Slashdot Mirror
UN Wants to Combat Online Racism
Ristoril writes "There's an article on Yahoo! News about the United Nations World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia, taking place in 2001. The goal is to get nations to start 'doing something' about racist propaganda on the Internet. While no specific policies are mentioned, I seriously doubt they're planning the sensible thing -- education." Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions?
anyone who thinks that they can change the way the internet works is a nazi
I want to see them proclaim that this is the only way, and that all their resources will be focused on it.
I can understand that it will be hard to coordinate something like this globally, but I would guess that the school systems are the best place to start. If children are educated by someone the believe and trust, they should then be able to sensibly ignore any propaganda they encounter out on the 'net.
this is a good idea and all, but just think of how power like this could be abused... it's obvious that it's infringing on your freedom, not that I'm condoning the nazi viewpoint, but what if they crack down on another group next, the KKK, let's say; can they really even do that? what after that? eventually even innocent groups and minorities and such could end up getting smacked down. I dunno, just a thought. it's too late to really think about this much past what I've said already. forgive the rambling.
Need you ask?
HINT: It starts with a "censor" and ends with a "ship".
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
I know a lot of you have the initial reaction that this is some effort to censor the Internet or prevent free speech... But I would imagine they are just trying to expand the current programs combating racism and bigotry to include the Internet.
Josh
Reciently reading a story about blackvoices.com somewhere, I remember finding myself writing a letter to the site creator. Don't get me wrong, but, pride is not the same as racism. I am glad that black people have pride in their soceity, much the same as white people, American Indians, Spanish, or any other ethnic group should. But, where should we be drawing the line? I personally feel that any group, be they white, black, or green for that matter, tha can publish a line of clothing called "Fo Us By Us (fubu)" and not get sued for racism is just plain wrong. Some of these web sites are also more then just pride. They go into mud slinging, name calling, and other vulgarities that are more tearing the world apart rather then bring it closer together, which ultimatly was the goal of the internet, right?
-PhaseBurn Welcome to Linux country. On quiet nights, you can hear windows reboot.
I honestly don't like it. But the way I see things, there's no way it's gonna be stopped, and you honestly can't change the way a person thinks. It's just one of those few things you can't take from a person.
For example would you ban the SAT.org? It clearly "advocates", hell it helps, "the forced separation" (try to get into Harvard with a 400 on the SAT, please) of a group "based on ... mental prowess". If you want the feature to turn off hate sites - do that. Go to a human based web site search engine, like Yahoo and ask them. Let the "community standard" (standard used in obscenity cases be applied. If you don't trust the community, you can't trust the standard. You trust Yahoo's definitions now why stop.
.xxx point I think you are right, however. Porn can easily be defined under law. It already is. I would be all in favor of it.
In the
Lastly, I would remind you that you made the choice to come on the Internet, and that is where your choice resides.
Nate Custer
"The poet presents his thoughts festively, on the carriage of rhythm; usually because they could not walk" Nietzsche
I agree entirely. Censorship of racist material is just as horrible as censorship of any belief or idea. People have the right to be bitches, and they have the right to vocalize their arguments, no matter how misguided.
Laws against censorship are mostly not there for the protection of the common belief; the ideas of the majority don't _need_ protecting. It is beliefs of the minority, the unpopular, often hated, often horrible and stupid beliefs, that need to be protected the most.
Oh, and, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do is a really, really great book. Peter McWilliams is so incredibly cool. You can read the book's text online at Peter McWilliam's website, which is contained in the above sig.
>Do they have a right to harm another's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the
other rights proclaimed by the founders of the US?
No, they don't have that right but they do it anyway. Do you think having to put up with burning crosses in your front lawn is the same is having the right to the pursuit of happiness? What about having slurs shouted at you on a daily basis? How does being limited on where you can live, eat, etc. equal having the right to life and liberty? Let's face it, the bigots all want to deny their victims their rights and it's very difficult to *not* want to teach them a lesson.
>If someone were to start the National Association for the Advancement of White People
Why would you want to create an organization for a group of people who obviously don't need 'advancement'? Do you honestly think that White people are experiencing the same type of discrimination that Blacks and others experience? I don't, judging from the employment rate, standard of living, etc.
>Do proclaimed minorities have greater rights than the "white male majority?"
Have you talked to someone who is involved with the non-profit organizations? They'll tell you that they just want to get the same benefits that their White counterparts get. Now, if you were to talk to a bigot, then you'd hear the supremicist drivel.
>Is is worse to kill someone because they're black than it is to kill someone because they parked in the 7th parking space from the left of the center of the parking lot?
If the intent is at ethnic intimidation, then yes, because the crime is targeted at a whole group of people, as in "this is gonna be you" or "you're next".
>Is it appropriate to hire a less qualified minority rather than hire a better qualified white male?
This is a WAY overuse example. Bigots *would* want you to believe this, but the reality is that equal skills equals equal employment opportunities. Affirmative Action is meant to get people to overlook gender, race, ethnicity in matters such as employment, education, etc.
>When it comes down to it, words are just words.
Yeah, and threats are just violent words.
In case you're wondering why I've dissected your arguements, the reason is that I've heard the same arguments come out of the mouths of those who think that we can just 'start on a clean slate' where histories of discrimination can simply be ignored. Hey, if we do this, then I guess we can start saying that the Holocaust was nothing but mass murder rather than genocide.
"Racists are redneck fuck-faces"....the term "redneck" is racist as it refers to white Southern farmers (they work out in the sun, thus their necks are red). Are you saying that (A) all racists are white Southern farmers, or (B) all white Southern farmers are racists? Regardless, this is another good excuse for the UN to set up some commission staffed with corrupt 3rd World clowns that will waste (read "steal") as much money as possible and blame it all on the West.
How pathetic.
I think you have every right to spew your racism, but it's just sad that your life seems to revolve around it.
I used to work at the VA hospital when I was in college and I used to wonder what all the mentally handicapped people there were like when they were kids; what kind of people did they want to be before they were struck down by a mental disease...
What did you want to grow up to be when you were a kid? I bet it wasn't a salivating racist.
duh.
slashodt is full of pro-socialist propaganada: anything from jonkatz, sengan, emmett, etc.
it's just very subtle.
What about Israel? There is a state that is based racial exclusion. Only Jews are allowed to immigrate to Israel, the definition of a Jew being someone born of a Jewish mother. Converts to the Jewish religion are sometimes allowed in after scrutiny. But anyone who can prove they are a racial Jew -- i.e. born of a Jewish mother -- is allowed entry via the "right of return". For the racial Jew, it matters not if their religion is Atheist, Orthodox, Reform, Christian, Communist, whatever. All racial Jews are guaranteed to immigrate to Israel. Non-Jews are refused. So if we go by commonly accepted definitions, Israel is a racist state by offical governement policy. When was the last time you saw a boatload of Chinese or Mexicans landing in Israel?
Whatever happened to diversity? Diversity of opinion is just as important as any other kind of diversity.
If this diversity of thought includes thoughts that are anti-diviverse (eg. racism) then it is unacceptable.
It's like saying murder should be allowed cause everyone should be free to do what ever the hell they want. Sure racism doesn't (usually) directly cause the death of someone, but it indirectly causes the death of a global society, progress and humanity.
There are and should be limits to freedom of thought. Thought can be more destructive sometimes than the act - thought usually leads to the act too, and it should be discouraged.
A Stealth Bomber isn't made to fly by metal and fuel, and that's not the way man walked on the moon either. It's Biochemistry which produces such wonders. A product of biology, of race.
William Shockley (who co-invented the transistor, for my fellow geeks) believed the same thing and lectured about it at Stanford university until his death. Darwin, Galton, C.G. Jung, and many others also to name a few. These men were not stupid. Rather, they were not hindered by a society which produces a knee-jerk reaction to hearing the word "racist."
The culture in which we live is influenced in almost every way by the television. My organization, the National Alliance, would argue that this television dreamworld in which race doesn't matter/exist isn't a reality, and never has been. History shows us that.
To find out why the UN pushes for such policies, I recommend that anyone interested have a look at our site. Its available at:
http://www.natall.com/
And don't bother with the moronic and thoughtless "He's a Nazi! This guy's a Nazi!" comments, try thinking for yourself for once.
Wrong. There is never, ever, ever a valid reason to hate someone. You might disagree, or oppose them, or even violently oppose them because they rely on violence. But you must never allow yourself to hate.
I didn't say that it was a valid reason or that hate was a good thing. What I DID say was that when you begin banning opinions and have state sanctioned discrimination, you give someone a reason to hate. Frank Smith, who is an extremely qualified white guy looking for a promotion, didn't get it because it went to, in his mind, some nigger who doesn't have half the knowledge and skill that he does. The system was just racist towards Frank because he didn't meet some artificial racial quota designated by the state. Is Frank supposed to feel happy that he was rejected for someone less qualified because he doesn't have the right skin color? Wouldn't it be natural for him to blame his hatred on the fact that the guy/girl who got the job was black? Now Frank posts a website claiming his disgust... should he be sanctioned for promoting hate and racism on a website? If he is, would it not fuel his hatred even more? I'm not a racist and I'm sure you're not either... but how would you feel if you were that guy?
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
The French have a nice concept for that called "incitation a la haine raciale" (inticement to racial hatred). Basically, if your "speech" advocates violent acts against people from particular ethnic group, you can be prosecuted. When you think about it, these laws don't do much more than extend anti-libel laws and anti-threat laws when directed toward groups of people rather than individuals. Their impact on the reduction of free speech is minimal, but very well targeted.
Many French people, and many more Germans, remember how Hitler got himself elected *legally* by manipulating the public opinion with demagogic discourse. While everybody cherishes free speech, noone wants that to happen again, even if the price is a small dent in the freedom of speech.
- Anonicous Moward
"Fortunately for all of us, racism and hate-filled speech is looked down upon by most people in this age." Wrongo. Maybe in the US and Western Europe it is, but it certainly isn't in the rest of the world. It tends to be part of the national culture/identity virtually everywhere. I suggest you take a trip through Africa, Central/South America and Asia and THEN tell us about racism....if you're white you've got an education in store. (Please tell us what happens to the children of mixed marriges in Japan/Korea/China)
you are a moron, never open your mouth again
OK, for the record, I AM NOT rascist (At least not that I know of)! I look at this completely from a standpoint of the Internet and the Internet being one of our last freedoms.
OK. What does it mean that we are allowing the governments of the world to be able to come together and be able to regulate what is on the internet? It means that we are takeing what freedom is made posible though the internet away. I dont want this to happen, and I am sure you don't either. It's the cammels nose under the tent! What we need is an association, like the American Rifle Association, that can go in, and picket/petition/whatever is necessary to get our views out to the world! To 90% of the world, regulating Raceism on teh internet is a good idea. But the people who are REALLY involved (Us) are the ones being hurt by this legislation. The other people could care less, they don't understand what is going on. Here is an anology for you, to show you what is going on. The UN (Not just the US Congress, or the UK Parliment) get together, and descide that guns are bad (Which a lot of you probably think are.. But that is besides the point). They descide that they should take ALL the guns away, from all citizens of the world! OK, now to the people that don't have guns this is no big deal, they don't have any guns, they don't care to have any, and it makes them feel just a little better knowing that anyone could have a gun. But their are the bad people that have guns. They don't like this one bit, they go and hide their guns, stockpile them even, thus they still have guns (Probably more than they would without this new legislation). Now, their are the people that have guns, and like to go out and shoot for recreation. They enjoy shooting for the challenge of it (Shooting is a challenge, believe it or not.. And it takes skill) They pack some lunch, take their family out to the desert, and go shooting, having some quality family time. These people hear about the new legislation, WANT to keep their guns (because hey, it's good cheap recreation). Now what was accomplshed by this scenero? The people that don't know any better feel a little safer, the people that were bad just stockpiled more bad stuff, and the people that were using somthing for good just lost somthing that they enjoyed. This is similar to what is going on with the racism on the internet. We ALL know regulating this would be impossible but it would just lead to more legislation! The gun legislation started out small, no automatic weapons without a permit, etc. Regulating racism on the net is like saying no automatics, good idea to most, but it's the cammels nose in the tent.
I don't want to see racism as much as the next guy. But I REALLY don't want to see the internet regulted to heack, and our last ounce of freedom, and creativity to be taken away from us! I do not want the Internet to be taken away from me.. I will become a criminal in this cyber world if that ever happens. I refuse to give up this freedom that I have on the net. The 'Underground' would become HUGE, freedom would still reign, but only with work. We don't need regulation, we need de regulation! Let the 'Community' take care of the problems. THAT is how things will get accomplished on the net. The community has the power, and it will never lose it.
((Sorry if I get a bit long, and strayed from the point a bit.. But I feel this is important. And I want you people to see why I think it is important, and why it really matters!))
"I couldn't give him (Bill Gates) advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology." Linus Torvalds
the term "redneck" is racist as it refers to white Southern farmers
Funny thing that. The biggest "redneck" I know is black and lives in Detroit. I guess racist words (like most things) have very little to do with actual race anymore.
Off topic question: What, exactly, is the biological definition of "race"? Is there one?
---
Vote for someone the companies don't want you to hear about! Alan Keyes in 2000!
You know what sucks, in high school my PSAT scores qualified me to be elligible for something from the United Negro College fund...too bad they found out I was White, and made me drop out. Whats up with that?
What's funny about this story is that it would never have happened if there had been more foresight on the part of the creators of DNS. (The problems are obvious now, but may not have been so when the system was created.)
There should have been, and should be, requirements for registration of a name. The usual examples:
To register sld.com, sld must be a form of your company name or a trademarked product name. This tld is restricted to legally recognized businesses. (Jurisdictions are another problem here.)
To register sld.org, sld must be a form of the name of a recognized non-profit organization.
edu, gov, mil are handled in the obvious way.
sld.net is only for those not falling into the aforementioned tld's.
I used to think (1994) that this was actually the way things were run, until I learned of the peta.org dispute. It seems a fairly intuitive scheme to me, but there's probably many problems I'm overlooking. (And I haven't read the relevant RFC's either, sorry.) One of the possible problems might be resolved this way:
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. But it is his personally, not that of a business or NPO. Therefore only he may register linux.net, and linux.com and linux.org will not exist, unless he transfers (or licenses somehow?) the trademark to a business or NPO or creates one himself.
Another example:
There is no business/NPO/trademark/product/etc called slashdot. Therefor there will be no slashdot.com/slashdot.org/slashdot.net. If someone should register that as a trademark/servicemark/etc then he may create slashdot.net. If he incorporates/entrusts/etc then slashdot.com or slashdot.org may be registered accordingly.
(The IP lawyers would love this, I'm sure. They'd get more clients, but less courtroom arguments. It would be good for a notary public, too.)
Since this scheme was/is not used, I find myself siding with 'cybersquatters' in most cases. In that regard, I think 'speculation' is a more apt description than 'squatting'. (Though I often doubt that, and haven't taken the time to think it through. Hey, I graduate B.S. Physics soon; I'm kinda preoccupied.)
"I may disagree vehemently with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."
The main difference between a website and a newspaper or other form of broadcast journalism is that a website isn't delivered to your doorway. You have to visit. I'm sure there are tons and tons of websites that I would not particularily enjoy reading out there, and fortunately I don't know where any of them are. -ScoreWhore
This isn't threatening anyone, but expressing an opinion about the state of French society. But this is illegal. That, my friend, is exactly what is disgusting about your system.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
You make yourself a slave otherwise. Comfortable? Perhaps. Just wait until your grandchildren look nothing like you. Then think again.
There are ways to combat ignorance without outlawing peoples freedom of speach and right to their own opinions. Unfortunately they aren't not as effective. But they are only tools we can and should use. That is education. and if that doesn't work then you just are going to have to learn to agree to disagree. The way I look at it there are several constants in the world and one of them is hate. Unfortunately you make people live along side eachother in peace but you cannot expect them to treat eachother as brothers. What was that, that slickwilly said tonite in his speach.. Ahh yes ... scientific fact.. all humans no matter race or creed or ethniticty are genetically 99.5% identical. So what happened with that last .5% to make a few minor external differences cause people to hate eachother and not trust one another.
Yeah, tell me about it. Can you imagine any of the TV networks broadcasting public service adverts for the "United White College Fund". Hah. Whites are subject to more racism than any other group in America. Too many of our people sit back and quietly take the abuse. It is high time for white people to stand together for our race.
You know, im getting really tired of people playing the race card, again, im not some gun touting nazi, but its ok for a black person to say they are fighting for their rights but when a white person spouts their rights, its called racism, again.. Flame away.. (too little time to waste on posts, sorry for not going into detail about my blah blah blah Beliefs..)
I have better things to worry about..
-Snarto..
Slash Wha?
The NAAWP already exists: http://www.naawp.org/
No, they don't have that right but they do it anyway. Do you think having to put up with burning crosses in your front lawn is the same is having the right to the pursuit of happiness?
We're talking words... not physical action. If they burn a cross on your property, they're trespassing and harassing you... Both are punishable under the law as a violation of your rights.
Why would you want to create an organization for a group of people who obviously don't need 'advancement'? Do you honestly think that White people are experiencing the same type of discrimination that Blacks and others experience? I don't, judging from the employment rate, standard of living, etc.
There are more poor white people than blacks. The assumption is otherwise due to their relative percentages but in sheer numbers it's different. Why should the son of a black lawyer have favoritism that the son of a white garbage man can't get?
Have you talked to someone who is involved with the non-profit organizations?
You mean like the race-baiter, Jesse Jackson's, Rainbow Coalition that extorts large companies into hiring blacks or else face his wrath?
If the intent is at ethnic intimidation, then yes, because the crime is targeted at a whole group of people, as in "this is gonna be you" or "you're next".
So, if someone murders multiple people who park in the 7th parking space from the left of center, he's not intimidating a group of people from parking in that space? A crime is a crime REGARDLESS of motivation. Nobody should have greater importance simply because they meet some artificial criteria.
Affirmative Action is meant to get people to overlook gender, race, ethnicity in matters such as employment, education, etc
Is this why _I've personally_ seen people hired to meet quotas?
Yeah, and threats are just violent words.
Ask the police... if someone threatens you, their hands are tied until an actual crime is committed. In cases of repeated threat, it IS a crime... called herassment.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
[ Warning: Off topic ] Don't forget .church and .religion. Various endevours in the past (v-chip, CDA, CDA-II, PICT, etc.) all attempt to classify a very specific group of categories, things like violence, nudity, sexuality, language, etc. The v-chip is legally mandated to exist in all new TVs to come onto the market. The cost of doing this is being passed onto the consumer. As a non-parent I don't feel too excited about paying for a feature I don't want. When I do become a parent I don't think that it is appropriate that people other than myself decide which types of influences can be filtered for my children. It should be perfectly reasonable, for example, for me to not want my child to watch Sunday morning evangelical shows. Or Sesame Street for that matter.
Think about it. Who gains?
For the curious: http://www.natall.com/
And don't bother with the "He's a Nazi! This guy's a Nazi!" comments. Think for yourself. It's far more complicated than that.
They, like the poor in financial terms, will always be with us. Those too poor in spirit or poor in intellect to appreciate the magic of an intelligence a humanity that does not look like us.
We search the skies and science for intelligence, artificial or alien, while there are those who fear and loathe our own exotic intelligences right here on Earth.
To make them glamorous through paying them all this attention and making them forbidden, taboo, dangerous and thus elite is begging for them to gain favour.
Ignore them, they won't go away, but like the proverbial tar baby, engaging them is more trouble than it's worth. All our opposition only serves to validate their message.
My view of the developments here is that racism is merely a symptom. The society has gotten tougher. It is no longer obvious in the minds of the young, that things are going to be "ever better and better". Wether people today actually *are* worse off than, lets say, 20 years ago is not the point. Among large groups of society, there is a general atmosphere of hopelessness, that leads to short sightedness.
This is of course a perfect breeding ground for extremist groups. Not only Neo-Nazis, but also extreme-left groups, anarchists, violent vegetarians(!) and so on.
With our rather leftish tradition (in the 70's left was right and right was evil) an extreme right attitude is a fool proof way to get some shock value. Thus, neo-nazis attracts the "I hate my parents and the society" types. Also we might not have dealt with our actions (or rather non-actions) in WWII properly. Many people were pro-german (but not necessarily pro-nazi, often rather anti-soviet) in the early war. Later governments has been trying to cover up that fact, and as usual, exposed government cover-ups is an easy way to plant an attitude of "Dont believe anything from the authorities" attitude.
This said, there is a reason why the internet racists use Sweden as a platform.
We have a very strong freedom of speech law and tradition. (remember, this is the country that made the Co$ papers a public record...) This combined with our high rate of internet usage makes it easy to maintain a racist site here.
Of course there are laws regarding this. They generally say that you may not agitate against any group of people. The courts also tends to take crimes with racist motives more seriously than others.
The racists are smart, however (well, some of them)
The don't say "Kill the blacks/arabs/gays", but "Arm yourselves for self defence"
They don't say "Throw them out", but "regulate immigration"
They don't say "Foreigners are inferior", but "They are overrepresentated in the [something bad]-statistics"
Enough with this rant. My opinion is that official censorship won't solve anything. There are always ways around that.
Education is always good. Actions agains social injusticies too. The main thing (and here comes a cliche) is that the good people never give up.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I am a concerned conservative mother. For many years I have stood by helplessly and watched as my children's minds were polluted by garbage from the internet. Finally, a law is coming into existence that will allow parents such as myself to raise their children properly!
I cannot wait to see what doors this opens for other child-safe internet legislation! Imagine the internet without nudity, violence, hate, fear, heavy music, or dennis rodman.
-Sincerely,
overly protective, ignorant, close-minded, fear-filled, fat-ass, middle-aged, under-fucked, housewife with too much goddam time on her fucking hands
P.S. if anyone wants to know some good basket-weaving sites, mail me at mary22d@hotmail.com!
>If that's the case, then why does Affirmative Action continue to make distinctions based on race?
Maybe because you choose to focus on that distinction. I hope you know that women benefit THE MOST from Affirmative Action and even then they don't get paid nearly as much as their male counterparts.
>Nothing makes me happier than knowing I've earned something through my superior skills and not because I'm black. Even considering my race is an insult to my abilities as an engineer. I think with my brain, not my skin. When I got my current job, I had other offers. I chose Verio not because of the benefits, options, or salary (definately not the salary), but because there was no line marked "race" on the application.
Nothing makes me happier than knowing that I got my job because of my skills as well, but the fact is that my employer *may* have hired me because I'm White, that I'm paid more than my Black friends for the same job because of my skin colour. The problem is with the employers, not you or me.
oops...just because i reply'd to a white power post without flaming them, doesnt mean i agree with all that racist BS.
>I'm not familiar with some of these books, but I think that instead of suggesting that the books be
censored, they should have posted comments on amazon.com going something like this: "This is a perfect example of a racist book, complete with flawed reasoing. Highly recommended for those interested in history.
I'm familiar with these books (no, I'm not a racist, just very well informed) and they're very anti-Semitic and white-supremicist drivel. I don't believe removing these books is a good idea, considering that offering these books *CAN* be useful. How, you ask? Easy. Anyone who has seen the movie "Seven" will remember that the FBI supposedly keeps track of people who borrow certain 'tagged' books from public libraries. If the FBI does do this in RL, then they could have Amazon and other book sellers keep such similar logs (I know, it's Big Brother again) and report them to the FBI as well as the Southern Poverty Center.
Egalitarianism is the notion that everyone deserves equal rights, not that everyone will produce equal accomplishments. We already know we have both geniuses and dunces; it's just a few loons out there who think they can tell the difference just by looking at 'em.
I *hate* racism. But that statement in itself may even be wrong. I'm hating a group of people who express a certain opinion or have a certain characteristic.
Education. That's fine, but look around you. How much education is there already? In schools, all the way up from first to 12th, you have special events, dates and holidays specifically to "increase awareness."
Some of us get tired of it all. I really don't care if you have light skin, dark skin, purple hair, what your gender is, what your sexual orientation is, or anything like that.
Now I realize that not everyone agrees with me. I realize there will always be people who take the opposite view. They won't care how often you say it's wrong, and they will find ways to preach regardless of the measures you take.
Don't make people so sick of this "affirmative action" that you start losing people to the other side.
And that's all I have to say.
-NobodyImportant
"No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted."
-Aesop
Or worse, that there must be something substantial in those ideas, or they wouldn't have to be suppressed.
If it weren't so stupid, it wouldn't be wrong.
Apparently, the idea of drug legalization is so abhorrent to the UN and so obviously criminal that anyone who suggests it should be punished. Write a book supporting it? The UN wants your head. A politician realizing how corrupt and pointless this 'war on drugs' is with the guts to tell others the truth? The UN thinks they should be quiet... or go to jail.
You may not agree with this position. Fine. But any decent human being will realize that criminal penalties based on political beliefs and speech is blatantly unfair and a violation of freedom of speech. Background information can be found at this site (information on UN anti-drug laws) and here (more important; a direct look at the censorious SOBs of the UN).
Ofcourse the average genetic differences between black and white people are are quite often less than the differences between 2 people of the same race.
And Tigers and Lions do share a similar genetic path, but they are different species because their offsprings are sterile.
The differences between difference human races are so small that healthy babies arise from mixed relationships.
Now, I don't actually know the net, so could someone please clarify
whether the following strategy would work practically:
When a group decides that it doesn't like a site, bombard it with constant requests & reloads.
Wouldn't that max out the server, and prevent anyone else from being able to view the web pages at anything but a snails-pace?
The reason you say that is because you have never heard real hip-hop music. You only have heard the MTV commercial gangsta shit. Real hip-hop is poetry in motion. It consits of 4 elements. Graffti Breakdancing Turntablism Writing Lyrics/Rapping Lyrics Wisdom with a bad touch, incision pain plus that botched the operation and denied insurance claim from it Overfiendish, twenty cock to shoot out fuck your mind before that morning cup of ovaltine shit El Producto, C.F. born to break shit down and replace it with fortified vitamins that you can lick right off the vinyl Little Leaguer, my phonics is on some clearly ironic shit like hittin pick six on the day of the apocalypse Took the hard road to blaze a trail like yeast infection in urethras, just to match crabs try to bite my style, fail Diss me on the internet like picket line crossin Teamsters Scabs that's realy down with hip hop only if convenient -El-Producto End to End Burners Here are some links to REAL hip-hop music labels http://www.anticon.com http://www.rawkus.com
Why doesn't somebody get a
>Regardless, this is another good excuse for the UN to set up some commission staffed with corrupt 3rd World clowns that will waste (read "steal") as much money as possible and blame it all on the West.
My, my, my, aren't you being horribly prejudiced by calling 3rd World representatives "corrupt clowns that will waste (read "steal") as much money as possible and blame it all on the West"?
Anyway, I belive the word "redneck" currently refers to rural people instead, and having been born 'rural', I think you 'city slickers' are the ones who need to be educated.
Thanks for covering this story on Slashdot. I know some will claim this is not "news for nerds", but inclusion of stories, such as this one, show an increasing maturity in this service.
Thank you.
"He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither."
Um. No. I don't have the time to pick apart your arguments one at a time, so I'll just pick the most blatant falsehood:
Affirmative Action is meant to get people to overlook gender, race, ethnicity in matters such as employment, education, etc.
If that's the case, then why does Affirmative Action continue to make distinctions based on race?
Nothing makes me happier than knowing I've earned something through my superior skills and not because I'm black. Even considering my race is an insult to my abilities as an engineer. I think with my brain, not my skin. When I got my current job, I had other offers. I chose Verio not because of the benefits, options, or salary (definately not the salary), but because there was no line marked "race" on the application.
---
All people are the same color on the internet. That way their true stupidity can shine through without interference from preconceived ideas.
I'M TOO SHORT BABY! I DON'T STOP MACKIN'! TOO SHORT RULZ! HE IS THA KING OF RAP!!
First off, someone moderate this whole ./ topic as -5 flamebait I've developed a real thick skin for this kind of nonsense, but I'll reply as calm as can be attainable given the material my brain has been marred with here from this, of course, Anonymous Coward. Okay, so there is no white history month. And, I suppose White settlers were taken here to the US in Chains and sold on auction blocks to serve a malevolent employer for no pay and no recourse of action against his oppressors. Furthermore, up until even the early 60s there was segregation of "coloreds" and whites. I don't care how long ago it was, but reparation comes manifold, and the "month" is just a token of the acknowledgement that, though the "other" does nothing to harm your precious fair-skinned hide, you've pretty much handed them a raw deal (and just as you obviously will not be swayed by any kind of rational thought contrary to your own severely pre-judged beliefs, I will not submit to any of your revisionist history, so don't give me any of your "historical accuracy" pablum). Secondly, if you want a stamp, petition the USPS, but I don't see how a "white heritage" stamp series will somehow uplift a race who has systematically enslaved and uprooted entire peoples. Who do you propose to be the first inductee? Nathan Bedford Forest? George Wallace?Your boy David Duke? Or perhaps Hitler is more up your alley? Those URLs do not preach anything but a divisionist society where our great nation is ghettoized based on arbitrary physical differences. That, simply put, is the most retarded crock of dog shit I've ever read in my life and are the rantings of a Self-HATING white apologist. Where is the pride if you can only project it to your OWN race? Unicentricity is so 50 years ago. Wake up, white man/woman/gutter trash, you've had your chance to shine in the sun (which oh so burns your fair skinned features), just face up to the fact that you will be eclipsed simply because nature, as a complex/chaos-embracing system of actions, NEEDS diversity in order to evolve. Sticking to an outmoded dogma only serves to hinder progress. Just continue to ignore me. Soon you'll leave this site to only go back to your "fear of a black planet" mind-melting masturbatory propaganda. >:^D "How do you know your that your heroes weren't unforgiveable bastards?"
How about a new moderation category; "Offensive".
If I have a fight with a coloured person I am likely to call them a nigger or black bastard, in the heat of the moment. If I have a fight with a Jewish person I am likely to call them a yid. Some would call this racism but they do not understand what racism is. In a fight the objective is to hurt the opponent any way you can and insulting them is very affective. Racism is about treating negatively, according to their race. Outside the conflict situation I would not do that.
Before dealing with racism it is important to think about what racism is and where you are dealing with it. If you go into every chat room and block anyone that calls someone a nigger you have missed the whole point and that would be a racist action as it allows one section of the community to abuse another but one section is not allowed to abuse another. There is a danger of becoming racist against the majority.
Having said that I do think that as in all walks of life there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed, hopefully rationally.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
why would we need "white history month".. i mean we were a bunch of uninvited slave owners that took over another cultures country with the idea that "all men are created equal" .. how hypocritical is that?? i mean what are you going to put on that white history stamp, a klansman? for gods sake man, realize that racist white people's ignorant ass ideas have been bending-black people over and violating them for decades, and we need to give them some respect and recognition. i don't however, agree with taking down so called racist websites, a censor is somebody who knows more than he thinks you should. the "Destruction of the White Culture" is not what the UN is about, hell, theres allot of white people in the un.. and whats wrong with racial diversity anyway? i agree w/Warren Beaty when he said "Everybody should f@$k everyone else until were all the same color" that really would solve allot of problems and end this debate.. anyway, i'm white and my girlfriend is black so i'm familiar with this topic.. Screw the Klan! :)
k lan.com/
check this one out:
http://www.2600.com/hacked_pages/1999/08/www.kk
=====you said=====
Precisely. The destruction of White culture is part of the ongoing agenda of the UN and Clintonistas. For example we have "black history month" but they won't let us have "white history month". The message is clear--only Negro history matters. Another example is the US Postal Service. Today they announced the "Black Heritage" series of postage stamps. Excuse me, but why isn't there a "White Heritage" postage stamp series too. Massive non-white immigration into predominately white nations is an ongoing genocide against the White Race. This is because the real minority group is the White Race which only accounts for about 10% of the world population. 90% of the world is non-white and it is important that to maintain real diversity that we protect the White Race.
>I shouldn't respond to someone cowardess enough to call me a bigot and not use his name but...
I didn't call you a bigot. If you read closely, I never referred you as one. Anyway, posting as an AC ensures that people don't harrass me while posting on Slashdot.
>We're talking words... not physical action. If they burn a cross on your property, they're trespassing and harassing you... Both are punishable under the law as a violation of your rights.
Yes, punishable if law enforcement actually catched the people responsible. Until then..
>There are more poor white people than blacks. The assumption is otherwise due to their relative percentages but in sheer numbers it's different. Why should the son of a black lawyer have favoritism that the son of a white garbage man can't get?
Yes, percentages do give incorrect impressions because of differing population. Of course, I don't see why the son of a black lawyer should have favoritism that the son of a white garbage man can't get, but during interviews with potential employers, skin colour *can* affect the impression of the employer. I hate discrimination in all shapes and sizes but not all feel the same as I do.
>You mean like the race-baiter, Jesse Jackson's, Rainbow Coalition that extorts large companies into hiring blacks or else face his wrath?
I see you've been watching the O'Reilly Report. No, I don't mean Jackson. If I were to name specific others, I doubt you'd know who they are because they don't get the spotlight as Jackson does.
>So, if someone murders multiple people who park in the 7th parking space from the left of center, he's not intimidating a group of people from parking in that space? A crime is a crime REGARDLESS of motivation. Nobody should have greater importance simply because they meet some artificial criteria.
Hey, what I ment before was that someone who murders someone else because the victim is black, then it is ethnic intimidation. Just as if someone murders someone else for the sake that the victim is white. As for the parking lot issue, people can choose *not* to park there, but people can't choose not to be this ethnicity/race or that one.
>Is this why _I've personally_ seen people hired to meet quotas?
That's because Affirmative Action has detracted from it's original intent. That's why some of us want to change it.
>Ask the police... if someone threatens you, their hands are tied until an actual crime is committed. In cases of repeated threat, it IS a crime... called herassment.
It's called harassment if it's directly targeted at you and if there is proof (witnesses, etc.). Even then, it's up to the police to investigate it (remember, if the LAPD actually did something about OJ, his wife and Goldberg would still be alive).
Keep in mind, this plan does not prohibit such speech in any way.
This is presumptive in that it would indeed prevent the right to be heard, which is why most people make a webpage or post anything on the net to begin with. Somebody, somewhere, will always be able to apply your definition of hate speech to anything said that they disagree with to relegate it to a pre-supposed hate catagory. In other words, they'll silence you by finding a way to shove you into the hate domain, thus keeping you out of the main channels of communication.
In the same vein, a "xxx" domain is likely to fail in that the only sites that will use it will be the ones that already use some form of age verification to prevent access. IMO, the xxx domain will be used once again to supress disliked speech or images by groups that can't handle (gasp!) the thought that other people might have different points of view on love and/or sexual relationships than they do, or believe that any image of an unclad human body is pornographic.
Sure, there are more or less clear cut cases of hate speech or porn out there, but there are a lot of grey areas that stand to get the axe depending upon who is wielding that axe. I can usually tune out what I don't care to hear on my own. I just don't want to see wholesale regulation on the Internet, even if it "seems" to be objective.
I hold the "Chomskyian" view on this: "If you don't beleive in freedom of speech for those you despise, then you don't beleive in it at all." -Noam Chomsky
They do it because we notice they do it? That's not an answer. The fact remains that people who don't hire based on race risk severe penalties, and if anything we're further away from a color-blind society.
No surprise there- women as a class far outnumber men from racial minorities in the US. If a woman calls in sick or unavailable or gives her career a lower priority than men she works with, she really is less valuable to their employer; this skews the stats if it's as common as many think, though I'd hope it's becoming less so.
Yeah, as if you're black.
The Simon Weisenthal Center has a problem - their mission is finished. Their original purpose was to locate old Nazis from WWII and have them punished. But over time, the old Nazis died off or were too geriatric to get excited about. Like other charities that outlived their usefulness, they looked for a new mission. The mission they ended up with was the manufacture and sale of guilt. They now have a chain of Holocaust museums and various relatedproduct lines. It's become an industry, like the Vietnam POW/MIA thing. To keep the contributions flowing in, they have to keep trying to make Americans feel guilty. Part of this is inflating the neo-Nazi threat.
At least in the U.S., the neo-Nazi movement has always been a joke. Back in the '60s we had George Lincoln Rockwell and his American Nazi Party. That went nowhere. And none of its successors have advanced beyond the tiny-bunch-of-jerks level.
If you'd like to see a site the Weisenthal Center has tried to shut down, see Stormfront. This is a spinoff of the Klu Klux Klan, not a neo-Nazi site. The Klan's idea of White Power excludes Jews, so the ADL and the Weisenthal Center went after Stormfront, which increased Stormfront's visibility substantially. There's a mutually supportive relationship between the extremist groups at both ends of the spectrum - they need each other to have someone to hate. Nobody else cares much.
You do realise the British National Party are usually referred to by some as the British Nazi Party? Amongst their many racist policies is the explusion of all non-white people from the UK, including those born here. Even as "just a white guy", I've been subjected to harrassment and propaganda from BNP-loving thugs in the past because I've, shock horror, got non-white or gay friends. The sooner racism is stamped out, be it from anyone irrespective of race or culture the better - censorship isn't the way, though.
Well, if that is the case, I suppose the Chinese are the most "biochemically superior" race because of their groundbreaking developments of just about every technological advancement in human history: Gunpowder, the abacus, world exploration (despite the painfully eurocentric revisionist history in high school textbooks), fine cloth, medicine, etc. Hurts a little more when we have to talk about the Chinese in such a congratulatory way, doesn't it, "brother"? Notice, of course, how you conveniently decide to use "man walking on the moon" as a great advancement in human development, but not getting into space in the first place as one (USSR). So, you're an isolationist as well as an inept apologist for your race. How quaint. Please kindly regard that, in no way shape or form, am I calling you racist or a Nazi. No that would be the pot calling the kettle honkey. Finally, there is a distinction between flightless bipeds, but that distinction on a microbiotic level is merely cosmetic in nature. The cell structure, blood, RH, and even DNA is mirror-images in most regards. The Human Genome project is about to wrap up their work mapping, so please, decode it and show me the plethora of difference that makes one race more adept at building a stealth bomber than another (btw, a black and an Asian American also co-developed the jet propulsion system so that Apollo could safely jettison back to earth. But I'm sure in your fathomless knowledge, you already knew that. I suppose in the "various races" there are exceptions to the rule, right? >:^D "Smile, you've still got your pride"
You do realise the British National Party are usually referred to by some as the British Nazi Party? Amongst their many racist policies is the explusion of all non-white people from the UK, including those born here.
Even as "just a white guy", I've been subjected to harrassment and propaganda from BNP-loving thugs in the past because I've, shock horror, got non-white or gay friends.
The sooner racism is stamped out, be it from anyone irrespective of race or culture the better - censorship isn't the way, though.
The majority of Swedes I met were lovely people: I must stress that before I go on.
One night, we were settled in a campsite, when in the distance we heard shouting. It turned out to be a mob of skinheads wearing swastica badges, marching a circuit around the site, shouting "Sieg Heil". I've never seen anything like that before or since.
... so yes, maybe there are problems in Sweden (bloody nice place though. If you ever get the chance to visit Stokholm, do).
My views on censorship start to waver when it homes to hate sites, because unlike porn, they do offend me. It's important to keep your head straight at times like these, and realise that what you said about "not being forced to look at porn" still applies here.
--
Cor, what is it with Slashdot at the moment? This is the second comment in as many days from someone with virulently anti-semitic views. They're only hinted at here ("Think about it. Who gains?"), but it's all in its full purulent glory at natall.com
A minor aside: has anyone else noticed that virtually the only place you see antiquated expressions like "if you will" is in missives from bigots? Do they think it makes them sound clever?
Infotech, I wanted to ask you: how many human races are there? How are they distinguished? Can it be done consistently? How does within-group variation compare to between-group variation? What are the implications of this? Do you understand that malleability of characteristics is not the same thing as heritability of characteristics? Do you understand the implications of this?
Simon actually asked those bookstores to deny people access to these works which are currently offered? Wow. Talk about being a hypocrite.
http://www.natall.com/
Actually, this is the system that is used in Australia. In order to gain a site in the .au domain, you must provide adequate cause for registering the domain (it must be a trademark, tradename or business name).
I guess thats the advantage of being later on the bandwagon.
As the God fearing among us know, the UN is the vessel of the Anti-Christ, that's why should be wary of this. To-day, the KKK, to-morrow, the Christian Church? ;-)You never know...
Censorship isn't automaticly a bad thing it's just usually a bad thing. Censorship of censorship for example is some times a nessisary evil.
By censorship of censorship I mean dealing with psudo communications/noise that interfears with other peoples speach for example the "First post" stuff we get on slashdot.. this noise drowns out anyone who accually has something to say.
Thoughtcrime however is the idea of censoring speach to supprese an idea or a thought. That thought dose NOT get supressed and continues to fester underground with seathing hate that searches out socitys rejects.
If we outlaw the color blue... some will dream up some sort of conspericy behind it and live out there days in blue walls...
Of course outlawing a color is silly just as outlawing ideas....
Socity as a whole has rejected the notions of racism but it's still there. Supression is no way to combat it... but supression is the most populare tactic today.
Instead we should take our kids and point to them and say "Thies guys are bad" explain whats wrong with rejecting a people based on color and teach them to deal with the person as they are not as they look.
Apperence is importent but only in so far as we have control over it. Cloaths, make up, etc are within a persons control ( Not 'latest fads' just not 'tacky' unless of course tacky IS latest fad and then it's ok..) but things we don't control (skin, gender, hair, eyes) do not speak of the person. Even disabilitys.. the disability dosn't speak of the person the mastory over it however speaks volumes...
Teaching kids to value people as individuals not as groups. A person should be seen as a group only if that person puts themselfs in that group. A person not of a "hive mind" should not be so reguarded.
Also teaching the child to be aware of stereotyping... even with reguard to "hive mind" groups.. A stereotype almost never conforms to reality and exists as a handy mem for people who do not wish to think.
Even within a hive people are.. to some degree.. individuals... out of a hive of 10 you will find each dosn't totaly conform in one way or annother.
Isolation breads ignorence, fear and... yes... racism...
Thoughtcrime is just the idea that you can criminalise a thought... the most you can do is censore it.. and that only makes things worse...
I don't actually exist.
I dunno why someone tried to moderate this down and mark it as flamebait. That is exactly what this argument is about: CENSORSHIP. Using power to quell unpopular ideas. I do not believe this post is flamebait. I believe censorship is an abuse of power and erodes the integral right of all citizens, free speech.
:) One thing I do know for sure: Racism doesn't make sense to Open Minded people. The sooner you figure that out, that better off you will be.
This "flamebait" is topical and is in no way inflamatory other than that it is posted by someone associated with unpopular beliefs.
My Flameless Reply:
Infotech, clearly there is some cohesion in the elite of society, they obviously share a common culture (among many other things). You blame this systemic self-interest on some silly racial nonsense when in fact it's mainly a class issue. Through flaws in The System, corporations (ie The Rich and Ultra Rich of the upper class) have come to dominate society, destroy democracy, rape the planet, erode freedoms, etc. That is my opinion, it's possible I am wrong, maybe The Corporations are right, Money is god and all humans are greedy
I've just taken a look at the site and already I can see fatal flaws in just two of the arguments stated there. If you can't see through it, you deserve all you get.
I will say this; I am a European, specifically a British national. I know the basis of the European expansion in what that site calls "spiritually healthier times". South Africa, Australia, and North America are mentioned. Think who was there before the arrival of europeans? Who was disposessed? why were they dispossed?
Do you know anything at all about European history? If you did, you wouldn't subscribe to a point of view which replaces mis-directed greed, disrespect and hatred with "natural selection".
I agree with just one thing you said; "Think for yourself".
Sounds to me like you need to start doing that for yourself.
To register sld.com, sld must be a form of your company name or a trademarked product name.
.AU domain space is controlled. You can't get a .com.au unless you have a company with that name (or a derivative of it :). You can't get a .org.au unless you're a non-profit organisation.
:) However, it does present problems. The people arranging the New Bruce Sports Stadium in Canberra (capital of Australia) had to get newbruce.com because they didn't have a company name like "New Bruce", etc.
.au Domain Administration pages for information about the group that's hoping to take over control of the AU domain.
This is how the
Quite handy for limiting cybersquatting, etc (note: it doesn't get rid of it, not by a long shot
As with anything, it has its good points and its bad points. Check out the
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
Excellent submission - Couldn't agree more ! Racism is prejudice. 'Pre - judice ' - before judgement. It is not rational. It based on ignorance, a lack of information, and a lack of desire to seek information. My own personal dream for the internet is that it will destroy racism. It will increase communication, make the world smaller. It will make it easier for me to understand someone elses culture. I can talk to them, read some sites on their religion or beliefs, and even if I don't agree, at least I know a bit more about where they are coming from. I can make a judgement based on information, rather than employing the 'default' prejudice mode. Our children will grow up in this environment. There is great hope in that. You don't treat a disease by hiding it from view. By repressing freedom of speech on the Internet, the UN will drive recism further underground. It will entrench prejudices further. P.S. I once saw the British National Party (our local racist/facists in the UK) demonstrating. Apart from a few sad old boys wearing campaign ribbons, there were about thirty skin-heads. The thing that scared me most was the realisation that this meant that somewhere nearby, a pack of thirty Rottweilers must be on the loose .....
Stephen Hawking has written another book. It's about time as well.
Damn, how casually you assume that people who have 'wrong' ideas should be tracked down and busted. These are IDEAS that are being spread. If they spread, there must be some reason. Even if they are patently false and malicious, we should look at what influences make a person susceptible to racist beleifs. Gee, maybe we could even address gov't policies that drive people to hide out in Idaho with a cache of weapons...We spend plenty of time thought and money trying to explain away, justify or rationalize the destructive and pathological "culture" of blacks in the inner city, why doesn't anyone exhibit any curiosity as to what we,as a society (it IS, after all, always Societys' fault, right?), are doing to drive people to adopt these hateful beliefs? These ideas may be spread by whackos, but if they are attractive to anyone...WHY?
I have some ideas, but they don't pass the PC test, or the sensitivity test, or some other fscing "thoughtcrime" test, so I refrain.
Dr.G
"Who are the Brain Police?" -F. Zappa
To believe in the childish notion that every featherless biped is equal to every other such animal is a little oversimplistic. Think a little harder.
Darwin, Galton, Shockley, Hitler.
Wiesenthal, Foxman, Redstone, Eisner.
Who benefits from all this, and has since the end of the second world war?
http://www.natall.com/ (if you have somewhat of an open mind.)
Not necessarily, no, but it is the UN itself which tries to promote the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), article 19 of which says:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Note the part about "imparting information and ideas through any media": The UN, if it attempted to actually remove speech that it found offensive, would be violating it's own UDHR.
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
- 'K' in Men in Black.
Can you explain why you put communists in with pedophiles, sexists, and criminals?
I am sincerely hoping that you meant "speech" wherever you just said "thought". Otherwise, this appears to be a justification of the concept of thoughtcrime, instead of just an argument in favor of censorship.
The arguments for / against censorship are being endlessly rehashed elsewhere, so I won't deal with them here (except to note that censorship is a diversity-limiting concept -- and if you except it on the grounds that it protects diversity -- do you censor anti-censorship speech on the grounds that it's anti-diversity? Seems awfully hypocritical to me.)
But if there's one thing that I will not let you do, it is tell me what I can and cannot think. Let's examine some of this for a second:
It's like saying murder should be allowed cause everyone should be free to do what ever the hell they want.
Um, no. It's actually not at all like that. It's like saying I should be allowed to (for example) feel like killing you for posting this. Sure, feeling like that would be incredibly unreasonable. But as long as I don't act on it, are you arguing that I should be penalized for that? If I should, why? Should Spock be the only person not in violation of your law?
racism doesn't (usually) directly cause the death of someone, but it indirectly causes the death of a global society, progress and humanity.
What would you propose doing about it? About anti-diverse speech? About anti-diverse thought? And would your solution to anti-diverse thought really be any better than what it replaces. (What exactly is anti-diverse thought? Who decides? Also see my questions about censorship above.)
Thought can be more destructive sometimes than the act - thought usually leads to the act too, and it should be discouraged.
Great. Punish me if I don't have enough self-control to avoid committing the act -- but if I just think about it, what then? If it's an irrational thought, you should have educated me beforehand about the (dis|ad)vantages of thinking that way. But once I've had the thought? Therapy? But why therapy me if I didn't act on it? I haven't hurt anyone. Well, ok, it might have led me to hurt someone. Sure, and my choosing to drive to the store instead of walk there also made me more likely to hit a pedestrian on the way. Do I get punished for that? (Ok, ok, call the analogy police. But it's no worse than your murder analogy.)
Basically, punishing (or attempting to therapy) people for basically unverifiable potentials for causing others what may or may not be considered harm based on who's deciding, which society should have educated them against anyway, and when they had enough self-control not to actually carry anything out and hurt anyone is not a successful foundation for any sort of legal system.
Is there anything obviously wrong with this? Let me know.
Maybe so, but if it'll halve the number of intolerants each generation, I'd be happy nonetheless. But it's not only education that's needed, example is the other side of the same coin: as long as racist politicians can, without counterspeech and -action, freely spew their rotten hearts, others will see that and think: "Oh, it's ok then to think and act like that."
Freedom of speech is a right, that implies responsability. If you can't handle the responsability by advocating lies and promoting hatred, there is justification to limit your speech of freedom. This is why over here in the Netherlands, racism in word or act is forbidden by law. And, believe me, that is a Good Thing: Racism can thereby be actively battled, if not eradicated. We do not want another A. Hitler over here, with reason, for the masses will follow charisma, despite misgivings about some of the ideas. And if you don't believe that, just look at any elections. Nincompoops like Reagan can be elected president of the USA, and even Dane Quayl could have been president. And I'm just commenting on their mental ability, not their ideas.
But to recap: yes, education will help fight intolerance and racism, but it needs to be accompanied by example.
Stefan.
Only in our dreams are we free. The rest of the time we need wages.
--Terry Pratchett in "Wyrd Sisters".
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
most people here do not want censorship. including me. What CAN be done is to simply attack blatantly false information. You claim blacks are not human? simple to debunk. Blacks and "Humans" produce fertile ofspring (well... if they want to) so they must be the same species. Just attack a racist with what hurts most... the truth.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
It's so easy to post something without considering the consequences. Consider the Beanie nominations here on slashdot. (link not provided due to lack of respect to those who did not read it at the time(and lazyness on my part)) It turned into a stupidass America sucks vs. America rules argument. What a waste of bandwidth. You have your opinions and I have mine. Let's just keep it that way before anymore AC's make asses of the nationalities they claim to represent.
It is an intresting subpoint here..
Communism really has nothing to do with censorship.. It can fit within any government and once within that government begins rotting it to the core.
I'm very capitalist BTW but I can see capitalists valuing censorship as much as any communist.
But with a handy mem in place.. a stereotype as stronge as any racist idea.. he becomes conserned that having communicated his ideas may lable him as a communist and make him elegable for his own "thought crime"...
Hence the very core of the problem... With a small slip it is easy to trip from censoring racism to censoring diversity...
Racism is a very bad thing... but lets say I rant long and hard against ebonics.. (due to my spelling a rant from me on ebonics is the pot calling the kettle black) Am I being racist? I think not. It's an act of a hive mind and not an accual race thing as any race can use or not use ebonics. There is a REASON it's localised to a group that is race related.. But growing up in the area is itself is all it takes... Any race may aply.
There is so much to challange... Maybe I don't like the tactics of a civil rights leader.. If I speak out agains one of his ideas on protecting the civil rights of a given race dose that make me racist or mearly a politician?
If I don't like the UN and speak out on a tactic they use to combat racism dose that make be racist?
Hay I might just be some random idiot who is just making excuses for attacking people or organisations... or I might have some valid points.. Or I might be a racist... Who is to be the judge?
You see the problem... we have no Spock to look over and deside with no emotion.. with no easy mems.. with pure logic...
I don't actually exist.
Anything short of banning the internet completely will never stop discussion that evolves on it, regardless of whether it's about pansies or xenaphobia. That's point number one.
Point number two: people have a right to free speech. Even trying to stop racist discussion on the internet constitutes, in my mind, stifling of free speech, which is one thing that the internet can guarantee to everyone.
KILL WHITEY Y'ALL
Let's start with something simple. Give some examples of "anti-white racism" and "liberal hypocrisy" that have any real detrimental effects on the lives of white people generally.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
As can I. But we must make it clear to them that it is not the solution to fight an evil (Naziism) with another evil (censorship).
Hosting for Creators: http://rpg-works.net
The best --indeed the only-- remedy, for bad speech is more speech. To permit government to make sanctions on any person for expressing their ideas is simply to cede away the most fundamental of human rights.
The ideas of facism, particularly, pose no meaningful threat -- the bigoted nonsense espoused by modern neo-nazis, transparently false in its own right, is highly inconsistent and easily disproved on its face.
Whether there is such a thing as a "dangerous" idea, neo-nazism is not one of them -- truth is likley to prevail unless we permit the surrender of freedom and free speech, and a neo-nazi propagandist takes control thereafter. Only by stunting the marketplace of ideas can such ideas become meaningful threats to society.
It is not these ideas of these idiots that threatens civil society, it is these proposed solutions that would deprive me of my freedoms.
Dissing the King
See how effective that is? It tears apart the lies posted on the site and shows the dangers of Nazi's hiding their ideology behind a benevolent guise.
Incidentally, when Nazi's do thing like this, how will a censorship campaign hurt them? The whole point of this exercise was for the Nazi's to fool people into thinking this was a legitimate Web site. What a censorship campaign will do will just make sites like this more prevalent, because the racist thugs who would rather be open with their racism will have to resort to similar tactics.
Oh please note that this site contains forged documents that were originally created by our own FBI, back when Hoover was trying to get Martin Luther King to commit suicide. I still don't understand how giving power to government, which is what helped create a man like J. Edgar Hoover, is going to help prevent racism from flourishing.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Hmmm.
If the UN setup a crack-commando unit to take out everyone that racist remarks were made against, then there would be no more racism. And it might even help towards reducing the global population a little, solving all sorts of problems in the meantime....!
two thoughts come to mind here...
under what circumstances is any government trustworthy?
if schools analyzed propoganda carefully, they'd have a mighty difficult time teaching any other subjects...with a straight face, anyway.
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
Every political act of evil is a historical deception. The Japanese government still officially refuses to recognize Nanjing 1937. Spreading good historical research is the best weapon against any supra/racial nationalist rot. I saw some actual photographs taken by a family friend at Dachua during it's liberation. Picking up the photo that showed hundreds of stack up bodies was very chilling and very real. It's weird to see the heads of hundreds lined up in black and white photos in the Chinese account of the Rape of Nanjing. It's also weird how Japanese engineers make cute Aibos and Japanese artists make Pokemon but they people still live their history in a vacuum-- mostly fantasy. Let's make an Aibo that speaks Japanese/English and just repeats the first hand accounts of the survivors of Nanjing. In fact, make this historical record a chip that must be installed on all Aibos at the port of entry before the US can import them. Let's ask the Japanese government why not? Obviously, guilt doesn't make good business. History is no fun-- there isn't any money in it just histrionics.
Communists /= Nazis
Missing semi-colon.
Type mismatch.
Marvellous. Bigotry and ignorance in a single post. They got there because they were *encouraged* to immigrate to do low-paid work in the 1950s. And you know what? I can't think of a single white Brit I know who'd prefer having you in the country to having them.
Regarding the United Nations World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia in 2001, all that is said is that the conference is occurring, and that "a key objective of this seminar would be to prepare recommendations on international actions to counter racism on the Internet."
It feels to me like Ristoril (the poster on slashdot) is putting strong bias on the issue by declaring "While no specific policies are mentioned, I seriously doubt they're planning the sensible thing -- education." The history of intolerance is littered with anger, violence and wars starting from people making unsubstantiated claims (the Jews sacrifice children, the Romany are thieves, the Americans rape your women..)
I agree with you, education is the best way forward. But back up your supposition with some facts, Ristoril.
Look at their first member:
Dr. Robert DeMarais Professor of Business Arkansas Technical University, Russellville, AR
I'm in the National Alliance because I'm sick of what's being done to our schools and our young people. I want an America where young men and women can learn and live in a White environment.
These are the words of scared white people who are unable to adapt. They probably grew up in an environment where most (all?) of their closest associates (family, friends, whatever) were white. The only part of other cultures that they can see is the bad part.
Racism is based on ignorance. If you thoroughly investigate, you find that EVERY race is comprised of people who are generally good, generally bad, and somewhere in-between.
It really is nice to just "bump into" another one on the net once in a while. Thanks for the post.
... who thinks it's not a bad idea to get these idiots off the net?
Course, here in Canada, we have Hate Crime Legislation - you can be charged for spreading literature, or other propaganda that targets a race or group.
That's why Rev. Phelps did not have an easy time of it here.
When the whole "I will defend to the death your right to say it" thing was said, I don't think anyone had jerks who picket funerals in mind. Or, as we have in Toronto, a heavily fortified house containing one of the primary producers of Neo-Nazi literature in Canada.
I -refuse- to defend someone's right to picket a funeral, or to state that all the world's problems are caused by group X - immigrants, Jews, Gays and Lesbians, whatever.
Think about it for a second. Would you really give up your life to defend these people's right to speak?
I didn't think so.
-Noiz,
Who's way uppity first thing in the morning. Must be the tea.
---------
---------
I'd kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
So where is the NAAAP? Why can't we have a National Association for the Advancement of All People? That's a group I want to join.
Oops. After a quick check, I see that the NAAAP does exist, and it's the National Association of Asian American Professionals. So maybe we should call the group I want to join the NAAP (National Association for the Advancement of People). Nope, that's the National Association for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis. Surely there must exist an acronym that hasn't already been taken.
Finally, you've realized the importance of a firm opinion. We need someone like you in our schools. Mainly to show children that change is NOT possible. As you said, most people cannot see through their own prejudice.
---- Do not go gently into that good night -----
True, the U.S. indiscriminately and criminally interned thousands of Americans with Japanese ancestry who in general endured great hardship and the loss of jobs, property, and dignity.
But comparing that to the mass-production murder factories of Auschwitz and Dachau is the fitting post of an Anonymous Coward.
Sweden does have it's problems. Like any country that is faced with a fall in wealth (from the top to the bottom of the OECD in 25 years), and large social shifts from an extremely homogenus population to one of Europes most culturally diverse (of course, I believe this to be a good thing), we have our fair share of both segregation and bitterness.
However, the Swedish neo-Nazi threat is actually overhyped by a somewhat manic Swedish press and media. Most Swedes are very open by nature, and unlike many other European countries (Denmark, Austria, Italy) there is no extreme right party even close to reaching the parlament here. Even whispering something xenophobic in public is political suicide among the vast majority here, something which is obviously far from the case in a lot of other places.
If anything, our problem is not the widespread adoption of hatred, but inability of our legal system to do deal with criminal elements that gravitate toward this sort of behaviour in any country. The number of neo-Nazis in Sweden is probably no more than in the hundreds, and they are almost all criminal to begin with and would be in prison on other charges if the Swedish police and courts were even remotely doing their jobs.
-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.
You make a post like that and then you say that we're deranged? (Says infotech, salivating like mad...)
The true implications of this attempt are quite chilling to me.
Hah hah.
Snap! snap! snap! suck! suck! suck! Poor Malda.
I think that it is a bit like politicians talking about pedophiles on the internet. There are just not many racist sites on the internet and I don't think it's worth spending our energy over that. Everyday racism is infinitely bigger and worst.
One reason why there is not so much racism on the Web might be that racists tend to have an IQ that is so low that they don't even know how to use a mouse!
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
Personally I think this is the way to go. Don't use "hate speech" laws to combat racism. Make it possible to start a class action lawsuit for slander. If a Nazi group or KKK says, "The Holocaust is a Jewish conspiracy, which is being put forward by Jews", start a class action lawsuit. It's slander - take these guys to the cleaners. Garnish any income these organizations get until they pay the damages. If they publish more lies, sue them again. Shut them up for telling lies with the same laws that apply to everyone.
It has other positive side effects: If organizations like the DVD CCA says "DeCSS is only usable for piracy", once you've proved they are wrong you countersue them for slander on behalf of all DeCSS users. Hurt them for their frivolous lawsuit and SLANDER.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
So you're saying I can't cross a Collie with a German Shepard?
see http://hatewatch.org
one better than mcleodeight
I AM A RACIST!!! KILL ALL THE HUMANS!!!
If you voted for Nader, THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT!!
Immigration - Le départ des immigrés du tiers monde
Etablir dans tous les domaines la préférence nationale et européenne. (Logement, emploi, aide sociale).
Expulsion immédiate de tous les immigrés en situation irrégulière, contrôle très sévère de la filière des réfugiés politiques.
Réduction de la durée du permis de séjour à 1 an et départ des immigrés extra-européens à l'expiration du délai.
Suppression de toute acquisition de la nationalité française et réforme du code de la nationalité selon le "droit du sang".
Poursuite pénales sévères contre les organisateurs et utilisateurs de filières de travailleurs clandestins.
Pour en savoir plus : le programme complet
I wonder if you hold Syria responsible for the continued occupation and oppression of Lebenon.
The thing that kills me about people like you is your transparent hate for anything israeli and all things western and your willingness to turn a blind eye to the actions of truely evil people like Hafiz Asad and Saddam Hussien.
I suggest you take a trip through Africa, Central/South America and Asia and THEN tell us about racism....if you're white you've got an education in store. (Please tell us what happens to the children of mixed marriges in Japan/Korea/China)
Eh, hate to disapoint you but the people in those places you mentioned (the ones who are racist) usually consist of a very small minority voice. As for the children issue, think of it this way. Most mixed marriges there consist of the mother being asian, and thus they think the children aren't "one of them". In the west, yes, because the father is "one of them" (I think the fact that the children go by their dad's last name has something to do with this). The last time that I know that the father is Asian in a western family is probably Bruce Lee, but that doesn't really count since he died "myteriously" (makes for good conspiracies, you know) and his son Brandon was accidentally killed (by a prop gun loaded w/ live ammo) during the filming of "The Crow".
This does not bother me nor, I would venture, the majority of my fellow Australians - at least, to my knowledge, those in my age group. As a nation, we share a core set of common values and these do not including the "freedom" to spout vile hatred and bigotry - as this is a form of oppression of the target of the hate.
I'm proud to be an Australian and proud to be a member of a nation that stands up for certain community values. A country full of people who are complete individuals and who do not share common values does not a nation make.
-t. (err, is creating an account hard?)
Actually, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights DON'T just exist in the USA, that is, if you really believe what our forefathers did. They believed that those rights are God given unalienable rights, and they can not be taken away, even if the BOR was changed.
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
By this statement you imply that all bigots are female.
Perhaps the use of the word "them" or even "him/her" would have been more in keeping with the rest of your statement.
That said, I agree that ignoring the bigots is the best policy.
Words only gain power when someone allows themselves to be victimized by them.
Sakhmet.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
Ban the Nukes! Save the Whales! Screw it. Nuke the Whales!
I wish these dill-weeds would get a dictionary and learn the difference between "racism" and "bigotry". You can pass a law that makes racial discrimination in hiring illegal. You can't pass a law to make someone not believe something inside their head. While legislation might slow racism it has ZERO impact on bigotry ... I guess the NEXT step is a wet wire implanted in all our brains so the World Government can control everything we think or do. Because you know, they know MUCH better than us what we should and shouldn't be thinking. Right?
I am from a rural country in the 3rd world....how about yourself? Oh yeah, I'll be more than happy to match my degrees (notice the plural) against yours any day of the week.
'New' does not mean there's been only one before. It DOES mean that, hey, there's a new one, as opposed to all the ones that are/were already here. Or even that there hasn't been anything like it before...
The definition of race is quite malleable. We all know this. We could say that the basic categories of caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid and australoid exist, and would be quite accurate (but for bone struture only). But the problem is that variations of each of these races exist, as do combinations of them. This creates a hazy line between one and another. I know this. Every biologist knows this. Still, it does not compromise my position.
Races are distinguished by the frequency with which alleles manifest themselves in the phenotype. That is, what is "expressed" by ones genes. For example: Can blue eyes be said to be a chracteristic of the Aryan, or European, race if while 30% of it's population expresses that trait, .0001% of the Negroe race expresses the same? Of course you can. Even though there might be more differences within races than between them, that isn't important.
While variation exists within groups, the important thing to remember is the average difference. Perhaps this is an inflammatory example (Sorry if it is). If a population of 1 million nerps (fictional creatures) exist and 80 % of them have an IQ of >100, but a few of them are extremely dull, and have an IQ of Surely it can be said that they differ from a population of 1 million perns, 80 % of which have an IQ of 110.
This can therefore be considered a racial characteristic.
(That should answer your within group variation question as well)
The most consistent way to classify races is by bone structure. In itself, this is a far more complicated area than simple eye color, but the idea is the same. Caucasians are not entirely white. Caucasians include Indians, Arabs and other Semitic peoples as well. Further analysis includes blood characteristics (Arabs and Semites are prone to getting sickle-cell anemia because of these differences, but the remaining Caucasians do not), and other methods. But the most efficient way is by appearance. The majority of characteristics which mark the differences between the races are summed up fairly accurately this way.
Yes, I understand the implications of this. Basically, it is my position that we should use our biological resources to improve the quality of humans born onto this earth, much the same as those who want to eradicate genetic diseases. That is the implication.
National Socialism is the application of the laws of nature to politics. Sorry if there are any typos, but I'm quite pressed for time today.
Yeah.
They can go fuck themselves.
And if they don't like that, then they can do whatever the hell they feel like doing, but they aren't going to get me like Winston.
They can't tell me how to think. I can and will be wrong if i feel like it.
They cannot make me go into the night drooling and crying at the sight of BB like they did Winston. Winston should have killed himself. Winston was a puss. He gave up the most important thing of all - freedom of his own mind.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
as sick as it may be, I believe in everyoine's right to speak freely, whether it is about their love of science, study of serial killers or "racial superiority". through freedom of speech , we as people of the world can communicate who we are and define ourselves ad distict and individual members of our communities instead of faceless, voiceless automatons puling a 9 to 5 grind. if certain people choose to use this power of communication to tell others of how much they hate X group of others, then that is their right as an individual. it is also withing my power to base my opinion of that person based on his/her statements and deal with them accordingly from that point on. so when I now see the babblings of a narrow minded biggot splattered before my eyes or falling upon my ears, I can either ignore it as a passive individual, or excersise my right as an individual and speak out against the slurs of another, informing all of those present of my point of view, which they may see as baseless as the biggot's very own. the point of this is not to protect the right of people to preach their hatred or attempt to persuade others to follow their path, but to allow for all people to excersise the right to communicate freely without the fog of censorship effectively stealing our voices. Let people speak. let people write. if you choke exression in one form, and the message behind it is strong enough, it will simply break free in a different manner. a message of hate that does not die, will build within the minds of the censored and likey release itself in a much more violent manner than words on a page, or men on a new york street corner preaching about evil to any passerby. also, when we allow others to spew out their messages of narrow minded bigotry to the world, they clearly identify themselves to those who do not share those views and let their words and statements paint themselves as wells of hatred not to be ignored, pitied or forgotten, but watched. *forrest gump voice* and that's all I have to say about that *end forrest gump voice*
Um, no. It's actually not at all like that. It's like saying I should be allowed to (for example) feel like killing you for posting this. Sure, feeling like that would be incredibly unreasonable. But as long as I don't act on it, are you arguing that I should be penalized for that? If I should, why? Should Spock be the only person not in violation of your law?
Nah, it's more like being penalized for publicly encouraging people to kill me for making that post. Eg. cigarette advertising on tv is illegal, but it isn't illegal to advertise killing .
This may or may not apply to the internet, I'll leave that up to the UN.
What would you propose doing about it? About anti-diverse speech? About anti-diverse thought? And would your solution to anti-diverse thought really be any better than what it replaces. (What exactly is anti-diverse thought? Who decides? Also see my questions about censorship above.)
Advocating racism is advocating anti-diversity. Um, I have nothing to propose to prevent this. Ofcourse people would question whether it's right to prevent people from wanting to act be racists.
Yes, I suppose I did mean "speech" instead of "thought" considering we really can't monitor someone's thought in the first place
It's really a changing position for me, sometimes I think, hrm stopping people from being able to encourage 'XXX' would be good, but then would the action of doing that be just as bad. But then, in a 'diverse' society it's never going to work if you let everyone do and say and encourage whatever they want. It sounds horrifically undemocratic etc etc but humans aren't perfect, and no system (society) is ever going to be perfect for humans.
You don't think the goverment would try to stop certain 'groups' which could destroy society?
Ofcourse, saying ANYTHING that remotely sounds like limiting someone's ability to do or say anything in the US is akin to being communist, so I gotta be careful
What you are referring to are the Russian Jews -- racial Jews -- who once lived in the former Soviet Union (you may remember the slogan "Save Soviet Jewry"). Nothing special here, in fact you prove the point. The Russian Jews who by "right of return" are settling in Israel, are mostly pork eating atheists. They share neither the religion or customs of religious Jews, but they are allowed into Israel by their racial birthright, having been born of a Jewish mother. That is racially sufficient under Israeli law.
I don't see how anything on the Internet can be labeled as Propaganda.
Defenition of Propaganda:
Systematically distributed material which advocates a point of view, or information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a point of view
And it only works if it's a major source of information for large groups of people. While on the internet you are free to chose what you read. Nobody is telling you what to think.
This is completely wrong. Non-Jews aren't refused; it is that all Jews are *guaranteed*. For your information, the criteria used to determine who is a Jew for the purposes of immigration at present are derived from the criteria used by the Nazis, which are not *not* NOT the same as the religious criteria. If the Nazis would have murdered someone for Jewish blood, then Israel offers them a refugee. If this gets up your nose, too bad, frankly.
Given the right psychological conditioning. Much like we have with the political climate of today in humans. Aryan + Negroe = Mulatto. The equation is the same. You argument is not valid.
Should free speech be allowed for people who advocate the removal of free speech from others?
this is all about freedom of speech, we all have the power to vote with our browsers...
we can go and read, or not read what these people have to say...
we can all go and flame the webmasters, or flame their discussion groups or complain to their service providers...
we have the right to choose who we host on our free/nonprofessional sites and what to say on our websites...
I think it's an ok thing for there to be a thousand neo-nazi sites, and it is the perrogative of those of us who think differently to point out why these lines of reasoning are wrong...
to completely squealch any speech type in the public forum is unjust (but this does not include squealching speech in a specific forum)
300 million huh? That's a lot. I wonder how many of each other they killed off over the prior thousand years? Or is that ok because they're not white males?
One World? One thought? in order to dominate- regulate! People are people we all have the abilty to cheat, steal, lie and murder!!! Until EVERYONE can get it into their head (and heart) that they are NO better than the next guy you will not change the hearts and minds of man! Having a group of people who think that if you don`t CONFORM then some how they have the right (for the better of man) to do whatever it takes to change THOUGHT and BEHAVIOR, is the beginnig of the end of freedom for all mankind!!! cashless society=control.... world government=slavery
Condemned.org
Heh, you reminded me of this link. These guys here apparently do hack into and shut down pedofilia-type web pages and there is some debate as to whether their tactics are legal or not.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." - William James (1842-1910)
A similar list of Bosnian crimes would qualify the Serbian leadership as evil, too. And how about Indonesia's oppression of the East Timorese?
What worries me is that the Chinese (Tibet, Tiannanmen Square) and the Russians (Chechniya) are almost as bad but we are forced to turn a blind eye because they are too big for even the United Nations to deal with. Hell, the UN even got ass-whipped in Indonesia.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
that's very undemocratic of you :P
Whoah, hang on a second. Freedom is okay, up to a point. The point is generally the point at which you might start infringing the freedom of others. This principle is the basis for many laws. For example, if I were to shoot you, then I might infringe your freedom to continue breathing; therefore society, quite reasonably, decides to make it illegal, even though this does actually reduce my freedom to some degree (I am no longer free to shoot you).
Similarly, society thinks that inciting people to commit crimes is also a freedom we should curtail. Again, this seems pretty reasonable to me. Free speech, like any other freedom, needs to operate within boundaries.
Some of the more extreme racist material does incite people to commit some pretty horrific crimes. I think society would be failing to protect the freedom of its citizens if it didn't try to curtail it.
(Haven't used that one for a few years)
I'll leave it to you to decide the validity of their claim. Maybe we should shut this site down for implying that the U.S. Government slaughtered millions of Native Americans? Or should we shut down other sites because they deny the Native American Holocaust?
By such reasoning, then we'd have to take down those sites dealing with the Holocaust, because their "implying" that the German Government slaughtered millions of Jews, the physically disabled, Gypsies, etc.
No, "race" is a social term. If there really were different "races", then by biological standards it would not be possible for people of "different races" to have children.
Thus, "race" is a misguided term.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I see nothing wrong with hackers taking down and vandalizing racist sites.. this would actually be a hack with a cause.. much like the recent japanese (or was it chinese sorry i've been up ALL night) hack.. fight racism.. anti-racist-action.. i dont stand for racism in my presence.. youre desire to harm another human being in blind hatred can not go unpunished. sorry i have opinions and i stand up for them, like my policy of anti-capitilism-of-the-singular-i.. : )
Wrong. There is never, ever, ever a valid reason to hate someone. You might disagree, or oppose them, or even violently oppose them because they rely on violence. But you must never allow yourself to hate.
... I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm trying to get the point accross that having an open mind is a good thing. Hate is natural.
Once you have begun to hate and become violent against your opposition, you become that which you oppose so much. Hating racists, bigots, or those who hold unpopular opinions makes you just as morally corrupt.
While I understand your argument, and I agree with 75% of it, I cannot agree with providing a justification of hate, for hatred is never justified. Just ask Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or even Malcolm X in his final days.
We must not surrender to hate, even in the face of irreconcilable hatred.
While your point is one of "peace" it is completely unrealistic. Humanity does not possess the morality at this point in history, or any other for that matter to 'not surrender to hate.' People hate. People have hated for 10,000 years. It's a manifestation of the instinct fear, mixed with a little misunderstanding. I might be wrong, I'm sure there are some people out there who think they're above hate. More 'power' to them.
I can give you a damn near valid reason to hate someone. Imagine your spouse being raped and murdered. Good luck not hating the person who did it. Better yet, they rape and murder your entire family, all your friends, and your pets.
Everyone screaming about the UN should be taking a long hard look at the World Trade Organisation. Coporate control of the Internet is far more likely and insidious scenario, than that of the UN getting to agree on anything of this magnitude. Mega-mergers have made the "free press" nearly a myth in the U.S. Re-read your Gibson and maybe you'll understand what he really was about.
Saying things like "Racism is based on ignorance" without a thorough explanation will get you nowhere, and actually is flamebait.
Much older than any "peace-sign" (which is in fact, an inverted life rune, used to mark death and destruction for centuries by European civilizations), the life rune is one of many ancient runes used by Anglos, Saxons, Celts, Ugrics and many other Europeans for perhaps thousands of years. We have direct evidence of it being used for over a 1.5K years now.
Yes, it is despicable. However, the difference here is that there was no mass extermination. As for the winner writing history in their favor, I see none of this. Children in school learn about the detention camps in Canada and the US, as well as the McCarthy communist conspiracy collaborator crap (which is easily shown as stupidity by the paranoia that ensued).
oh that old chestnut again, what if someone called your mom a whore who gave it to sailors free, would you prevent your dad from punching the guy out, even resorting to beating your dad up instead?
defend racist talk huh? even though it encourages the attacks and discrimination against people? get in the real world please and find out what its like to be someone who lives in fear from racsicts and fascists who you appear to support the right to say what they want. have you ever lived in fear of your life and of your family's life because of words of some nazi? i bet not, and until you do you got absolutely no idea what you are talking about!
Communism is not a "religion", neither is atheism...
For those concerned about the US position on such proposals, at the Holocaust conference the US envoy said that freedom of speech issues would prevent the US from supporting restrictions against racist activity on the Internet, but that hate groups could be monitored for "planning destructive activity."
As for what the Expert Commission is actually discussing in February in regards to the internet, it's a three hour session (part of a three day seminar) on the remedies available to victims of acts of racism and incitement to racial hatred on the internet; technical problems linked to prosecution of acts of racism on the internet; and the legal and technical questions of the issue (such as defining the act, the perpetrator of the act, responsibility of the servers and providers, competence of prosecutors, international cooperation in the judicial aspects).
What the United Nations is concerned with is the systematic use of the internet to exacerbate conflicts, facilitate 'ethnic cleansing', and target migrants or refugees by stoking ethnic hatred and intolerance - not people randomly using 'hate speech' in a chatroom or on usenet, or even the typical idiotic webpage spewing 'white vs. black' ideas. In this regard, the internet is seen as just another mass media tool in the arsenal of those promoting such ideas, similar to radio, television, and the press (as was used in Rwanda where the horrific genocide was sparked by inflammatory radio broadcasts and newspapers). I spent most of 1997 as a senior intelligence operations noncommissioned officer in support of the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia, and I've seen firsthand the use of the internet in this manner by all sides in that situation (Serbian, Croatian, and Bosniac), and the misrepresentations and lies became so bad that the High Commissioner (of the international community) in Bosnia had to place restrictions on the news broadcasts and webpostings of each sides' press agencies, lest they renew the conflict. The same tactics were used when the NATO action againt Serbia was ongoing, when all sorts of anti-Serb and anti-Kosovar sites sprang up online. You can see similar sites regarding nearly any major dispute in the world today: try Kashmir, or the ongoing Ethiopia-Eritrea war. The question we need to address is where the line lies between legitimate representation of views and propaganda sparking and leading to criminal acts, outright conflict and genocide.
As for the foreseeable future, the international community isn't even at the point of coming up with agreed upon definitions concerning the issue, much less finalizing guidelines, and plans of action for effectively combating such speech online, and is nowhere near the paranoid view expressed elsewhere in the thread that the United Nations is coming up with international laws, treaties, conventions, restrictions, etc promoting censorship or banning free speech on the internet.
For more background and information on the Third World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, check out their website at http://www.un.org/rights/racism/
By the way, this is my first post to slashdot after lurking for a year. :) Hi everyone!
SenshiNeko (representing the Republic of The Gambia in the Security Council at the National Model United Nations Conference this year)
the UN is a puppet of the colonialist powers that are responsible for the racist makeup of the world power structure... how many african wars are the result of the UN... how much poverty and racism does it enforce with its elitist pseudo-democracy that is really controlle by the United States and Europe... how many proxy wars between big powers have to be fought with UN "peace keeping support" ask the Vietnamese if they appreciate the UN's "anti-racism" stance as ita was carpet bombing their fishing villages... the My Lai massacre -- thanks UN! glad someone is fighting racism.. by murdering people! the IMF, the Worldbank, etc are propping up dictators in third world countries and you have the fucking nerve to try to make the internet 'less racist'... its obviously just a ploy to gain global power... ask the people being murdered by Daniel Arap Moi in Kenya if they appreciate the UN's anti-racism... fuck the god damned UN
There are responsiblities that go along with certain rights, yes. However, punishing people for EXPRESSING those opinions is almost as heinous, to me and others of like mind, as what the Nazis did during WWII.
Your rights end where mine begin, and mine end where yours begin. One of the rights that you do -NOT- have is to forcibly forbid me from expressing my opinion. China does this, and the whole world rails against it. You say that EXPRESSING feelings of racism is illegal in the Netherlands. I say it's a -DAMNED- good thing I don't live there. Not because I'm a racist, but because that is a limit upon an individuals creation-given -RIGHT- to express their personal beliefs. What you have in NL is repression of (at least some) thought, something that Orwell railed against in _1984_ ('thoughtcrime'). It is also something that Benjamin Franklin (indirectly) has also railed against, in more general terms: "He who gives up some measure of freedom for safety deserves neither." I firmly believe this, and so I say to all those who have allowed their governments to force censorship on them (including us in the US): NONE of you deserve true freedom until you are willing to fight for it.
To whoever it was who said that they would fight to the death for the right of a person to express his beliefs, no matter how vile, I salute you. YOU are the kind of person that is needed in the fight against tyranny. This sort of bullshit is just the start.
It is ironic that an organization seeking to stop racism employs the same tactics used by the Nazis themselves to block rational thought against the "party line" of those dreadful times. Have we learned nothing? When I read things this like, I start to realize the futility of the situation.
The UN has recognized something evil, and is attempting to use the easy way (censorship) to get rid of the problem. All to make themselves feel rosy as self proclaimed champions of humanity.
I believe the growing use of the Internet as a method of spreading hate is disgusting. When I heard the story of martinlutherking.org, it sickens me that anyone, no matter how ignorant, could sink to such a level.
I still believe censorship is not the solution, but then, what is?
It begs the question of who actually has the power to stop the spread of hate over the Internet. And the answer, is, of course, those who spread hate over the Internet. No, I'm not talking of stormfront or world church of the creator. I'm talking about AOL. Earthlink. The ones who actually have the power to deliver hateful content to the masses.
How hard is it really, for the UN to compile a list of all networks (the people that actually host the sites) that support and endorse the spread of hate through the Internet. How difficult is it for them to make it available to any ISP, such that any ISP could, at their discretion, block access to these networks, or even just bring up a little screen that said "yep, the people who made this site, martinlutherking.org, are attempting to spread hate through libel and slander".
How difficult would it be for a Yahoo! to bring up a message on their site that said "The ISP you are coming from supports the annihilation of [insert minority here]. Your attempt to create the account 'whitepower' is denied. Instead, your new account shall be known as 'ignoramus92831'".
I own and operate a site that remotely hosts discussion forums and chatrooms for just about anybody who wants to create one, although we will shut down anyone who tries to promote hatred using our services. I'm just starting to compile a database of all "hate" sites (and that is up to my discretion) and denying access to our site based on one of these sites being used as a referer. A simple solution to prevent any of these sites from ever using our services. I just wish there was a more comprehensive list out there to use (although I've found some good info so far). Anyone interested in providing input, or actually getting the list for their own purposes (when it's done) should email me at memory@eni.net.
Information is power.
You are obviously flamebait, but I will answer your points anyway.
There is only one "race". The human race. Equating species with the made up concept of race really shows your ignorance.
Hopefully you can disern the obvious differences between us and our closest related "cousins". If not then your dates must be very interesting. Cause dogs are about 95% the same DNA, and even bacteria share some of the same DNA.
There is a _unique_ combination of alleles in everyone. Does this mean that everyone is a seperate race?
Humans go smoothly, without break from dark skin to light, from round eyes to almond eyes, from tall to short, from skinny to fat. People like you will ignore these facts and clump people together in arbitary groups.
What happens when person whose ancestors decended only from Europe marries a person whose ancestors decended from Africa? Are their offspring European or African? Are they both African and European, or did they just create a new "race?" Or do you just lump them in whatever category makes _you_ feel smugly superior?
There are light skined people with afros, there are dark skinned people with asian features. There are light skinned people that play professional sports, there are dark skinned people that have trouble walking.
I don't see your races. There are some family resemblances, that is why tribes made up of extended family groups show a certain resemblance. But family resemblance is hardly something to base any judgement of a person on.
At least 50 alleles go into skin color and a like number contribute to eye and hair color. And each of these alleles have dozens of variations. That is 150^12 power, or 129746337890625000000000000 combinations. This is greater than the number of people on the earth. This is why everyone on the face of the earth looks different from one another.
And for your information, most of these alleles are found in every population on earth. Or do you just want to discuss the insignifican few that differ by _geographic_ _region_?
The ones that we haven't been mixing for a while because we haven't been able to get at each other? Don't worry about that. Your children and grand children will mix the "races" quite well.
Our genes control the size and shape of our ears too, does this mean that ear size has anything to do with the quality of a person?
If the only difference among people was the size and shape of their ears then people would discriminate based on that attribute. And that discrimination would be just as stupid as discrimination based on skin color, or the shape of their eyes.
Why do I even bother? It is obvious that you have already made up your mind.
May your melanine deficency/excess give you much harmony. Go in peace.
All racial Jews are guaranteed to immigrate to Israel. Non-Jews are refused.
Really? I think you're misinformed (no, I think you're necessarily wrong, just jumping to conclusions) because if that was true, then how would you explain how Russians were able to immigrate there (if you read news articles concerning the Barak/Netanyahu elections, then you'd know there's a vaiable Russian-immigrant vote there).
Before getting oh-so-fancy free with your witless little witticisms, you might want to think about the real people you are talking about. Where are the corpses of my grandparents' relatives? I will spell it out for you: THEY ARE ASHES IN POLAND. No grave; few memories; and fools still besmirching their memory.
Infotech, this isn't just a game, you know. Say as much as you like in defence of your ridiculous ideas that one "race" is greater than another, but don't tell me my relatives weren't murdered by the people you admire. That's what you have to live with if you want to hold such repugnant views.
This reminds me of a quote I saw on /. once:
"Let's kill all radicals!"
=)
-Ateran
I agree that experiencing racism is a really disgusting experience, both for the victim as well as for casual bystanders. But don't forget that there are _always_ a reason that people feel this or that way. It's much easier to judge racists and keep the distance, rather than to try to understand and talk to them.
Now thats a challenge, and a way to help the situation. By talking I _don't_ mean screaming at them that they're wrong and stupid. People who do that should know in their heart that there are better ways, and that they are in reality only lashing out at themselves. Fact is we hate and fear such parts of ourselves. Also, censoring will not do much good. It will rather promote an underground movement, and their members will be more eager to get the word out than ever before. In the more extreme end, you have imprisonment and execution as means to control "bad influence" to society. But cruel action has its dubious rewards. The resistance will only grow greater, perhaps not in numbers at first, but in ferocity and hate.
Instead we should strive for more openness in society. When certain dark elements of our lives are exposed, it will be a painful realization, but also an oportunity to identify the core of the problem and find real solutions.
Yes, I admit that I think rasistically at times. This is a spell we're all slaves under in very varying degrees. Those that say they don't are either very loving and open persons, or they should get to know themselves better.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Funny thing I've looked at some of these sites and I've come to realize that these people are the first to complain how their freedom of speech has been violated but on the next page only support it only for themselves.
.sig file say, "I will not support to the death your right to silence me".
Awhile back someone on here had their
3000 dead over past 2 years, still no free Palestinians, still
Yes, I suppose I did mean "speech" instead of "thought"
Thereby rendering most of my post inapplicable (my analogy was applied to thought, not to speech).
Does anyone else think this is sounding awfully Godelian? It's seeming like a complete system of classifying speech into right and wrong will be inconsistent (censorship of anti-diverse concepts being an anti-diverse concept itself), and like a consistent one will be incomplete (let's omit censorship from our system). Of course, I could be wrong.
Then again, being the stark raving American that I am, I'd say that the entire premise of classifying speech into 'right' and 'wrong' is flawed (even if I wouldn't call you a communist), but other people make my points with regard to censorship much better than I do.
if it makes you feel any better, the same feeling of helplessness is rampant in parts of the U.S. as well, particularly among young people. not all of them, mind you, but a pretty large group.
this is off-topic, but what are the Co$ papers? either my memory is acting sieve-like again, or i've missed this somewhere.
"The things we wizards have to put up with."--Jethro Bodine
Right-thinking people are flabbergasted at the notion that mass murder becomes somehow worse if the victims happen to look alike.
Fact: White travelers bought their black slaves from black tribes. Black tribes would raid other villages to get people to sell into slavery.
It may have been a white man who bought them but it was also a white man who freed them.
There is no one alive today who has ever been a slave, so those who use it as an excuse for why they need preferance should get a clue.
Why hitler? Why not George Washington? If you only look at the bad side of white people you are blind. Should I compare all blacks to OJ or some such?
Your whole post has referances of "fair skinned hide" which screams racist.
I don't think that the previous poster was targeting any one country in general, and was probably using Lebanon as an example. There are many other examples:
Why is it that the UN lept to help Kuait with such zeal? Yet, conflicts break out in eastern Europe and the UN shuffles its feet... Ethnic Cleansing? *Cough*Mass*Cough*Murder*Cough* Thats ok...
[b]JUST DON'T TOUCH OUR OIL!!!![/b]
Lets face it the UN has a long way to go, but it is still better than nothing.
(What follows below is slightly offtopic...)
On the topic of Saddam Hussien being evil IMO, he is not evil. He is human. He is a human that I detest, but not evil. How dare I say such a thing? I say this because I do not believe in an emperical evil. If you are in a war, the enemy is "evil" and your side is "good". Switch sides, and the "evil" side and the "good" side switch too.
Its sad but too many people fail to realize this and blindly follow "good" leaders without questioning thier morals or integrity because their leaders are "good". Remember: World Leaders are only human. There are despicable people and wonderful people, and all variables in between. Just try to pick the wonderful ones. (And avoid the ignorant ones at any cost.)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I really don't think there is very much hate speech. Mostly what I've seen is not speech against others but speech pro some special interest or racial group. We have black pride, gay pride, hispanic pride, asian pride. But the minute we have "white pride" then some weirdo yells "hate speech". But pride in your own does not mean that you hate others. I'm proud of my own group but I don't hate others who feel pride about their own racial family. I think pride in the accomplishments of one's race is important. I hope that all the various racial groups can take strong pride in their own pure racial identity.
That it happened should definitely be acknowledged; people need to know governments aren't trustworthy under those circumstances. Perhaps some propaganda should even be analyzed carefully during class, to illustrate how stupidly ill-conceived that crap was.
The Russians are of the same race as I am, but they are of Slavic descent and I am primarily of Alpine Germanic descent. I consider walking on the moon a more impressive feat than launching a satellite, given the time-frames. What you mean by isolationist is quite vague.
Thanks for not calling me a Nazi. That label applies (accurately) only to those who were National Socialists in German territory before the end of WWII. I don't need to map out an entire genotype for you to see who is better at conceptualizing an idea or working on an abstract theory. History and IQ tests (you know, a bunch of abstract shapes on a piece of paper) can show you that.
For the most part, one's racial identity is obscured on the internet and this is a good thing.
Yeah, that's why the internet is so great but the bigots make people who don't conform to their ideals, race, ethnicity, etc. very uncomfortable while online. And because of this exclusionary activity, that said people would like some effective method to either stay away from the hate mongers or some method to protect themselves.
The answer, naturally, is that it is not so: where both sides are given a fair hearing, tolerance wins overwhelmingly. Censoring racism drives it underground and gives the racists the ammunition they need to continue their campaign. To put it bluntly, censoring a racist is the nicest favor you can do the bastard.
Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it in his first inaugural address, "... error of opinion can be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
or hateful messages on internet.
And I've poured over quite a few web pages, including some of the
seedier sites to which one is forcibly directed while searching for
mp3's or the odd serial number for shareware programs.
True, most of those have been offensive and disgusting, definitely
hurtful towards women and minors, but they hardly seem to constitute
hate-crime or propaganda for or against any particular groups.
What I do find on the net, not surprisingly, are things that
reinforce the stereotypes that have been impressed upon us and
fostered by the news media and sensational television programs.
These viewpoints begin in our school rooms at the earliest grades,
and are largely reinforced by the history books that are forced
down the throats of students -- usually with no secondary sources
to balance them or challenge their credence.
I would hope the UN would attempt to level things by making more
information available to students -- the whole, truthful view of
history; one that does not glorify those who rose to positions
of power by oppressing others and silencing the stories of any
who would voice dissent.
And hopefully such an education would lead to a more responsible
and less biased media.
We all despise the idea of censorship and fear challenges to the freedom
of expression... but let's not be blind to the fact that we are
already victims of such; our journalists do not get to present a
full, unbiased story, but are assigned their particular "angle"
before they even start assembling their data.
And the content of television news and the printed press are determined
by sponsors and the owners of the TV stations and newspapers.
Our only hope is to challenge the status quo that ignores or permits
this sort of treatment, and to encourage free expression,
especially on the internet -- whether it be of a nature with
which we do not agree or something we support whole-heartedly.
Information and knowledge are sacred things; truthful, unbiased
and complete information is vital to the growth of the individual
and the formation of a realistic world view. It is only when
information is withheld or perverted that racism and hateful
illusions can be maintained.
Over the course of about 6 months, I have seen links to about 6 or 7 racist sites(even a real audio link) posted on slashdot. I have read each and every one of them (some for laughs, but others for education on how to fight what is presented). Anyway, if we see in shades of gray, we'll understand that there will be some misinformed people who will take the information presented as fact. We will also understand that sometime in the future, our ideas may be painted as racist or radical or irrational by a certain power structure. Those that wrote the constitution knew that government and other collections of people were open to corruption. That's why they wrote that there would be no laws against freedom of expression or association besides those that infringed on the rights of others.
In other words, I completely agree with you. Of course, there is a fine line between the spread of racist literature and teachings and infringing on rights of those that they are against.
The US and many other (at least pseudo)democratic nations fortunately have no extremists in power, but we do not know what the future will hold.
Communism is not a legitimate view point. At that point in time, our main communist adversary in the world had: 1) Murdered 30 million of their own people. 2) Had vowed to conquer us. The definitive "Black Book of Communism" goes out of its way to describe communism as a *criminal* ideology. As columnist Jeff Jacoby writes: "Communism equals murder. Everywhere. Always." And finally, McCarthy was RIGHT: The State Department WAS crawling with communists intent on sending your butt to the gulag (or maybe just shooting you and your family outright).
No, you didn't say you were, but given the overuse of foolish "gansta rap"/"blak panther" parody, I'd say that you're difinitly not black but trying to create the impression that you are. Give it up, pal.
Who determines these boundaries? Politicians? Jerry Fallwell? Tom Metzger? You? I mean really, who determines what I write or say, or what you write and say?
This is presumptive in that it would indeed prevent the right to be heard, which is why most people make a webpage or post anything on the net to begin with.
.edu, .mil, .gov, .org, and so on) was for in the first place.
Ah, but there's the catch. You have the right to speak. Others have the right to hear you, or not hear you, as they so choose.
You, however, have no innate right to be heard. You are given that right when others exercise their right to hear you. You may not take it from those who do not exercise that right, because then you are taking away their right to not hear you. Likewise, they may not take away your right to speak, all they can do is not listen.
Many of the pariah groups on the Net (pr0n sites, hate sites, and such) have come to use sneaky tricks to try and make others read their sites. A favorite, particularly among pr0n sites, is redirection; they'll lead you to a site that looks innocent enough, but as soon as you enter (or in some cases as soon as you leave) you're automatically taken to one or several pr0n sites that you probably never intended to visit in the first place. In this way, by tricking you into entering their sites, they are forcing you to hear what you may not want to hear.
Hate sites tend to use a different tactic: misdirection. Witness the recent registration of www.MartinLutherKing.org by Storm Front, one of the oldest hate groups on the Net. They are using the connotations of the name to trick you into hearing what you do not want to hear.
And then, of course, there's the old pr0n-banner tactic. With this one, sites pay people to recruit new users. Sometimes "new user" means someone visits the site, other times the user has to actually sign up for some service. So these "recruiters" password-lock their sites, forcing you to use these services (so they make money) before you use the site. Anyone who's been on Hotline in the last four years knows about this tactic all too well.
What I'm saying is that these tricks shouldn't be allowed. It's not fair to make someone hear you by tricking them into thinking they're going to hear something else. Likewise, it's not fair to force people to do things they don't want to do before you offer them some kind of service. What I'm calling for is a way to make it such that when you enter a site, you go in knowing exactly what you're getting into. That's why the original TLD system (.com,
Now there's still the problem of definition. Hate speech is relatively easy to define; I've seen some challenges as replies to my original post, but these tend to miss the point entirely (for example, the post who talks about excluding people from Harvard based on SAT score, while forgetting that each person takes the SAT as an individual, and thus the score is an individual thing).
Pr0n is different. It can't be defined, at least not easily. The reason: it deals with sexuality, which is a very personal thing, and a little different for everybody. So no matter how you define it you'll wind up excluding some types of pr0n, and unless your definition is very specific you'll end up including some things that aren't. So you'll never be able to categorize all pr0n. The goal is to categorise as much of it as possible, and make it identifiable, both to make it easier to find for those who wish to see it, and easier to avoid for those who do not.
The story was also extensively covered in the Washington, D.C. area newspapers.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Actually, there's already punishment for Inciting crimes. There is -No- honorable way to punish someone for expresssing their opinion. If an individual actively excited a group (or an indivudal) so that they committed a crime, they are also culpable.
Making an individual culpable for crimes NOT YET COMMITTED (for example, censoring the distribution of racist literature for fear that someone will commit a crime based on whatever information is contained therein) is even more heinous than the crimes that _MIGHT_ be committed.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin, 1755
If you can't read history, at least try to think logically.
But the game *was* banned in Germany because of its Nazi trappings. Nazi symbols decorating walls and nazi guards patrolling the mazes made the game illegal under Germany's post-nazi reforms. I believe AOL or Compuserve even had to remove the game from their download areas to avoid its download by their German members, which in turn angered many young American gamers.
The point of the above? Wolfenstein was banned simply because it contained symbols of a racist organization. The context in which they were used was not looked at. And no one even touched the free-speech aspect of the decision. Stopping racism is of course a good thing and something we should all struggle to achieve, but we have to be careful not to step on the toes of free speech. And everyone has to realize that (use of racist symbol) != (racism).
OK, you are certainly deserved to be heard. This is a democratic society, and so your right to a free speech is protected. In this respect, I am ready to defend your right even if I am entirely disagree with National Socialism (as well as with Communism). The caveat here - as history has demonstrated - is then as soon as National Socialists (or Communists) come to power, one of the right which is instantly eliminated is that very right of a free speech. I am against the totalitarism of any flavor, left, right, white, black, yellow, or whatever ... Regards,
Considering this MSNBC story, I don't think this Yahoo! article could have come at a better time. I don't have to say the Web gives racists (along with pedophiles, sexists, criminals, communists, and innumerable others) a haven for distributing their garbage and hate. The lack of consistent regulation online, while a blessing to all of us, is also a curse.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
Am in a terrible hurry now!
NUKE THE BIGGOTS FROM THE INTERNET AND REPLACE THEIR FILTHY WEBSITES WITH GOOD, CLEAN INFORMATION LIKE CNN AND THE GAP'S CORPORATE WEBSITE!
BUT WHY STOP THERE?
CHASE THEM WITH LONG POINTY POLES! STICK INSULTING POST-ITS ON THEIR BACKS! BAN THEM FROM STARBUCKS! CRUCIFY THE RACIST PIGS !!!!
He's intimidating a considerably smaller group of people. The point is that hate crimes target a large group. ``Hate crime'' is a misnomer, ``terrorism'' is a better word for it.
A crime is a crime REGARDLESS of motivation.
Yes, muirder is murder. And terrorism is terrorism. You are either guilty or not guilty of murder. on top of that, one may be guilty or not guilty of terrorism. Nobody should have greater importance simply because they meet some artificial criteria.
Exactly. Millions of black people targetted by a hate crime have more importance than a small group of people terrorized by a parking space shooting. There are more victims, and the terror is occuring on a larger scale. A terrorist act against an entire country is more severe still.
...Which we deem unpleasant. Education enables others to solve problems on a personal level, which might otherwise affect everyone on a national level. Educate, not segregate! -=JaqBot=-
I mean, really, race as an "either-or" thing is such a completely mindless concept that anyone who believes it exists has got to be about two tacos short of a combination plate anyway.
Someone should put together a really devastating parody of these cretins. To quote Thomas More, "The devill
If that is true, that is truly absurd.
It is most likely infotech reponding to his own drivel.
How come we never hear about the twenty million Christians murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks? Yes, by all means, let's do some digging!
Honestly, I doubt that education would help the worst offenders. It seems to me that the ones with the most hate are impervious to reason OR education. Sometimes it's a maater of faith, which IMO is the height of irrationality.
If you don't teach em when they're kids, except in rare cases, you're just not going to teach them. You can't teach a door to be a window, so you can't teach a racist to be tolerant.
No, I don't have any other solutions. I wish I did.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
I can't imagine a worse way to decide broad and important issues of public policy than to ask "what would one do when in an extreme emotional state".
Yes, defend racist talk. Because:
In the US the principle of Free Speech is enshrined as the First Article in our Bill of Rights:
As others have pointed out, there are similar provisions supported by the UN and the EU.
Free speech, it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
-Jordan Henderson
Don't pull any punches there, "Big Guy."
The weird thing about this conference is that none of the Arab nations was invited to be represented, supposedly out of respect for Israel (which is a dubious way to express respect). This is especially interesting, since the whole "Islamic Terrorist" image is one of the most recent racial stereotypes to arise in (at least American) Western culture. But I suppose CNN and friends are less likely to carry stories that demonstrate the failings of CNN and friends.
It's too bad Yahoo only carries AP and not AFP, or I'd have some links to share. And remember, if you don't do it for the babies, at least do it to thwart the ragheads, right? Lovely culture.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Nobody's dragging us out and shooting us. If we won't interbreed when given a choice (if we only get white children when white adults have nobody else to fuck), our genes show negative survival value and ought to be displaced. Frankly I don't see that going on. There's no lack of white genes out there, both isolated and mixed.
Shoah is the Hebrew word for Holocaust (tm).
Reading this I find a blatant hypocracy - particularly from those who portray fear of the UN.
Those who fear the UN the most - and particularly the so-call "New World Order" - state that they are opposed to its alleged mission to impose foreign values upon Americans against the will of the majority of Americans.
While I too am opposed to censorship - and believe in the Freedom of Speech; and perhaps even do believe it's a universal value - this is NOT a value held by every government let alone every the majority of people in certain countries.
I agree that this is extremely touchy and problematic; as we all know how censorship can and has been used by oppressive regimes to perpetuate their will against the majority of their people.
But it is not always the case. Particularly in the case of post-war Germany; the Germans had been bombarded with one-sided propaganda for 12 years that they only way to combat it was to supress it. Now 55 years later - Germanany still has those laws in place. By what right does the American people to dictate to the Germans how they should run their country?
Is the UN plan un-wise and un-workable? Of course! Is the UN plan un-constitutional in the United States and should be ignored by any web-site in The United States? Of course!
But if you truly believe in the right of self-determination - you have to agree that the imposition of the so-called "American way of life" on the entire planet is wrong - and I would even suggest "un-American"!
I just pulled out my copy of Bullfinch, and it verifies that the symbol is the ancient Scandinavian ``Tree of Life'' -- Yggdrasil. You better bone up on Norse history instead of Ebonics. This symbol is older than time. It was with the Vikings when they discovered America. It's sad when people forget their own history.
I can't really say that I'm surprised. We're moving so swiftly towards the New World Order, where any views which go contrary to the masses are labelled thoughtcrimes, and the offenders forced into re-education camps or simply silenced in the night, that it makes sense that the UN would go after this.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but even if I strongly disagree or become deeply offended at what someone else is saying, I'm still willing to defend to the death their right to say it. It doesn't matter to me if it's the KKK, neo-Nazis, the Nation of Islam, or the Scientologists. And yes, I realize that the freedoms I seen deteriorate in the States aren't necessarily granted anywhere else in the world. That doesn't stop me from believing everyone should have those rights. We don't seen to have that freedom anymore in the US, so why not have the UN going around to ensure that no one does?
Whatever happened to diversity? Diversity of opinion is just as important as any other kind of diversity.
The best way these things is the way a state government official in one of the southern states (can't recall which right now) where the KKK has adopted a stretch of highway through one of those adopt-a-road programs is handling it. They can't deny the KKK the right to adopt the highway. Instead, this person has introduced legislation to rename it the Rosa Parks Memorial Highway.
That is, IMHO, the best way to handle these things.
---
Yeah, this is pretty fscking disjointed. It's been a long day, a long night at class, and I really should be asleep, but . . .
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
He is demonstrably evil through his actions:
If you reply to a post with more karma than the original post, IMO it's polite to quote (part of) the post you're replying to. Comments that are directly to me and are below my threshold end up in "n replies below your current threshold", but comments to those comments that are above my threshold appear to be replying to the original post. As a result, I was confused about which website you were referring to.
The article doesn't once mention shutting down hate speech sites or banning racist propaganda - or deal much with US politics, for that matter - but that doesn't stop some from getting on a First Amendment soapbox. Apparently, governments are not only forbidden from censoring certain speech, but also from discouraging certain speech. It should also be pointed out that this was an INTERNATIONAL issue; thus all the pontificating about First Amendment rights is a bit irrelevant. I'm certainly not sanctioning the banning of racist hate speech, but this is not a First Amendment issue. There is nothing wrong with a government indicating its disapproval of certain viewpoints, so long as citizens are not persecuted for their dissent. This is an important issue that needs to be addressed, as Nazi and hate groups have increasingly found in the Web a place where they can set up the terms of a debate and run with it. Yes, it's protected speech (in the US, anyway - some of my fellow countrymen forget that not all cultures stress freedom of speech above all other rights), but that doesn't make it healthy or appropriate. This poster needs to get out from behind his monitor for a bit and get a grip.
Surely current laws can be used against things like this?
While it is true that the Internet allows quicker communication, it also makes them easy to track. If someone puts up a hate site (apart from something on Geocities or something, where it will get taken down quickly), they need to pay for it. That creates a paper trail which is easy to trace, if they really want to "Crack down on hate crime"
It also makes it easier to penetrate their "underground" networks. I'm sure if you join some Nazi mailing list, and then start sending some hate letters, I bet you'll meet some people who know people, etc.
That's the way to fight crime - actually enforce current laws, rather than create new laws like "Though shalt not create bad web pages" and wonder why everyone ignores them.
Ich denke, daß wir alle weißen Leute beenden sollten, weil weiße Leute wie der Teufel sind. Auch Rob Malda berührt Kinder in den privaten Plätzen.
There was once a great Man (Voltaire?) who said "I may not agree with what you say, though I will defend to the death your right to say it."
That used to go a long way in this country. Maybe this is an old-school thought and I should give up any hope for the freedom of my progeny.
No hour on a horse is ever wasted. Winston Churchill
How are they going to possibly stop it? Btw its mostly white people on the internet anyway, so they are wasting their time.
OhMyGod!!! He was in favour of "some form of wealth redistribution"!!! How dreadful. You mean he wanted people not to live in grinding poverty? Good lord, next you'll be telling us he wanted everyone to have access to decent health care, when it's clear that it's much better to have the poor die in gutters while the rich tell them it's their fault for being moral reprobates. Well, thank goodness the US avoided that, eh? After all, everyone's rich now, aren't they? Much more than in Europe, where vicious socialists roam the streets building hospitals and schools.
His argument is entirely valid. Breeding between tigers and lions is similar to breeding a horse and a donkey. Genetically, horses and donkeys are similar enough, and the chromosomes match well enough that they are fertile. Their offspring, mules, are fertile. Similarly, all male ligers are thought to be sterile. A rare female liger is fertile.
Interbreeding between races results in a perfectly normal, intelligent human being. They are fertile, and except for a one or two genes, are genetically indistinguishable from any other race on earth.
(liger != tiger != lion) && (mule != horse != donkey)
but black or white, people are still people.
so there.
Jim
I thought animals that can't interbreed were in different species, and that "race" is a euphemism for a breed of the human species.
I hate to disappoint YOU but since I AM from East Asia let's just assume that I DO know what I'm talking about. If you think it's just a minority who are racists then I can just assume you've never been there or you're just trying to defend Asian racism. BTW, plenty of Asian men marry Western women in the States and in Europe...you just don't see as many because typical Asian families will disown a son who does. Twenty-five years ago one of my college roommates (from Hong Kong) married a white girl in South Carolina. Her family welcomed him...his was not too pleased. BTW, why is it that in Indonesia, it's VERY common for Indonesian men to marry Western women.....example, in Ubud, Bali, Indonesia, Western wives virtually control the town.
As if stopping people from voicing their racist opinions is going to get rid of racism. It may slow down the "recruiting process" a little, but I doubt it.
Of all the racists I know (and I know many), I would guess about 85% of them learned the racist "culture" from their parents, and 15% learned it from friends. Not one of them learned it from anywhere in the media (including TV, radio, newspapers and magazines.)
Based on this, I think that censoring online race hatred is going to be counterproductive, as it will falsely lead people to believe that there is less racism, when in fact there is merely less online discussion and expression of racism.
We should rather attack the problem at its roots, i.e. teach people why racism is both wrong and stupid.
Very interesting, good analysis as well. Education is really at the root of solving almost all of our current social problems. People so often fail to realise this.
push it down pull it up!!
just dont let the music stop!!
"slashodt is full of pro-socialist propaganada"
Which in effect is nullified if you reply to the story directly below it. Most slashdot comment posters value the comments below the story to be of the most value. If you differ from a story as presented, then you reply in the comment field right below it.
There are of course problems with the collective majority drowning out particular points as well as bad moderation, but it is more or less a good thing.
...I've listened to them grow increasingly hateful and racist, to the point where my sisters and I can't even invite a good portion of our friends over anymore for fear that those three will come out and start harrassing them. It has to be, without a doubt, the single most sickening thing I've ever seen.
Yes, I'm sure it is disgusting, but when you let people's opinions and their expresseion thereof change your actions, you let them win. And I urge you not to think for your friends -- let them make their own judgements. After all, that's the key point behind freedom of expression, isn't it? Finally, if you avoid confronting an opinion you feel is wrong, you're really waiting for someone to come along and do it for you. Don't wait -- when "they" come along, it's likely that they'll be wearing jackboots!
---
Freedom: it's a contact sport!
Democracy: you can't "win" if you don't play!
Freedom: It's a contact sport! Democracy: You can't "win" if you don't participate.
Reading some of these posts I'm disturbed to see the frequent "threatened white male" response. I had hoped that our group was less susceptible to the illogic of racism/bigotry/scared-by-otherness due to our desire for information and critical thought. I had hoped for more from my white/male geek brethren.
And you were persuaded by the media to belive Dan Quale is an idiot on one completely misinterrpretted incident...
No country has totally free speech - if nothing else, it is not legal to advocate armed rebellion in any country I'm aware of. The U.S. (where I live) comes closer than most, but even here you can't advocate violent rebellion; you also can't slander or libel an individual (including corporations), nor can you engage in inflammatory "hate speech" in situations where this is likely to cause harm to others, i.e. cause a riot.
Forbidding people to tell lies about "races" of people strikes me as a reasonable extension of forbidding them to tell lies about individuals or corporations. Forbidding people from advocating genocide and/or the re-institution of chattel slavery strikes me as something which should be prevented, whether the speaker is in the immediate presence of a potential race riot or miles away from it.
As I said, there's no such thing as free speech, any more than there's such a thing as a free lunch. What we get is lunch included in the price of something else, and the cost of "free" speech is to my mind the same as the cost of allowing citizens to freely arm themselves: if the "right" (which is actually a privelege) is abused and turned toward the harm of others in the society, then you lose the right. There's a difference between stifling free expression of ideas and stamping out a memetic disease like racism.
I don't care how well-intension this thing is. We should be free of censorship and the right to a free speech must be protected. To outlaw something we don't like is our instinctive reaction. It is easy to implement. It also doesn't solve anything. The fight against the racism cannot be done but outlowing the racism. It does require certain activites from those who want to fact. Unfortunately these are the racists who are more active on Internet than those who oppose them. Incidently I'm not a racist not because I am sort of tree-hugging liberal or whatever. I simply consider the evolution the fact (rather than something you have to *believe*), and that we all share the same common ancestors somewhere in Africa. From this perspective all races share the same genetic pool, the differences are on 'species' level. You certainly don't have to love another race, its culture, whatever. The serious error is to consider that other race *inferior* to the one you belong, which *is* what the racism holds. Cheers,
Does this mean the UN will now condone cracking down on groups that whites feel threatened by? (NCAAP? ADL? etc...)
Actually the UN does documment most of this stuff, its just that most of the member nations don't really give a fuck. Go to un.org and check out resolutions passed and the thousands of reports filed to the general and security councils.
I sort of disagree. Being so wrapped up in our hate of those we oppose, to the point of not thinking about anything else, doesn't make for a healthy life.
However, hate is a reasonable response to racists, or any other sort of bigot. We can hate them because they are wrong. They must be allowed to express those views, and be condemned and hated for it. If they get violent about it, I have no sympathy when their heads get stomped.
-- "This is the Space Age, and we are Here To Go" - W.S.Burroughs
In politics you set an `acceptable' target for your policy, but really you have something else in mind! In a free world (not the USA!) there is no form of censorship. Everyone is allowed to express whatever one wishes. If you don't like what someone else says you are entitled to make your thoughts known. If the silly/willy politicians of the world or orthodox jewish decide to restrict free expression of thought then they will have to face the power of human resistance to unnatural and artificial ideas.
A new research study reported today that the use of copper wire by racist, skinhead, and white supremacy groups is at an all-time high. "This is a disturbing trend," said a predictably reliable source of meaningless blather. "It is imperative that right-thinking people around the world band together to combat racism, imperialism, Zionism, and other -isms that the UN and the world press disapprove of."
U.S. government officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that racist and neo-Nazi organizations make extensive use of copper. "These guys use copper wire to communicate all the time. They connect to the Internet, they watch cable TV, they call each other on the phone," said the official. "But that's just scratching the surface," he continued, "they use copper in electrical wiring, light switches, electrical fixtures--hey, some of them even use copper-bottomed pots and pans to cook meals for their racist friends."
These shocking revelations come hard on the heels of disturbing new revelations that many of the Swiss and German insurance companies that failed to pay on Nazi-era policies also make extensive use of copper wire for both communications and electric power distribution. Swiss government officials in Zurich refused to confirm reports that they were investigating whether insurance company officials used copper-bottomed pans for cooking.
Leading scientists, meeting at a UN-sponsored conference in Tokyo, sought to clarify the issue. "Copper can be an element for good, or for evil," said reknowned ethicist Robert Brooks of Harvard University. "While we deplore the way that these disgraceful elements are using copper, we have to remember the positive ways in which copper has been used for good." Nonetheless, Prof. Brooks did observe that there is a longstanding link between copper and racism--dating back to the early days of the slave trade, when the hulls of slave ships and other vessels of the period were routinely covered with copper to protect the ships from rot. "Think of it," mused Brooks, "how far we've come from the days of the slave trade, and we still can't manage to keep copper out of the hands of these people."
For more information, contact the International Alliance to Ban Copper and Racism, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, NY 10022.
UN Declaration of Human Rights
Article 19:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Hey good point. Remember Jesse Jackson's hissy fit when those violent Negro youths were expelled from an Illinois high school? He claimed they were innocent victims of "racism" despite each having a lengthy police record. Well, earlier this week one of those "youths" was arrested for viciously beating two pregnant women, almost to the point of death. How's Jesse going to explain that!
I wonder if this qualifies as irony...
I never would have gone looking for hate sites on the web, but if they're going to have a global conference on the subject, I really should look up what's out there...
Actually I won't, because I believe the best way to combat a screaming bigot is to ignore her. There's really no hate crime that can be commited on the internet, is there? Maybe if a neo-Nazi cracker wiped out a Jewish person's hard drive, but I think that's stretching it. To me, if the USA is allowing KKK members to congregate, hold meetings, etc, and turn a blind eye to it, why go after the hate mongers on the internet? Shouldn't we put a stop to it in the real world first?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
This is also a very good analysis. I agree that to a great extent, things like affirmative action separate and group people even more, making it easier to hate. Although, I must point out that racism is not simply about hate. There is also so-called "positive" racism, in which you have a kind of better view of a certain race. People almost always think of racism in the "negative" way. But, thats a good deal beyond the point, if education truly was fair in opportunity, and there wasn't economic segregation etc.. I would certainly almost completely agree, but that is not the case. The problem is that, since we (in a broad sense) created these problems in the past through the actions of certain ancestors, there is some evidence in favor of attempting to right those wrongs. Of course, it can be argued either way... well, I am not exactly on topic with your argument. But, perhaps I have conveyed some useful information.
Also, how would parents explain to their children that many websites contain misleading information? They're obviously not going to want to use porn sites as their first example.
--
The shareholder is always right.
You can not combat racism by telling people they are not allowed to express their views. That's ridiculous. The views will still be there, hidden underneath an extra layer of anger at being forcibly hidden. If anything, that will only harm everyone involved more than if the views were able to be stated openly.
The United Nations is an organization based on principles. It has no way of directly enforcing any decision that it makes. The most it can do is make recommendations to whatever country or international group. Be design it is weak, similar to the Original Continental Congress of the early United States. In my humble opinion, the UN is destined to failure in the next 50 years or so.
Michael C. Hollinger
Here comes BIG Brother - oops I mean the UN. With Freedom you need to accept the good and the bad. I believe racism is wrong. However, I believe removing someone's right to free speech is also wrong. "I disagree with what you say. But, I'll defend until death your right to say it."
Is it racisim to say that the NBA is black? Or is it racist to use SAT scores to determine NBA eligibility? Is it racist to have standardized testing? What about making "english only" rules?
Who is to make the determinations? It is a slippery slope that are one when we practice censorship.
Fight Spammers!
Censorship of racist material is just as horrible as censorship of any belief or idea
Censorship of racist material is worse than the racism in the first place. At least rasist people don't claim not to discriminated against people.
Now, if rather than shutting down sites etc they spent some time talking to people, finding out exactly where they are coming from etc, etc then I'm sure a lot more good could be done.
Also, a thing that a lot of people get wrong is that "White Pride" sites aren't necessarily racest - there is nothing wrong at all with saying I'm a White person and I'm proud of it. I *am* a white person and I am proud of who I am. The trouble is that racist people see this and jump on the idea thus corrupting it.
See http://jewwatch.com
The United Nations resolution that Mater_Tenebrarum is concerned with (General Assembly Resolution 3379 in 1975) which tied Zionism to racism in recommending that Member States take voluntary measures (such as sanctions) against Israel because of their actions during the occupation of Palestinian territories, was repealed in 1991 with General Assembly Resolution 46/86.
Since when does arming oneself lead to racially-motivated murders? I think you're reaching quite a bit with this statement. In the US, people try to propagate this BS all the time: "guns are bad, m'kay?" Guns are not bad. Gun owners are not bad people. Thank you.
--
How far back should we go? Should every Italian suit have the misdeeds of Rome sewn into it, tapestry-fashion?
No nation is pure. Yes, we must understand the horrors of the past to prevent them from re-occuring. But we must also understand that these horrors were, ultimately, perpitrated by people, not nations, and we should not blame innocents who happen to share nationality with oppressors and war criminals.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The real problem with talking about racism is that the waters have become muddied by all the people who use it as a lever to get money or feel self-righteous by having the 'moral high-ground'. It's the problem that spawned all this PC talk we've been gifted with that only serves as a moralistic 'snobbery' for speaking 'correctly'. Nothing real gets done by it, it only creates another way of saying 'we're better than you'.
If we approached each person with the idea that all people are equal until they take the time to prove otherwise (either by being jerks or saints), then we might be able to live that dream a certain Baptist pastor had one time.
--
Sloop
Hmm. So that would include your post (forced separation...of any goup...based on belief). That's the problem; anything reasonable you apply to "them" applies to "us" too. It won't kill people to have to click away from a hate site they accidentally find.
Let's just remember that the UN is largely controlled by the US and used as an excuse for our gov't and military miraculously having things happen their way.
This seems to be yet another extention, a new prong in the US Gov's attack on the internet.
-aj.
I have become, comfortably numb
There are a couple of problems with combating online racism. First of all, trying to censor the internet will never work; look at DeCSS. As soon as some web sites were ordered not to offer it, dozens of others popped up in their place. The same thing could happen with racism. Second, the UN is trying to fight the symptom instead of the disease. Stopping people from expressing racist views will not eliminate racism; people will be as ignorant as they were before. I agree that education is the only answer to stop people from being ignorant enough to be racist in the first place.
If Hitler and the Germans were to forget about those who "discriminated" against them post WWI, would it have been possible to incite the people in the way he did? Would it have prevented the Holocaust? We need to learn from our mistakes, not be doomed to repeat them because we think it's going to make things equal.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Being proud of being of a certain race is stupid. Its like saying you're proud to be tall or proud to have blue eyes or something. You're born that way and you had no say in it.
You didn't take any notice of his
And don't bother with the "He's a Nazi! This guy's a Nazi!" comments. Think for yourself. It's far more complicated than that.
statement did you?
As for your "if you will" comment - I here it said a lot of the time around here - it's not a racist thing or a trying to sound clever thing, it's just a common joining phrase. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's only used by people you consider racist - thinking that is being racist yourself - think about what you write before you write it. Then you'll realist that that's what this is all about
From the article:
Worse still, the Web enables those who support such ideas to network and promote their products, books and so-called 'scientific' and other reports by means of e-commerce, or even to coordinate their subversive activities
and
Nazism, racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism are a threat to humanity.
From the way they're talking, it doesn't sound like they think that education would be enough.
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
What are they going to do, carpet bomb the internet?
damn i will have to change my variable names from int dago_wop; char * nigger; long french_wankers; etc etc
one that should be treated with a great deal of sensitivity on everyones part.
The reality is that we are all more alike each another than we are different from each other. All general statements are inacurate when applied to any one individual.
I believe that people should be free to speak their minds and that by exposing ignorance to the light of day that it will wither and die. Left to itself to fester in darkness, hate will grow.
There are limits to speech. Speech that says I believe this way or that way about some other race
is O.K., even if I am wrong about what I believe. But if I am calling for some crime to be committed, and someone then commits that crime, that I am as resposible as if I committed the crime myself. And I believe that the law should reflect this.
Allow people to speak as they will, but if someone is rabble rousing, hold that person responsible for the actions of those who did as they were told.
-- Never make a general statement.
Yes, the NA is growing; It's nice to meet so many patriotic White Folk, wherever they may live.
You're confused. A species can have different "breeds" or "races". These races can interbreed and have fertile offspring. They are all still members of the same species. Members of different species can't interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The keyword here is "fertile offspring". Horses and donkeys can mate to produce mules, but mules are barren and can't have offspring of its own. Mules, incidently, are what are called hybrids.
No, someone who thinks they can is realistic, someone who thinks they *should* is a Nazi.
Preventing people from expressing opinions that you don't like is one of the worst attacks against a free society. Sure, we all know racists are redneck fuck-faces who by their very existnance tarnish the human race... but that doesn't give us the right to stop them from spewing their hateful lies.
The idea that any ideas, no matter how stupid or hateful or distasteful should be censored is just plain wrong. We as a free society cannot allow the government(and especially not the UN, who we have absolutely no power over) to restrict people's freedom of speech.
There is no discussion, no debate over this, it is a simple fact: we must protect everyone's right to freedom of speech. Without that freedom, we have nothing.
Censorship is wrong no matter how awful the material to be censored is.
BTW, the book in my sig is highly recommended:
I think he's contorting the issue. We're talking about a people who were systematically exterminated years before. I sincerely doubt that it was out of blatant racism or a holier than thou superiority complex.
That's not to say that there isn't racism in Israel. There is a lot of racism. I can only expect it when many have died because of blind hate -- which in turn creates a disturbing cycle. The truth is that their only title to the land is the gun in their hand.
And a message to those of you who blindly hate Israel:
Look at the size of israel and look at the size of all its neighbours. Look at the resources they have, then look at the resources israel has. While there are many religious problems included in the equation as well, countries like syria and jordan continue to screw people out of the democratic process.
You know, I've never understood how people could take pride in something that they have absolutely no control over whatsoever.
So yes I'm all for taking hate away. I'm also for taking away all kinds of other internet pollution. Like kiddie porn, vulgar pictures, and just plain gore. People who need to show their individuality this way can find a better place other than OUR internet.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Don't get me wrong, i don't like rasicm anymore then the next guy, but what they have to say is protected, in the US anyway. Also education IS the way to go, and would probably solve most of the worlds problems. However once we start saying that certain speech is "bad" for society, where do we stop, and who determines what is "bad" in the first place? Do most people really think that the words banned by the FCC on TV and the radio are harmful to society? I wouldn't think so...
In other words, it removes the respsonsibility that goes with calling someone a bigot. How strong of you to not be able to stand behind your words. There is a time and place for being an AC, when you post something that can get your fired or similar circumstances.
No, I don't mean Jackson. If I were to name specific others, I doubt you'd know who they are because they don't get the spotlight as Jackson does.
I would hope you are referring to groups like CORE and BOND who are trying to help us all get along rather than trying to wedge racism between us for some personal goal.
Hey, what I ment before was that someone who murders someone else because the victim is black, then it is ethnic intimidation.
So, it's more important simply because it affects more people? Those people in the parking lot aren't any less scared or intimidated just because they're a smaller subset.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
All replies to this article are in violation of U.N.R.A. 105, para C, concerning usage of proscribed terminology and unauthorized comment outside of official UN regulatory meetings. All of you have had your ips recorded and web user licences revoked. Your automatic appeal has been filed and denied. Have a nice day! United Nations Safe-T Web Initiative Organization -Keeping the Web Safe for Humans.
"United Nations World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia"
Have you ever heard the word xenophobia used to criticize any country other than the US? Expect to see headlines such as "Study shows 80% of all hate sites are US-based."
This sounds like a money grab; make Americans feel guilty, and wallow in the spare change they throw off.
Infotech seems to have no problem with the manner in which I responded. Why do you? I haven't said "He's a Nazi", I've challenged his thinking, posing him a series of questions to which he has responded.
"If you will" sounds pompous. It is inappropriate for the audience and context. Actually, it sounds like it may have been lifted from a source text, but I can't be bothered to check. Infotech's arguments have been full of superficially clever reasoning and I was pointing out a parallel between this and the writing style. I am quite capable of using that or, indeed, more complex phraseology, vocabulary and syntax, should the urge, need or desire become very pressing. I am also capable of spelling correctly, and including commas sufficient to render my sentences intelligible, something, my dear chappie, that seems to elude you.
If I were badly wronged by someone with green eyes, and afterwards came to hate everyone with green eyes and believe that most of them were criminals, I would be considered a candidate for the insane asylum.
This may be so, but it is not really that uncommon. There is a part of our brain called the "old brain" or the reptillian brain (because reptiles also have it). This part of the brain is not very good at distinguishing such things as the past and the present or differences between individuals, but it has a powerful influence on our emotions, such as fear, anger and hate (and also love). Because it is not very advanced, this portion of the brain tends to generalize. Therefore, if someone with green eyes did attack you and the green eyes were the main attribute that you remembered from the attacker, you very likely would find yourself feeling very uncomfortable (afraid) around other green-eyed people.
Obviously, this fear is not rational, but it is real nonetheless. Eventually, you could probably convince yourself that the fear is unneeded and overcome it, but it would not be an easy process.
I believe that such irrational fears are one of the root causes of racism, although there certainly are others. Fortunately, we have evolved somewhat beyond the reptile and can now at least recognize, if we are so inclined, when these feelings are irrational.
A profusion of commas improperly placed is not the same as clear or proper english.
^- not sure where i got that quote from, but it applies
I am a nonprogrammed Quaker, and have therefore been exposed to many different diversity realted issues. Diversity and acceptance, i have found, can be forced upon a group very quickly, but this requires the loss of many traits that make us human, and it creates a "utopia" by destroying all those who don't conform. (think a cross between the ultra conservative christian right and 1984)
the second way to achieve acceptance and diversity (in any situation, i am not talking about just the net, since the internet is a community, not just like very other, but close enough) is to declare that you have diversity and acceptance, and just ignore it when the homosexuals are beaten to death and the middle easterners are ostrasized. This is a very popular way to achieve "diversity" for people are gullible enough to think that it is good, and it was achieved quickly and cheaply.
The third way is to pump large ammounts of energy and commitment into te goal of, not getting everyone to see things your way, but just for people the see your view (yes, there is a difference). The problem with this meathod is that even though idividuals and small groups are able to accept one another, once people are told to accept those that they have never seen and know little about, it gets harder. people have a tendency of shutting themselves in and only opening up to new ideas if they are presented by a friend who is familiar. This meathod also will not work because it takes vast ammounts of energy in both capital and human energy, and lets face it: people are lazy
the final way, and the only one that i feel has any hope is to slowly expand the horizens of those close to one, and to spread this, thus creating a web of acceptance, in which people slowly integrate into a world wide society where everyone it equal. This may seam like an impossible meathod now, especially when you consider that this type of society would almost definitly be tribalistic (sorta like communistic, what communism was coppied off of) but, as things such as the internet destroy geographical and language (hopefully soon:-) barriers, people will be almost forced to interact with those who are different. The slow progression of technology forcing different groups to interact will create children who grow up -knowing- people of all diffent back grounds and beliefs. i am hoping that this will lead to a progression towards true euquality, but as it is apparent: this meathod is extremely slow and i have know expectation of living to see an equal world, but i also feel that *someday* humans may come together.
LSo, pray tell, how do you determine if a site is pornagraphic? Who makes the call? And what if a site incorporates both pornagraphic and non-pornagraphic elements?
I'm going to give you a completely honest answer here. I don't know. The problem is, as I've stated before, that the definition of pornography deals with sexuality, and that's something which is a little bit different for everyone. What I consider pornographic isn't likely to agree perfectly with what any given random person on the Net considers pornographic; there'll probably be some overlap but it won't be perfect agreement.
The main problem is cultural differences. For example, many Americans consider any nudity to be pornographic (I don't, and I'd imagine few Slashdotters do, but no one here could be considered an "average American," particularly those of us who aren't even from the US). This stems, probably, from the Puritanical, fundamentalist backgrounds of American culture. Many other cultures, most notably that of Japan but also those of many European nations, are more relaxed about this, and have different definitions. There are some things that all of these cultures would agree was pornographic, but there would be a lot of disagreement on other things, particularly softcore.
I don't claim to know the answer. I'd imagine there is one, but I don't know what it is.
It strikes me that the people you're largely upset with are more or less the equivalent of phone slammers, or spammers rather than pornographers. Most pornographers are so (justifibly) paranoid that they go to extremes to avoid violating laws. False advertising laws may apply in the instance of redirection. People interested only in banner impressions are a slightly different class of people.
You know what? You're probably the only person who's challenged my post (at least thus far) and not missed the point entirely. You're exactly right; I don't like porn or hate speech, but I do recognize the right of such sites to exist. What upsets me is the ways they trick or force people into going there without knowing what they're getting into.
Re: your definition of hate speech, would then the advocation of the destruction of hate groups be considered hate speech as you're basing their annhilation (etc) based upon their beliefs?
One: No, because there's a difference between a hate group and the people affiliated with it. It is quite possible to destroy a hate group without killing the people therein.
Two: I wasn't advocating the destruction of hate groups anyway. Even if I practically get physically ill when viewing the results of their recruitment of children, I do recognize their right to exist.
Perhaps more active enforcement of laws against this behavior (redirection, false advertising, wire fraud, etc.) would be in order?
That's another way of doing it, but ultimately it's not as effective. Then you get into stuff like META-tag abuse (to grab more hits from search engines) and other methods. It'd be a good place to start, though.
Considering that the government-controlled newspapers in most Arab countries claim that the Holocaust never happened, it's no surprise that no representatives would show for this conference.
Okay, let's dispute some myths here. For one thing, the majority of so-called "rednecks" are not racist. Yes, many of us openly are, but they are a loud, obnoxious minority. Why is it okay to bash poor white people? Does that make you cool? That in of itself is racist. However, when it comes to racism, I think white middle-class Americans are a hell of a lot more guilty because you have ALWAYS looked the other way when racism occured, and are in denial of your own racist attitudes, and you PROJECT your racism on us. Not only that, you think you are better than we are, because you were BORN (note, you didn't EARN) into money. I, as a once-poor (wealthy now thanks to c++) white male, marched in San Fransisco with King's widow in the 30th anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech. Let's remember, many of those who marched with King were POOR WHITES and it was middle-class white America that was in opposition to King, and it was middle-class America that's thriving off land STOLEN from Native Americans.
Really? Let's see. Suppose (and before anyone gets worked up about it, this is purely a hypothetical example - I woudl never condone this action!) that I were to systematically stalk and abuse you, your family and friends. Suppose I raped, tortured and killed your mother, wife, sisters, daughters and so on in front of you, then tortured you, rendered you paralised from teh neck down for the rest of your life, destroyed your home and posessions and completely ruined you. Are you saying you would not *hate* me for that?!?!
Hmmm...
In it, is says that if your gov't gets corrupt, it is not only your right, but "your duty to overthrow it."
Curious you ask for "examples" which are specific instances. Yet these specifics are supposed to prove something "generally"??? Just exactly what you smoking?
...i had no idea that certain words were reserved for exclusive use by certain races
i propose that the word "smartypants" be only used by whitefolk in describing other whitefolk - henceforth no other races shall use it...
On the subject of white vs. black, the IRC channel I frequent has come up with the following ideas:
a) Sometimes a nigger is not black or white. It's a state of mind. You can be a dumb nigger and be an Asian Latino with Mexican and Italian grandparents.
b) There is a difference between black people and gangsta niggers. Black people are the nice normal successful people who actually DO something with their lives. They have a good job, a nice family, drive a nice car. Most importantly they speak English. You get the idea.
A gangsta nigger on the other hand sits on his doorstep all day drinking 40s, smoking pot, listening to gansta rap, has 20 illegit kids, speaks ebonics, and collects welfare.
I hope everyone can understand and somehow benefit from this.
Every resolution regarding Israel that has come out of the UN (with the exception of the original partition resolution in 1948) has been strongly anti-Israeli. Why? It's not a conspiracy, it's just numbers: Lots of Arab nations, one Israel with one US backing them up (and one PRC sometimes, too).
If the UN had any real teeth, Israel would have been history decades ago. Thank god it ain't so.
World government sounds great in principle, but the road to hell is paved with such things. England has gone a-politickin' in the EU to force France to stop producing foie gras. This is intolerable. I would damn near advocate total nuclear annihilation of the UK on that basis alone. There's also been talk about making the French pasteurize their cheese. WTF is that all about? Quick Lesson in How To Transform Good Cheese Into Inedible Crap that Would Be Right at Home in an American Supermarket: Step 1: Pasteurize. Step 2: There is no Step 2.
God help us all, imagine if the Australians were running the world? Or . . . and I know this is vile beyond words, but it must be said . . . the Canadians?!
I'd gladly spill every last drop of my good read American blood to keep the Canadians at bay. No sacrifice is too great. The river is deep, but I will swim it. Our Cause is Just. With the grace of God, we will prevail, in peace, and the purity of our precious bodily fluids.
Shantih, shantih, shantih, shama-lama ding dong. You heard it here first.
I'll buy most of what you're saying, with the exception of the following:
Refusing to step down from power despite the fact that his continued presence perpetuates the embargo, causing starving and needless suffering for his people.
If I start beating youf wife, and I promise to stop when you divorce her, who's the asshole? Me.
Saddam Hussein is not responsible for the actions of the US. If somebody came along and organized an international embargo of the US (we do have a lot of foreign trade, and it would be a very bad thing), and if they promised to stop if we would only hang Bill Clinton up by his heels, what kind of a reaction do you think that would elicit from the American people? Clinton's popularity would rise. Yeah, some of them would want to go along with it, but a lot of people have strong feelings about the whole sovereignty thing, and not all of those people live in bunkers in Idaho.
Bowing to threats is not generally considered honorable or decent behavior. The fact that "our side" is the one doing the threatening is irrelevant.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
>When it comes down to it, words are just words.
>Regardless of how someone feels, words are
>necessary to convey how people feel and they
>have the right to express their feelings whether
>or not a single other person agrees with them.
>Judge by actions, not words.
The problem is that words, especially when becoming a majority of the "voices" around, become a dangerous weapon. We only need to look at history to see this is true, and we only need to look at the current problems in Austria, to see how it can be repeated in a 'civilized' country and give a great potential threat to whichever mionority _you_ suddenly happen to be.
Words do hurt, and free speech is fine, but if
you value free speech more than your life, you might well end up giving that life indeed.
But then again, this is just another issue like drugs, and weapons, that no one seems to be able to agree on.
When you start nitpicking on what people can and can't say, you have fiascos like the Seattle "riots" over the WTO. When you silence your opposition, you are infringing on their right to express their ideas how they see fit. You don't have to endorse them but if you value your freedom of speech, you have to respect theirs. Who are you going to let judge whether your words and ideas are deserving of censorship? Are you going make the courts determine whether any word you utter is proper? What if you piss off the wrong group, like with the DVD case? What about the guy whom was fired for using the word niggerdly because someone thought it referred to black people in a derogative way or the guy who was fired for talking about a Seinfeld episode?
If someone were to start the National Association for the Advancement of White People, would the NAACP get to have them shut down for being racist by excluding blacks? What if someone started the United White Guy college fund? Are they more discriminitory that the United Negro College Fund? What of so called reverse discrimination? Do proclaimed minorities have greater rights than the "white male majority?"
Is is worse to kill someone because they're black than it is to kill someone because they parked in the 7th parking space from the left of the center of the parking lot? Is it appropriate to hire a less qualified minority rather than hire a better qualified white male? Affirmative action and so called hate crimes only create further tension between the races. When you begin banning opinions and start waiving special protections for certain groups, you're giving people a reason to hate MORE.
When it comes down to it, words are just words. Regardless of how someone feels, words are necessary to convey how people feel and they have the right to express their feelings whether or not a single other person agrees with them. Judge by actions, not words.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
I agree completely. Notice I did say 'usually' and 'relatively'. ;)
/. are fantastic for this, in that we are encouraged to think critically, and to share what we know... As well as to respect the views of others.
;)
I took a class in 'Science, Technology, and Human Values' recently, about how we are influenced by the ways in which we get information. It is a fact: The professional news media is biased, in many ways. For one thing, newspapers and television stations get their money by advertising, and movie-makers do a lot more advertising than kids who, in their own free time, write a program for their own convenience, then share it with others as a Good Deed. For another, reporters can only report on what they know, and what they hear. They don't even have to report falsely... They only have to pick and choose what to say. They have to do that anyway, due to Sound Bite Syndrome. As a result, there's almost no way that they can be unbiased.
And I agree, the fact that people can get their information in so many new ways is a Good Thing. Places like
Often times, I find sites that preach what personally I consider to be the farthest 'out there' to be rather amusing... I share them with my friends, we chuckle, and occasionally, the sites even get put on the 'dibs list' for a good MiSTing. What saddens me is that there are people who have never been encouraged to think critically, who are easily indoctrinated. This is as much, if not more, the fault of upbringing, than it is of the messenger.
The internet, as an informative medium, is by far the best mankind has ever created, more revolutionary than the printing press, and many good things have come from it, and are still yet to come.
So, in essence, I agree with you, Finkployd. It's just a bit of cynicism that tends to strike me whenever the topic of human gullibility comes up. Blame it on Aldous Huxley, if you like.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Moderators. Please do not moderate this down. This post is part of an important argument that follows.
While speech should not be censored within a free society (something in which I would like to live) it is not unreasonable or undemocratic to demand that mutual respect for difference be exercised in the workplace and the classroom. This is where free speech does come in. It is necessary to explain and educate why racist (and indeed homophobic and misogynistic) speech is unacceptable in certain environments. Furthermore, in the areas of society where views are freely disseminated: the internet and a free press, it becomes necessary to explain what is wrong with these views: This is done through free and truthful speech. Racists are not merely stating opinions; they actively lie. The NeoNazi movement actively claims that the holocaust did not occur and attempts to fan the flames of hatred by claiming that a Jewish conspiracy has fabricated all the evidence. The Church of the Creator claims that poor blacks are taking money away from poor whites when in fact it is an issue of rich people (mostly white) taking money away from poor people of all races. White supremacists lie when they talk about racial superiority when in fact there is no scientific basis for the category of race. We best serve the human species by speaking the truth to these lies and furthermore, speaking the truth about the harm that these lies can cause.
Is this for real? I mean, not just an urban legend? Do you have a source? (Not criticising, just somewhat overwhelmed and would like to find out more).
niggardly adj. from niggard, a mean or stingy person. [from Middle English nigon, probably of Scandanavian orgin].
Curtailing freedom of speech does not prevent villainy, on the contrary it makes it very easy to cover it up. Incidentally, by taking such a cavalier attitude toward free speech, your attitudes resemble those of a medieval monarch. The thing that bothers me about the middle ages is that people could be executed or tortured for thoughtcrime, but modern dictatorships, whether called fascist, communist, Nazi or even revolutionary Islam, are simply more efficient at doing this.
Also, who do you think is going to control the world government, nice, liberal, environmentally conscious paupers or rich and evil corporations. Look at what Nestle is able to resume doing in South America thanks to the WTO, they can agressively advertise infant formula as being better than mother's milk. Mostly, the WTO just smooths things over for corporations that want to exploit people everywhere in the world.
Incidentally, I think people like you are dangerous, because you want to curtail freedom and concentrate power in the hands of government. But I would never suggest that your freedom to express such dangerous views be curtailed, I just insist that I continue to have the right to respond to you.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
This reminds me of a discussion I had with some friends recently, on one of the real dangers of the ultimate Free Speech which the Internet allows. In 'traditional' media, such as newspapers and television, reporters are usually relatively duty-bound to have Real Fact to back up anything they report as Real Fact.
The Internet, though, gives no restrictions. Charlatans can spread their lies with the click of the button. Fools can get in touch with other fools in ways never before imagined. And what's truly frightening is, there are people without the common sense to be critical of what they read. There are people who will see a White Supremacist's site declaring that the Holocost never happened or that Martin Luther King Jr. was a fraud, or on the other end of the spectrum, that everyone of European descent is Evil to the bone... And they will actually believe it. I couldn't count the sites that I've looked at, where I just shake my head and say, 'how can anyone believe this load of baloney?'. And yet, someone out there does, or else it wouldn't be posted.
Of course, the only way to fight it is through education, and the noble and right thing to do is for each of us to do our best to educate our friends and families, and to be educated ourselves. Even the best of us can be suckered into a falsehood.
Still, I personally doubt that there will ever be a way to be completely rid of hate sites, not as long as there are people who can learn to hate. 'Everybody knows that the world is full of stupid people.' And there's a sucker born every minute.
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
I don't want El Salvadorians keeping live goats in the bathtub while they eat parts of them. I don't want East Indians burning their dead in Lake of the Ozarks. I don't want Bantus dragging their neighbors out into the streets for forced circumcision. I don't want Javanese fish bombing in Key West once there are sufficient numbers of this plague in our country.
This is gonna get reeeeeaal interesting. To those who claim my views are ignorant, let me just say I will compare passport stamps with the best of you. As the flotsam continues to wash up on our shores, bet money that I will have increased company. I'm a proud racist and cultural bigot and I pray there will be more before it's too late.
I'm Jewish. I read this article with interest... education is hardly the only answer, because in order to have education answer it, you have to make sure that the curriculum doesn't have any `subliminals,' and that's hard because, as it has been said millions of times before, "history is written by the people who win the wars."
Come on, guys! The only way to combat racism is to promote society's positive influences on people. Encourage community service, and discourage antisocial behavior, which frequently degenerates into racist or xenophobic or homophobic or whatever behavior.
What we ought to do is basically reinforce people being positively involved. If that means church, mosque, temple or synagogue, so be it; but if people can only see the negatives in society, then they are going to have a hard time accepting minorities.
Otherwise -- we'll have to do like myself and my ancestors have, for almost the entire time we have existed as a culture and a religion. Ignore the people who are too shortsighted to see the good that can come from multiculturalism, and band together in communities.
Let's work together and use Slashdot to provide a forum for that multiculturalism! Linux is really a universal operating system, and the nerds of the world should unite and prove a model to everyone else as to how they can act to make the world a better place. I'm proud to be a Linux user, a Slashdotter, but to hide the fact that underneath that lies someone who is also Jewish would be doing a disservice to the community. Come on, guys, show the world what a diverse community can be like when it works!
"On that train all graphite and glitter, undersea by rail. Ninety minutes from New York to Paris..." -Donald Fagen, IGY
Here is an interesting story on salon.com.
Apparently, some white supremacist group called "Stormfront" registered martinlutherking.org, and made it look like an educational site. Of course, it's actually an anti-King site.
Unbelieveable. They actually called him "an America-hating Communist".
Just who will this education be aimed at?? Is education the answer, no I don't think so, and before all the flames start let me explain. In my 40 something years on this earth I have seen and done many things and one of the things that stands out is if you make yourself a target you will get attacked. Now the question that begs to be answered is how does one go about making themselves a target. This is vary simple stand out from the crowd, in other words be different. So as related to ethnicity problems (please note that unless there has been some evolutionary changes taking place that I have not noticed there is only one human race)taking place what can be done about them. As far as america, stop the double standard. I know most of you are thinking about a white double standard for blacks but there also exists a black double standard for whites. For example, take the notorious word nigger. If a white person uses that word it is an immediate threat to all blacks, but when a black uses the same word it is admirable (for example Chris Rock and numerous other commedians that are black, in fact Richard Pryor first claim to fame was based mostly on his use of the word). Another example is the so called RAP music if you take the time to understand it the dreaded n-word pops up regularly and all these self-rightous people never say a word about that. A second point education only works when the person being educated wants to be educated. Forced education does not work, in any way, shape, or form. If I want to learn about, just for arguements sake, about life in the upper Amazon then I will take measures to learn about it,but if , on the other hand I were forced to learn about the upper Amazon I would do my best to forget everything I learned as soon as was possible.
I'd say you had bad luck. The hard-core nazis in sweden are no more than 2-300 (according to the police). A very loud minority though.
To register sld.com, sld must be a form of your company name or a trademarked product name. This tld is restricted to legally recognized businesses.
I figure this kind of scheme to close up the domain name space will be the next method for "controlling the vast, unregulated Internet": domain names to be held only by "legitimate corporations", and laws against mere "individuals" holding a domain name of their own.
It will be argued that the mere individuals can always use part of the directory structure of a hosting provider, and that this is good enough for these mere individuals. It will also be argued that the limited namespace is too precious for any domain name to be "wasted" on a purpose that isn't corporate.
We saw a preview of this with the law recently passed to make reverse domain piracy easier. Corporate marketing execs testified as to the difficulty of marketing when they couldn't get the domain name they wanted because some "mere individual" happened to be using it. Much was made of the monetary impact on the "new information economy".
Look for more of the same. The movement to narrow the ability of individuals to publish on the Internet continues apace, and domain name registration is the most promising place to apply pressure on it, because DNS is centralized and therefore vulnerable.
It's just that I, as a white person, have never (so far as I know) been harmed in any way by discrimination against white people. If there were some "relentless assault of anti-white racism", I would have thought I would have experienced some of it. Either the original poster's life experience differs significantly from mine, or we have different notions about what it means to be discriminated against.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Article 26 section 2 says:
Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
If that doesn't sound like brainwashing children I don't know what does.
If they're going to outlaw racist webpages then what websites will I be able to go to to make fun of the obviously illogical reasoning? Now, I'm not saying that a logical argument for racist conclusions isn't possible, I'm just saying that absurdly illogical arguments are more common.
Oh, wait, there's still religious sites like capreport.org to make fun of... I'll be just fine =P
And I think my .sig is appropriate to this subject...
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
All that they want is a battle. They want people to get mad, they want people to try to stop them. Quit playing thier game. If someone walked up to you and said "you are wearing a blue shirt, you are stupid!", you would not take them seriously. Obviously wearing a blue shirt does not make you stupid. Why then, do you take these people seriously? If you know deep down that they don't make sense, that you just can't take someone like that seriously, it will show without you trying. The next time someone says something racist, laugh. Tell them that you laughed because it was so stupid, it was stupid was it? It wasn't something to get offended about was it? Of course not. Just like the person who said that you are stupid for wearing a blue shirt. It just didn't make sense, there was nothing to get mad about.
So your saying we should overthrow Washington and any other damned country because its corrupt? Hey I like the idea of that too bad people dont take that literally
The only way to stop racism is to eliminate agents that cause flare-ups. (including the
censorship that evidently the UN is proposing, hate crime laws, affirmative action legislation)
And hope that through education, and compassion human kind will eventually give it up.
The agents that cause "flare ups" of racism are not affirmative action, or hate-crimes laws. Racism long predated these measures, and burned far brighter before they were introduced. While someone who is already a racist may feel additionally aggrieved by these things, they have no ability make a racist out of someone who isn't one.
Southern (US) politicians used to argue that segregation was necessary to maintain peace between the races, and that ending it would be a gift to the KKK. Guess what? The forced end of segregation, and the concessions made to minority groups greatly reduced both the degree of racism, and especially its consequences, even in the ost benighted parts of Mississippi. I'm not advocating censorship, but history is shown that being nice to racists only encourages racism, and fighting them, in one way or another, is the only way to reduce it.
Sweden does have it's problems. Like any country that is faced with a fall in wealth (from the top to the bottom of the OECD in 25 years), and large social shifts from an extremely homogenus population to one of Europes most culturally diverse (of course, I believe this to be a good thing), we have our fair share of both segregation and bitterness.
As an outsider, I feel that there migth be another explanation for the Swedish far right.
Sweden has portrayed itself as the consciousness of the world for years. (and IMHO, this is all for the good, although sometimes a bit hypocratic). Maybe the neo-nazi movement is a backlash towards this prevalent attitude.
Sweden is - still, I believe - a welfare state. It appears that the neo-nazis want to keep the benefits without the philosophical package.
When this ends up to calls for censorship, I think that the potential regulators should understand that information is best fought with information. Other means just add to the fire - especially on the long run!
And Sweden seems to have taken this approach with its holocaust information campaign. We on the other side of the Gulf of Bothnia are following suite.
What term do you think is more appropriate than 'African-American'?
-- Adam
I'm gonna cut you, White-Bread! KILL WHITEY!
KILL WHITEY!
"Over 300 Million Indigenous Peoples were brutally tortured and murdered by an invasion of foreign forces in an act to Exterminate an Indigenous Peoples so as to Steal their Land and Resources. Those who were not exterminated were Forcefully Removed from their lands (either at gunpoint or the point of a bayonet or by Forged Treaties) and driven off to Federal PRISON Camps called RESERVATIONS. "
that's a pretty accurate, if strongly worded, claim. but then again, one can't be too subtle when discussing genocide.
regarding the main topic at hand, there is ample precedent showing that the first amendment does not protect all forms of speech. hate speech is not protected as free speech because combating racism is considered at this time in this society (i'm writing from the u.s.) to be a greater priority than absolute free speech.
i happen to agree that hate speech should not be protected. i don't think free speech is the only right worth fighting for. having said all that, i don't think fighting hate speech through legislative means is really going to work on the internet. it is a different culture(s) here, with a different set of customs and mores. we'll see.
jacobKILL WHITEY!
Recently, the center sent a letter to Amazon.com and to Barnesandnoble.com asking each site to remove the books
Mein Kampf
The Protocols for the Elders of Zion
The Turner Diaries
Hunter
from their sites. I just don't see how they can promote rememberance, and at the same time encourage booksellers to take the Mein Kampf from their shelves and warehouses.
I'm not familiar with some of these books, but I think that instead of suggesting that the books be censored, they should have posted comments on amazon.com going something like this: "This is a perfect example of a racist book, complete with flawed reasoing. Highly recommended for those interested in history. You should read [the cliff notes on | the weisenthal center's rebuttal to] this book along with it."
--
The shareholder is always right.
Given that the fear of every U.S. militia group seems to be that the U.N. will invade us and declare martial law, I'm not sure how well this will go over here. It seems to me that countries like Germany (where neo-nazi and other hate speech is against the law, IIRC) are trying to impose their laws on other countries, via super-governmental organizations such as the U.N.
While I cannot say that the U.S. has never tried to do the same (re: DVD case), or that I condone hatred of any kind, it is my opinion that this flies in the face of the first amendment, but IANAL.
Any comments, etc?
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Did I ever say I was, you white-ass skank bitch?
Personally, I think that much of this xenophobic psychosis can be traced back to 500BC, when as we all know, the European continent was experiencing- wait a damn minute, what the fuck am I sayin'? KILL WHITEY! WHITEY NEEDS TA DIE!
Why shouldn't these people be allowed to put up their hateful webpages? I mean, what if eToy had been a racist group? Would that then mean that they wouldn't have deserved all the support this site gave them?
Freedom of speech should cover all topics.. even if society says the topic involved is a "bad" one.
IMO, we shouldn't argue for "our rights online" if that doesn't extend to anyone who puts a webpage up. That's the beauty of this old internet.. if you see a webpage (for example) that offends you, just make another webpage that outlines the flaws of said offensive website.
I don't support these folks at all, except for the fact that they're excersising their right to say what they want. What really offends me in all this is that the UN (actually, the UN is never referenced directly with regards to censoring racist websites, so maybe I should just say "these countries") seems to be assuming their policing the net is wanted.. or even legal.
This is not only banning freedom of expression it is banning the freedom to think and question. In Canada hate literature is illegal, I like how it is illegal but then again I think it's wrong to ban how a person thinks. Thinking ultimately leads to expression and by punishing this you are unfair punishing people for their BELIEFS.
If they ban racism, what is next? Ban Athiesm? Ban religon? Ban assembling (it's bad to share ideas). They are trying to declare an idea illegal! Will they ban the story of Lot in the bible which refers to gay people as dogs?
Will they ban the information on holocaust because it was against Jews?
Then will they ban science?
1984
I spit on what others call "national values". Giving any fuck about ones nationality in the age where people change their host countries few times in their lives is stupid and pointless.
Besides countries run by nationalist governments end up trailing economically and lose political influence and credibility (see: Russia, Slovakia). We are digressing here though. As far as free speech is concerned you can't simply assume that everything goes. That is not your right. Your right is to live your life in peace and relative safety from hatred and discrimination. By giving racists the right to free speech you are denying some minorities their basic right to safety and equal freedom. Put it this way: it's impossible to guarantee everyone a total freedom of speech. Some society members are plain dangerous and should be closely watched and restrained if necessary and possibly thrown in jail or executed where applicable. The word freedom does not imply anarchy! There is freedom and there is freedom. If you decide to give people who run stormfront freedom you are denying it someone who is on the receiving end of their hatred.
Now go on kids and moderate this to Flamebait since it's so contrary to your stupid simplistic ideas about freedom.
In case you wonder I'm white.
Surely you've read at least some history!
And you worry about the National Alliance limiting speech? One of their magazine's is titled "Free Speech" for God's sake.
Considering that the hero of the open source movement Eric Raymond has an essay on his Web site exemplifying the threatened white male mentality, I'm certainly not surprised to see it in evidence on slashdot.
-- Adam
Dunno, do you have some facts to back that up ? I'd agree that they are still "hate crimes". However, it's also worth mentioning that black people get stiffer sentences in the criminal justice system by default.
*snort* Sorry bub, but the third world hardly prodding from either the UN or the West to fight wars, slaughter, kill, massacre rape and destroy. I will agree with you though..the UN is useless.
Since the U.N. has already declared Zionism to be a racism, the goal of this new U.N. program is clear. I urge everyone who opposes anti-semitism to oppose this new U.N. initiative. I hope this silly idea will die the same death as the U.N.'s plans to license reporters (so that unlicensed reporters could be deported or imprisoned). M_T
If money doesn't buy happiness, you're not spending it right.
YES.
It's really sad what race relations have come to in this country, considering what could have been.
Insular minority identity groups and peecee-ism is certainly a far cry from what King was trying to accomplish in the 60's. Add to that a national media that sensationalizes every race issue imaginable... doesn't make it easy for people to just get along (which of course 99% of the time they mostly do).
1) censorship is wrong, period.
any action whatsoever, irregardless of how noble the cause behind it may be, that includes censorship as even the most menial part of its overall efforts is, prima facie, bad. while this point may be debated, just act as though you weren't a republican for the purpose of this post.
2) propaganda == education
irregardless of what is being taught, the two are the same, in principle. it's our moralistic definition of each that separates the two.
3) propaganda != converts
ok, this bit is mostly personal theory, so i'll leave it hanging for debate. it's been my opinion for some time that irregardless of what influence people are burdened with, after a certain age they are fairly immune to being swayed by others' words (some people more than others). that is to say, if someone (of the suitable age range) lies...even if they never do it again, their personality has been wired in such a way that they are predisposed towards lying. another way to put this is: i don't believe in reform...nobody gets reformed, they just learn not to do it again or they'll be spanked or whatever.
pertinent to this article, any "education" we should be doing ought to be aimed at the younger set of society in an effort to prevent racist inclinations from being implanted in their minds when they are still forming the bulk of what will become their "self".
silencing racist websites, in addition to being bad (see 1), will have absolutely _no_ effect whatsoever on the general sum of racist inclinations in the world as the people who generally come into contact with these sites have already formed their moral and personal opinions on the matter and _will not be swayed just cuz the damn site isn't there anymore_. any younger people for whom censorship of these sites may change their opinions due to lack of contact are negligable as anyone of a suitable enough age to be impressionable...yet old enough to roam the net at will, in order to seek these sites out, will have had some sort of outside (non-net) stimulus that has prodded them in this direction and, as such, are already predisposed to it...that is to say, even if they never make it to the website, they've still got some sort of environmental influence pushing them in the general direction of racial hatred anyway.
-
that an organization like this could even dream of promoting censorship causes my mind to reel, but the utter uselessness of it and the colossal waste of time and energy that would have to go into something like this is what truly turns my stomache. there's got to be something we can all spend time doing instead of sitting around and telling each other to "shut up."
-dk
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
Sweden has a long tradition of openness, every document sent out, received or created by a public body (local or state governement, or anything run by them) automaticly is put on public record. There are of course exception, for instance medical records, "state security", and other cases where disclosure would cause considerable harm, but each exception must be excplicit and under a specific law or regulation.
For instance, I have a constitutional right to walk into the government office building and ask to see a list of what e-mails the Prime Minister has sent and received during the day. I may then ask to have a copy of any mail that might interest me. The law explicitly state that this is should be a "no questions asked" procedure, I don't have to identify myself or state the reason for my request and the official handling things must no ask and are further more required to handle the request "without undue delay". I think it's a great system -- Sweden has very little corruption and suspect activites by politicians and government officials that actually take place are sooner or later dug out from the records by the media.
Racism is, frankly, disgusting. Not too far from my home (my real home, not my college apartment) lives one family in particular. The youngest of the three daughters is no more than eight years old (and I've known them for five years) and ever since I moved there, I've listened to them grow increasingly hateful and racist, to the point where my sisters and I can't even invite a good portion of our friends over anymore for fear that those three will come out and start harrassing them. It has to be, without a doubt, the single most sickening thing I've ever seen.
But I cannot support censorship of any kind (except for parental censorship and self-censorship). I'll grant; I'd like to see all hate speech disappear from the Net. But it's not my place, nor anyone else's, to start forcibly removing it.
In the past I've mentioned the ".xxx plan" for porn. I've always found the idea intriguing (the idea being that porn sites would have to register under that domain). It still allows porn sites to exist, but in a manner such that someone who doesn't want to see those sites can avoid them very easily. As far as I'm concerned that's even more important than making filtering easier for parents who choose to use it. I want to be able to hit AltaVista, run a search, and hit a checkbox labeled "exclude porn sites" so I don't have to wade through them while I look for what I'm really after.
Perhaps a similar plan could work for hate speech such as this (".hate" or ".kkk" or something similar). It means that you have to legally define hate speech, but that's not as difficult as defining porn.
I would submit that hate speech could be defined as the advocation of the annhilation, forced separation, or intimidation of any group of people based on beliefs, genetic factors, physical or mental prowess, or anything else other than the objective merits of the individuals within that group. Does anyone agree or disagree?
Keep in mind, this plan does not prohibit such speech in any way. What it does do is make it so that a person who views a site knows beforehand just what the site contains. I don't see how this is an affront to anyone's rights; frankly I find it to be a bigger affront to my own rights when people pull cure HTML tricks to redirect me from a harmless-looking personal page into a porn site. Implicit in the right to free speech are two other very important rights: the right to hear what I choose, and the right to not hear what I choose not to.
The UN Charter on Human Rights enumerates more
rights than the US constitution and its admendments, but sadly is less followed by the UN
itself.
Specifically with regards to freedom of speech/press.
Its authoritarian members don't understand you have to put up with bad speech to insure freedom of speech.
One of the things I cherish about the Internet is the freedom from racial prejudice. Unless I choose to reveal it, no one knows my race, my sex, my age, my religion or anything else. They can judge me by my words and actions.
I'm franky disturbed by this. The article seemed to imply that there was a need for some kind of censorship. Instead of wasting your time trying to silence these groups, publish rebuttals and spread your own message. If you think that reading some words on some poorly written Neo-Nazi web site is going to start a race war, you've got deeper problems already. This quote jumped out at me, "Sweden has one of the world's highest rates of Internet usage, with more half of adults online. The country has found itself at the hub of European neo-Nazism, with a rising racist crime rate."
They seem to be implying a positive correlation between internet usage rates and neo-Nazism. Sounds like the Internet has once again become the scapegoat. Obviously there must be some deeper issues going on in Sweden. Anyone there want to fill us in on the story?
Anyway, if we are going to embark into this brave new world, let us do it right! Let's ban all speech that is hateful, further lets ban all speech from parties that have committed crimes against humanity. We don't need those messages being imparted onto our impressionable youth.
I guess the first thing to do is to shut down all the United States Government sites. Here is a quote I found on a Native American site:
"Over 300 Million Indigenous Peoples were brutally tortured and murdered by an invasion of foreign forces in an act to Exterminate an Indigenous Peoples so as to Steal their Land and Resources. Those who were not exterminated were Forcefully Removed from their lands (either at gunpoint or the point of a bayonet or by Forged Treaties) and driven off to Federal PRISON Camps called RESERVATIONS. "
I'll leave it to you to decide the validity of their claim. Maybe we should shut this site down for implying that the U.S. Government slaughtered millions of Native Americans? Or should we shut down other sites because they deny the Native American Holocaust?
Or perhaps we can start teaching critical thinking and reasoning so our citizens can make informed decisions! But we couldn't have that, after all once citizens can think logically they might actually start taking back their rights. *sigh*
The more you know, the less you understand.
Did anyone actually read the article? First of all, it doesn't even mention the U.N. - This is an European Community conference on the Holocaust. The U.N. has nothing to do with it. Second, everyone here is jumping the gun coming up with conspiracy theories on how this will be implemented, without having ANY facts first, or without even knowing if anyone at all will come out of the conference. Geez.
I was going to respond to the AC, but held off since you have pretty much said everything I would have, but this last comment bothers me.
So, it's more important simply because it affects more people? Those people in the parking lot aren't any less scared or intimidated just because they're a smaller subset.
I see the point you are making, but more importantly than any number of people who feel "intimidated" is the person who was killed. Let's not lose sight of the fact the murder is murder. Secondary is the effect that murder may or may not have on anyone or any group. I personally don't think the US can punish murder correctly and that should be the focus.
It seems to me that making an issue of the race of a murder victim shifts the focus from prosecuting a murder to prosecuting racism. While I agree racism is bad, it doesn't hold a candle to murder as far as horrific crimes go.
Finkployd
Bill Gates: "Innovation"
An excerpt:
First of all, you don't ban the hate speech or prevent kids from reading
or see it. What we need to do is talk to them openly about it. Explain
the logical fallacies in hate speech, the consequences of hating people
for stupid reasons, and so on.
Another excerpt:
I remember my mother's explanation of the civil rights movement in the
60s when I was a little kid. I do not think that I was scarred for life
to hear that in another part of the country kids my age were not allowed
to sit with me at a lunch counter because of their skin color. I
learned it was wrong and that people were working to put a stop to it.
I remember learning about George Wallace from my parents when they saw a
"Wallace for President" sign in a store and decided on the spot never to
set foot in that store ever again. What if the racism in question had
been concealed from me? What would I have learned?
--
The shareholder is always right.
on open sourced petrified censors.
Transforming cute teenage girls into marble statues and putting them on cute little pedestals.
"Curtailing freedom of speech does not prevent villainy, on the contrary it makes it very easy to cover it up. Incidentally, by taking such a cavalier attitude toward free speech, your attitudes resemble those of a medieval monarch ..."
I completely agree with this statement. We see daily the conflict between the old absolute world and the new subjective world everywhere. In the old world, to maintain the status quo, the word of the monarch was absolute. Otherwise it would be open to interpretation. Interpretation would result in questioning which would not preserve order. This was a world where things were what they were, a world of absolutes. This is the breeding ground of racism and illogical movements or religions/cults. Take logic out of the equation and this is what we get.
What do I think? The only way to end the hate is to FUCKIN' KILL WHITEY Y'ALL! End the hate and KILL WHITEY ONCE AN' FO' ALL! I don't care if ya gotsta break down doors and kill white granma's in they sleep, after raping and pillaging they homes, but whitey needs ta die. The only way to end this violence and hatred is to kill little white babies. Remember, all babies is red on the inside, but whitey needs a little reminder sometimes, don't he? Whitey'll see just how red his baby is when his baby is smeared all over the wall. So do what Rob does and kill little white babies.
I know of a few instances when so-called anti-racist crackers/script kiddies have actually taken down web pages which were supposedly racist in nature. Now, I don't know if many of these stories are just hyped up legends, or if most of them are legitimate. Probably the former, but it raises some interesting questions about the morality of cracking.
If the UN says racist sites are bad, does it mean that if you're a cracker/script kiddie who targets servers that host racist sites, that you are right? If you are able to remove useless and hateful filth from a server, is it your duty to do so?
I'm wondering, are world governments going to look the other way if crackers take down racist sites? Are they going to actually employ crackers to do just that? It seems that unless they do hire an army of script kiddies to go after these pages, this is a rather large task to accomplish.
"You ever have that feeling where you're not sure if you're dreaming or awake?"
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I am really scared when I see people talking like the way these Swedish folks (and actually quite a few people in the US) about limiting what people can say and do on the Internet.
There just can not be a method to stiffle one's opinions over the Internet, because it sets a precedent that I think none of us are willing to live with.
Does anyone think that the civil rights movement of the 60s ever would have come to pass without the first amendment? People fighting racism accross the globe owe their success to the same rights that they are trying to take away from others. That is hypocritical.
The ironic thing is also that the anti-hate groups have EQUAL power to publish their anti-hate propaganda just as the hate groups do. And I think it is safe to say that anyone that goes to either of the propoganda sites has already made up their mind are are not going to be swayed by what is in a Netscape window! I doubt the effectiveness of such propoganda sites anyway.
Its funny that these people are intolerant of intolerant people! Kinda reminds me of the Red Scare stuff that was going on in the 50s. I think any American that was involved in that witch hunt is embarrassed to this day. I sure as hell don't want to be any part of this one.
-k
First the gun fetish, now this. What a drag.
Female Prison Rape in NY
With all the kooks, Haters of This and That and the Charismatic Leaders talking at once, they drown each other out with their noise. If we start 'removing' some of them, 'persecution' will lend them a legitimacy they don't deserve.
**>>BELCH
Overseas Europe starts its coverage with a Strong Buy recommendation on SFI - Southland Financial Inc. -=(SINC NASDAQ BB)=- it places a target of 25$ by year end 2000. *Website http://www.sincsfi.com/ (Under devlopment) *Outstanding shares Details* SFI has a total of 16,200,000 shares issued and outstanding, of which 3.5 million are publicly traded and 13,100,000 are restricted, *Company Overview* SFI aims to be the premier, independent communications 'network service provider' in South East Asia. SFI will provide cost effective, high quality, value added, last mile qolutions to its customers. SFI opportunities are driven by new technologies including : - Video On Demand (VOD) - Music On Demand (MOD) - MP3 technology, MPMan - Home Shopping and Home Banking - Videoconferencing, Videocasting, Videostreaping, Telemedicine - Interactive Network Games - Internet / Fast Internet Access Products SFI also closed a deal with TEEL (Top Express Engineering Limited) which is expected to be worth $300 million in the next five years in terms of both existing and new infrastructure. SFI recently has applied for the International Gateway License in Hong Kong, OFTA (http://www.ofta.gov.hk/index_eng1.html), we expect news at the end of January, early February. SFI holds the landing rights to Project Oxygen for Hong Kong. (www.projectoxygen.com), (Project Oxygen will be one of the biggest fiberoptic projects in the world connecting 76 ) (countries,Project Oxygen dwarfs any other Line slated for coming into Hong Kong. ) SFI recently signed a letter of intend with CCF STARBRIDGE to apply and enter in the Internet, Intranet and E-commerce area in Mainland China & Overseas (http://www.ccfstar.com/) SFI is presently finishing a form 10 QSB with the S.E.C., In conjunction with receiving an approval to a fully reporting status and the finalisation of project funding, the Company intends to make an application for a NASDAQ listing and is presently in final negotiations with qualified and experienced individuals to augment the board. Further details of which, will be made available shortly. SFI recently signed a mandate with Macquarie Bank (www.macquarie.com.au/oc/) Macquarie Bank Limited of Australia will advise SFI on its project to establisch $200 milllion international telecommunications gateway link into Hong Kong, UTI (United Telecom International ltd) has obtained landing rights in Hong Kong for the $14 Billion global marine cable company, Project Oygen, Macquarie Bank's mandate with SFI includes the requirement of Project Oxygen completing its network into Hong Kong on a timely and cost-effective basis. *Latest Chart http://www.bigcharts.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp ?symb=sinc&sid=0&o_symb=sinc *Latest News Releases http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000118/southland__1.html http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/000112/southland__1.html http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/991202/southland_1.html http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/991104/southland_1.html *Board of directors & management David A. Turik, President and Chairman of the Board Mr Turik brings a wealth of telecommunications expertise to the Company having previously held senior executive management positions with Australian publicly listed companies, NetComm Australia, Telstra, (the former national carrier, Telecom Australia), AAP Telecommunications and Spectrum Network Systems, as well as Toronto Stock Exchange listed, TSB International. In the past 5 years, he has predominantly focussed on Business Development, Mergers and Acquisitions and project specific capital raisings. Mr Turik has held an interim role of acting President and Chairman for the Company and was responsible for identifling and negotiating the Company's telecommunications infrastructure based project in Hong Kong. Mr Turik has held many private board appointments across a wide range oftelecommunications related organisations. Martin Dougherty, Non Executive Director Mr Dougherty has had a long and distinguished career in the media and communications field having held senior executive positions with both the John Fairfax Group and News Limited. Mr Dougherty has also held Board Directorships with the John Fairfax Group, the Australian Associated Press, (AAP) and David Syme Pty Ltd, (publishers of the Melbourne Age and Business Review Weekly). For over 17 years, Mr Dougherty has also been Chairman of Dougherty Communications; public affairs consultants, specialising in strategic public relations, issues management, telecommunications, Government and media relations. This company became a member of the Ogilvy Public Relations Group. Mr Dougherty was a member of the International Management Group of Olgilvy Public Relations during the 1980's. He resumed private practise as a consultant in 1989. Willie Lo, Executive Director, Chairman of United Telecom Inc, (Hong Kong) Mr Willie Lo is a veteran of the Telecommunications and Information Technology industries. He has held senior technical management positions for over 18 years, with Hong Kong Telecom, Telstra, (Telecom Australia) and PRACOM Pty Ltd. Mr Lo has successfully managed a broad range of projects from cable network roll-outs to systems development and implementation. For 8 years, Mr Lo was a Project Manager for Hong Kong Telecom, managing the deployment of major cable networks. Mr Lo was the IT Manager, Media & Broadcasting, for Telstra, prior to becoming IT Manager for PRACOM and an Executive Director, for Pacific Communications Research P/L. Mr Lo holds a Masters Degree in Systems Engineering, (RMIT), Diploma in Business Studies, Hong Kong Polytechnic and Bachelor of Applied Sciences, University of Melbourne. Robert Talbot-Stern, Non Executive Director Mr Talbot-Stern, B.S. Econ. (Wharton), J.D. (Penn.), LL.M. (London), has had a distinguished corporate, academic and public career, having been Group Counsel for UNISYS and Assistant General Counsel for Chrysler. While at Chrysler Talbot-Stern held Board directorships with Mitsubishi Motors and Peugeot, while coordinating Chrysler Canada's rescue effort. Mr TalbotStern is on a current White House Task Force on Deregulation and Competition, has been a guest columnist for the Australian Financial Review and business commentator for CNBC-TV. He has worked as a Management and Legal consultant in affiliation with consulting and law firms in Washington (National Academy of Sciences, McKinsey & Co., Herzfeld & Rubin, and Boston Consulting Group). He has been a past adviser to the Business Roundtable and Federal Reserve. * Comment of Overseas Europe Staff Note that : - China population 1.850.000.000 (1998). - Hong Kong population 8.800.000 (1998). - ITU (International Telecommunications Union) forecast global telecoms industry to be 1.5 Trillion USD by 2000-2001. - The recently signed WTO will have a very postive impact for SFI on long & short term. SFI will announce a new PR company who has a very good reputation on Wall Street. Overseas Europe believes that the company is way undervalued and will update your further on upcoming events and news releases. For more info on SFI send a email at overseasii@yahoo.com.
Yep. Sites like 'stormfront' are just troll-baiting on the larger, social level. The more controversy and indignation they can stir up, the more 'involved' they feel. Kinda like a news-group troll, who revels in the dischord he/she/it inspires in others.
Some people are good at filtering out the junk, which greatly lessens its impact. Others cry out that if you're not actively denouncing such behaviour, you are encouraging it. They are the one's who are *really* feeding the trolls.
Every site they try to have shut down will be given a massive influx of attention and energy, and will only grow as a result.
Oh well!
**>>BELCH
I'm not advocating censorship, but history is shown that being nice to racists only encourages racism, and fighting them, in one way or another, is the only way to reduce it.
Well, that does not mean that you shouldn't carefully consider the consequences of that fighting. Burning the city of Dresden to the ground eliminated quite a bit of Nazi war production, but at what cost? Increased hatred of the Americans and British by the survivors, and those they told. The killing of the three voter-registration workers in the 1960s certainly caused more people to register to vote than those three slain workers every could have in their campaign.
Now, I am friends with several people who occasionally broach into racist territory. Why do these intellegent, rational, and generally friendly people do that? (They are friends with several black people, so it is obviously not that bad in the grand scheme of things, but they do still rarely revert to form -- and yes, I am trying to convince them otherwise.) Why do they do they choose to irrationally judge an entire group of people simply based on the melatonin levels in their skin? It is because they have been wronged in some way by members of that group, or have seen others wronged in some way by members of that group, and decide to judge the entire group by the actions of a few individuals rather than to make the effort to not be affected by those few individuals' comments and get on with their day.
These friends of mine react to incidents like the Peoria, IL suspension of 4 students for nearly starting a riot at a high school football game (and Jesse Jackson's immediate claims that the school officials are racist because of this suspension). They react to their parents' companies being denied contracts because of the owner's race. They react to a gang member being put assigned a dormatory room with a suburban kid, and this gang member then stealing all the suburban kid's stuff upon his expulsion, and the subsequent events (the suburban kid dropped out of college in fear for his life). They react to a large (10-15 person) group of African-Americans standing outside a building mocking, heckling, and generally begging for a confrontation with every white person who comes and goes (with the white persons believing full well that should a fight ensue, not only would they be called a racist after it was said and done, but they would also lose, badly). They react to a media expose of country clubs which exclude blacks and jews preceeded by the same media's "The NAACP is Wonderful" piece.
The legacy of these events (and the underlying policies of Affirmative Action and the refusal of prominent members of the Politico-Media Complex to acknowledge or publish stories of what has come to be termed "reverse racism") is two new racists for the next generation. Ending these policies would definately ease tensions, and would go a long way towards stopping the next generation's racists. Please don't construe this as me giving my friends a license to hate because of Affirmative Action. I'm not. I cannot stand their occasional hatred, and would stop it if I could.
What's the point of all this? Don't give a certain group privaledged (or shoddy) treatment, and the other groups will not have that to point to as an excuse for their hatred. One less reason for people to start hating.
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com
Jim Cape
http://www.jcinteractive.com
There's an old saying that "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one". Well, with the internet, owning a box with its own IP *is* a press. Note that web space on someone else's server is their press and they can censor you any way they wish (it's their resource). Your own machine with its own domain running its own web server is your press. On it you may say whatever you wish.
Then what about the multi-millions of "white" people targeted by "hate crimes" against "whites" that the media won't even report because of whatever reason?
These things happen all the time but they are virtually ignored, while ones perpetrated against "blacks" (especially in the South) are sensationalized for months.
So why can't every "hate crime" be treated as equally abhorrant?
i consider the internet as a mirror of the real world. in it you'll probably find every social and cultural aspect there is in the so-called 'civilized' society. and unfortunatly that seems to include racism, hatred, aggression and many other really ugly things.
so imo the ways to get people living together in peace and harmony in the internet should be the same as in the real world. the downside to this is that this has been attempted for a few thousand years now, and nothing really worked.
at this point, where the internet is relativly new (at least for most of the authorities), we the users have the power and responsibility to bring self-regulation in our communities (online or irl). this seems to work in most of the technical aspects of the net, doesn't it?
so if anybody wants to hear my advise... if you want to fight prejudices, start with yourself. you don't have to love everybody, but we need to respect each other. it's as simple as that.
-----------
if you've got nothing to say, don't tell me.
Absolutely fucking right.
This is why I want to smack all these "white liberals" who run around handwringing about "Oh god, we've got to do something to HELP the [poor, disadvantged, etc.] [Young Black Males, etc.]"
What a bunch of presumptous shit. Black people don't need my help because I'm white. Hell, my lawyer's black - he's the one bailing my ass out!
The whole "liberal" line on race makes me sick. We all know bad shit happened in the past (and sometimes still does happen today), but that's no reason to treat black people today like some kind of cripple who can't make it without the beneficience of all these "liberals".
Anyway, this patronizing behavior by these whites is the most insulting, racist thing I can even think of. Even the N word isn't as bad, because you know for a fact that the person saying it is just trash (as we say down South).
This is a true story. I am a 28 year old businessman, have been an Olympic Games contender, have no criminal record and have made public speeches promoting equality, freedom and democracy. I was ordered to come down to the police station recently for interrogation of my VIEWS only. I did not go because they refused the right to legal representation. Without any evidence or charges, I was then smeared as a "violent urban terrorist...targetting minorities". I am currently suing the Police force and the City for slander and libel. I warn you that supporting this some U.N. task force on whatever when they couldn't even easily prevent the Rwanda genocide of over 1 million people is sheer lunacy. More on my story at www.freedom-fighter.org Thankyou for your time.
I can just see the MPA lobying for any potential censorship rules to apply to deCSS. Their public logic would be as follows:
deCSS causes piracy
piracy hurts the artists economicly
an artist created the movie Shindler's List
Anyone who would stop the telling of a story about the holocaust is racist
Thus deCSS IS a tool of anti-semite racists!
Watch out, I wouldn't put this past them. I've seen them get to the equivilent of three steps deep, it's only a matter of time.
UN-"Your site is a violation of racisim laws"
owner- "What????"
UN-"You violate racisim laws!"
Owner-"I have a site that says that necrophilia and beastialiaty is wrong"
UN-"that's right you trample on the rights of the people that like to have sex with the dead and animals"
Owner-" get the $#%$&^ out of here before I $%^$%&$%^%$ you"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is the U.N. at its best (worst)... must stop free speech at all costs, at least as long as it isn't politically correct speech.
phantomlord was not providing a justification for hatred. What he said is that when you create penalties for thought you are violating the First Amendment, and you are providing those who hate with justification to hate their opposition even more. No matter whether or not their justification is valid.
"Hate crimes" are stupid. Murder is murder. It is a haenous crime that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent. You don't need to slap on an extra penalty because you think you know what the murderer was thinking when he committed his crime. It doesn't matter! He already committed the worst crime, how much worse can you make it?
If you tack on an additional 10 years in a murder case in which a Blue man kills a Red man because he hated the Red man, all you are doing is furthering his hatred, and that of others like him.
The only way to stop racism is to eliminate agents that cause flare-ups. (including the censorship that evidently the UN is proposing, hate crime laws, affirmative action legislation) And hope that through education, and compassion human kind will eventually give it up.
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Coming from a history of severe racial discrimination, I think South Africa has done tremendously well. Things are picking up as more generations of blacks are getting educated to the same standards as everyone. This leads to more respect, and that helps combat racism.
Our country has the least censorship of any other country I know of, including the pseudo-free Americans. We do not hide behind naming conventions like 'african-american' which does nothing for aleviating racial tension.
The internet is as free and anonymous as people make it. Thus it is ludicrous that people can discriminate on racial grounds... (intellectual grounds, maybe)
My R 0.02.
Ploys like this, and using vague, futuristic-sounding euphemisms like "globalization" seem to indicate that the Powers That Be want a single, unified world government, and it looks like individual rights are incompatible with their "vision".
While I certainly consider ridding the world of racism to be a noble goal, ridding the world of the expression of racism is simply "sweeping the dust under the rug", so to speak. That is, the spectre of racism is still there, it's simply been rendered invisible and removed from most people's attention.
Unfortunately, what you can't see can hurt you, and often hurts you more than a danger you saw coming.
As the top-level post suggests, the best way to combat racism is to inform the populace and teach our children the principles of tolerance, equality, and "live-and-let-live".
Unfortunately, anybody seeking to destroy civil liberties knows that those three principles, along with the concept of free will, are the pillars of freedom.
That means that the U.N.'s vision of combatting racism by keeping it hidden is not an attempt to foster a spirit of fraternity and equality among mankind, but rather to keep humanity tranquilized , and make us ever-more susceptible to further subjugation.
Sorry if this post seems a bit paranoiac, but it's crucial to keep an eye out for emerging trends, especially when those trends signify Bad Things.
So keep your vigilance eternal, folks.
-Hypr Geeque
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
I am sick of hearing the phrase New World Order!
"Next World Order" is more like it. Everything evolves, changes. The attitudes, tastes, arts and even sciences of today evolved out of yesterday's World Order, and tomorrow's will be different from todays.
I am personally sick of everyone lumping change under the banner New World Order, as if the current "World Order" is uniquely special in the annuls of history.
Many associate any attempt to develop societal uniformity in any capacity as the Great Satan.
I have a hard time believing that there is NOTHING in this world greater for us to acchive or strive for than to have individuals who can do whatever they want.
Look at our environment, they way we fight each other and the way our society splits into disparate classes from the slum to the suburb, will these problems ever be solved without some freedom being lost in the sacrifice?
Oh, that's right - it's more important that no one EVER have to curtail their freedom one iota then to weed out the maladjusted, and downright evil in the world.
The nobility of the middle ages would be shocked to see our form of society now, yet all here would aggree that what we have is better.
The "better" world of 200 years from now may look different, and we would be just as shocked to be plopped down in the middle of it.
"Sig free in '03!"
Millions of people take pride in the OS they are using even though they had nothing to do with its creation.
Guns may not be bad, but more often than not they're used for "bad" purposes. E.g. wars, murders. What is "good" about hunting?
And before you get all happy about "self-defense" and the like, most evidence shows that people are far more likely to kill themselves while attempting to defend themselves with guns than if they had no gun at all. This usually leads the NRA wackos to push for mandatory gun education or some other crazy things.
Maybe you're one of the real loonies who thinks -- like chuck heston -- that Columbine wouldn't have happened if the school had had armed guards. That's good, armed guards in public schools. Real nice. Like they need to be made any more like prisons.
Welcome to the tyrannical hypocrisy of the NRA!
Well said, and thank you for saying it.
I only wish more contributors were informed, eloquent, primary sources like Senshi
[rant on]
And I wish all the other knee-jerk, ranting, clue-free, me-too posters would read this post and remember it next time they get the urge to post. The ebbing S/N problem hereabouts is helped by moderators. But it would be helped even more by deliberation and self-moderation on the part of posters.
[rant off]
Because facts are not reported or emphasized in any way if they are not PC.
I disagree. I think that he is a monster and a murderer, there can be no disputing that. My point is that people who are on "his side" would not see him as evil.
Think about it, of the aprox. 100,000 Iraqis that died in the Gulf War, their remaining families probably think that George Bush and the U.S. are evil. Do you consider the U.S. to be evil? Probably not if you live there. That is the crux of my point. I am by NO MEANS defending or approving of saddams actions. I am merely stating my opinion as to the non-existance of an emperical evil.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
I don't feel that the UN has any business censoring the Internet to protect us from ourselves. The act of suppression merely encourages the spread of ideas and gives them strength. In the United States, it is not the business of the government to restrict free speech or legislate morality. By doing so, the UN would be deciding for the people what they should see and influencing their actions. In essence, what they are saying is "individuals are not capable of making up their own minds; we'll have to do it for them." Bigotry and racism are problems today, but government intervention is not the answer.
Life is a psychology experiment gone awry.
Even if you choose to ignore the fact that the U.N. is a prop foisted upon the world by the "Allies" in WWII, and is thus biased towards the needs of Western powers (with the exception of the PRC), you cannot seriously believe that the U.N. is completely unbiased. How well is Africa represented on the major issues? South America? 'Eastern' Eurasia (Asia)? The Middle East (which it ignores in favor of Israel, blatent racist and political manouvering if I ever saw it)
The U.N. is just another NWO, dedicated to serving the needs of whatever facist government it can dredge up out of the mud. It has countless times served the forces of institutionalized racism, not only by supporting the racist regimes of power-mad dictators such as Sese Mobuto, Idi Amin, and Boutros-Boutros Ghali, but also by supplying "peace-keeping" troops for slaughters such as the so-called "3 days of horror", in which 23,000 Lebonese men, women, and children were systematically murdered by Iran, a U.S. ally (due to oil reserves).
I hope this is enough to convince you of the dangers that th U.N. poses.
Dreifuss said a seminar of international experts was scheduled to take place in Geneva on February 16-18 as part of preparations for the first United Nations World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia in 2001.
She said a key objective of this seminar would be to prepare recommendations on international actions to counter racism on the Internet.
Also, the UN conference website (something Yahoo! did not include) has is a lot of stuff they plan addressing in three days, and anything relating to the internet seems to play a fairly minor role so far. Then again, they did say "Millenium" several times - that always seems to precede something inane relating to the Internet recently.
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
Any time a discussion like this arises, hordes of people istantly parrot "I may disagree with what you say but I deend to the death your right to say it" like it's something from the Bible. Whilst the overall priciple of free speech is desirable (and even dangerous in some places) it is not absolute, as indeed is no right. It is something many cherish, but it should be remembered there are those who would stamp it out with hideous brutality. These people are called nazis. I for one will not fight to the death for a nazi's right to free speech, because he opposes that very right. Ask yourself this; what do you think nazis would do to the right of people to access the Internet? Don't imagine that these are just groups of isolated lunatics either. The growth and electoral success of the neo-Nazi parties in Europe over recent years is of very deep concern, as have been the racist and political attacks and murders in the regions they are strong in. The people behind this violence deserve no freedom to spread their filth and lies and violence. No, we won't change them, but we can make them feel extremely unwanted. I do not support state censorship, but I do support censorship from the people. It's my freedom of speech to write 'rm -R *' should I ever have the good fortune to get myself logged in as root one one of these bastards' servers. "The only thing that could have stopped us was if our opponents had realised our agenda at the outset and smashed us with the utmost brutality" - Adolf Hitler "Do not rejoice in his defeat you men, For although the World got up and stopped the bastard, The bitch that bore him is in heat again." - Bertolt Brecht.
BUT...
If you hate me, and you say so, you shouldn't be arrested just because I'm popular and some people would be upset with your opinions of me. I certainly wouldn't agree with your opinions, but I'd fight with every bit of my strength to defend your right to say them.
It's very important that people have the right to express their feelings in open forum. Government can not, and should not, control thoughts. Prosecuting people for ideas, no matter how unpopular, should strike alarm in all of us.
It's very true that the most unpopular speech is the speech that needs protecting the most. Nobody needs to protect the right to speak popular ideas.
This is another area where governments should not tread. Fighting racist (or any other type) of crime is a must, but there is a very large jump between ideas and actions. Fighting against free speech, no matter how much the ideas being expressed may anger you, is very wrong.
Mere mentioning of this fact, and you are immediately called a "racist" and an "anti-Semite." While the Nazi Holocaust was a real bad thing, it doesn't excuse the Zionists today for their gross mistreatment, and murder of Palestinians. Plus, Jews would like a monopoly on the term "Holocaust." In sheer numbers, Stalin's Holocaust pales Hitler's. By percentage, what the Australians did to the Aboriginies and the complete annihilation of the peoples who once lived on Tasmania make Hilter look like Mother Teresa. Then there's the case of United States wiping out entire Indian tribes and linguistic groups, by force. I guess they don't count because they're a bunch of savages anyways, right? Plus, anyone ever heard of Pol Pot?
Now, don't get me wrong, Hitler was an Asshole, and a racist pig, but can we please look at history objectively?
Well, it hasn't worked because this "education" asserts points of view about "equality" which are in blatant contradiction to obervable fact, leading to cognitive dissonence amongst the young.
Contrary to the popular assumptions, not all of those who are labeled "racist" are ignorant, uneducated, stupid, or violent.
Nor did they necessarily grow up racist; many learned their racism the hard way, under the relentless assault of anti-white racism and liberal hypocrisy.
Some of these have spent a great deal of time and effort "educating" themselves, only to be given the equivalent of "the truth is no defense" by would be censors who are too sure of their own opinions to actually examine what the "racist" in question actually believes.
Just as racists often unfairly stereotype the race(s) they don't like, the anti-racist(s) do the same in reverse.
Whether it is an attempt to censor, or continual education/indoctrination campaigns in school and media, the end result is an attempt to punish people for what they are _perceived_ to believe and do, rather than for what they _actually_ believe and do.
That is to say, it is just another prejudice: a pre-judging.
The likely end result is more hatred, more violence, because when people are shut out, defamed, driven underground, they tend to lash out in unpredicatable ways.
The internet at least allows marginalized groups to feel they have a small place in society where they can speak freely amongst themselves and address their greivances to the public at large.
It is better that the marginalized have this outlet, than some more radical alternative, like truck bombs or the like. Drive them underground and see what happens.
So let's not get too high and mighty about "education". If 50 years of ever increasing levels of one-sided indoctrination in the media, schools, places of employment and elsewhere, have not caused everyone to get along, another 50 years will make no difference.
And now, to demonstrate that what I have said is true, I expect to be flamed - not for what I believe, but for what, given the emotional reaction of some readers, I am mistakenly _assumed_ to believe. Bring it on.
Its time to stop talking and speculating about these people.
The community needs to take action. To take action we need a forum.
Slashdot has IRC, that makes a good place to start.
The only things it takes for Evil to win is for good men to do nothing.
In today's political climate, anti-white bigotry is all too common. The destruction of White culture is part of the ongoing agenda of the UN and Clintonistas. Let me offer a few examples. For instance, we have "black history month" but they won't let us have "white history month". The message is clear--only Negro history matters. Another example is the US Postal Service. Today they announced the "Black Heritage" series of postage stamps. Excuse me, but why isn't there a "White Heritage" postage stamp series too. Government statisticians inflate white crime rate by lumping Hispanic crime as part of the "white" statistics, while statistics kept for doling out special privileges to Hispanics are kept separately. Massive non-white immigration into predominately white nations is an ongoing genocide against the White Race. This is because the real minority group is the White Race which only accounts for about 10% of the world population. 90% of the world is non-white and it is important that to maintain real diversity that we protect the White Race.
There are several Civil Rights organizations working hard to protect the the Civil Rights of White People. FYI, here is a partial list:
If you have a RealAudio or WebTV player I particularly recommend checking out the weekly broadcasts from the National Alliance available at their website. Or if you have a shortwave receiver you can tune in at these times:
---------------- American Dissident Voices --------------------
Saturday 7:00pm Eastern Time................6890 kHz via WGTG
Saturday 11:00pm Eastern Time...............6890 kHz via WGTG
thank god... i knew there was someone with their head screwed on straight somewhere in here...
.
Not that I'm pro communist or prosocialist for that matter (in fact, I've benefited from capitalism more than the other 99%), but I would like to point out that the asperations of communism are some of the most noble ever imagined. Historicaly, the ideological basis for it was the establishment of a "perfect" society in which all who contribute are equal and nobody is exploited. The latter distortions resulted partly from leninism, and partly from variations on stalinism, but the underlying ideology (marxism) was absolutley humanitarean. By the way, communism espoused the need for an "international" effort to abolish national and ethnic affiliations so all may live in harmony. Freaky Utopian?- Absolutely.---- Racist? Hardly.
When you begin banning opinions and start waiving special protections for certain groups, you're giving people a reason to hate MORE.
Wrong. There is never, ever, ever a valid reason to hate someone. You might disagree, or oppose them, or even violently oppose them because they rely on violence. But you must never allow yourself to hate.
Once you have begun to hate and become violent against your opposition, you become that which you oppose so much. Hating racists, bigots, or those who hold unpopular opinions makes you just as morally corrupt.
While I understand your argument, and I agree with 75% of it, I cannot agree with providing a justification of hate, for hatred is never justified. Just ask Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or even Malcolm X in his final days.
We must not surrender to hate, even in the face of irreconcilable hatred.
The first decent (i.e. non-minimum-wage) job I ever got in my life, which, incidentally, was fourteen years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I got by meeting the following two qualifications:
Future boss: Can he hold the end of a chain?
My buddy who already worked there: Yep.
Future boss: Is he white?
My buddy: Yep.
Future boss: Tell him to show up Monday morning.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
If I were badly wronged by someone with green eyes, and afterwards came to hate everyone with green eyes and believe that most of them were criminals, I would be considered a candidate for the insane asylum. To be a racist, one first has to believe that race explains behavior. Your friends know, and even like some black persons, but chose to believe that those they know are the exceptions, while those who have wronged them, or another white person they know, or heard about second or third hand, or found out about through the media are the representatives of their race. If you don't already have the basic assumption of racism, no experience can make you one. White racism is more prevalent in all-white suburbs, than in big diverse cities where one is more likely to be harmed by someone of another race.
Naturally, racists tend to exaggerate the depredations of the other race upon their own. They are outraged by Jesse Jackson's making political hay out of black resentment, but are not outraged by white politicians who do the same with white resentment. In fact, they are probably attracted to them. They beleive the media downplays examples of discrimination against whites, while exaggerating those of discrimination against blacks, apparently not realizing that the latter is a far larger and more serious problem. (Perhaps they believe that the media is controled by a conspiracy of Jews and Freemasons, no doubt also gleaned from their personal experiences.) You seem to imply that if the media reported more instances of black misbehavior, they would be satisfied and give up their racism. Somehow, I doubt it.
It is interesting that you mention the Nazis. While the particular instance of the Dresden bombing may have been unnecessary, the only way to deal them ultimately was with guns and bombs, by burning down their cities and killing millions of their soldiers. The attempts between the years 1933 and 1939 by the world's leaders to moderate the Nazis by being nice to them was a dismal failure. The argument was, well, maybe the Versailles treaty provisions were unfair to them, so these would be repealed. And maybe they resented being treated as an outcast nation, so they were given power and influence in international organizations, and maybe they were upset that some of their ethnic brethren had to live as minorities in other countries, so they were allowed to enlarge their borders. And the result? Two years later they were halfway to conquering the world, and had launched the greatest crimes in human history, all in the name of their "race".
And of the resentment felt survivors of the Dresden bombing? Most of them got over it, (and the rest couldn't do anything about it) just as most white southerners got over desegregation, and most Afrikaners will eventually get over the end of apartheid. Germany was bombed, conquered, occupied, shrunk and divided. The result? They now enjoy a prosperous and stable democracy, and most of them no longer harbor Nazi ideas. Today they get along well with their neighbors and with the world. This is the result of the violent destruction of Nazism, not its appeasement.
www.martinlutherking.org is running
WebSitePro/2.3.7 on NT4 or Windows 98
I believe Stormfront.org is the website of Aryan Nations who are some extremely scary people. Not even because of their naziism, but they have seriously disturbed religious beliefs as well.
---CONFLICT!!---
--
The shareholder is always right.
Holy crap, that's a good point!
Does this mean that eventually the internet will be purged of porn? After all, many people find it offensive. And how about vulgar language, too?
Shut up brain or I'll stab you with a Q-Tip. - Homer Simpson
You mean, porn sites contain misleading information? I am, shocked, truly shocked, to discover that...
2) Personally, I'd rather keep the haters out in the open where we can keep a collective eye on them, rather than have them go underground, in which case we'd never know what they were up to.
3) As I've pointed out in regard to the Chinese government internet filters, censorship simply does not prevent the exchange of banned information between willing parties; it's far to easy to use steganographic or other techniques to hide information in the "noise" of other information. This is particularly true in the digital age, but was also true long before.