Why is antisemetism acceptable

[Matthew N. Wright]

To be absolutely honest with you guys, seeing all the racism on this forum (and the internet in general) has helped me to grow up a lot. I've seen racists, perverts and sociopaths talk it up on these forums and others, and each time I read something extreme I soak it in and feel it out (as if I were them, thinking that way). When my logic rejects it and I feel bad thinking the way they think (kind of like a completely straight guy "trying out" being gay), I know not only am I not like them, but there may in fact be fundamental problems with their thinking. In the very least, it inspires me to research more and look into the issues (and often fallacies) presented.

Allowing hate speech just for the ability to discuss why it's wrong is the single strongest reason I am now an athiest. I have always read and heard about the grace of God, but never heard why believing in the Bible is detrimental to your mental health. If I hadn't seen those arguments because some forum mod was against "hate speech", I might still believe in a magic figure floating in outer space giving my commands to not masturbate.

If you censor racism, you limit the ability to learn about racism.

[hawkeye]

I just don't like collectivists, whatever they want to call themselves (socialists, neo-cons, whatever).  I can think for myself thanks very much and have no need for your cult-like group-think.

[vampire]

If you censor racism, you limit the ability to learn about racism.

But censoring spamming is totally fine. Few weeks ago there were like 50 threads started by two guys... Totally fine to ban them for useless spam.

[myrkul]

If you censor racism, you limit the ability to learn about racism.

But censoring spamming is totally fine. Few weeks ago there were like 50 threads started by two guys... Totally fine to ban them for useless spam.

Agreed, and thank all the gods that's exactly what happened.

[Matthew N. Wright]

If you censor racism, you limit the ability to learn about racism.

But censoring spamming is totally fine. Few weeks ago there were like 50 threads started by two guys... Totally fine to ban them for useless spam.

The thing about spamming is, it is often self-serving and disruptive.

Normal discussions are basically like saying "You can say all the hateful things you want, but you have only 60 seconds to say it, then the next guy gets to say what he wants about you".

Spamming is like giving that first dude all day to say what he wants without even needing to hear a response. I agree spamming is wrong, simply because it doesn't promote any discussion or repercussions for being wrong (they aren't held to their mistakes to learn from them).

This unfortunately, is also why I am still against anonymity despite it's "good" uses. It creates the perfect environment for abuse.  The reason I use my real name is not to give some fake trustworthy image (as I have been accused of since day one), but because I enjoy being held accountable for my actions. It forces me to change when need be. If I hold this as a standard of integrity to myself, you can imagine how I feel about the anons here.

[hawkeye]

If you censor racism, you limit the ability to learn about racism.

But censoring spamming is totally fine. Few weeks ago there were like 50 threads started by two guys... Totally fine to ban them for useless spam.

I agree.  The forum has to be usable and it's no good if the signal is drowned out by incessant noise.  We only have so much time in our days to filter things out.

[hawkeye]

This unfortunately, is also why I am still against anonymity despite it's "good" uses. It creates the perfect environment for abuse.  The reason I use my real name is not to give some fake trustworthy image (as I have been accused of since day one), but because I enjoy being held accountable for my actions. It forces me to change when need be. If I hold this as a standard of integrity to myself, you can imagine how I feel about the anons here.

I'd be fine with that, except I make economic decisions on websites like this and others and I may or may not want the government to know about them.

If there wasn't a group of thugs that have power over me because everyone believes their authority to be legitimate, and who are often quite arbitrary in the way they apply their laws, then I would have no problem using my real name.

[Matthew N. Wright]

This unfortunately, is also why I am still against anonymity despite it's "good" uses. It creates the perfect environment for abuse.  The reason I use my real name is not to give some fake trustworthy image (as I have been accused of since day one), but because I enjoy being held accountable for my actions. It forces me to change when need be. If I hold this as a standard of integrity to myself, you can imagine how I feel about the anons here.

I'd be fine with that, except I make economic decisions on websites like this and others and I may or may not want the government to know about them.

If there wasn't a group of thugs that have power over me because everyone believes their authority to be legitimate, and who are often quite arbitrary in the way they apply their laws, then I would have no problem using my real name.

I'm seeing that the more I read and watch insane conspiracy theorists videos these days (it's inevitable if you're involved in bitcoin that you'll watch Alex Jones at least once I suppose).

I still can't shake it though. Maybe I'll understand it more when something happens to me personally. I don't rule it out as a legitimate option (anonymity), but it just screams "easy exit strategy" for so many scumbags to take seriously.

[Kluge]

Can't gas me through my computer screen. (yet)

I'm pretty sure if we want to stop the cyber-gas, we need to start with protecting women, who are unrepresented and bashed regularly for amusement.

So let's all pretend we're strong-willed women.  

[Hawker]

The Guardian has far more anti-Christian and anti-Muslim posters on CiF than anti-semites.  They just don't like any religion there.  

The Guardian is a bunch of psuedo intellectual toss for teachers and champagne socialists. It's packed with hypocritical
spew and contradictory nonsense. The only view they the promote is international socialist nihilism,.. I wouldn't
wipe my bung-hole on it

Yet the Guardian editorial staff don't endorse socialist politicians.  Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

You don't have to endorse a politician to subscribe to a political orientation.

The Guardian is a socialist and internationalist jizz-mop that promotes the usual range of irrational and self-contradictory drivel from welfare dependency and multiculturalism to global warming and eco-alarmism.  

... generally read by teachers and toss pots.

OK - officially baffled.  You complain that a newspaper that opposes socialists is a socialist newspaper.  And that it's read by teachers.  Are you still in school? At the risk of inviting another stupid answer, why does it being read by teachers matter?

[myrkul]

So let's all pretend we're strong-willed women.  

How do you know I'm not?

[hawkeye]

I'm seeing that the more I read and watch insane conspiracy theorists videos these days (it's inevitable if you're involved in bitcoin that you'll watch Alex Jones at least once I suppose).

I still can't shake it though. Maybe I'll understand it more when something happens to me personally. I don't rule it out as a legitimate option (anonymity), but it just screams "easy exit strategy" for so many scumbags to take seriously.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I think Alex Jones is a raving lunatic mostly.

What I am saying is, they decide they want to audit you and who knows if you've missed something or not.  Just talk to people who have been targeted by the tax office in their country and you might start to understand.  The have thousands of rules that no-one can possibly know and I'd prefer them not to know in many cases so I just don't have to deal with all their nonsense.

How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

[Matthew N. Wright]

How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

Where did I say you were a conspiracy theorist?

[hawkeye]

How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

Where did I say you were a conspiracy theorist?

Why did you use that phrase in a reply to my post when I wasn't even talking about the subject?

Incidentally, I agree it is an out for scumbags, but unfortunately it has legitimate uses as well due to the afore-mentioned world ruled by thugs that we live in.

[Hawker]

How does that make me a conspiracy theorist?

Where did I say you were a conspiracy theorist?

Why did you use that phrase in a reply to my post when I wasn't even talking about the subject?

The anti-semites and the conspiracy nuts overlap in a big way.  At least you don't have either delusion  

[myrkul]

The anti-semites and the conspiracy nuts overlap in a big way.  At least you don't have either delusion  

For example, this wack-a-doo: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179616.0

[hawkeye]

Imo, most conspiracy theorists realise something is wrong but go looking for answers in all the wrong places, when the answer is right in front of their eyes.  They just don't want to admit it.  It's denial basically.

Alex Jones does it all the time, screaming about how it's our government and we have to "take it back".   

[Matthew N. Wright]

For example, this wack-a-doo:

That reminded me of Jerry Lewis.

Why did you use that phrase in a reply to my post when I wasn't even talking about the subject?

I actually was just mentioning that I too am understanding the need for anonymity for some people in some cases the more I follow some conspiracy theories, but I haven't yet figured out if they are true, legit concerns. I wasn't talking about you.  

[hawkeye]

I actually was just mentioning that I too am understanding the need for anonymity for some people in some cases the more I follow some conspiracy theories, but I haven't yet figured out if they are true, legit concerns. I wasn't talking about you.  

Fair enough.

Definitely look at it if you are interested.  No harm in reading that stuff.  I have.  You'll find it's usually some facts mixed in with a lot of unsubstantiated theories.

[Matthew N. Wright]

I actually was just mentioning that I too am understanding the need for anonymity for some people in some cases the more I follow some conspiracy theories, but I haven't yet figured out if they are true, legit concerns. I wasn't talking about you.  

Fair enough.

Definitely look at it if you are interested.  No harm in reading that stuff.  I have.  You'll find it's usually some facts mixed in with a lot of unsubstantiated theories.

So far that's all I've found. It is interesting to see some of the shocking realities that caused the people to believe in the "unsubstantiated theories" part, but I agree that they often go out on a limb to make the pieces fit.