Stormfront Advisory - A Moderator Perspective

but those terms are used in this forum and by aussies of the PC/ white-guilt persuasion. You have been one IRRC

 

The issue is what is offensive in the Australia forum, are you an expert on this?

 

well, you aussies sure do chime in as experts on US affairs

 

It's obviously a racist term which is no different from America's n word:

'Error' blamed for racist term in Google tourism ad
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/tra...e-tourism-ad-20100511-ush2.html#ixzz1bbqNuAiv

Just don't use the a word, like how Americans don't use the n word, and then everyone will be happy.

 

Australians know a lot more about the US than Americans know or care to know about Australia, thats just the way it is. You should be flattered.

 

Has nothing to do with what I raised. Nothing.

In fact, really lame.

I've already stated that the racist words being used in the Australian section are as serious and as critical as the N word.

^^ Yes, your reply really addresses that, doesn't it? Sharp as a veritable tack, aren't you?

 

what's really lame is your hypocrisy

 

frankly I could care less about your hypocritical opinions

 

how about cracker, honky, redneck, hillbilly, trailer trash?

 

There is some sort of unconditional support for Israel from the right in America for religious reason. The Israel issue is a complex one that I do not pretend to understand. But as a pragmatist who tend to reduce things into economics and consequences of social welfare. The state of Israel has better management and therefore should own more land properties, building something that allows more personal freedom and market growth. In comparison, a democratic Palestine state promises nothing to its citizens and will likely to become a breeding ground for anti-capitalist religious fundamentalism.

 

These are also listed as racist terms, along with abo:

Origins of Racist Terms
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Oth...s-General-General&Msc/RacistTerms&Origins.htm

efjay argued that abo is not a racist term, but such is an incorrect claim:

Why don't you challenge efjay for making an incorrect claim instead of defending falsehoods? Is "false" what you want your platform to be based on?

 

why don't you challenge the PC crowd for their use of racist terms for white people?

Is "hyposcisy" what you want your platform to be based on?

 

I respectively disagree with this statement of yours, and its for this point alone that I feel some of PF's members are walking on possible (banned or warning) egggshells in which to get their point(s) across. Your subjective presumption that members of Stormfront unquestionably promote racist hatred is just plain false. While some of us may indeed be racists, I haven't seen where any of us promote hatred. Some get my intentions mixed up by thinking that I have a hatred for others--simply by looking at my 'Libhater' moniker. But its liberalism that I hate--not the person or the race.

If you were to read a few of the posts in the race relations section, you would clearly see that mine and a few other posts deal with statistics of certain races and how those negative influences of a particualr race happen to affect our society or culture as a whole. I don't see how pointing out the facts represents a person who is dedicated to the useless emotion of hate and or race baiting. While most of us try not to make our discourse personal the fact remains that some unseemly epithets will slip through from time to time....that's just human nature.

 

And that is the problem. The statsitics you site are invariably scoped toward data that supports a racist agenda and viewpoint, while ignoring far larger causations of these issues that effect ALL communities, such as education, economics, and opportunity.

Worse if the subsequent generalization that these statistics in general apply in the specific, meaning whites, or most whites, are good, and blacks, or nearly all blacks, are thus bad - even though that statistics point toward teh MAJORITY of both groups being fine upstanding people.

They are nit facts, they ARE race baiting, and dressing up hatred under the moniker of respectability is no way, shape, or form detracts from the fundamentally illogical position of white supremeacy groups which have, for centuries, been repeatedly debunked.

What you advocate is called social darwinism. It is racist. And I do not think I have to press you to hard to get one of those epitaphs thrown in my direction.

As you can see, your association is definitely attempting to grow:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t528651/

But anyone but morons should not b etempted to give validity to a few selective statistics when the reality behind the facade is teh same thing that Hitler preached. It really is that simple - far simpler than even the statistics groups like your show.

 

Because the 'black' racists are not jumping onto this forum and calling people honky. It is the white racists doing it, or letting slide derogatory terms with a clear intent, and then playing coy - when the intent is all to clear.

 

Well, the mod team created this opening.

You already have a rule in place, I suggest that rather then follow the dilemma and ban people for the ... wrongness? of standing up to racism, perhaps we should just keep racism where it belongs? On the fringes.

"This especially goes for any form of hate speech."

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/announcements.html

If you give groups like storm front an opening, they will take it. A member can be a member of any organziation they want and be a respectful member, but when we start advocating openly on behalf of a known hate organization? when we start seeing activities from hate groups to infiltrate discussions?

Why offer what is essentially trolls an opening?

And what do you think the effect will be on the forum? Do you think people want to have discussion about policy that always hinge upon some dolt saying, "Well, the white perspective is .. blah, blah, blah." Most people attempting to have areasonable discussion would, correctly IMO, state, "Bugger off jerk."

And you are telling us that this response would be personal and detract from solid debate and high quality posters?

All I think it does is allow racists to further their agenda through overt flamebait, and eventually, the very high quality posters you want on this site will find the interaction with a racist asses too much and go elsewhere.

That is why trolling is such a serious violation in an internet forum. And t is ALL groups like stromfront really are. There is no even illusion that their intent here is respectful debate.

That is reality, and it is that reality we should be dealing with.

 

Most of my posts challenge hatred against "white" people, but that doesn't mean that I only oppose such forms of hostility. Oddly enough, most hatred against "white" people seems to be expressed by "white" people.

I pointed out that racist terms are racist, and you seem to have a huge, major issue with that. Why?

 

Only a handfull of Regular pf.com posters here have visited Stormfront regularly in the past and at least 2 were banned from there , so pretending that any significant number of Regular Stormfront Posters know of pf.com or even slum here is laughable.

 

Before you go to your nazi comparisons, let me make the point again that posters who claim to be the ones being attacked (and I do not mean jews in nazi Germany but posters on the PF, HUGE difference), are often the worst offenders.

Rev, like you have said, it is not even possible to post on SF if you have an opposing view unless you post in that one section. If not, you get banned. So all in all no Jews can post there and will thus not be attacked (at least when present). In any event, my comments on looking at your own conduct relates to the tendency of some forumites to claim that they are being attacked by racism by way of example when no racist comment has been made and this poster provides no quotes. In effect making this poster the one who is doing the attacking.

No doubt some ugly language, but nothing particular to the Aussie forum.

Groupings are called all kinds of things. I understood that that it allowed as long as no personal attack is involved.

 

Oh my, the overwhelming statistics that shed a bad light on black America is now to be viewed from some such as yourself as being an attempt by us to voice a racist agenda? This kind of reminds me of how liberals call the Tea Partiers racist, when all along the Tea Partiers couldn't care one way or another about obama's race; what they're concerned about is his failed policies. No one is ignoring those causations you mentioned, in fact, we give many statistics as to just how miserable the black community has done with all of those specific issues or polcies.

What in the world was that gooblygook about?

My response to the moderator here was to tell him that I think he misjudged the intent of most of the members of Stormfront when he called tham race haters. You are falling into the same trap of using that 'hatred' emotion a bit too willy nilly here. What many of us in the race relations section do is to present the facts, and not necessarily to deal with useless emotions of a people or of a race such as that of hate and or supremacy.

I'm not advocating anything. What I am doing here was to respond to the moderator by telling him that the majority of people posting here and at Stormfront do not deal with hatred in the same way people of your ilk think that we do. We do not hate you for being black or for being an anti American liberal/commie, or for being an immoral atheist, but we most certainly do hate your particular brand of ideology.

Those few selective statistics you mention just happen to be taken on the entire population of American blacks. Its you who is selecting and or dismissing them as being insignificant to the grander scheme of political discourse. If you can't accept facts as they are presented here, then what can you accept, and why continue to engage in political discourse when your feelings get hurt so much simply for having others tell you the truth?

 

What "nazi comparisons", why are you obsessed with "posters" rather than politics, and why do you insist that Jews who claim to be attacked by neo-Nazis are "the worst offenders", rather than the neo-Nazi attackers?

This is incorrect. White nationalists don't agree on every issue, they have no means of identifying which unknown forum identity is a Jew, and the best way to challenge a problem is from within. A Jew posting at Stormfront under a different identity can lead white nationalists in different direction, such as being pro-Israel in order to bash on many liberals. Many on the far-right extreme are finding that Zionism is their best means of opposing their worst enemy.

Generally, people feel attacked when racist terms are used against them. For example, Jews feel attacked when neo-Nazis call Jews names, but you seem to blame and condemn Jews when such happens while justifying such as being "no personal attack".

 

The ideology of each individual varies, so what exactly is it that you hate when nobody shares the same views? Maybe you mean that you hate some views, but which views exactly do you hate, how do you define who holds the views that you hate, and is such hatred justified? I'm not necessarily against everything related to white nationalism. I can understand some interests of preserving certain aspects of some cultures. I just don't understand what is exactly "white", and nobody seems to be able to tell me what that really means.

 

Well of course everyone has a differing ideology. I think I've made my views of which destructive ideologies I abhor well known throughout this forum. No need for me to repeat myself at this time. I'm not sure I understand any of your questions, so I'll just have to defer any and all answers or comments until such time you become more clear with your concerns.

 

There is nothing overwhelming about it.

Crime statistics in lower income neighborhoods do not indicate a racial trend - they indicate an economic trend. Indeed, the blackest place on Earth bears this out - as economically underveloped and poorly governed areas do less well than areas of Africa that are well governed. How do black leaders like Nelson Mandela fall into these statistics?

And teh answer is that they don't - they never do. the statistics used by hate groups are shaped, confounded, and in many cases simply lies and exaggerations.

I belong to the most racially integrated organization on Earth - the US Army. We are all green - and your statistics have be belied in battle so many times that anyone still believing them is a simply moron.

That is why we call these groups hate groups - there is no rationality to them at all. And dressing it up as if there is such a pretense is simple dishonesty.

And here we see an example of how people who disagree with our racist friends will resort to when challenged. The Forum need MORE of this does it? Should extent an invitation for this?

You are now telling me what my position is and why it is. I am a historian, and I have seen and can indeed list the multiple organziations of white supremeacy and what the result of supporting these groups is. Its just another social darwinist mentality - supported by obfuscation and, as we see, projection.

If you aren't willing to allow people to express why theu disagree with racist bile, you have no bisiness coming into a debate forum and asking that your views be treated with respect. Racist views are not to be respected - they cause strife, anger, and invariably, despite the vehement denial of its practitioners, violence. You cannot dehumanize humans without consequence - it really is that simple.

We now they do not deal with hatred the same way normal people do - the institutionalize and normalize hatred as a way of life. Such a position is fundamentally illogical, and debate with racists invariably makes this point known.

when you veiws are actually challenged, you can, will, and do, resort to animosity and insult. I am glad that as a member of the US Military, sworn to uphold and defend the US Constitition against all enemies foreign and domestic - you have already declared that you hate my ideology.

Well, normal people the world over, sane, rational, kind, loving, generous, thoughtful people the world over have correctly branded your ideology as one of maligning hate.

Dress it up however you want - as the current President stated, a pig with lipstick is still a pig.

And what I site is our recent history and the Nazi regimes attempt to use racial statistics just as you do. Under no circumstances should this pseudo intellectualism be treated as anything other then the obvious obfuscation and rationalization that it is.

Understand, you are the domestic enemy, and you have earned that place of dishonor.

 

So how racist does it have to be before it is actionable? There is currently at least one member with a "white pride" avatar posting vile slanders and blatant racist comments over in the Australian forum - so much so that it is turning the forum into a quagmire

So how racist do you have to be?