I won't be popular for saying this, but I'd like him to be asked [by the mods] to try and justify some of the nonsense he's spouting, just so we can get a better grasp of his fucked-up head. You cannot change what you do not comprehend.

jamest wrote:I won't be popular for saying this, but I'd like him to be asked [by the mods] to try and justify some of the nonsense he's spouting, just so we can get a better grasp of his fucked-up head.

I don't disagree with this idea at all James, its just that it would be a radical departure for the mods here to police conversations in such a way. I'm all for it, but it would increase mod workload.

Also in the case of G.I.A I don't think it would have much effect and if such a policy had been in place in the past, I suspect it would have just led to him being suspended and eventually banned a long time ago.

The Serpent wrote:As a person of mixed race does my "white DNA" counteract the supposed deleterious effects of my "Indian DNA?" What about my "Jewish DNA?" Where does one form of DNA end and the other start?

I think it just means you put curried gefilte fish in your jello salad instead of canned tuna.

In the instance of racism, I think that it's a good idea sometimes to allow the half-wits a stage to express themselves, so that the educated amongst us can explain to the lesser mortals amongst us exactly why thinking like that is utterly retarded. That way, racism is SHOWN to be fubar for everyone to see. The alternative - showing the half-wits the door - leaves their opinion uncontested and still with the potential to influence some people (thus perpetuating the bollocks).

jamest wrote:In the instance of racism, I think that it's a good idea sometimes to allow the half-wits a stage to express themselves, so that the educated amongst us can explain to the lesser mortals amongst us exactly why thinking like that is utterly retarded. That way, racism is SHOWN to be fubar for everyone to see. The alternative - showing the half-wits the door - leaves their opinion uncontested and still with the potential to influence some people (thus perpetuating the bollocks).

An alternative way of looking at it is this: These are people who have embraced ideas which are despicable. By feeling ostracized for holding those ideas, they are more likely to be motivated to change their minds while engaging with them will simply allow them to pretend that these continue to be ideas with enough merit to warrant defense.

I see it the same as dealing with a naughty child: Punishment can be a reward because the child gets attention for being a little shit. Withdrawal of attention becomes a very effective deterent for children who act out for attention- and we break fewer serving utensils. Withdrawal of attention and society from those who cling to these outmoded and inhumane belief constructs is probably more effective in the long term than giving them punitive attention.

jamest wrote:In the instance of racism, I think that it's a good idea sometimes to allow the half-wits a stage to express themselves, so that the educated amongst us can explain to the lesser mortals amongst us exactly why thinking like that is utterly retarded. That way, racism is SHOWN to be fubar for everyone to see. The alternative - showing the half-wits the door - leaves their opinion uncontested and still with the potential to influence some people (thus perpetuating the bollocks).

Just read http://www.rationalskepticism.org/anthr ... t5936.html

Enough talking with racists was done on here. It is getting boring after some time.

jamest wrote:In the instance of racism, I think that it's a good idea sometimes to allow the half-wits a stage to express themselves, so that the educated amongst us can explain to the lesser mortals amongst us exactly why thinking like that is utterly retarded. That way, racism is SHOWN to be fubar for everyone to see. The alternative - showing the half-wits the door - leaves their opinion uncontested and still with the potential to influence some people (thus perpetuating the bollocks).

How much of a stage for their hateful ideas do they need to be given though? It doesn't take very long to demolish their half-witted arguments and its not as if posters like G.I.A are actually interested in what anyone else has to say.

Nor is G.I.A saying anything new - so why does the ideas need a platform to be aired again and destroyed again? Its like listening to the half-baked arguments that get spewed forth on any number of topics time and time again, that undeservedly get a platform despite having been repeatedly gunned down in the past. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen the same anti-feminist, anti-evolution, anti-atheist, anti-science, anti-AGW P.R.A.T.T.S get trotted out across the web with the person behind the arguments operating under the delusion that the arguments deserve to be heard for the umpteenth fucking time.

There is nothing rational about allowing someone to spew out hateful views that have already been long consigned to the history books.

*edit*

And just because the person making the argument doesn't think that it hasn't been resolutely annihilated in the past isn't a justification for allowing the same bollocks argument to be made again. It just means that the person making the argument is a moron.

Most of the time it seems best just to chuck the fuckers out.

Even to the extent that the racist appeals to science or some other 'evidence' to try to rationalise their prejudice, it's quite possible to debunk their claims while also chucking them out.

To the extent that such claims are worth challenging, it would seem easy for someone to simply point at a lying and/or ignorant racist gobshite somewhere on the internet to enable their assertions to be discussed.
To me, there's no obvious need to tolerate such people here as members.

Fallible wrote:Yes, GIA's MO has ever been to whore the same idiot OP around the internet and then only minimally engage in the thread in question.

He should get some assistance to better be able to concentrate on engaging in the threads he starts:
Kick him out, the fewer fora he's in the more time is left to discuss the crap.

aliihsanasl wrote:Instead of claiming a superiority if he would just say " we're taking the animals, plants under the risk of extinction to protection, if there such a threat for white people, do you think she should protect them too" this is worth discussion, what do you think ?

Nah, there's no inherent qualities involved with being "white", not the least because the current conception of white is very new. As you noted, it's not necessarily skin color, it's where you're from. Being worried about your culture shifting rapidly as a result of large scale immigration and touting the superiority of "the white race" are very different things. One can lead into the other, though, if you try to justify resisting a cultural change to something like "My culture is objectively superior," rather than "Fuck you I like my culture because it's familiar and I fit into it well."

jamest wrote:I won't be popular for saying this, but I'd like him to be asked [by the mods] to try and justify some of the nonsense he's spouting, just so we can get a better grasp of his fucked-up head. You cannot change what you do not comprehend.

You need to read Stormfront if you really want to know why racists think the way they do. I've already had enough discussion with racists to know they all believe the same things for the same reasons. Namely: Fear, indoctrination, narrow experiences, and shallow thinking.

Everybody's dying.

jamest wrote:In the instance of racism, I think that it's a good idea sometimes to allow the half-wits a stage to express themselves, so that the educated amongst us can explain to the lesser mortals amongst us exactly why thinking like that is utterly retarded. That way, racism is SHOWN to be fubar for everyone to see. The alternative - showing the half-wits the door - leaves their opinion uncontested and still with the potential to influence some people (thus perpetuating the bollocks).

On a social wide scale I couldn't agree more. But I don't think such action is necessary (or even preferable) in this medium.

Sendraks wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:Instead of claiming a superiority if he would just say " we're taking the animals, plants under the risk of extinction to protection, if there such a threat for white people, do you think she should protect them too" this is worth discussion, what do you think ?

I'd suggest starting a different thread to discuss this and make it not about "white people" but about whether we should attempt to "preserve" certain genetic variants of homo-sapiens and why is skin colour an example of genetic variation we should be particularly concerned about.

Is skin colour even under threat? It seems as though the last hundred thousand years hasn't made much of a difference.

Teague wrote:Is skin colour even under threat? It seems as though the last hundred thousand years hasn't made much of a difference.

Even if it were, why is it so important to preserve it?

Its like getting all worked up tan dachshunds and black & tan dachshunds, where the latter colouration of dog is disappearing because the other is more popular or something. "Oh nooooo, we must save the black & tan one because of spurious aesthetic preferences!"

At Kiore & the mod team.

Hooray. Good riddance.

Sendraks wrote:

Teague wrote:Is skin colour even under threat? It seems as though the last hundred thousand years hasn't made much of a difference.

Even if it were, why is it so important to preserve it?

Its like getting all worked up tan dachshunds and black & tan dachshunds, where the latter colouration of dog is disappearing because the other is more popular or something. "Oh nooooo, we must save the black & tan one because of spurious aesthetic preferences!"

Exactly the point I made in my other post. Who cares what skin colour you are other than racists? There's nothing to preserve but who's to say you can even lose it - if we haven't lost it now....

There was that KKK guy who only 4 generations back his parents were black or his father was or something and he was white. Personally, I love the variations in people but then I like the way different ethnicity's look but as far as preserving anything why?

It's just another tool used by racists to scare people into thinking they'll wake up tomorrow and all of a sudden, 90% of people won't be white anymore!

I think this is what you're talking about Teague.

Teague wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

aliihsanasl wrote:Instead of claiming a superiority if he would just say " we're taking the animals, plants under the risk of extinction to protection, if there such a threat for white people, do you think she should protect them too" this is worth discussion, what do you think ?

I'd suggest starting a different thread to discuss this and make it not about "white people" but about whether we should attempt to "preserve" certain genetic variants of homo-sapiens and why is skin colour an example of genetic variation we should be particularly concerned about.

Is skin colour even under threat? It seems as though the last hundred thousand years hasn't made much of a difference.

I read a lot of times from Turkish newspapers that blond race is under threat and with that pace it will disappear from the earth.

I'm not dark skinned but I'm brunette although father/mother and grandparents have black hair and eye my great grandfather had blue eye and blond hair what I mean there is a tiny chance for my kids to be blond and this probability increases if my future wife has fair skin, blue eye.... But no matter how fair skin and blond someone is, if his/her partner is black there is no chance for their kids to be at least blue eyed and blond, right ?

Wouldn't that be threat for a fair skin society if they would like to preserve that outlook ? Think that in a small scale such as a few hundred thousand tiny society living on an island, what would happen in a few century if 50 thousand blacks move there ?

Please don't pull that to another side folks, such as "why they want to preserve it" or something like that.

I'm breeding canaries since childhood and I know if you don't be selective during that breeding process in time quality of breed ( no I don't believe colour or ethnic background of any person makes him superior than others ) drops. But simply mixing of races has consequences if you set rules to reach some goals in a society in my eye this makes that person racist. But rejecting this because of bad events that ideology caused in the history doesn't make sense to me.