Stormfront Advisory - A Moderator Perspective

I think that is probably true to an extent, or even if it isn't you could replace the word racist with prejudiced or bigoted, and it would almost certainly be true. However, what differentiates thinking people from non-thinking people, is how we handle those visceral reactions to difference. Some people react by attempting to institutionalize their prejudices, and that is when it becomes absolutely unacceptable. Others react by logically understanding that the idea that melanin levels in the skin is deterministic, is idiotic beyond imagination. So even if we emotionally respond to this sort of thing, intellectually we are able to destroy those imbecilic notions!

 

So, when Jews talk about tulips at Stormfront and are verbally attacked by white supremacists, you feel that those Jews discussing tulips should examine their tulip discussions to determine why such justifies verbal attacks made against them by neo-Nazis and/or white supremacists? The problem is not the religious view or political opinion of the individual, but rather the reliance on character smears in hopes of censoring the opinion. A white supremacists will never succeed in proving that a blue tulip is not blue, but they might succeed in preventing the discussion of such by attacking the character of the tulip debater. It was the same thing during WWII. Nazis could not prove that Jews were wrong, but they believed that they could silence the expression of their opinions by attacking their characters.

 

(sorry to everyone for the bleated edit)

Thanks for your words Liebe, I enjoy your fresh well read perspective as well, you have often gave me a reason to rethink my comments and mindset, which allowed and sometimes forced (eek) me to accept a different, improved conclusion. That is a very good and rare thing. As for the last comment concerning Shiva’s observations, I too agree. The authorities need scapegoats eh?

Rev A

 

Note: I am not defending stormfront only posting some observations;

After I reviewed stormfront and made a couple of posts there I quit going. Why would anyone that is pro Jewish or pro Israel want to go there? It's not like they hide their white supremacist, anti Jewish etc ideals. I would have near a zero chance in changing some of their views that I feel is wrong. Its a private site. Even if it were not they have the right to free speech in this country anyway, no matter how repulsive the message, as long as its not yelling fire in a crowded theatre type speech.

In that case if a Jewish friendly crusader wanted to butt heads with SF members they should go into battle with a foreknowledge that they will be in a lopsided contest! They should be smart enough to use rules to their advantage. However as I said, if the mods and owner are biased there is little chance the Jewish friendly Crusader will win a debate and may even get unfairly banned.

Is the banning fair? No. Is it morally correct? No. Is it ethically correct? NO. Does stormfront members have the right to use unsavory tactics to smear our brave Crusader? Definitely YES! As repugnant and angering as it is they have that right for at least two reasons. the site is privately owned. Second no civil or criminal act was committed.

No I have to disagree! In WW2 Hitler made all manner of laws allowing torture and murder and elimination of all civil rights of the Jewish people which made those atrocities LEGAL. Not to anger the secular humanists because most SH's (secular humanists) do have a good heart, however the Nazi example one reason I fear SH, it allows the authorities to make laws that could in theory permit murder, just as Hitler did in WW2, he never violated a German law . I would choose a form of absolutism.

Rev A

 

I used stormfront as an example, but any forum should do. One should not attack Jews in any forum simply because they talk about blue tulips, and Jews do not have to examine their discussions of blue tulips in order to determine if the manner in which they discuss blue tulips will decrease attacks made against them by neo-Nazis. If Jews want to discuss blue tulips, than that is their choice and their right and not a valid reason to attack their characters because of such.

Agreed. This goes along with what I wrote earlier:

Thus, forum members don't need to "growing up" for being attacked when discussing blue tulips or make any "self-reflection" on their writings because of such. Attackers attack because they choose to do so or because such is allowed, but nothing forces them to be that way.

This is in agreement with what I wrote. Hitler could not prove Jews as being wrong, so he attacked them instead, making "all manner of laws allowing torture and murder and elimination of all civil rights of the Jewish people which made those atrocities LEGAL", just as you wrote. Jews did not need to "growing up" or make any "self-reflection". The attacker was wrong, not the attacked.

 

I am not sure I understand. I don’t know why anyone would attack a Jewish person for discussing a topic. If you are saying racism (or being hated because one is Jewish) is bad yes I agree.

Again I am not exactly sure what you mean. I think everyone knows nothing forces someone to be hateful and insulting, it’s a choice

Hitler did not want to prove Jewish people were wrong (what does that mean exactly) He hated the Jewish people because he felt they were an inferior race , barely human (maybe not even human).

Yes.

Yes~ I don’t think anyone would say the Jewish people deserved to be murdered, except for the Nazis. Thanks for your reply.

Rev A

 

Anti-Zionist & Socialist advisory on deck from teh Mod/Admins next ???

 

Hi Frodly, sorry I missed your post. I agree with most of it fully. However, I feel that nearly all people are 'racist' by degrees. (which isn’t the best word for what I am attempting to say). Some people are ruled by their emotions too. By ruled by emotions, I mean some people may go of on a tirade screaming racist euphuisms say if cut off in traffic by a minority etc when in a normal calm mood they feel ‘real’ racism is horrible. I believe rabid racism is a learned trait that some may, according to studies, be genetically prompted or predisposed to. ( I have not checked the validity of those studies, however I suspect they are true).

Rev A

 

hA HA INDEED! OOPS caps! I sure hope not!

Rev A

 

For the same reason that one might attack a Muslim, an Arab, an African, a Christian or any member of any group. Often, members of groups are not attacked for what they say, but for who they are affiliated with.

The suggestion was made that the attacked are responsible for attacks made against them. I used a Jew-Nazi example to challenge the validity of that logic, and it doesn't seem to hold much water.

I think that that's more or less the same thing. "Inferior" people are "wrong" in the view of those who hate them, and the haters tend to do things to "justify" their position and prevent others from challenging its validity.

 

Ok I think I understand. You are saying that for example, MS 13 members are attacked not for what they say but who they are affiliated with?

]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I agree. I apologize for getting into the discussion in midstream.

Yes indeed, thanks for clearing everything up!

Rev A

 

There is a HUGE difference between attacking a member of MS-13 because they belong to that group and attacking an Arab because of his ethnicity.

MS-13 is a KNOWN hate group, and belonging to that group indicates acceptance of that ideology and further, presecence on this webiste as an open member of that group, indicates a strng desire to spread that offensive and wrecklessly dangerous ideology.

It is no different that saying Al Qaeda is allowed on here to preach violence toward Westerners and other Muslims apostates who happen to disagree with them - which is most of them.

Hate speech has no other goal that to inflame passions and eventually to incite violence. It is not, nor indeed ever is, about debate. Keep it off.

 

I have a difficult time understanding Judges analogies etc. He often misuses terms and words without indicating that he is doing so. I don't think its malicious most of the time.

(CAPS FOR EMPHASES ONLY)

Ok to answer your reply; I think you are confusing the issues. If one hates another because of race its racism, even though the Jewish people are not a true race it's usually considered racist AND bigoted to insult them. When one is hated because of who they associate with or they are ie say those that present anti-USA sentiments here in this forum, hating Americans, they are bigots not racists. Now, I will tell you, I personally detest street gangs like MS14. I am also fairly anti authority i.e. law enforcement. So I am not on the side of MS14* members at all! I would fully agree with turning the 'dogs' loose* (allowing police to bend the rules to destroy MS13 type gangs) on the violent street gangs to eradicate them if I had the power, so I am no friend of gangs. That said if someone says they are an MS14 member, and wants to join this forum they should be allowed to.

(I began using MS14 as not to discriminate against one particular street gang, I detest all violent street gangs and feel they should be eliminated)

That does NOT mean they are here to recruit or to spread a 'fire in the theater' type message. Its both legal and acceptable for them to talk about their gang on the forum if they started a thread and it followed the rules here at PF. The same goes on the street. By law they have the right and should have the right to speak about the gang as long as they are not saying outright to do violence. Just because they may suggest violence by their membership still its not enough to silence them!

Why? Think about it! What if you denied a Christian the right to join or speak because the violent cults of Christianity promotes killing abortion doctors! Now you can see that by denying the MS14 member to join could began a process to where a owner or moderator using HIS SUBJECTIVITY AND OWN MORALS AND ETHICS DENY MEMBERSHIP OR SPEECH! Its that simple. Yes its repugnant to hear the words of a MS14** member glorifying shooting people that cross them. However its repugnant to some atheists to hear a Christian taking about salvation, or its repugnant to some Christians to hear them speak about how harmful Christianity is! THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK.

(CAPS FOR EMPHASIS ONLY)

As long as the speech does not DIRECTLY MENTION OR SPECIFICALLY PROMOTE VIOLENCE the speech is lawful and constitutionally guaranteed in the USA.

True. Hate SPEECH is allowable though if it does not specifically promote violence! I believe you are confusing the two concepts between speech that promotes and specifically asks or promotes Violence. Here is the difference. ;

Lawful hate speech; I am a CCC member and feel inner city blacks are criminals and should be dealt with.

Unlawful hate speech; I am a CCC member and will tell you that inner city blacks are criminals, so I ask you to go out find and hang the first inner city black you come across!

See the difference?

Rev A

 

Once again I will bring us back to the point. It isn't specifically about the bigoted racism of Stormfront that I'm concerned with as a moderator. I'm concerned with quality members of Poltical Forum responding to it in an inappropriate manner by personally attacking a member of Stormfront because of the bigoted racists opinions they might express.

Also noted was the fact that I'm concerned with members of Stormfront that could post flamebait threads where they are not engaging in respectful discussion and debate. The problem for many "Stormfront" members would be that bigoted racists opinions can't normally be addressed in respectful discussion and debate because respectful discussion and debate exposes bigoted opinion.

Shiva_TD
Site Moderator

 

I am a bit pissed that although I and other Australians here are aware of the American racist word/s that cannot be used on this forum - it seems that EVERY mod here has no idea whatsover of the heinous racist terms that are currently being used in the Australian section by a poster. They are such foul racist terms... that they are not publically spoken anywhere in this country. And if they were, there would be BIG TROUBLE.

What to do?

I have had to report a number of the filth racist posts to an Australian Authority and am waiting for a response. And it doesn't help that the only mod from this region makes racist comments about Aborigines as well.

How do I impress on the mods here that the racist terms being used in the Australian section are as serious and as critical as someone saying the N word?

Bowerbird previously had a thread on this very subject, but I don't think a ruling was made. I want one. I think other Australians here would appreciate a ruling on it too.

The Australian section resembles sewerage lately.

 

^^ more:

This thread linked below was closed - but if you read the quote quoted in the first post - then you have to take my word and the word of other Australians here that the quote and the terms used in that quote couldn't be more villifying, noxious and racist-vile. I want a ruling, please.

http://www.politicalforum.com/australia/213295-racism-australian-section-getting-disgusting.html

 

Its NOT a racist term. If i was calling them boongs, coons or things like that then YES they are racist terms. Your agenda/ campaign to have me booted from this board is irrational and spiteful.
I oppose your view and you cant deal with it.

 

They ARE SPOKEN, just because YOU find them offenice YOU dont speak for ALL AUSSIES.
If Abo is offensive the Aussie must be too because they are both just shortened versions of the full word. YOU and SOME aussies have an issue with it but even the MOD from the aussie section lets it go because she understands that only the P/C minority have taking this issue up. Geez whats next banning COON cheese?

 

So what you are saying is that Makkede is deliberately allowing racist terms to be posted? This seems to be quite a serious allegation.

 

Got tempted and unblocked you for this post.

What i am saying is that
a / Its NOT a racist term
b / The mod from the aussie section of the forums who is an aussie also says it isnt a racist term
c / The politically correct agenda has gone mad.
d / Abo is as offensive as Aussie. ie NOT at all.

Now back to ignore you go before i have to read yet another insult or flamebait post from you.

 

never saw you complain about terms such as trailer trash, redneck, hillbilly, cracker etc.

 

You never will, its not on her pro black P/C agenda.

 

still waiting for the invasion


is this the sitzkrieg phase?

 

we dont use these terms in Australia, they dont apply in this context. Thats the whole point.

 

Done be facile, you wouldnt know what I posted if you had me blocked. Dont even try and bs me, Im 2 steps ahead of you all the way.

Wrong.

Show this.

Your opinion only

Wrong

Sure. Scared of me, that goes with your territory. Lol.