Ban On Politics

[pilferk]

If you are anti-Zionist or anti-Israel, then you are clearly a racist and an anti-Semite. It means you are against the existence of a State for the Jews.
It is alright to be against the government of Israel and its decisions, but being against Israel in general is anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism is the politically correct and modern version of anti-Semitism.

No, actually the OP hit it right on the head.? Anti-Semitism is racism, pure and simple.? It's basing a decision on race (race and religion, actually).

Anti-Zionism means you don't agree with Isreal, as a country, having a right to exist.? And there are lots of reasons for that belief.? SOME of them, yes, are driven by race.? Others, however, are purely political and/or economic.? There are actually some very well known Orthodox Jewish groups that are Anti-Zionists.? I mean, advocating a binational state is considered Anti-Zionism.? Yet I don't think anyone could equate the reasoning behind that as simply anti-semetic.? Even the UN has recinded it's resolution saying that Anti-Zionism is racism.

I realize you want to paint the issue in broad strokes, but the delination between the two terms is pretty significant.? They are, often, jumbled together in the heat of political debate but they are just not the same thing.


Disclaimer:? I am not an anti-zionist so can not engage in a discussion of the pros and cons of that ideology.

[LeftToDecay]

"Jarmo is a Nazi"

Ay, it's very rude to call Jarmo a Nazi.There is clear diference between a nazi and a prominent fascist, such as Mussolini or Jarmo.
JKJK!!
 

[Surfrider]

Berkley,

Do you really think floating a political conspiracy theory is akin to racism?

No, I don't; if that is how you read my post, I apologize for the lack of clarity.?

Or that saying you're an agnostic (or athiest...not sure of SLC's particular belief) is akin to calling someone a sand nigger?

Certainly not.? But bashing someone's religion, which SLC and others regularly do to Christianity, is on the same level as an attack on one's race.? The odd thing is, the same people that make the derogatory comments against Christians are the  people first to defend and reprimand any negative comments against Muslims.? I am hardly a practicing Christian myself, therefore I am not too offended by such comments.? However, I do notice the inconsistency.

Or that explaining, in the course of a discussion, your particular viewpoint on organized religion is roughly the same as calling someone a towelhead?

Of course not.? Although, the comments usually go far beyond simply stating a particular viewpoint.? Let me also say, most of the time someone is called a racist on this board is due more to political comments rather than to outright name calling such as "towelhead" etc.? Yet, in the religion context this is characterized as "explaining a particular viewpoint."? Similarly, if I were to make a comment regarding gay marriage, it is not seen by people such as SLC as stating a particular viewpoint, it is seen as being homophobic.? He has made comments to people regarding the same.?

Really?

You are a rationale person Pilferk.? While you may not agree with me, I think you can understand the substance of the argument I am making.

Most of those on "the right" that were banned were banned because they made racist or gay-bashing remarks/posts.? How you can equate someone saying "I don't believe in Christianity" (lots of people don't, btw) to something like "Jarmo is a Nazi" or "The towelheads blah blah blah".......I just don't see it.

Yet, SLC can throw out the terms Nazi, KKK, homophobic, biggot etc. with little repercussion.? Wouldn't you agree that calling a person these names can sometimes be just as offensive as being called a racist derogatory term.? You can make fun of my religion/race all you want, but don't label me a biggot.

[pilferk]

Certainly not.? But bashing someone's religion, which SLC and others regularly do to Christianity, is on the same level as an attack on one's race.? The odd thing is, the same people that make the derogatory comments against Christians are the? people first to defend and reprimand any negative comments against Muslims.? I am hardly a practicing Christian myself, therefore I am not too offended by such comments.? However, I do notice the inconsistency.

Maybe you could provide some actual examples of that going on.  I've not seen SLC ever "bash" someone's religion. Or rather, I have not seen them bash someone BECAUSE of their religion.  They've said they don't agree with it.  They've listed the reasons why, from their viewpoint, they don't agree.  I've seen them express a patent dislike for extremists.  I think there is a fundamental difference between saying "I don't like/agree with Christianity" and "I don't like Christians".  Again, if you're offended by people who don't agree with Christianity, you're going to be offended by a large portion of the world populations existence.

I've never seen SLC say anything akin to "Christian bashing" that's remotely akin to what you're portraying...or remotely as extreme as some of the anti-Muslim sentiment that has been fired off.  I've never seen SLC express hatred toward Christians, or any religion for that matter.  I've never seen him say "I wish they'd all been fed to the lions so we didn't have to deal with those stinky cross wearing idiots".  But yet I've seen things akin to "We should blow them all to hell so we don't have to deal with those stinky towelheads"...which is a pretty extreme and hate ridden statement to come across, donthca think?  And well worthy of the ban stick?

Of course not.? Although, the comments usually go far beyond simply stating a particular viewpoint.? Let me also say, most of the time someone is called a racist on this board is due more to political comments rather than to outright name calling such as "towelhead" etc.? Yet, in the religion context this is characterized as "explaining a particular viewpoint."? Similarly, if I were to make a comment regarding gay marriage, it is not seen by people such as SLC as stating a particular viewpoint, it is seen as being homophobic.? He has made comments to people regarding the same.?

Again, I've not seen the comments going "beyond stating a particular viewpoint".  As for those called racist, I've seen that charge levied at 2 very particular people with any frequency.  And their comments, FYI, were racist.  Not political comments, racist comments, no matter what the context was.  Maybe there have been more, that I've not noticed (I don't read everything SLC posts/posted), but the 2 posters who had the charge levied at them most often had documented comments of a racist nature.

I've also not seen SLC tell someone they were a "homophobe" because they opposed gay marriage.  I've seen him say that the opposition to gay marriage seems homophobic to him.  I've seen him say that to oppose gay marriage seems like descrimination, to him.  He is, in fact, stating his interpretation of your viewpoint.  But again, how you can equate racist comments to that, I don't know.  Seems like, on a severity scale especially, night and day.  I would say, even if guilty, calling someone a homophobe is much less derogatory than popmetals departing post.

You are a rationale person Pilferk.? While you may not agree with me, I think you can understand the substance of the argument I am making.

I am a rationale person, and I've always thought the same of you.  But, in this case, I just don't see your argument. I've heard it...about 1000 times...mostly coming from the "offended" on the right.  But the fact has been, up til now. if you actually look at the comments that got those on the right banned.....there's no comparison to anything SLC, or any other poster (left or right), has said.  From a severity standpoint, you know, I think the mods have been pretty fair.  It's not like SLC hasn't gotten his share of warnings on the subject....and has, seemingly, heeded them.

Yet, SLC can throw out the terms Nazi, KKK, homophobic, biggot etc. with little repercussion.? Wouldn't you agree that calling a person these names can sometimes be just as offensive as being called a racist derogatory term.? You can make fun of my religion/race all you want, but don't label me a biggot.

Again, I've not seen SLC use those terms...especially Nazi...when not either warrented (calling somoene a racist/biggot), or applied to his interpretation of someones viewpoint (homophobic). I've not read his assertions that someone is a KKK member, either.   Maybe if you could provide some links to examples, or if SLC could, I'd have more context in which to view your point.  But from what I remember......I'm just not seeing it.  And in looking at the argument that moderation isn't "fair"....I just don't see that either.

TyRod/Charity Case, popmetal, and the others that were banned.......have you READ their comments?  It's not about their leanings or their ideology.  It was about some pretty hate filled posts.......something I don't think the majority of EITHER side engages in on a regular basis.

[Surfrider]

I will have to respectfully disagree.? I meant to comment on a much broader level regarding my perception of the political threads.? It was never my intention to get into debate regarding the substance and insults of a particular individual.

Let me just make a couple of comments, I think we will have to disagree regarding the brevity and scope of SLC's comments.? From what I remember, they were not limited to the two individuals you reference.? To me, these two were the exception rather than the rule - although I still don't think popmetal made any racist comments that warranted the "racist" label he was tagged with.? I am sorry, but I don't have the time to go through the old political threads to look for examples of the things that I am talking about.? I can only post what I remember; so take it for what it's worth.

Again, I've not seen SLC use those terms...especially Nazi...when not either warrented (calling somoene a racist/biggot), or applied to his interpretation of someones viewpoint (homophobic).

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of the distinction.? Just like any derogatory term, name calling to a viewpoint or a person is directed at a person and is a low attempt to discredit that person.? It is precisely these comments that made these threads get out of control, and it is precisely these comments which never received any reprimand from the mods.

I am a rationale person, and I've always thought the same of you.? But, in this case, I just don't see your argument. I've heard it...about 1000 times...mostly coming from the "offended" on the right.? But the fact has been, up til now. if you actually look at the comments that got those on the right banned.....there's no comparison to anything SLC, or any other poster (left or right), has said.? From a severity standpoint, you know, I think the mods have been pretty fair.? It's not like SLC hasn't gotten his share of warnings on the subject....and has, seemingly, heeded them.

I just disagree.? SLC can throw around the term redneck to those that support Bush, but someone on the right can't refer to a terrorist as a towelhead?? How can one be OK and not the other?

[Brody]

dont forget NeoCons! im one of those

[Slashead]

If you are anti-Zionist or anti-Israel, then you are clearly a racist and an anti-Semite. It means you are against the existence of a State for the Jews.
It is alright to be against the government of Israel and its decisions, but being against Israel in general is anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionism is the politically correct and modern version of anti-Semitism.

No, actually the OP hit it right on the head.? Anti-Semitism is racism, pure and simple.? It's basing a decision on race (race and religion, actually).

Anti-Zionism means you don't agree with Isreal, as a country, having a right to exist.? And there are lots of reasons for that belief.? SOME of them, yes, are driven by race.? Others, however, are purely political and/or economic.? There are actually some very well known Orthodox Jewish groups that are Anti-Zionists.? I mean, advocating a binational state is considered Anti-Zionism.? Yet I don't think anyone could equate the reasoning behind that as simply anti-semetic.? Even the UN has recinded it's resolution saying that Anti-Zionism is racism.

I realize you want to paint the issue in broad strokes, but the delination between the two terms is pretty significant.? They are, often, jumbled together in the heat of political debate but they are just not the same thing.


Disclaimer:? I am not an anti-zionist so can not engage in a discussion of the pros and cons of that ideology.

Pilferk, you have no idea (as usual).
If a person doesn't agree with the right of Israel to exist, he is an anti-Semite. Period.
Anti-Zionism is used as a disguise because today it is difficult to express anti-Semite opinions in the Western countries. In the Arab countries it's not a problem : you can buy The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the street...
I know that some Orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel but it is because of religious reasons and they are a very tiny minority, even if you are calling them "well-known"...
Advocating for a binational state is hypocrite because the goal behind it is to destroy Israel. Jews would be a minority in a binational state...
So, the declination between the two terms (anti-Semite and anti-Zionist) isn't significant at all : they have a tendency to have the same goals...

[pilferk]

Pilferk, you have no idea (as usual).
If a person doesn't agree with the right of Israel to exist, he is an anti-Semite. Period.
Anti-Zionism is used as a disguise because today it is difficult to express anti-Semite opinions in the Western countries. In the Arab countries it's not a problem : you can buy The Protocols of the Elsers of Zion in the street...
I know that some Orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel but it is because of religious reasons and they are a very tiny minority, even if you are calling them "well-known"...
Advocating for a binational state is hypocrite because the goal behind it is to destroy Israel. Jews would be a minority in a binational state...
So, the declination between the two terms (anti-Semite and anti-Zionist) isn't significant at all : they have a tendency to have the same goals...

Thanks, with taking the discussion personal (as usual??) for demonstrating so well why the political threads are banned.

And thanks for demonstrating, again, why you don't really understand the difference between the two terms.  Your opinion on the issue isn't really relevant.

The two things are not the same thing.? 'Nuff said.

[Slashead]

Better luck next time, pilferk.

[pilferk]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of the distinction.? Just like any derogatory term, name calling to a viewpoint or a person is directed at a person and is a low attempt to discredit that person.? It is precisely these comments that made these threads get out of control, and it is precisely these comments which never received any reprimand from the mods.

The relevance is this: In one case you have someone referencing a specific person over a specific thing when his previous comments clearly demonstrate that reference. In another, you are depicting your opinion of a very specific opinion. In the last you are making a generalization based on ignorance that perpetuates a culture of hate, since the comment wasn't directed toward terrorists, but all Muslim and people from the Middle East. ?It's a pretty easy, and relevent, distinction. ?If you're not seeing the distinct relevance between "Given you're earlier comments, I think you're a racist", "I think that opinion is homophobic" and "Those stupid towelheads behind the counter should die".......I can see why you think what you do. ?I don't, and thus...can't see your point.

I ?just disagree.? SLC can throw around the term redneck to those that support Bush, but someone on the right can't refer to a terrorist as a towelhead?? How can one be OK and not the other?

You don't see the difference in the terminology between calling someone a redneck (which, FYI, isn't very derogatory....ever been to Texas? ?They call THEMSELVES rednecks, for gods sake...and it's where Bush was Govenor) and calling a Muslim a towelhead? ?Really? ?I don't believe you. ?Because, as I said, I think you're a rational person.

 Calling someone a redneck, IMHO, is no worse than calling someone a bleeding heart liberal or a leftie, or any of the other countless terms that those on the right used to reference anyone who remotely agrees with any of the Democratic agenda. ?And those on the right never got banned, or warned. ? Only those that used specific hate speech in their posts were banned. ?Thus, the moderating has been quite fair, IMHO.

[pilferk]

Better luck next time, pilferk.

I think the mods have had enough of a demonstration now....

As for luck, I made my point. I'm not going to belabour it after your demonstration of being unable to engage in intelligent discourse.

 You've yet to make a valid point, so....I think I did just fine.

[Slashead]

I think I did just fine.

Of course you did.

[pilferk]

 

Since we've now had ample demonstration as to just WHY leaving political debate at the door of HTGTH is such a good idea...right here in this thread....maybe it's time to lock the thread and move on.

'Cause, at this point, I think we've now got 2 shining examples (this thread and the Lebanon thead) of why the "political perma-ban" is justified, eh?

[MCT]

Poop.

EDIT - Pee.

[Surfrider]

I'm sorry, but I don't see the relevance of the distinction.? Just like any derogatory term, name calling to a viewpoint or a person is directed at a person and is a low attempt to discredit that person.? It is precisely these comments that made these threads get out of control, and it is precisely these comments which never received any reprimand from the mods.

The relevance is this: In one case you have someone referencing a specific person over a specific thing when his previous comments clearly demonstrate that reference. In another, you are depicting your opinion of a very specific opinion. In the last you are making a generalization based on ignorance that perpetuates a culture of hate, since the comment wasn't directed toward terrorists, but all Muslim and people from the Middle East. ?It's a pretty easy, and relevent, distinction. ?If you're not seeing the distinct relevance between "Given you're earlier comments, I think you're a racist", "I think that opinion is homophobic" and "Those stupid towelheads behind the counter should die".......I can see why you think what you do. ?I don't, and thus...can't see your point.

I wasn't referring to that particular distinction.? I was referencing your argument that there is a difference between calling someone a homophobe or racist and calling someone a racist or homophobe because of a way you perceive their argument.? Although I definately believe that those terms are thrown around way too loosely on this board, which is one of the problems I have referenced, there is no difference between calling someone a racist and calling someone a racist based on their argument.?

I ?just disagree.? SLC can throw around the term redneck to those that support Bush, but someone on the right can't refer to a terrorist as a towelhead?? How can one be OK and not the other?

You don't see the difference in the terminology between calling someone a redneck (which, FYI, isn't very derogatory....ever been to Texas? ?They call THEMSELVES rednecks, for gods sake...and it's where Bush was Govenor) and calling a Muslim a towelhead? ?Really? ?I don't believe you. ?Because, as I said, I think you're a rational person.

Sorry, Pilferk, but you are making a stretch by justifying these comments.? Black people call each other the N word all the time, and gay people call each other f-- all of the time.? Does that justify it?? Does that mean I can use that term?? I doubt it very much that if I called a black person or a homosexual person on this board one of those terms that you would come to my defense.? In fact, I will bet that I would be banned before you would even have a chance to do so.

Calling someone a redneck, IMHO, is no worse than calling someone a bleeding heart liberal or a leftie, or any of the other countless terms that those on the right used to reference anyone who remotely agrees with any of the Democratic agenda. ?And those on the right never got banned, or warned. ? Only those that used specific hate speech in their posts were banned. ?Thus, the moderating has been quite fair, IMHO.

I disagree.? liberal of leftie is equivilant to a rightie or conservative.? The term "redneck" refers to an an uneducated white person.? It is a derogatory term.? Just like your argument regarding the term Zionist, which I agree with, redneck means what it means.? It is precisly these personal judgments and picking and choosing between what terms are offensive and what terms are not, which is central to my argument.? By defending the usage of this term, you have engaged in exactly the type of picking and choosing - or selective moderating- that I believe has created some of the problems int he political threads.? If you can't see the problem with using the term "redneck", then I am afraid that you never will see my point.

[Will]

It just will not come back.

You can continue this thread for like 50 or 60 pages, it won't change a thing.

[Mal Brossard]

Pilferk, you have no idea (as usual).
If a person doesn't agree with the right of Israel to exist, he is an anti-Semite. Period.
Anti-Zionism is used as a disguise because today it is difficult to express anti-Semite opinions in the Western countries. In the Arab countries it's not a problem : you can buy The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the street...
I know that some Orthodox Jews are against the state of Israel but it is because of religious reasons and they are a very tiny minority, even if you are calling them "well-known"...
Advocating for a binational state is hypocrite because the goal behind it is to destroy Israel. Jews would be a minority in a binational state...
So, the declination between the two terms (anti-Semite and anti-Zionist) isn't significant at all : they have a tendency to have the same goals...

OK, purely hypothetical scenario here.

Let's say there is a country created that is exclusively comprised of Christians.  Any Christian anywhere in the world has the right to freely enter and reside in the country.  I say that as long as they can live anywhere they want in the world, they shouldn't have their own country.  If I am opposed to the existance of this new country, am I anti-Christianity?

This is how I view Israel.  The Jews should not have their own country, while still being free to reside anywhere they please.  Either have a country where they all live, or don't have their own country at all and live all throughout the world.  "Shit or get off the pot," to quote whoever said it first.

Pilferk, your post on the differences between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism was spot on.  Thankfully someone other than me understands it and can express it (even if he is a damned Yankees fan ).

BTW, what's "the OP"?

[Will]

Guys, this thread is NOT the place to talk politics. If you continue to talk about politics, we'll just have to close the thread. I think pretty much everything has been said anyway about the initial topic.

[Slashead]

OK, purely hypothetical scenario here.

Let's say there is a country created that is exclusively comprised of Christians.? Any Christian anywhere in the world has the right to freely enter and reside in the country.? I say that as long as they can live anywhere they want in the world, they shouldn't have their own country.? If I am opposed to the existance of this new country, am I anti-Christianity?

This is how I view Israel.? The Jews should not have their own country, while still being free to reside anywhere they please.? Either have a country where they all live, or don't have their own country at all and live all throughout the world.? "Shit or get off the pot," to quote whoever said it first.

Pilferk, your post on the differences between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism was spot on.? Thankfully someone other than me understands it and can express it (even if he is a damned Yankees fan ).

Sorry Will, but I still have to say that this post was ignorant and full of hatred. It just proved what I said before : anti-Zionism is the politically correct and modern version of anti-Semitism.

It's quite ironic that this guy wanted to be upgraded to the rank of "political mod"... 

[pilferk]

I wasn't referring to that particular distinction.? I was referencing your argument that there is a difference between calling someone a homophobe or racist and calling someone a racist or homophobe because of a way you perceive their argument.? Although I definately believe that those terms are thrown around way too loosely on this board, which is one of the problems I have referenced, there is no difference between calling someone a racist and calling someone a racist based on their argument.?

There is a huge difference.? ?First, one is unfounded, the other is not.? If someone has made racist remarks, they are a racist.? That's not an insult, it's the truth.?

In addition, there is a huge difference between "that's a homophobic argument" or "I think that view is homophobic" and "You fucking homophobe".? One is wielded as an insult, the other not.? And that IS an important distinction.? If you don't see it then I guess that's where our disconnect is and we'll have to agree to disagree.

I disagree.? liberal of leftie is equivilant to a rightie or conservative.? The term "redneck" refers to an an uneducated white person.? It is a derogatory term.? Just like your argument regarding the term Zionist, which I agree with, redneck means what it means.? It is precisly these personal judgments and picking and choosing between what terms are offensive and what terms are not, which is central to my argument.? By defending the usage of this term, you have engaged in exactly the type of picking and choosing - or selective moderating- that I believe has created some of the problems int he political threads.? If you can't see the problem with using the term "redneck", then I am afraid that you never will see my point.

So your opinion is that every derogatory comment is just as offensive as every other and should be punished in the exact same way and that no personal judgement should be used?

Because "lefite" or "rightie" are derogatory terms used by the opposing party to describe their opponents. Just as redneck is used, in a somewhat derogatory manner, to depict the rural white manual laboring working class.? So, by your logic, such use of terminology should be immediate grounds for banning, right?

That's just not the case. Things aren't that black and white.? And thats the point.? There ARE, in fact, differeing degrees of severity.? Some warrant warnings, some warrent banning.? Calling someone a redneck is not remotely as offensive as calling someone the n word, or calling a homosexual "the f word", or calling the local workers at your 7-11 "towelheads".? It's just not.?

Your assertion is that the "selectiveness" has been used to the benefit of those with left leaning political views simply because those banned have been from the right.? I think that's a logical fallacy.? The reason those on the right were banned is because their crimes were "more severe".