Dissent.
2003-02-22 01:36 | User Profile
**Avalanche: Um, isn't this still the Chides of FEBRUARY?!
Jay: I believe he's referring to the "Beware the Ides of March" in reference to the month Julius Caesar was killed. I think that's who it was, if memory serves. ** Yes jay, of COURSE SHE was!
If your memory is not solid on that, I'd recommend Shakepeare.. he says it all so well! :D