posted on May 19, 2002 11:28:36 AM new
Another suicide bomber just killed at least one Israeli and wounded at least 28. If they go after a terrorist stronghold in retaliation and some innocents are killed, the Israelis are being Nazi-like? Anyone even joking about this is a sick person and a terrorist sympathizer!
posted on May 19, 2002 11:34:14 AM new
Clearly, racist remarks of any caliber or motive is most likely to be unsuitable in a public forum. Some newsmakers do bring it up (Jessie Jackson, others) and that does become a relevant topic of discussion -- that a newsmaker made such comments, it is likely to be the only such allowable discussion.
I have heard the comparisons that the Palestinians have made before, comparing the actions of the State of Israel to Nazi Germany. At times, with Israel's often-stoic appearance to tragedies, it seems to be the only kind of comparisons that will shake them up. You ought to know that a lot of what goes on over there never makes it to the news media in the West. This has given rise to Arabic television news stations who try to tell their side of events. What can we say to such things?
But if Israel is indeed guilty of acting just like the German Nazis and we do not hear about it, due to their covering up the news over there and the inability of impoverished natives to get their story out, then should such a topic be adequate for discussion? Or, should no matter how badly Israel ever gets, are we forbidden to make those comparisons? Even in jest?
posted on May 19, 2002 12:01:07 PM new
for reference from NRA POST
your stats are a big lie, the few stats that are out there were compiled by the center for disease control, the same clowns who destroyed all the smallpox vaccine. with in my opinion about the same effect.I had a family member murdered by the scum that floats loose out there, had he been armed it would not have happened, by the way they never bothered to make an arrest. The only thing person demonstrates when they preponderate disarming citizens is their own ignorance of History and the reasons for the founding of this nation. If the Palestinians were as well armed as the Israelis Little kids would not be shot with their father sitting against a rock ledge begging for their lives. And No auctionwatch teinsoft and the ADL secret police will not like this statement either.
posted on May 19, 2002 12:19:38 PM new
This article and the subsequent discussion reminds me pointedly of the public response to Jonathan Swift's publication of A Modest Proposal in which he presents solutions to the "Irish" problem. Today it is a classic example of the just-emergent form of what is still considered modern satire. The point of satire is never in its surface meaning, of course, but relies upon the reader's abilities to distinguish its mock-serious tone which is critical to its understanding. The inability or disinclination to do so with the reading of satire renders the subject of A Modest Proposal into either flat absurdity or a series of almost unspeakably inhumane proposals. That Swift himself was Irish compounded the horror of his publication for some readers. This method using a series of mock-serious proposals to political and social problems has become fairly common today and is apparently used in the piece that was posted here.
So a Modest Proposal would be an exellent work to read if one wishes to understand satire and to compare it to the satire that was printed here. What strikes someone as humorous is subjective and pointless to argue. One may or may not like a particular satire, but it is absurd to try to argue it literally. It would be much like viewing a TV show, like the Sopranos, as if it were a documentary. Which brings us back to the earlier analogy of changing channels, rather than censoring. This reminds also of the scene from Shakespeare's As You Like It when Sir Toby tells Malvolio, a Puritan who tries to dictate the behaviors of others, in this case enjoying music, "Dost thou think that because thou art virtuous*/There will be no more cakes and ale?"
*virtuous - topically Elizabethan used to denote Puritanism
posted on May 19, 2002 01:18:58 PM new
That's it exactly, antiquary!!! Thank you so much for pointing that out. I wish that I could repost the article now.
posted on May 19, 2002 03:21:20 PM new
Well, then, what's to become of it all?
Are we to required a certain IQ Level for readership, then? So that some may post satire and not get censored and their accounts not forfiet? Or, is that an unreasonable expectation: that the Reader must be thought of in advance, knowing that any slight misunderstanding will bring down censorship upon the poster? What will we do?
I propose the following:
1) posters will not try to tax the ability of the reader to distinguish between satire and blatant, racist hatred.
2) that it takes more than one excited person making a complaint to get a thread demolished.
posted on May 19, 2002 04:10:19 PM new
There was no satire and there was no "slight misunderstanding." The remarks were blatantly racist and anti-semitic. Hardly surprising that now KRS' drones are engaging in a little "cover-up" of their own. You guys are so predictable.
posted on May 19, 2002 04:20:42 PM new
No, twinsoft, I'm only interested in accuracy which is pretty self-evident from my posts. Perhaps you would be well-served to quit ascribing motivations to others without any proof or logic whatsoever and look at your own motivations. I'm sure that when the post of head troll is available that you'll be allowed to apply and display your skills without interference.
I can't think of any subject that I would vote to eliminate just because it was offensive to me. I would just switch the channel as Nycyn suggested. Or, If I thought it worthwhile, I would add my opinion to the discussion.
I find it particularly offensive and childish to send letters to Diana to remove topics or tattle.. As Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. If, for example someone started a thread promoting racism, I would post all night long if necessary aganist such an idea but I would never send an email to the NAACP followed by an email to Diana to have the thread removed.
There was no hate message in the article. The next page of the article contains a suggestion that we should arm the Palestinians. I was faulted for posting an "irrelevant" topic which was a later page. Maybe I should have posted the next page which proposes giving the Hydrogen bomb to the Palestinians. LOL!
I suppose we cannot show sympathy for the Palestinian people? Would that be construed as anti-semitic?
posted on May 19, 2002 05:49:05 PM new
you know twinsoft you remind me of the little girl who cried wolf. you might find that abusing privilages does mean no one will listen when the problem is real. and for some of the other posters here free speech means just that even if the other person disagrees with you it does not mean some outside group of people acting as the agents of a foreign nation,but also very powerful in our own country should be able to intimidate people here into saying whart they only wish to hear, for that matter they should not be able to tell the UN whato do about war crimes. A war crimminal is a war crimminal regardless of which army they are in.
posted on May 19, 2002 05:51:20 PM new"Hardly surprising that now KRS' drones are engaging in a little "cover-up" of their own. You guys are so predictable."
Now that's not fair of you to make that assertion, twinsoft. I didn't read the thread, so there is no way for me to "cover up" anything; e.g. I have no way of knowing what to cover up. Quite frankly, I find that insinuation out of place on AW really paranoid. I did not try to point the finger at anyone, but since you feel I must be a part of a "cover up", I am not going to respond to your posts anymore, unless you shape up.
"I can't think of any subject that I would vote to eliminate."
There is obviously a lot of speech that I don't care to hear or to read, but I wouldn't run to Momma crying about it. I dislike hateful speech, whether racist, religious, or cultural and it really has no place on this or any public messageboard. I hope that such speech never arrives or survives here at AW.
posted on May 19, 2002 06:52:56 PM new
I really have said all I intended to. But since you brought it up, Borillar ...
How can you characterize my reaction to a thread which you did not read as a "slight misunderstanding?" If you didn't read the thread, you have no way of gauging my reaction at all. Also, your post re: "requiring a certain IQ" speaks for itself.
Like antiquary (I assume), you didn't read the post, don't know whether it was hate speech or a recipe for peach cobbler, and therefore your opinion has no merit at all. Unless, like Helen, you feel that hate speech is fine, and "if you don't like it then leave."
I'm glad you clarified your position. I also feel hate speech has no place here. I still don't understand how people who didn't even read the offensive material feel compelled to defend the poster/content.
If you don't like my methods, that's okay; but I'll point out, that's your problem, not mine.
posted on May 19, 2002 07:25:00 PM new
I'm pretty sure that I read a post that was a satire which is parallel to Swift's A Modest Proposal in its approach. But, no, I haven't read an anti-semitic diatribe filled with hate speech, but if and when I do, I will absolutely denounce it.
posted on May 19, 2002 08:30:21 PM new"I'm pretty sure that I read a post that was a satire which is parallel to Swift's A Modest Proposal in its approach. But, no, I haven't read an anti-semitic diatribe filled with hate speech, but if and when I do, I will absolutely denounce it"
posted on May 19, 2002 08:41:22 PM new
For what it's worth there are several issues as I see it:
1. krs' continued failure to attribute quotes is apparently intentional and plagiaristic. It is an attempt to post inflammatory remarks as his own and he should take the heat and defend his position. But the lack thereof seems to indicate a sadistic pleasure at seeing others argue the issues while very rarely stating his own true position. The recent smiley face is the face of a coward.
2. Since this is a chat board of less than national consequence there is very limited accountability as to accuracy and no requirement of credentials as a legitimate poster. Too many take advantage of this.
3. Helenjw- You really are a hypocrite. You constantly engage me in discussion but when asked the hard questions you evade and insult like a child. I am regretfully thinking about putting you on permanent "ignore" as you just think everything is a big joke, not to mention you are a PLO sympathizer.
4. Borillar- You are right in theory but wrong in practice. Hate-filled threads have no place here, should be deleted and their originators suspended. Your ideas regarding a posting/deleting agreement are not bad but will never be implemented.
5. The term "troll thread" is being used as a vague catchall for any bizarre, unexpected topic and shifts the focus from actual content to some supposed humorous intent and gives those using the term a shield to hide behind when expressing their agreement.
6. Those who have "loyalties" to other posters are making a big mistake when ignorantly defending their "friends" while in a thread whose content is way over their heads. Better to not feel compelled to post in every single thread than make a fool of yourself.
posted on May 19, 2002 09:00:27 PM new
I had posted a biggrin smiley face in response to stusi's BS above but I had to remove it because Yellowstone's post appeared on top of mine and I didn't want to attribute my smiley face to his comment.
posted on May 19, 2002 09:04:39 PM new
stusi, in item #1, I agree that posters should not plagerize. By not attributing quotes; or at least saying that it's not their original idea, readers get the wrong idea.
#4, certainly you're right that no set of poster rules would ever be wholley effective in the long-run. Only those who wish to abide by such rules would adhere to them. Yet, the suggestions stand.
#6 I'm still confused as to whether the comment was meant for me or others. I can see that Helen is voicing her opinion on the current topic; and it is an opinion that we've heard before, so it doesn't seem likely that she's defending KRS. I surely am not, as KRS is able to defend himself against nearly anyone and usually several other posters combined at one time. KRS certainly doesn't need us to back him up. However, Helen and I and ncyc, and antiquary are all entitled to an opinion on the subject, and if that seems like we're rushing to defend KRS to you, I can't help you out on that one.
Me too.