Enough with the race baiting

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Interesting. My real-life experience with white supremacists is that they are some of the most conformist and conforming, brainwashed, lemming-like cowards that I've ever met.

If this were true they would not be towing the party line on diversity which happens to be close to state religion status in the west...

They don't tolerate dissent. Instead, they spend a remarkable amount of time saying the same shit to each other over and over again.

If anyone is herd-like, it's them.

If they were herd like; they would be thinking like you.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Frank

If this were true they would not be towing the party line on diversity which happens to be close to state religion status in the west...

If they were herd like; they would be thinking like you.

Why the insults, Frank? I thought you were supposed to be superior, somehow.

[daisym]

Originally Posted by Steve

Please do.

Inviting those pussies might just be what it actually takes to get the owner of this forum to say "enough is enough" and ban the devisive words you and your pathetic ilk choose to employ in miserably failed attempts to make a point...

probably not. however last time he invited them they didn't last all that long. he invited a few others who held opposing views to 'liven things up' I think it was, but they argued with each other.

At that time I had been arguing with frank for pages on multiculturalism in australia (at the time he claimed to be Australian and to know something about the issue).

My putting Frank on ignore dates from this time. The WN mates included an Australian equivalent of BG - who I think was banned. The others were more in the same vein as 'Truth'.

Most of these people can only argue effectively if they are in like minded company. If those who oppose their views are the majority they disappear fairly quickly (so if you strayed onto their territory - no matter how articulate you are they would swarm over you like a school of piranhas).

If Frank is sincere in his promise to issue such an invitation, and they do come, try to keep it civil, because when you use emotive language they think they are getting a rise out of you, and are more likely to continue.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Why the insults, Frank? I thought you were supposed to be superior, somehow.

What insult? I told the truth; you support the state party line on diversity don't you?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Frank

What insult? I told the truth; you support the state party line on diversity don't you?

I don't have the slightest idea. I've never really bothered to find out what the "state party's" (not sure who they are) line is. I came up with my views based on my moral beliefs and experience. As I learn new things, I review and revise my perspectives.

Very sheep-like, huh?

[daisym]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I know that the intention of this forum is the free exchange of ideas. However, there are also explicit rules about the deliberate baiting of other members.

There are a few posters here who are consistently using racist language, clearly with the intent of insulting and baiting other members. This is clearly against the rules, and rightfully so - these threads are nothing but bickering and insults from both sides, and bringing down the level of the board.

IMHO, it is time to end this. Ideally, the staff would step in and draw a line. To stop the racist language and the baiting that it clearly represents is not a suppression of speech (which is already limited here). It is removing a source of anger and conflict that is doing serious harm to these forums.

If the staff won't stop it, then I plead with my fellow forum-goers: please stop responding to these threads and these comments. Put the members on ignore if you have to. We, despite our political differences, can come together and agree that the value of this forum far outweighs our need to respond.

Let's preserve this forum as a place to (mostly) civilly discuss issues.

Thank you for your time.

I fully support what you are saying.

I have tended to respond less to these threads after my own disgust with the way they began to dominate the forum several months ago, but it is hard when people come up with the most offensive statements about entire peoples based on skin colour.

I agree that people should have the right to free speech, and so I don't think people should be banned from expressing their views, however we do have to realize that if we don't want this stuff to be the major focus of this forum, our participation in these threads is something we need to consider.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by daisym

probably not. however last time he invited them they didn't last all that long. he invited a few others who held opposing views to 'liven things up' I think it was, but they argued with each other.

That was a bad decision on my part; neither side showed much value.

At that time I had been arguing with frank for pages on multiculturalism in australia (at the time he claimed to be Australian and to know something about the issue).

You caught me; I am secretly a Bantu from Zululand who worships Whitey.

My putting Frank on ignore dates from this time. The WN mates included an Australian equivalent of BG - who I think was banned. The others were more in the same vein as 'Truth'.

He is back actually...

Most of these people can only argue effectively if they are in like minded company.

I think that I have done pretty good; I made those Australian communists so angry that they smeared me on their website with a pack of lies that even made me laugh.

If Frank is sincere in his promise to issue such an invitation, and they do come, try to keep it civil, because when you use emotive language they think they are getting a rise out of you, and are more likely to continue.

Since people like Steve are above the rules; I doubt that they were last long. He would attack them, they would likely respond in kind and they would get the warning points.

I will likely back down on inviting them here...

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

I don't have the slightest idea. I've never really bothered to find out what the "state party's" (not sure who they are) line is. I came up with my views based on my moral beliefs and experience. As I learn new things, I review and revise my perspectives.

Very sheep-like, huh?

So you do not base your beliefs on history, statistical patterns or science but simple personal morality and subjective experiences?

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Frank

So you do not base your beliefs on history, statistical patterns or science but simple personal morality and subjective experiences?

Those would be part of those things that I learn.

You're good at picking nits, if nothing else.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by Frank

Since people like Steve are above the rules; I doubt that they were last long. He would attack them, they would likely respond in kind and they would get the warning points.

I will likely back down on inviting them here...

Nobody is "above the rules" here.

Matt

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Those would be part of those things that I learn.

You're good at picking nits, if nothing else.

I certainly do not know how statistics and history support the doctrines of diversity? You do believe in this "Diversity is our strength" garbage no?

[Frank]

Originally Posted by MattLarson

Nobody is "above the rules" here.

Matt

I stand by my opinion though I concede it is based on my own observations.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by Frank

I certainly do not know how statistics and history support the doctrines of diversity? You do believe in this "Diversity is our strength" garbage no?

You're asking me to generalize about something, and I'm not going to bite.

I do know of examples that demonstrate that what you might call "diversity" does create better results. Unfortunately, I don't have the studies with me, and you don't seem like you'll take me at my word.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by pramjockey

You're asking me to generalize about something, and I'm not going to bite.

I never asked you to "generalize" about anything but we can draw conclusions from statistics can't we?

I do know of examples that demonstrate that what you might call "diversity" does create better results. Unfortunately, I don't have the studies with me, and you don't seem like you'll take me at my word.

I am sure you can find individual examples while I can find collective disasters brought on my the consequences of diversity.

[pramjockey]

And, the "studies" you cite inevitably don't control for significant confounds, like poverty.