SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It has been a little while now that this fledgling community has been around and it remains one of my favorite stories about communities. A splinter of a much larger community took it upon themselves to challenge the rest and make a move to a new home. Shedding the shackles that were being placed on them was a bold move, but one that has been fantastic.
The community here is great, but here is my question. Overall, we are amazingly tolerant of others, of the choices they make, and of their beliefs. I would then be curious, if we are such a tolerant group, how do we address intolerance in our ranks? I recently came across what I can only say filled me with pity and sadness. I find it saddening that in this day and age, and especially in this group, there are still such hate-filled people.
But this poses a question: how does a group that is tolerant deal with intolerance within it's ranks? Does our acceptance of others extend to accepting someone that has thoughts and beliefs which are far from the norm within this community, or is there a limit placed on how far from our own values a member of the community may be?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday April 13 2014, @06:26PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:02PM
Congratulations on failing English, logic and reason in a single, self-defeating sentence! Perhaps we should "boot" you out?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:19PM
Actually, if you really did take tolerance to that extreme, it'd be self-defeating to the point of non-existence. There would be no point in defining it. This is why the original statement is true. People like you who are trying to cling to that label do so only to save face.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:50PM
This is an age-old debate all the way back to Kant and his immorality of morality.
No, "people like me" suffer acute mental discomfort as a result of hypocritical statements and stupid non-sequiturs. You could say I am intolerant!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:07PM
> No, "people like me" suffer acute mental discomfort as a result of hypocritical statements and stupid non-sequiturs.
There is no hypocrisy there or failure of logic, here. Your mental discomfort is due to a misunderstanding of how the language works. The word neutral must be really hard on you. "Sweden defended themselves against an invading force. THOSE HYPOCRITES!!!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:26PM
Outright denial - the last, desperate line of defence for the defeated.
Yes I fail semantic gymnastics and the sophistry of those who would claim to be a "a little bit pregnant". People who fail to form cohesive arguments and instead attempt to distort the meaning of words. Politicians, lawyers, you...
The word neutral in that context means that they did not take sides in another conflict. Again, it is you who appears confused about the meaning of the word.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:32PM
> Outright denial - the last, desperate line of defence for the defeated. ... Politicians, lawyers, you...
But an attempt to hurt my ego, that's not desperate at all. Mmm hm.
> The word neutral in that context means that they did not take sides in another conflict.
If only you could only apply this lesson to the word tolerance your headaches would cease.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:39PM
Yes, then I too could claim to be tolerant whilst harbouring contemptuous intolerance for anybody with the audacity to hold views in opposition to my own.
Back to your example, being politically neutral in a dispute between 3rd parties has no implication for defending yourself against direct attack. What do you fail to understand?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:44PM
> Yes, then I too could claim to be tolerant whilst harbouring contemptuous intolerance for anybody with the audacity to hold views in opposition to my own.
Well, you're close anyway. It isn't about opposing views, it's about opposing a destructive view.
> Back to your example, being politically neutral in a dispute between 3rd parties has no implication for defending yourself against direct attack.
You see, you do understand the concept of using the right words in the right context to paint the correct picture. You just can't apply it to the word tolerance, and it's causing you physical pain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:36PM
No. Demanding tolerance from others is hypocritical because at that moment it becomes intolerance. This is exactly the same as imposing morality on others being immoral and is something we've understood for centuries.
It does not follow that conflict 2 has any bearing on your neutrality in regard to conflict 1. Now let's revisit the comment I initially replied to.
This is entirely different than your neutrality example. It is an outright fallacy and deserved exposing as such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @03:31AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @08:58AM
You can't claim tolerance whilst being intolerant of anothers views and asking for them to be banned from the site. That is the context, is it not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @03:26PM
Warmer, but you're still not giving it the love you gave the other example.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aighearach on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:41PM
Coward, in addition to failing English, Logic, and Reason with your awful false accusation, you also failed Courage.
Hint: the most simplistic possible reading of "inclusive" without considering the net effects of a decision is not going to provide a complete understanding of the word, nor is it going to provide you with the understanding that would be needed in order to apply critical thinking.
Example: If you include a nuclear bomb in the buffet menu, timed to explode, will the result be a more inclusive menu, or a less inclusive menu? But... but... but... it has the word "include!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:33PM
It must be a more inclusive menu as nobody in the vicinity would escape the detonation. This by virtue of what the word inclusive means: the menu includes a bomb and all diners are catered for in the blast.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 14 2014, @02:18AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @04:41PM
Depends how quickly someone eats the bomb, I suppose.
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:32PM
Isn't Ethanol Fueled the one who posted that every site needs a troll (he may used the term "asshole"?), and followed it up with some racist remarks? I thought so.
His offensive posts can't be a surprise, and the journal entry that is the topic of this thread won't be the last. I say "put it to a vote". If we vote him off the island he can just go set up his own blog somewhere and post all the racist crap he wants. Surely he's smart enough to do that if some of us non-non-immigrant Amercains can figure it out. If we don't vote him off the island then we as a community will have decided that his right to spew hate outweighs our right to establish an online community that doesn't want to endure racist remarks.
If Ethanol Fueled really wrote that post as "therapy" (which he claims) then perhaps we are not the right cure for what ails him.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Aighearach on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:02PM
"Voting people off" like a "Reality TV" show is a really bad and silly idea, because unpopular people would get voted out along with the offensive and hateful. In fact, the haters would use it to bully people.
Instead you need a clear policy, and some editor or otherwise appointed person make the call. And if they choose poorly, either direction, then people will leave. No way around that though.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:23PM
My stance on this is here: http://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=1261&thresh old=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30886 [soylentnews.org]
When I finally finish the manifesto/constituion for the site, it will clearly lay out these things.
Still always moving
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Reziac on Monday April 14 2014, @03:07AM
Thank you. I also do not believe in silencing (ie. banning) disagreeable opinions. Even if they're disagreeable people too. Tolerance (which I would say is an aspect of free speech) is not just for stuff you like or people you agree with.
And as I vaguely recall (having not used it) don't we have the ability to hide posts made by 'foes' ?? So it's not like people can't 'disappear' from their personal eyespace what they disagree with or annoys them. It's not like someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to read their posts.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NCommander on Monday April 14 2014, @04:37AM
You can mark someone foe, then have foes get a pseudo-moderation to get the score to drop by X points. So if you browse at 0, you can set Foe to -6, so it will always be at -1. Its a bit clumsy though ...
Still always moving
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Monday April 14 2014, @05:28AM
Ah, so that's how it works. Well, silencing someone ought to be clumsy, so no worries :)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Informative) by M. Baranczak on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:22PM
Banning assholes is a waste of time. As are long boring discussions about the inherent contradictions of freedom and tolerance. The moderation system that we inherited from That Other Site does a pretty good job of filtering out the assholes. So just mod them down and get on with your life.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Kell on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:55PM
I concur. As is the case with bullies (and trolling is a type of bullying, imho) the best thing to do is ignore them. Trolls identify a forum and seek to cause drama - exactly the sort of thing that this whole article is about. The very best thing we can do as a community is to Keep Calm and Moderate (we should write that down somewhere). Tolerance is fine, but spouting hateful language should come with consequences; those consequences are the resulting moderation. If people choose not to view your posts as a result of their moderation then you aren't booted, you are merely ignored.
I would like to see less discussion about drama and more effective moderation by a userbase that has already proven itself interested in participation in their community. If you have good comments on effective moderation strategies we might employ, or variants on the existing moderation system, I'd love to hear about them.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:53PM
To be fair, I thought Ethanol was purposely trolling on a thread about trolling [soylentnews.org], more as a demonstration of trolling than anything else.
I attributed no real ill-intent to the post, assuming he was just playing the troll. Although replying to Ethanol is risking a rage rant in the best of times, I didn't think it warranted a reply at the time.
Reading his Journal, I'm tempted to believe him when he says:
However, Ethanol isn't the only example that could be found here on Soylent.
Almost every post has a few people that try to turn every issue into a anti-Conservative rant. This is a remarkably juvenile view point that says more about the poster than conservatives. I often attribute such sentiments to youthful inexperience: "If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain." (A quote [quoteinvestigator.com] that has been around since at least 1875 in various forms and languages).
People should offer citations to back up their claims, and refrain from too much name calling. It seldom helps.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Kell on Monday April 14 2014, @12:07AM
OT - I feel that a more accurate way of phrasing it would be "If you're not conservative by 35, you have no money". Conservatism as a political force (rather than as a cultural force) is tied to money, in my experience. Big business, brokerages, assets trading, resource extraction and so on all support and prosper from conservative politics. Rather obviously, those who have the money wish to keep it. Those who don't have money (typically including the young) would like some of that money either directly, or through improved opportunities to get and keep it for themselves. Hence, large support for Liberal politics amongst the poor.
It seems like IT tech sites are a perfect place for young poor people and wealthy entrepreneurs to collide. I suspect we see more anti-conservative screeds because wealthy people tend to have less to complain about...
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @04:44PM
We don't "vote people off." If "everybody" hates his view, he'll get downmodded and we won't see it anyway.
Freedom of speech is for everybody.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @05:16PM
"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." [wikipedia.org]
Or as the Discordians would say, "Why are you listening to me? Think for your own damn self!" If all we have are PC viewpoints, we stagnate. We need to bring up dissenting viewpoints to qualify why we disagree.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:34PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:49PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by FakeBeldin on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:03PM
So... who gets to define what's intolerant? You? Ethanol-fueled? ....
Not tolerating intolerance is itself a form of intolerance. A major difference is that we agree with the one and disagree with the other. Remember the phrase
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
-- Evelyn B. Hall (according to Wikipedia, not Voltaire, though it should sum up his outlook)?
I prefer that approach to an approach of excluding people. I wouldn't know where to draw the line precisely. (Actually, I'd wish the community could draw such lines itself in response to intolerance, but it's too easy for a troll to exhaust community "line-drawing" resources.)
One solution could be to implement a "block" button, where comments by a specific user are automatically blocked for you. I'm not sure that's great, but for me it beats kicking out someone whose opinion is contrasting strongly with the majority.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:21PM
There is no slippery slope. Discriminatory behavior is bad, but if you try to stop it, you're discriminating against it. Oh noes! We should allow discrimination otherwise the mean old dictionary will get us!
The issue isn't the definition of tolerance, it's that the dude is being a racist jerk but it's unclear what to do about it because we believe in free-speech. Silencing him is not the first choice anybody wants to go with. Banning him could (as proven by Slashdot....) cause him to be even noisier since he cannot be banned in a way that'd not affect others who are uninvolved. I don't have an answer to offer right now because, frankly, if I had to solve the problem I'd have to toss AC posting, and I don't think anybody (including me...) would really want to do that.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:39PM
Hey, I noticed that the tone of my previous post wasn't what I had in my mind when I wrote it. Sorry about that - I had a "questioning" tone in my mind: I genuinely meant to ask the question "Who gets to define..." - I honestly don't know.
I'm not saying we should tolerate discrimination... nor am I saying we shouldn't. I'm wondering how to deal with speech I myself find objectionable.
If I could downmod that sort of speech, I'd gladly do so. (To me, the difference between that and censorship is that downmodding only works if the community agrees with me and can be undone by any other (modding) member of the community.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:49PM
Ah, I'm sorry dude. I think I could have intuited that from the rest of your post.
I think the important thing is to understand why it's objectionable. Is it merely an observation or is it intended to harm someone? Was Ethanol Fueled trying to turn people hostile towards Mexicans or was he trying to draw attention to an issue so it can be solved? I do believe this questions can be answered without a whole lot of subjectivity.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1) by FakeBeldin on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:20PM
Hey, good post! (no mod points or I'd have expressed it that way)
It got me to re-read Ethanol Fueled post top to bottom, and answer those questions for myself. (I actually took it in this time.) I arrived at my conclusions.
I'll leave it to others to come to their own conclusions - none of you need me to do your thinking for you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cbiltcliffe on Sunday April 13 2014, @07:50PM
Absolutely. I find it amusing that he gets modded troll, but the responder who called him a "redneck piece of excrement", gets modded insightful.
If you refuse to tolerate views like this guy has, which may be absolutely legitimate in his experience, you're not tolerant, you're politically correct.
There's a huge difference between the two.
If you want to claim that everybody should be politically correct, fine go ahead and do it. But don't do it under the guise of tolerance.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Monday April 14 2014, @11:54AM
To be fair, the description "redneck piece of excrement" may be accurate. My understanding is that "redneck" is something you choose to be, a particular world-view, rather than something you have no power to change and is thus a fair target for criticism. Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means.
Intolerance of people's choices and views is fine. Intolerance of things they can't change, like race or gender, isn't. Does that really need to be stated in 2014?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by cbiltcliffe on Saturday April 19 2014, @08:34PM
Well, I read the original post before it was apparently deleted. He wasn't ranting about someone being a certain race. He was ranting about most people he saw from that race being lazy. Whether that's true or not is entirely up for debate, but it's certainly something the target of his scorn could change.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Sunday April 20 2014, @09:03AM
"Most people of [certain race] are lazy" is pretty much the definition of prejudice.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 1) by monster on Tuesday April 15 2014, @07:25AM
Just a remark, since I don't know the details (the linked journal seems to have been deleted): A trolling post may correctly be moderated "Troll", but that doesn't mean that any reply should also be moderated that way. In this case it looks like it could have been moderated as "Flamebait" because of the name calling, but is always name calling Flamebait? Bad etiquette, sure, but I'm not sure about the other.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:02PM
Generally speaking, first and foremost do not call attention to such things. They thrive on attention, and the more they get - positive or negative - is actually reinforcement.
Ergo, one of the worst possible things you can do is post it to the front page. The best thing you can do is refuse to publicly engage; when ignored many people will go elsewhere. If you must engage, do it privately.
Now, with that said: this particular rant was possibly written with some emotion behind it (possibly even living up to the poster's username). However, if you push past some of the language there are some valid points.
The biggest issue I have when certain things get brought up is people immediately screaming "Dats Racis!!1" and turning off their brains. When it comes right down to it, humans are not designed to interact with tens of thousands of people and both know and evaluate them all individually. Studies exist which show humans can only really have a close social group of about 130 individuals, which is in flux throughout our lives. New people get closer, old ones get pushed out of our heads. Where am I going with this? We innately group certain things together so we can respond rationally.
Stereotyping is in our nature. We can't turn it off. All we can do is resist it, which is something every person struggles with every day. Realizing it exists helps, but your first response in almost every situation is going to be based on past experience.
The rant in question even touches on the actual issues: cultural influencing politics (social support across generations via shared living, and how this dynamic informs voting), and the indirect effect of stereotypes (e.g. on property values). My personal belief is that the property value thing is cultural, not racial, and is supported and disseminated largely by certain music. I call it the hip-hop culture, and it's not doing a large portion of our youth any favors. But certain socioeconomic profiles are more likely to fall into this trap.
Note I took great care not to say racial profiles; socioeconomics is probably the underlying cause... but this does correlate with certain racial groups in certain geographic areas. Where it circles back around to stereotypes. If you grow up in an area where most underprivileged people are of a certain ethnic background, you may well build beliefs which are not based in reality (or blame the wrong factor[s]). In my humble opinion, this is what causes and promulgates true racism in the modern world.
Engaging such people in private to communicate what I just said may result in various outcomes. It may not always work; this is an area where logic is often not at the fore. But I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and at least try to engage (again, in private) to tease out the real issues.
Pointing fingers and shouting "racist!" and "intolerant!" and trying to rabble-rouse - which, let's be honest, is exactly the purpose of this front-page post - only serves to polarize. That isn't what anyone needs.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Aighearach on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:07PM
If you boot out the disruptive haters, you don't have to worry what they "thrive" on. In that case calling them out is effective.
Ignoring racist haters does not make them go away. It means every single post will have disgusting comments attached. Privately engaging them is not useful or productive.
In my opinion, your blind acceptance of hatred, and encouragement to force the targets of the racist hatred to suffer it quietly, without any encouragement that they're welcome or that the view is not the view of the group, is not well thought out. Actually that is so silly, once you start thinking from the perspective of the victim, that I would suggest perhaps you have fallen into this viewpoint and recite it when the issue comes up while "turning off your brain."
(Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:30PM
"Booting people out" works only in the real world, where absence of physical presence is actually a real barrier. The question was asked in the context of an online community, and furthermore an online community of tech-savvy users. It's actually quite difficult to boot any real entity out of such a community; VPNs, Tor, and many other tricks guarantee that individual has more ways back in than you have bandwidth to try and keep them out.
I never encouraged anyone to suffer quietly. I never promulgated blind acceptance. I simply pointed out that in communities like this one, certain viewpoints thrive on ATTENTION alone - calling them out is counterproductive. This is what some want. Furthermore, there was no target of the post in question! It was a rant directed at nobody in particular, archiving one man's observations. I responded as such. Again, I reiterate: there was no victim, and the original post is edited to reflect that it does not apply to all or even most individuals of any particular ethnic background.
I would like to draw attention to how you ignore all of the actual points of my post, while continuing an indirect ad hominem against both the original target and also attempt to conflate and group myself with that individual. Actually, your response constitutes more raw hatred than the original which prompted this front page story. You are directly attacking myself and the original poster, whom I may not agree with but has done nothing to harm you directly. These are logical fallacies. I refuse to engage anyone in discussion who stoops to using them, because once you do it is no longer a discussion; you are no longer engaging your mind in reasonable discourse.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Monday April 14 2014, @04:59AM
That's trolls you are thinking about, not racist haters. The typical racist hater thinks his opinion is what everybody thinks secretly and is just shy to say in public. They will see silence as silent agreement. Also, the object of their hatred deserves the feeling that someone speaks up for them. Hate-speech is not only between speaker and audience.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by q.kontinuum on Monday April 14 2014, @05:10AM
Oh, and btw: I don't care if such a post contains some hidden true points. The fact that it starts as a racist piece of crap renders it unfit for any further consideration. The same guy might start a different discussion when he's sober, and raise some valid points there. Or others can raise these points in their posts, preferably without referencing this article. The article in question is a piece of emotional hate-speech, and as such deserves only contempt and emotional support for the targeted group; the comment-section of that article is burned for any rational discussion.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @04:56PM
I feel like there's not really a clear line between the two in the vernacular; e.g. how many of us would have an issue with someone of Ethnic Group A if they were adopted very early by and raised according to the culture of Ethnic Group B, if we respect B but not A? If you do, then it's clearly related to physical characteristics and thus racism.
I can discriminate against a culture without being racist. (Then the term is just bigot I guess.)
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tathra on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:13PM
the whole point of tolerance is the refusal to tolerate bigotry. however, its a bit hasty to start wanting to kick somebody out. so long as such remarks are confined to a 'personal' area (journal) rather than being stated out in public (comments), then its not really disruptive. "disruptive" should be the actual measure for deciding whether or not to ban somebody, because its extremely easy to make a case that somebody is "hurting" the community.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EQ on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:19PM
" Tolerating intolerance is not tolerance." Yes it is. It means allowing him to speak, regardless of how offensive you find it. That's tolerance. Note that it does not mean adopting his views, accepting them as valid, or letting them go unopposed, verbally. But to silence them? That's the very height of intolerance. Let him spew. And feel free to either ignore him, mod him down, or actually engage him and demonstrate to him just how wrong he is. Free market of ideas, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 13 2014, @08:27PM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by EQ on Sunday April 13 2014, @10:34PM
versus a net loss of free speech. Which do you value more, freedom or conformity?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @10:47AM
Touche!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 14 2014, @06:20PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Sunday April 13 2014, @09:01PM
I believe in the old saying "Your rights end where your fist meets my nose" and with somebody like Ethanol he is NOT being "edgy", he is an outright racist and all he does is troll and derail threads, which was why he ended up getting kicked out of Slashdot.
But frankly there is no need to "do anything about him" if the moderation system is functional because that is EXACTLY what mods and metamods are designed to handle. if EF acts like a douche? His comment gets buried, if he keeps acting like a douche? His account gets buried in karma hell, simple as that.
The problem i have with banning anybody, even when their viewpoints are so disgusting, is the fact that my grandfather fought in WWII and came home in a full body cast from a Nazi Werewulf squad dropping a wall on him yet he supported the Illinois Nazis right to march. he taught me that you fight ignorance with debate and facts NOT by removing their right to be heard, the fact that we had free speech and all subjects were open to debate was what made us on the right in WWII and he firmly believed that until his dying day.
I have seen this approach works first hand as when I was living in Dallas I came across some skinheads using illegals as a tool to recruit, I promptly went around the corner to the craft shop and made up my own little sign that read "ask me about the camps" and anybody who did I told them of my grandfather's experience in WII, especially what he saw entering the camps, about how the boidies were piled up like cordwood, that you couldn't tell male from female, needless to say the skinheads were WAY pissed but the cops, with a big fat smile I might add, said "you have the right to speak, he has the right to rebut" and they quickly packed up and went away.So let EF be as big a bigot as he wants to be, those of us in the community can bury his posts when he spreads his racist shit and by fighting his bullshit with fats might even educate a few people.
Oh and in the interest of honesty? I'm for locking down the border, but not because I fear Mexicans but because an open border not only penalizes those that put in the hard work to come here legally but scumbags like MS13 have taken advantage of the wide open borders to set up a thriving sexual slavery business, with children as young as 6 being bought and sold and the money being used to buy ex-Soviet heavy weapons which are being used to take more and more territory away from the control of law enforcement. All in all its a REALLY bad situation, the illegals are being abused, put in unsafe working conditions, and risk enslavement, the gangs can make money hand over fist, frankly the only ones who see a "positive" from a lawless border is those companies who want to depress wages and profit from other's misery and they can go DIAF as far as I'm concerned.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday April 13 2014, @11:58PM
Your title is appropriate. No, your statement doesn't help because tolerating anything, including intolerance is tolerance - by definition.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 14 2014, @02:01AM
That's what's funny about certain words in the English language. When applied to themselves they create a paradox. A literal one, anyway. When all is said and done, it isn't Webster who rules on hypocrisy.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday April 14 2014, @11:19AM
There's no paradox here.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 14 2014, @03:24PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @05:00PM
Ummm...is there such a thing as a figurative paradox?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 14 2014, @05:15PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @05:23PM
I'm not sure I have a firm enough grasp of what you're trying to communicate to make any suggestions, unfortunately...
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday April 14 2014, @05:49PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday April 14 2014, @06:38PM
"Ambiguity"?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"