Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

[Amorphos]

Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

I am sick and tired of all the Nazism on the net, and it would be nice if philosophy was one area that didn’t entertain it. There may be 1/100% threads of worthy of debate - like the debate on collage education, but it is obvious in just about all other cases, that there is a clear racist slant. Its not like they are trying to have a debate, because they don’t even do that nor listen to opposing viewpoints, its more like blind leading the blind. Not to mention what it makes a site look like!

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Piss off Marxist censoring control freak. If you want to debate the subject that is fine but you don't want a debate where instead you just want to outright ban specific kinds of conversations altogether. You people want to turn everything into a thought crime that you don't approve of.

Nobody here is a Nazi or national socialist that I'm aware of. I bet you can't even name one member here that is.

I'm an anarchist where I believe it should be encouraged to have an open dialogue on race and culture.

[Carleas]

[EDIT: Merlin got a warning for that post.]

t is obvious in just about all other cases, that there is a clear racist slant.

There's a balance here. Merely being a racist, as in advocating for the existence of significant differences between races, or even differential treatment of others on the basis of race, is not and should not be prohibited. As you do, I disagree with people who would so advocate, but disagreeing with them is not enough to prohibit them. Nor is the fact that such ideas will offend people. As I've said before, this is not a safe space. Expressing unpopular ideas is permitted here.

What should be prohibited it racism that is effectively ad hominem. Blanket insults of a particular race, mean spirited put downs or calls to violence, the use (but not the mere mention) of epithets that convey the same, all that [i]should be prohibited. It is perfectly consistent with protecting the expression of ideas with prohibiting intentionally inflammatory and insulting modes of expression.

Its not like they are trying to have a debate, because they don’t even do that nor listen to opposing viewpoints, its more like blind leading the blind.

Being wrong, and being bad at reading and understanding rational arguments such that one remains wrong in spite of them, are not and cannot be against the rules.

Not to mention what it makes a site look like!

This is a dangerous way of thinking. We should not be, we should not want to be a site that is limited to those topics that are polite and socially acceptable.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'm glad Carleas has the sense to not limit, prohibit, or censor specific discussions that are unpopular within the mainstream public. You cannot censor away debate. The only way to challenge opinions, views, or perspectives you don't like is through debate. I'm surprised that the political left don't understand this yet. If leftists actually made thorough consistent points of debate perhaps people wouldn't be so antagonistic towards them.

Censorship doesn't destroy subjects, people, or movements as it just makes them more bigger and louder. Leftists haven't learned from this either apparently.

[Uccisore]

Once upon a time, when racism meant "I want to kill all the eskimos because they smell like wet cats and have an extra bone in their wrist that lets them dig snow faster, race war now!" then yeah, racist posts and threads could probably be banned.

But sadly, 'racism' has expanded to mean 'disagreeing with a liberal', so we can't have a rule like that. The moment a community outlaws racism, SJWs will accuse absolutely everybody who dissents from their ideology a racist so they can dominate that community.

[The Golden Turd]

I don't want a ban on racist discussions, especially from the mods, but would like to see some diversification in topics some members talk about. Some people ONLY talk about race. It rapidly becomes pointless.

And Sauwelios is a default Social Nationalist on this site. He tries to be closet about it, but he quotes authors revered by the original US Neo-Nazis group, even had a swatzika up as a avatar. But he is also includes a lot of shit they wouldn't talk about, which would fit into my expectations above of at least varying it a bit.

Like, if we had a Black Panthar join the site, it would get really old after 6 months if all he posted was on that topic exclusively, his posts amounting only to "Fuck White People", but what happens if he occasionally posts on Fluid Dynamics and Hegel, seemingly unrelated whatsoever? Shows the individual has scope.

I'm not sure there are a lot if intelligent racists out there who can pull that off. We seem to only get the dummies.

I would prefer a ban on people who just never show growth or diversification of thought. After a while, you should be expanding out. I tend to grow intolerant of people who show long term resistance to thinking upon new topics. That would be Sauwelios as the archetype, but also would include several others here (those I'm in the most conflict here, like your GF Joker) or Magsj. It's a big pet peeve of mine, intellectual sloth.

Also those philosophies that build upon intellectual sloth to justify self harm, like Gib's drug use threads, or Ecmandu (if he was sane, but doubt he knows what he is doing fully).

I really don't see the point to those three groups of people within philosophy. Racists don't have a leg to stand on, all it is is stating you don't like someone without cause other than your bias based less on their merit and ideas, and more on useless traits like skin color. Not really a deep intellectual pool.

Lazy, slothful, one category ideas aren't useful on the large scale, unless you stick to just a few posts. That Zizek Studies guy does that quite well, I would never pose a unrelated question to him though. He is about the best you can do in that category of mono-thinker.

And people who needlessly harm and would themselves practice a philosophy, but it is one that comes at absolute expense of all other philosophy. Gib, Smears.... they both represent a desire to self destruct on their own terms, like Petronius Arbiter committing suicide. It isn't something wise, to be recommended as a alternative to living life in a more productive manner. Both will be dead soon, and we will all act shocked when their family come online to announce they died with a needle in their arm. Of course that's what happens when you embrace retarded, self destructive, suicidal practices.

But how would I enforce that? Would I deny Gig, Smears, Ecmandu access to philosophy? No- they may rush quicker to their deaths without contrasting opinions.

Would I ban Arc, Magsj, or Mongoose for systematically avoiding thinking and expansion into new areas of the mind, by saying they can't visit one of the few places that encourage that?

Would I ban the racists here for being ignorant, denying them a challenge to think more broadly, to challenge their ideas?

I've been consistent in my approach to these groups, I've hounded the lazy to expand their ideas, encouraged the self destructive to wiser considerations of lifestyle, both through positive and negative reinforcement. I mostly laid off the racists when their numbers started dying down- but I'm gonna redouble my efforts. I was surprised when people started complaining about my signature for example, thought it be disgust because he was violent (machine gun preacher) but it was on race, which I wasn't expecting.

I'm gonna start pressing people to focus more on philosophy, less on racism. I'm gonna encourage a diversification of ideas, and keep pressing on avoiding self destructive, suicidal tendencies. All three are the enemy of philosophy, but it is best pursued by users talking than moderators banning. Great ideas can't be achieved through those three categories of hate, sloth, and suicide. Three vices of philosophy. Nothing would excite me more than to see Mongoose reading, or Smears actually trying at life. Neither can do anything of value in their current state. Our racist posters, they need to just start on Philosophy 101. Show some evidence you have ideas beyong disliking people of another skin tone. Do you have a opinion on anything else? Anything at all? Even Sauwelios manages to have a occasional opinion beyond that, so I know it can be done. If he can do it, I know you can do it too, anyone can. That's how low the bar is set. Just try to impress us every once in a while. Satyr tries, why can't you? Pandora is a man hating Feminist, but actively posts on politics beyond that. I'm supportive of these efforts, applaud it.

[surreptitious57]

No subject should be taboo because enlightenment comes from debate not from censorship
So a philosophy forum is the place where an idea which is willing to be discussed should be

[Is_Yde_opN]

Those racists...
Always making it about the skin color!



Take that you ignorant racists! Now I made them all equal !

[Carleas]

Case in point: can anyone really be threatened by that display of mixed up thought? It only supports the idea that racism is the result of basic failures of reasoning. To ban it would be to suggest that it's somehow dangerous; better to leave it and let it be common knowledge that the arguments for racism are so absolutely and obviously empty.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Case in point: can anyone really be threatened by that display of mixed up thought? It only supports the idea that racism is the result of basic failures of reasoning. To ban it would be to suggest that it's somehow dangerous; better to leave it and let it be common knowledge that the arguments for racism are so absolutely and obviously empty.

What is racism exactly? Is it the same thing as ethnocentrism?

[phyllo]

Case in point: can anyone really be threatened by that display of mixed up thought? It only supports the idea that racism is the result of basic failures of reasoning. To ban it would be to suggest that it's somehow dangerous; better to leave it and let it be common knowledge that the arguments for racism are so absolutely and obviously empty.

So you will ban racist posts when you feel that they are "somehow dangerous".

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Case in point: can anyone really be threatened by that display of mixed up thought? It only supports the idea that racism is the result of basic failures of reasoning. To ban it would be to suggest that it's somehow dangerous; better to leave it and let it be common knowledge that the arguments for racism are so absolutely and obviously empty.

So you will ban racist posts when you feel that they are "somehow dangerous".

I think Carleas is talking about racial insulting epithets or when people threatens others violently where there is a racial motive. As the owner of the forum those concerns are understandable.

[The Golden Turd]

What is a racially insulting epithet? Is that like, if I call you a dirty, midget cracker? Or is epithet something more grandiose? Like, you gotta be a statue in a poise, and then I look at the words beneath, and it says "Merlin: A Giant Piece if White Shit".

[MagsJ]

Would I ban Arc, Magsj, or Mongoose for systematically avoiding thinking and expansion into new areas of the mind, by saying they can't visit one of the few places that encourage that?

I choose what I read and need to learn, not you!

I admire your passion for learning and educating yourself, but that's something I did a long long time ago, so now I have the luxury of being very laissez-faire in my intellectual pursuits and learning, so please respect that by ceasing hounding me with your deliberate misinterpretation and representation of myself. Don't attempt to elevate yourself by putting others down.. it isn't going to make you any smarter, but it will make you look bitter and in a bad light.

With regard to the op: I have always took the same stance as Carleas on this matter, but I would like to see an end to personal attack threads.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

What is a racially insulting epithet? Is that like, if I call you a dirty, midget cracker? Or is epithet something more grandiose? Like, you gotta be a statue in a poise, and then I look at the words beneath, and it says "Merlin: A Giant Piece if White Shit".

Yeah, those are the racially insulting epithets I was talking about.

[Mr Reasonable]

What about just banning it because it's boring?

Can we also ban anything that's defined as "simply disagreeing with a liberal"? Ucc, you've gotten so lazy, and I've gotten more and more disappointed in your posts. You are literally just a windbag who's blowing hot air about advocating for the extreme right, and you've got yourself convinced that all kinds of normal people are "leftists". You've got to grow out of this stage.

Turd, people don't die with needles in their arms because they smoke weed. I have never encountered anyone in my life who was so hopelessly misinformed about drugs. You're afraid of something that doesn't exist.

[AutSider]

You cannot censor away debate. The only way to challenge opinions, views, or perspectives you don't like is through debate

Not really. With words there is always the problem that people can just keep repeating lies even if you disprove them, so not only is it not the only way, it is not even the most effective way. The alternative way is declaring war, much more effective, but also more risky and more costly.

As to the OP, since racism is based on reality-acknowledgement and non-racism is based on reality-denial, looks to me like if anything should be banned, it should be non-racism.

A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Is genocide somehow more permissible if it is done softly and without violence? Or is soft genocide only permitted when done against a certain race, and when done against certain other races it would be considered immoral?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

You cannot censor away debate. The only way to challenge opinions, views, or perspectives you don't like is through debate

Not really. With words there is always the problem that people can just keep repeating lies even if you disprove them, so not only is it not the only way, it is not even the most effective way. The alternative way is declaring war, much more effective, but also more risky and more costly.

As to the OP, since racism is based on reality-acknowledgement and non-racism is based on reality-denial, looks to me like if anything should be banned, it should be non-racism.

A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Is genocide somehow more permissible if it is done softly and without violence? Or is soft genocide only permitted when done against a certain race, and when done against certain other races it would be considered immoral?

You're correct in your assessment but even ignoring something or ignorance has real life consequences. People can only ignore the prevailing reality built upon this world for so long. The end result will still be real life consequences.

Racism against white people (Europeans) is the last acceptable and permitted form of racism institutionally left in western civilization. Leftists have made it tolerable and palatable publicly.

[James S Saint]

Just put a list of forbidden thoughts in the forum rules sections.

[Only_Humean]

A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Is genocide somehow more permissible if it is done softly and without violence? Or is soft genocide only permitted when done against a certain race, and when done against certain other races it would be considered immoral?

The problem is not advocating the extinction of a race, which is at best a fuzzy abstraction, but the extinction of people according to (one's judgement of) their race. The end result of depriving thousands or millions of people of certain rights on the basis of their genetic makeup (usually roughly guessed from appearance and a few ancestors) is not the same as allowing people to reproduce with whoever they want to. Forcing people to breed with certain others to "mix their races" would be no more acceptable than doing the same in order to not mix them. Is anyone proposing a law to prevent whites marrying whites?

Doing things without coercion and violence does generally alter the moral quality of actions, yes.

All in all: excellent demonstration of Carleas's point.

[James S Saint]

Is anyone proposing a law to prevent whites marrying whites?

Well ... in fact ....

[Mictlantecuhtli]

A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Is genocide somehow more permissible if it is done softly and without violence? Or is soft genocide only permitted when done against a certain race, and when done against certain other races it would be considered immoral?

The problem is not advocating the extinction of a race, which is at best a fuzzy abstraction, but the extinction of people according to (one's judgement of) their race. The end result of depriving thousands or millions of people of certain rights on the basis of their genetic makeup (usually roughly guessed from appearance and a few ancestors) is not the same as allowing people to reproduce with whoever they want to. Forcing people to breed with certain others to "mix their races" would be no more acceptable than doing the same in order to not mix them. Is anyone proposing a law to prevent whites marrying whites?

Doing things without coercion and violence does generally alter the moral quality of actions, yes.

All in all: excellent demonstration of Carleas's point.

How well does Only_Humean know history?

[AutSider]

A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest...), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Is genocide somehow more permissible if it is done softly and without violence? Or is soft genocide only permitted when done against a certain race, and when done against certain other races it would be considered immoral?

The problem is not advocating the extinction of a race, which is at best a fuzzy abstraction, but the extinction of people according to (one's judgement of) their race. The end result of depriving thousands or millions of people of certain rights on the basis of their genetic makeup (usually roughly guessed from appearance and a few ancestors) is not the same as allowing people to reproduce with whoever they want to. Forcing people to breed with certain others to "mix their races" would be no more acceptable than doing the same in order to not mix them. Is anyone proposing a law to prevent whites marrying whites?

Doing things without coercion and violence does generally alter the moral quality of actions, yes.

All in all: excellent demonstration of Carleas's point.

Even if you convince one white person of having offspring with a person not of their own race, you are already participating in white genocide in the sense that you are taking away people who might have reproduced with their own race, and having them reproduce with another. Which, by the way, also results in the genocide of the other race too.

You may not like it, but the end result (extinction of one or multiple races) is the same, regardless of the means by which you achieve it, whether those means are more obviously violent such as simply killing all people of a race, or less obviously violent, such as putting in place the kind of system which results in higher birthrates of one race over another race and includes indoctrinating people from a young age to be delusional about racial matters as well as propaganda promoting race mixing, and violence - threatening with violence all white people who oppose this kind of system which would exterminate them in the long-term.

ALL systems must necessarily use violence to enforce their order, so to say that the reason you oppose some system X is that it is violent is just hypocritical and a completely invalid argument because whatever your system is, it also necessarily must enforce itself via violence, so evidently it is not violence which is what you have a problem with, here, but something else, some end, some goal which is being accomplished with violence.

EDIT: Relevant: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192306&p=2651520#p2651520

[_A_]

Think of Modern Liberals who push miscegenation and Social-Justice-Warriors as a type of modern 'Sacrifice'. Thus the Modern Liberal father will sacrifice his daughter(s) to the Liberal Agenda. The ultimate motivation underlying this, however, is "white guilt". Thus, to protect what remains of "white privilege", some sacrifices are due to appease the enemies of white people around the world. Thus, when it is time, the white liberals will appeal to their invaders with, "You see, I gave my daughters to the righteous cause! We gave our daughters to your (foreign) men, isn't it enough?!" However, to an emboldened enemy, what is the expected reaction? Appeasement is a temporary fix. And so, the racial tragedy ensues, but it is no conclusion. Something else must be done.

Broken white families caring for foreigners and foreign blood, as-if it were its own, will have a blowback. If not now then in 50 years. And if not in 50 years then in 100. Because the underlying motivation, not based on any real, strong, true 'love' but rather a catharsis (for guilt), and in order to maintain class privilege???

Oh no, there will be a huge blow-back for certain.


When humans (mammals) are left to their own devices, the bonds they form with their own kind, is stronger than any motivation that comes from indoctrination and from an exterior source (a foreign entity attempting to invade your land).

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

I myself am half-black, so banning my views on race, is in of itself a very racist thing to do.