Slashdot Mirror
Hatemongering Becoming A Problem On Orkut
jaquesparrow writes "Orkut is a well known beta experiment, an invite only environment based on social networks. Recently it has been reported that hate and racism is proliferating on Orkut. Besides the story in the Wilmington Star, the International Herald Tribune also has commentary on the situation." From the article: "For Google, the trouble on Orkut - which is still in beta, or test, form - could easily escalate. A prosecutor in Brazil, where the service is especially popular, has already initiated an investigation into some of the more virulent Orkut sites."
Inevitable as humanity continues to grow and expand. It's not a cause but a symptom of overpopulation.
no one takes the time to stop and smell the Orkuts?
I used to run a website (ThoughtCafe) for writers where they could give feedback on each others work. I had to close it down in the end because a small minority wrecked it for everybody. It seems most "community" websites suffer from the same issue - the possiblity of one "rogue" person to pose as several personalities within the website - basically in order to start an argument with themselves in order to draw others in, and then feed the argument. We never found an adequate defence against it.
Jonathan Beckett http://www.pluggedout.com
....And this is different to real life how?
Hate and racism exists, has always existed, and will always exist.
As much as I hate racism, I don't think that trying to legislate people's beliefs is the answer.
Sure, don't let them act on their beliefs, but if they want to say things, why shouldn't they?
As I understand it from the article, these hate mongering forums on Orkut are invitation only private thingies where people express their private hate mongering expressions to their fellow hate mongers. What exactly is the problem here?
Now if they were to barge in on other forums and express those opinions, it could be considered harassment, and that really is a problem, and probably also illegal is your country, but as far as I know expressing unpleasant opinions in private is considered legal.
Is it just me or are both those articles the same?
Maybe there isn't a technological solution. It's up to each member not to feed the arguments. By not feeding the arguments, I mean a single member shouldn't try replying repeatedly to a thread that's going out of control. One reply is enough, and if someone doesn't listen, that's it.
I dislike bigotry as much as the next person. But... I'll still defend the rights of bigots to say whatever they want. Just don't disturb the peace on my street corner with that crap. At the same time, I expect the bigots to back me up on MY right to tell them their fuckin stupid.
With all the GNAA posts, the randomness and what not if it would be possible to impliment something like a futures market for comments. Where moderation could be done in terms of each user being allowed to carry a limited portfolio of say 10 to 20 comments at any one time with either buy or sell style settings. Then letting a market determine which is good and bad, the writers of the comments would get "points" based on the market consensus as would the people who got in early, where the people who got out late would lose points. If people went bankrupt they'd have to be interesting. Those with positive points would have them carry over some period perhaps quarterly, and the points them selves could be used like raffle entries for a modest Thinkgeek prize budget. The people who maintained the site would be able to perform an SEC like function, (blah blah censorship), and undo/kill abuse as it arises. I think such a system, which would have to be good at killing bots, would be extremely hard to game. While much that a buys site would rather not have would still be present, it'd be confined to the relative obscurity where those who are into it can wallow in it. Not unlike alt.nuke.the-USA and the like.
Some of the better UseNet groups (e.g. alt.folklore.urban) have developed cultural immunity to trolls & sockpuppets. I have always found it astonishing that such an abstract place as a newsgroup proved to be defensible at all.
John Calhoun's classic work on overcrowding in rats (synopsis - if your geography supports having a local gang to protect y'all from marauders you don't necessarily become a behavioral sink) is probably also apropos.
nah, i think it's _great_ that people set up these sites.
they are identifying themselves to the world and to the intelligence services "come and get me, we're dumb enough to tell you who we are and dumb enough to _write down_ what we _really_ think".
somethingawful.com actually has a great method of controlling this:
1. It's free to browse the forums.
2. If you wanna post/reply - it'll cost you $10
3. Custom Titles & avatars -- another $10
4. If you make a "shit post" (among which blatant racism i.e. "post pictures of black people eating cliche' foods") or even single-word posts will automatically result in your message thread being "gassed" and your account being banned -- resulting in YOU having to pay another $10.
Hey, everyones saying...
"oh i saw them on blogs", "i saw them on site x, y and z"....
No ones noticed that we have this ALL the time on slashdot? How do we fix it? We leave a warning for all, and then we ignore it. Simple as pie.
The fact is racistism, and all *ism's will NEVER go away, but this doesn't mean that you can't choose to not care about them. These people have nothing better to do with their lifes, pity them, they are the ones that become nothing.
Slashdot, would be totally, totally ruined (far worse than people claim it is) if people took any notice of the trolls, but the whole fact that we DONT means they dont get anywhere.
People are racist in the streets, some people do it without even thinking about it, and would never do it if they realised they were. It happens, why can't humanity get over it?
Because humanity, wishes to be pefect, when people finally accept that we ARE a flawed race, then we might finally start bonding together.
Someone said "its from the cause of overpopulation". Nope, your wrong... Its from people creating value of other people. Its from people having something, someone else wants. No person really hated someone else for the colour of their skin, they hated them for some other reason, yet people are stupid and they look for hte easilest flaw to blame, which in most cases is the fact that someone has differently coloured skin.
I ware glasses, and people used to use this as a method of getting to me, it was actually the fact that i did damn well in school, even when i had only 50%~ attendance, and they were jelious. Yet the only way they could get at me, would be making jokes about my glasses. They couldn't cope when i made jokes about my glasses too, when i would turn around and use them as an aerial for the radio which wouldn't work. It would confuse them to have someone putting them selfs down.
Im not saying that anyone should go "Hey look, im black, i might as well set my self on fire" or anything stupid like this. This isn't the point, the point is there is many underlying issues, which causes this hatrid, most of the time, the person effected cannot change this either, as they mostly didn't cause the problem in the first place. So they have to look on and say "What can i do? Nothing.... so i ignore it".
it might anger them to see someone writing these things, but its not like they could ever change this person, so why waste time worrying about it. It wont change the world, it wont stop kids bullying others over stupid little things like this.
Ignore it, it might not go away, but at least then it wont effect you?
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
When all other technology is moving to isolate us into our own cozy little worlds, you are surprised?
:)
Blogs give you the news you already agree with. IM has only your buddies. Cellphones let you walk around the world talking to people you already know, avoiding all new people. I could go on.
Cozy isn't it. Problem is, now noone has ANY need for real social skills, personality, or the ability to deal with different views.
Why in my day, we telnet'd into a BBS and met people from all over the world! "Chatrooms" (read: bot nests) only come in local and special interest these days.
At least here on Slashdot all us geeks are safe in our dupe friendly Microsoft unfriendly world
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
People are saying what they want. What's the problem? You don't agree? So debate with them, or start your own Orkut or whatever forums/communities.
And why is this not posted as the usual indignated rant under YRO, instead of this rehash of hysterical mainstream fear-mongering articles?
I'm not agreeing with eg. the IMO nutty racist Iranian gentleman mentioned in TFA, but that doesn't mean I want him to be banned from saying what he wants in his own online communities.
BTW, everyone is welcome to join the Flashback forums, no matter what OPINIONS you hold or wish to discuss. The English speaking forum could use more members too. (Ironically, I seem to have difficulties reaching the site at the moment, but I hope that's temporary. They've had problems with the Swedish authorities before.)
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
Maybe it's just my way of thinking, but why pay any attention to their posts and groups? They're only purpose is to piss people off, I really don't think they're trying to swing people to see or consider their views. It's mostly anonymous, so you don't have someone literally in your face chanting hate slogans, and they can't get satisfaction from seeing you get mad or whatever - they need people to post back. Why not just ignore them and they'll eventually go away?
Why would anyone want to become member of a small randomly put together community by invitations? What do they discuss? Won't the discussions get more feedback in more open communities? Is it because they feel the added privacy makes it easier to reveal private information? But then you need to trust all Orkut members, and many will have been invited by persons you don't even know.
:-)
Hmm, it just feels like a community for people who wish to be "cool" to me, but regardless how I look at it, I always end up as seeing it as a useless idea?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
a valuable lesson from this. "Building Communities Course 101", page one, paragraph one could read
"Thou shalt not close the community at the expense of diversity of opinion".
I'm not sure why it took them so long to work this one out. Just goes to show that there's nothing common about common sense.
"It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
Here is a post from an insider giving some of his oppinions about what's going on:
http://media.orkut.com/articles/0100.html
So wait.. Google starts some sort of forum/chat site based on invitation (like gmail), everyone wants in, and now, on the Internet, the have discovered people being racist? So what? this happens on the Internet! just because the site is a friends network doesn't mean you're not going to get this sort of thing - most people in the world are friends of friends of friends etc. If Google doesn't like it they can just kick these people like every other forum, whats the big deal?
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
someone who cites the bible to legitimate hate and intolerance is a braindead dimwit. period.
its pseudo-religious FUD.
These groups are formed and peopled by people who share an extremist viewpoint. In normal society, extremists are moderated by contact with people who aren't extremists. In a society like Orkut, extremists come into contact with more and more people who share the same view. This could potentially cause them to become even more extreme in their views or even spur them to action.
This is the problem. It's not really about free speech and censorship; it's about what happens when you have a social system which encourages extremism, instead of one which works to moderate behaviour.
Anyway, it seems to me like a successful version of what Orkut should be. I use it almost religiously and it works well because the majority of users are actually rather close to each other (few hours by train at the most in most cases) so we can actually meet in real life. My list of friends is a little small (32 at the moment) but I have met all but 3 of those people IRL. Of those three, one lives in the US, one lives in Hokkkaido (I'm in Tokyo) and the other...well, timing just hasn't worked out yet.
Anyway, the point of my post is that in some cases, these "small randomly put together communities" work quite well and can be an excellent supplement to IRL (note: I did NOT say replacement). I've gotten some good snowboarding buddies, some good music buddies, some good photography buddies, etc. Hell, I even met a really attractive girl that will hopefully be my next girlfriend (2 months without getting any is starting to drive me crazy...broke up last december ;_; )
So, these sites can work. I think Orkut's problem is that it is just too big and unfocused.
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
For years now, the intellectual elite of this world have labored mightily to stamp out all superficial signs of racism, sexism, gayism, and other isms, by banning "insensitive" speech and images, in an effort to sweep the natural human impulse to hate under the rug.
Repellent as Mr. Pazzo and his intellectually deformed ilk are, the undeniable fact is the internet itself --that is, the human connectivity it brings about -- facilitates their unpleasant behavior, as what were formerly isolated kooks find courage, companionship and new ideas through "virtual communities" on sites like Orkut, as they have in the past through other forms of communication such as BBS's and Usenet.
Abolition of such groups seems impractical withour the imposition of barriers to entry as would defeat the whole purpose of virtual communities.
Like other socially detrimental practices such as downloading music, taking drugs, and practicing illict sex, hatred, like it or not, serves a vital purpose to a not insubstantial number of people. The repressed have returned, more disgusting than ever, much to the chagrin of our minions of political correctness, and there is no easy solution in sight.
Until the gods tire of idiocy and invent a race with greater souls than our own, it seems for the time being we will simply have to thicken our skins and put up with these unpleasant reminders dark side of humanity
The International Herald Tribune is an opinion site.
Rarely do you see a news story posted without them injecting their opinion. If, by blind luck the IHT manages to forget to inject their own opinion, they will quote any of dozens of "expert" college professors that also agree with their views. Any opposing views are left out.
I'd put the IHT up there with Salon.com and the Guardian.
4. Then we start all over with aliens
5. To find out it won't interbreed
6. But still can die
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
"Is it really "discrimination" or "hatred" if I dare to save them from the hell fire by telling them that what they do is wrong?"
Do they want to be "saved?" According to other major religions, Jesus was a prophet at best and a false Messiah at worst, and these people complete with their own divine set of quotations to back up their assertions. Would you willingly allow others to attempt to "save" you from your own Christianity?
If the opinions of non-Christians don't do anything for you, what about other sects of Christianity? When was the last time you invited into your home a Jehovah's Witness or even a Mormon who appeared on your doorstep and let them go the whole nine yards in their attempt to "save" you, listening politely and never trying to argue?
"I am not discriminating, I am against violence."
Because if the death is "on their hands" (as prescribed by Leviticus), it's not really violence? Oh, and there it seems God is telling you to be violent when it comes to homosexuals, so aren't you going against His Will by falling back on such principles and squeamishness? The Bible tells you that you'd better be prepared to do what God tells you to do despite your personal desires: if he says "Kill your son," the only proper response is "With what weapon?" So are you really as Christian as you claim to be when you are willfully ignoring that part of scripture where you believe He Himself tells you to kill somebody?
"I only want to educate people."
As a Christian, shouldn't you be balancing your wants and desires against theirs?
" I only talk to people, write to people, write articles. Is that really wrong?"
That depends: are you talking with, talking to or talking at these people?
"Is education really the same as the crimes of holocaust? Do we really have to compare education to hatred for Jews?"
Well, many Soviets were sent to the gulags for the cause of "education," so yes, it can be.
Don't blame technology or isolationistic behavior for any of this. Hate is hate. People are looking to belong. These sad souls simply have twisted values, and those values are most often passed on from family members. End of story.
Bringing these people attention is the last thing I'd do. Bullys and hate-mongers? They don't deserve the attention. Leave them alone. Let them have their private discussions. The rest of the planet sees them for what they are.
-- No sig for you!
Orkut is still around? I mean I guess I still have an account on there, but it's been quite a while since I logged on - mostly becuase the people I knew on orkut were the same I knew from friendster.com who were the same from friendzy.com who were the same from tribe.net...
Jonathan B.
Actually, in a way, the concept of orkut ist facist in itself. Creating artifical borders were there are none. I remeber running into orkut when it was just anounced. After reading what it all was about it came across to me as a very unsympathetic concept of a web community. Very much the kind you find in religious sects or, extremer, in facist communities. Artificially bordering a group of people and in unison with that, blurring the individuals in to one big group. We, the "orkuts", are something special.
I personally react extremely allergic to stuff like that, due to personal experiences with latent synthetic elitism in the past. Weak personalities (which racists and facists usually are) much easier see orkut as their chance to feel special for no true reason whatsoever.
Bottom line:
Orkuts basic concept actually is an emotional and spiritual groundwork for facisim and thus flawed. Google would be best of shutting it down or dropping the concept of 'invitation only'.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Then how does the media write a story about it? --- I see brainwashed people.
How the hell the parent insightful?
Basically he's saying the goverment should prosecute people for their beliefs.
How fucking 'insightful' is that?
Maybe there isn't a technological solution. It's up to each member not to feed the arguments. By not feeding the arguments, I mean a single member shouldn't try replying repeatedly to a thread that's going out of control. One reply is enough, and if someone doesn't listen, that's it.
As a long time internet troll I couldn't agree more. I don't troll because I like to write (I do like to write but that's not enough). I troll because I love to read responses. And that's pretty much all. No responses, no fun. Real trolling is all about reading, not writing. For example I might write a pro-creationism post to observe the heated reaction of atheist nuts. Next day I would write an anti-religion post to observe the reaction of religious nuts. It's all about a balance and subtlety to attract the right kind of nuts because readng their texts is interesting, especially if they do exactly what you want them to do. Trolling is power. Aristotle new it and I know it. Reading idiotic texts of people who think they are smart (be them Jesus lovers who don't know the bible or MySQL funboys who don't know the relational model) is amusing. It really is.
That's wrong. You're assuming that people are interbreeding completely random. It isn't true. People choose, who they are breeding with, considering looks, money, social status, character, intelligence, interests and more.
I was running BBS's in the 80s.
There is always a few clowns who like to post crap - they get real tough safe in their rooms. I call it 'modem machismo'.
The way to handle this is to hammer the offensive message immediately. No need to kick the guy, unless he is incorrigible.
Works for flame wars too. (Which must be discouraged immediately)
It's a little like being the bouncer in a bar. How long do you think the bouncer would tolerate a punch up?
Mumia Abu-Jamal is *laughably guilty*. Check the evidence.
People will find some characteristic other than race to single out and harass people. E.g. they'll single out fat people, or skinny people, or smart people, or whatever. They already do, just look at a classroom, even if everyone in the class is all white.
Have you ever noticed though that the people who do this, i.e. harass other people based on some arbitrary characteristic, are invariably useless people .. i.e. they are usually people who have nothing special about them, no special skills, and are not able to contribute anything useful to the world. These nazi type groups are always the low classes in society. I think the reason these people tend to cluster in groups around a hate-based ideology is because it gives them a "magic" "free ticket" to feeling "special", without having to do anything other than be a certain colour or look a certain way. It's like the ideology calls to them by saying something like this: "Hey, nothing special about you? Well we say that just being (race XYZ) makes you special by default, because (race XYZ) is superior." So someone with nothing special about them now feels they have something to be proud of, something that makes them special/superior to others, and they feel that they "belong" to something.
Look at the class bully. Most of them are losers who are going nowhere in life. By picking out and alienating someone else who is smart or whatever, they get to feel better about themselves. Going further, look at television, almost every sitcom has an extremely dumb or nerdy character ... the idea is to make a character that is so dumb or nerdy, that even your dumbest/nerdiest viewer gets to feel better about themselves by being able to say to themselves "ha look at that guy, he's so stupid, ha ha". Because nobody wants to be the stupidest or nerdiest person in a group. The idea is to make a show so stupid that the viewers feel better about themselves, it's a cheap feel-good manipulation trick that never fails to work. It's the same thing with racist groups - when you belong to such a group, you feel better about yourself because you define/depict another group as being inferior, even if you've never accomplished anything in your life. Don't know how a TV works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented TVs". Don't know how a car works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented TVs", as if by saying "we" you become part of a "group" that invented TVs, which is obviously false.
What the hell, I edited the mistakes in that post on a preview, resubmitted, and it posted the OLD VERSION with the mistakes in it?!? Dammit. Here we go again:
People will find some characteristic other than race to single out and harass people. E.g. they'll single out fat people, or skinny people, or smart people, or whatever. They already do, just look at any classroom in which everyone is white.
Have you ever noticed though that the people who do this, i.e. harass other people based on some arbitrary characteristic, are invariably useless people .. i.e. they are usually people who have nothing special about them, no special skills, and are not able to contribute anything useful to the world. These "nazi types" are usually from the low classes in society. I think the reason these people tend to cluster in groups around a hate-based ideology is because it gives them some kind of magic "free ticket" to feeling "special", without having to do anything other than be a certain race or look a certain way. It's like the ideology calls to them by saying something like this: "Hey, nothing special about you, never achieved anything? Well we say that just being (race XYZ) makes you special by default, because (race XYZ) is superior, and (race XYZ) achieved all sorts of things." So someone with nothing special about them now feels they have something to be proud of, something that makes them special/superior to others, and they feel that they "belong" to something.
Look at class bullies, most of them are losers who are going nowhere in life. By picking out and alienating someone else who is smart or whatever, they get to feel better about themselves. Going further, a more subtle example is television: Most sitcoms have an extremely dumb or nerdy character ... the idea is to make a character that is so dumb or nerdy, that even your dumbest/nerdiest viewer gets to feel better about themselves by being able to say to themselves "ha, look at that guy, he's so stuuupid, ha ha". Because nobody wants to be the stupidest or nerdiest person in a group. So the sitcom creators lower the bar so much that all viewers are raised above it. The idea is to make a show so stupid that the viewers feel better about themselves, it's a cheap feel-good manipulation trick that usually works. It's the same thing with racist groups - when you belong to such a group, you feel better about yourself because you define/depict another group as being inferior, even if you've never accomplished anything in your life. Don't know how a TV works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented TVs". Don't know how a car works? Who cares, you can say stuff like "we invented cars". As if saying "we" somehow makes you part of some "group" that supposedly invented TVs/cars, which is obviously not quite correct.
If you were so "good at school", why exactly is that you misspell:
- everyones (everyone's)
- racistism (racism)
- lifes (lives)
- Its (it's)
- ware (wear)
- i (I)
- jelious (jealous)
- them selfs (themselves)
- Im (I'm)
- hatrid (hatred)
- wont (won't)
(and I did not consider the typos).Did you go to Yale and sit next to Dubya? Or are you simply trolling|karmawhoring?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Its human nature... Its how we are wired.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, if a Wikipedia article whose neutrality and facticity have been disputed says it, that tears it. That's almost as infallible as Usenet.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Although the model of Orkut depends on everyone being a real person (and an adult as well), release from jail seems to occur automatically even for fake accounts.
If you punish users for moderation rather than encourage it as /. does, and if you tolerate bogus identities in a social networking system (i.e. many miscreants don't get kicked out, as it does not really matter if they play by the same rules as everyone else), it becomes too easy for malicious participants to keep their hate speech visible on equal footing with honest, real people, while hiding behind forged profiles that are no better than anonymous avatars.
Actually, some apparent "fake users" have been allowed to exist for long enough on Orkut to see "fan" or "hate" communities being set up for "themselves".
In other words, on ./ and in real life (or even Usenet for that matter), the simple rule is this:
Whether you are using your true name or not, if you choose to be a troll, expect no better than to be treated as a troll.
On Orkut, everyone is expected to use their true identity and stand by their opinions, but because none of this is sufficiently well enforced, trolls have surprisingly little to fear.
There is no better way to undermine the moral standards in a community than allowing this to happen.
They just don't realize it.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
"...if I dare to save them from the hell fire by telling them that what they do is wrong? Huh. Is that what saves 'em? You go! Get a show - save the world.
From Orkut Help:
How can I delete my account?
Category: My Account
Updated: 9/28/2004
Answer
If you'd like to permanently delete your account, please follow these steps:
1. Select the 'Home' link in the blue bar at the top of the page.
2. Click on the 'profile' button under your photo.
3. Click the 'edit profile' button that appears under your photo.
4. Click the 'terminate' option on the right-hand side of the page.
5. Select 'terminate account.' If you wish to remain a member, choose 'i changed my mind.'
Please keep in mind that once you delete your account, you will not be able to restore or reactivate this account.
Thanks for playing,
orkut.com
Interesting, as most studies show that being a homosexual is not a choise, it's something your born as. Homosexuality happens with many spieces inside the animal kingdom (yep that's what we are part of, not some outdated primative caveman religion you still cling too. I keep being amazed how people actually take such an obvious piece of nonsense for being a fact - sorry to be rude).
Religious people.... sometimes.... I know religon is just a symptom and not a cause. But it really once more confirms to me how primative, sad humanbeings still are.
Doing good by hating others? What a wonderfull concept. If there really was a god out there that was a good god, I think the first people send to hell would be all those to worship him/her/it for how intolerant and plain evil they are. And that under the guice of being morral and upstanding.
Defusing mean jokes is great, but you were lucky. The jokes would have hurt more if you had been beat up or had the glasses grabbed and stomped.
Does happen and that is the problem with hate talk.
A homosexual or heterosexual guilty of adultery will go to hell.
Ok, so once gay marriage is legalized, they're in the clear. Thanks for clearing that up!
The first thing about Orkut is how bloody slow and unreliable the service is. I guess Orkut being in perpetual beta allows them to continue sucking. There are some times I can't even log in, it just redirects me to a "Bad Server, no donut for you" page which becomes tired in a hurry. Do a google search using the words "Orkut" and "sucks" and you'll see alot of people share my opinion.
Another thing I've noticed about Orkut, is how popular it is with Brazilians. I have no problem with this, and I've made some friends from there via Orkut, but it's interesting nonetheless.
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Yep. In a nutshell "Have nothing to do with them."
If they are in your church you warn them twice to stop, and then kick them out. If they eventually stop then you welcome them back and help them repent.
As a Latino, I find it funny that only Anglos gets scorn for racism, but the second a Black or Asian does it, no one says a peep. Want proof? Just look at most Black sitcoms or films, there's almost always a pointed anti-White tone to it all. Jokes that get directed towards Whites would garner instant outrage if the situation were reversed.
Until ALL racial groups get equal scorn for commiting racism, I seriously could care less about racism right now.
Point it, there are a lot of Black hate groups out there, yet we never hear anyone speak up against them. Why?
Not to really support the grandparent, but the books go "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus"
The Ten Commandments were in Exodus and the verse that you quoted were in Leviticus which is the book of law as opposed to the commandments which were more like an informational brochure.
Look at the history of interference with peacable assembly for a clue as to why the Founders put this clause as the first of the rights they considered most likely for the government to usurp from the people.
Yes you read that right... the Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of the rights guaranteed to the people by the government -- but an enumeration of the rights that the people possess by "the laws of nature and nature's god" in the order most likely to be usruped by government.
Moreover, what this means is that the Bill of Rights is a declaration of natural rights meaning that if any government violates them that government cannot be considered consistent with the laws of nature.
This is an "extremist" stand. Indeed, any stand of integrity means adhering to the principles stated in the face even of death. That is the essence of "extremism". Can you think why powerful people might consider any integrity exhibited by those without power as "extremist" and seek to have "extremism" suppressed through social, cultural, legal, economic, police and any other means necessary?
Indeed, when weaseling courts mockingly refer to "the penumbra of the Constitution" what they are in fact saying is that the government is like the light of the Sun itself and the people's rights are like the shadow of the moon on the earth during a total eclipse of the sun -- absolute only at a single point.
Well, if there is a single point to the Constitution, it is reflected in the first paragraph of the document forming the foundation for the creation of the Constitution:
It is clearly stated:
The whole point of freedom, the single point made by the whole of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, is recognition of the primordial freedom to choose those with whom one will associate.
Seastead this.
Ignoring for the moment the fact that many people don't consider someones chosen religion a good basis for deciding what is and isn't 'correct' behaviour, there is considerable evidence for a genetic component in homosexuality, where does that leave your claim of free will ?
Some things I know about moderating conversations in virtual space .
Suggestions include:
The rest of the list is also quite good, including a comment onI don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
But don't get up on a high horse over this. Slashdot and sites like Kuro5hin can be just as bad. Try posting something remotely conservative on either site and you'll see what I mean.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Try posting something remotely conservative on either site and you'll see what I mean.
YO MAMA!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
It's more like they're using religion as an excuse to be jerks. People who hate and wrap themselves in Religion want to come off as all nice and sweet by saying they're trying to "save people", when in fact they're just prejudicial, small minded bigots.
I'd have a lot more respect if thee bigots just come out and say "I don't like you or what you do. I'm an Asshole and I'm OK with it". It's more honest.
So if you were being mugged by some guy and your wife managed to incapacitate him by punching him in the balls you would tell her she was wrong to save your ass?
Interesting.
Sheesh, solved a cultural problem that had injured an killed countless. How about, beat up on the weak, then steal their property? Maybe opportunistic sociopaths using ignorance to rabble rouse? There are many reasons, all bad, all wrong, all pathetic.
They are not metaphors Deuteronomy and Leviticus define the law. If you chose to not honor the prescribed punishment why should you honor the rest of the text. If the punishment is antiquated and no longer the word of god why not the whole thing.
Why? Same reason it's illegal to shout fire in a crowded theater. From past experience, people DIE. Not hurt feeling, not a flame war, death, injury, destitution. Words can't break my bones but if I can talk some idiot to come to your house and burn it down perhaps you should have paid attention?
You don't sin by being a homosexual but by sleeping with men instead of women.
That statement implies all heterosexual women are homosexual because they sleep with men. As I said in my previous response, 'don't be suprised if people treat you like an idiot'.
Nice now you equate a groin punch with murder in your judgment of your wife. I just am not able to comprehend this line of thought.
Let's turn the tables would you kill someone that was about to kill your wife?
or begetting itself ... avoid solution directions.... hence moding the above as a troll...
hahahaha...
The founder of that group, Kiarash Poursaleh, who described himself in his profile as an 18-year-old living in Tehran, also listed "Mein Kampf" by Hitler as a favorite book...
You know, I'm more worried about the rise of organized groups, such as the German NPD or the Russian democratic party. Gentlemen such as Mr. Poursaleh somehow, deep down, seem to missing a somewhat fundamental point about how the people whose policies he's advocating might view his own particular ethnic group.
Crackpot pseudoscientific about racial biology and what defines "aryan", as a sometime student of history I'm not aware of Mr. Hilter & his merry gang of pirates ever planning to set up an division of Persian SS stormtroopers...
Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
Humans can act like conditioned lab rats with the right motivation. Look at those Halebop cult people who killed themselves over some crazy dude's ramblings. So, when there is a mass of people that widely accept a religeous text and fanatically interpret the meaning, there will be a few who blindly look in and pull out the basics without understanding the detail. I find myself quoting scripture in my own defense at times and I am not religeous at all. I think it is a safety net that people wrap themselves in because they don't want to think about the here-after. I can't wait to find out why there is so much suffering, death, hate, pain and lack of purpose in this world. To quote a lyric: " I don't want to start any blasphemous rumors but I think that God has a sick sense of humor and when I die I expect to find him laughing."
OK I can't understand you, but at least you are consistent.
Unless you are talking about a huge community (such as /.) I can't see why a handful of mods and the ability to IP ban clients from within your CMS couldn't do the trick. It seems to work on most of the community sites I participate in. If you have a particularly unruly bunch trying to ruin it for everyone, then some aggressive mods are in order.
This isn't a particularly novel solution (or problem, for that matter -- it's the problem of anarchy), and in 15 years I've never seen it work over the long term. Aggressive mods == dead forum within months. This was even true in the BBS days.
Trolling can be a problem, but aggressive moderation is an even worse one. The once free forum necessarily becomes an expression of the moderators' personal visions. Since there are no objective criteria for trolling, it all comes down to the whim and ego of the moderator. And this is usually a recipe for disaster. I've seen - many times - moderators cracking down in the wake of a troll attack, only to drive more people away from the forums than the trolls themselves ever could have accomplished. And occasionally, IP banning will only egg the trolls on, causing them to use proxy after proxy to get 'revenge' for the bans. When the aggressive mods inevitably begin banning the proxies, and entire ISP domains, it's the beginning of the end.
Of course, there are some who will argue for the effectiveness of this system in removing trolls, just as some might argue for Fascism as an effective means of removing terrorists. But if you have to kill the community to get at the trolls, have you accomplished anything in the end?
Slashdot's quasi-democratic mod/user-end filter system is the best solution I've come across ever. It isn't perfect, but it's worlds better than turning your forum into a despotic monarchy.
I don't know what is everyone talking about. I registered months ago and ever since all I've got when I go to www.orkut.com is: "Bad, bad server. No donut for you" Is there another URL to log in ? What is the matter ?
Alright - screw my karma - I'm disgusted by the sheer level of anti-religious groupthink that occurs on this web site, and also by the tactics that are used to suppress religious views.
"OK, hatred for Jews is stupid (after all, even Jesus was a Jew)"
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic? Nice logic: by it, you're allowed to hate people you're not forced to relate with.
Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth. For instance, stealing from people is wrong, but stealing from your parents is plain stupid - you are likely to be hurt in the process. By saying that I do not imply that it is OK to steal from someone because "you are not related to them." You don't like what this guy is saying, how about not putting words in his mouth?
"Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do."
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay. Since you're the one making the assertion, I have to ask you: Have you ever tried being gay? Or are you so unwilling to try to tread a mile in the shoes of those who you would "save?"
I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!
""If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude - do you really think a list of 10 things can meaningfully cover all possible "really bad" actions?
And Jesus was crucified before he was able to do his key "Don't be gay" sermon? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, unless what you want to have done unto you is... hey, where are these Romans taking me?"
The vast majority of Jesus's sermons did not focus on what not to do but on having the correct heart attitude. Once again, he didn't say "don't rape people" but yet that's still an important part of the religion (and society). I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?The new testiment, however, does contain several warnings against homosexuality.
You, as a Christian, have the trinity itself, not to mention the list of prophets, all telling you how to live your life properly and all, none of which really got around to the all-important "Don't be gay" commandment, and so you're giving a collection of these insane Biblical footnotes the same weight, especially when said footnote seems to fly in the face of one of the Ten Commandments?
I do not understand how this illogic gets modded up. You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments. Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important - notice there is no dietary law etc - yet many Jews to this day still observe it.
"Who knowing the judgment of God,"
Knowing the unknowable, hm? So much for Christian humility...
The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God - through the revelation provided in the Bible, and through personal prayer. Whether that's true or not, who's
A Legalist religion is a religion, ANY religion, that when confronted with a conflict between love, compassion and caring, and conformity to doctrine, will almost invariably choose the latter regardless of the effect it has on its followers or on the society of which it is a part.
A new technology develops: Cheap and ubiquitous home computers and the internet.
This new technology makes major changes in society, government, and the economy. No longer is someone forced to rely on advertisments to find out if a product is good or bad, they have access to huge amounts of customer reviews on a product, and they can also instantly find the cheapest place to purchase a product. No longer are people dependent on government news sources, or large media outlets, because the internet has allowed asymetrical information transfer for pennies. And it is certainly a lot harder for governments to manipulate people, because it is so easy for people to find other like minded people on the internet and develop their own political community.
This, of course, makes people in the traditional seat of power upset. Elected officials, government beurocrats and regulators, Corporate CEOs, heads of the traditional political parties. They enjoyed their position of power, wealth, importance, and control, and they are not about to give it up without a fight.
However, they cannot just outright say why they want the internet and home computers controled and restricted. In order to ban things and control things, you still need the government to go along with it to enforce it, because they are the people with the prisons and the guns. And in the west, at least in theory, officials are still elected.
So in order to get people to rally around destroying this great global free-flow of information, you must convince people that it is to protect them. That is why we are now bombarded with stories about racists using peer to peer networks, child pornographers on the internet, people at every turn waiting to steal your identity. The power structure is setting things up so that when they start to heavily regulate, censor, and control information, that you and people like you will go along with it.
The sad thing is how easy people are to manipulate. The same people who claim to be anti-authoritarian, and anti-corporate, or whatever, are usually the quickest people to rally behind these laws. "We MUST protect people from racism and child porn, so everyone who opposes the government licencing web sites MUST either be racist or a child pornographer".
No one hates others as much as they hate themselves - but when one self-degrades they still respect their own opinion. It seems there's alot of ignorant people in the world - including me (+1) - but imagine that ignorance on a global scale combined.... We should kill all the haters. Utopia can be ours!
Again, RTFA. Nobody says Google has to do this or that; quite the opposite. Google is one of the parties telling people what to do - namely, to honour the TOS they agreed to.
The other party who's telling people what to do is the Brazilian police (and, thus, the Brazilian government), and as long as they're regulating what Brazilian people are allowed to do, it certainly is within their rights to do so.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
If only they'd let these people fight in the streets, back alleys, and basements like civilized humans, and not require all this pent up false agression.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Being google, I'm sure they would be able to come up with an efficient algorithm to search their databases on a regular interval for such content, and either suspend the account pending investigation or take a similar action. It may be difficult for such people to regain membership since it's invite only. I don't see Google shutting down their site or suffering from this problem for too long, they are of course known for their search technology and genius employees.
Behold, the simple brilliance of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory
All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.
"Gay" means someone who is attracted predominantly to members of their own sex. There's no contradiction in being a gay virgin, or being gay and celibate.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Being a "let other people do as they will" Christian myself, I'm happy to see that there's somebody with the time and energy to challenge the "anti-religious groupthink" (love that choice of words) on Slashdot in such a well-written manner.
Just out of curiosity (and a desire to make this more than a "Meee Tooo!!11!!" post), how do you reconcile your philosophy that "God exists - yet I also realize that I could be wrong about that" with the school of thought of many other Christians - namely that everybody who ISN'T a Christian is going to suffer immeasurably after death? (i.e. go to Hell)
Do you hope that perhaps the rule isn't strictly enforced and/or misstated/misrecorded/mistranslated to begin with?
Or do you perhaps write off non-Christians as a "lost cause" in favor of letting them exercise their own free will?
Or do you subscribe to another school of thought entirely?
This is not meant to be an antagonistic question, I'm genuinely curious about what your thoughts are on this issue.
Be warned that the Bible claims that insects have four legs and that bats are birds. Relying on the Bible to provide literal truth is like relying on Microsoft to compete fairly in the software market. It has some good stuff, but sometimes you really have to read between the lines, especially when you get into the God-ordered genocides of the Old Testament.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
Keep in mind that "hate and racism" is covered by the first amendment, no matter how tasteless. These people have a right to what they're doing and thinking.
I worry that this recent witch hunt trend against racist movements will supercede the country's recognition of the Constitution.
These people have a right to their thoughts and ideas as long as they aren't harming others, killing, assaulting, etc.
If you want to properly combat these people, you are going to have to listen to their concerns. I believe that they have legitimate concerns that are skewed by blanket ideology and a fascination with nazism and ephemera. Shunning them only makes them stronger.
Diversity counselors are well-versed in this, as they're always lecturing us about this shit, but seem unwilling when the tables are turned.
Shouldn't this be a "Your Rights Online" post?
Hate Messages on Google Site Draw Concern.
Linux at home
As to your second point, I'm heterosexual so I read 'you' as meaning
2. refers to an unspecified person or people in general: you can't tell the boys from the girls
Collins Concise English Dictionary, Third Edition, 1992.
So you see there was no red herring, rather your insistence on promoting your hand me down belief system to those around you lead me to the conclusion that you are an idiot.
In direct contrast with Google's rock-solid reliability, Orkut works for me approximately 1 in 10 times that I try to use it. And by "works for me" I mean just the most simplistic, basic functions like returning a page instead of a server error. They've had this problem for months, and it only seems to be getting worse.
Why people are using this service and not some of the alternatives, I have no idea. Were I google, I'd jettison it quickly before it more seriously erodes my brand.
The solution could very well be that closed social networking systems such as Orkut, where invitation is by invite only, have the same efect as inbreeding and exclusive clubs do in the real world: produce weaker offspring and jealousy and envy.
I personally think that slashdot, with its quirky, yet working and egalatarian modding system, where irritating posts are almost always sent to the bottom of the heap very quickly, is a much better social networking system than Orkut.
Right. And if anybody commits a different sin (i.e. lying, coveting, stealing, being an alcoholic, being born with original sin, etc.) then you warn them a couple of times and kick them out.
My understanding is that many (all?) Christian denominations consider everyone to be a sinner so even if gayness is considered a sin, it just becomes one of many things that the church suggests you don't do.
Neo-Nazis Aim to Upgrade PR, The National Alliance seeks a higher profile and more members with multimedia campaign. LATimes.com article.
Having:
- A small group of people in authority over mass media causing people to stop talking to ANYONE else and instead adopt the views of that incestuously small group.
- A lot of small, voluntarily formed groups, any member of which is also a member of a number of other groups, discovering that after many decades of alienation from their own thought processes they are very pissed off and have some serious grievances that some -- especially the old incestuous community of mass media authorities -- would consider "extreme"
This is no false dilemma. It is the practical reality of the situation.Seastead this.
Are you insane, or just provincial?
Look, in countries with real ethnic tensions---Yugoslavia, Iraq---a large proportion of the people will, every so often, get up and kill their neighbors, who've lived next to them for centuries.
In America, once a group of funny-speaking immigrants (Bosnians, Irish, whatever) has been here for two generations or so, they're just as white as everyone else. Our remnant bigotry comes from the notion of race, which is sort of like "ethnicity for dummies", as it depends on being able to identify someone from fifty paces.
And I should point out that we have racial tensions in big cities which are thickly developed, and which are frequently (Los Angeles) terribly segregated. Note that Los Angeles was the site of the most recent significant civil unrest in America.
America may have bigotry, but we do not have bigotry like they have in other places. It's more dumbed-down. How predictable.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
What we have here is a case where the patient is dying of a serious disease, something happens that will save the patient but causes the patient to vomit or have the shits and all you can do is point to the unpleasant odor.
Get real.
Seastead this.
1 Corinthians 5
There is a difference between being a sinner and actively sinning while doing nothing to correct your actions.
The Bible throughout places sexual immorality of any sort as among the most damaging sins.
The parent post has it exactly right, Anonymous Coward or not. See .signature for a concrete example.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I think you've just described America's current political climate. We have people on the right watching Fox News/listening to Michael Savage, and people on the left watching Michael Moore.
When you're convinced you're right (no pun intended), and that those who have different viewpoints are idiots, what's there left to discuss?
(btw, I'm not equating racism with liberal/neocon views; racism IS wrong, nothing left to discuss).
Not to defend this idiot, but the name Iran is derived from the word "arian" and Iranians are far closer related to the original arians than Germans (and North Europeans) could ever be. The persian language Farsi(as well as several Indian languages) are also Indo-European. So in short, he probably has more of a right to call himself an Arian than Hitler ever had.
I remember reading a story about Jew growing up in Shah era Iran (for all its flaws, Iran had actual religious and ethnic tolerance under the Shah) and reciting, each day in class, some sort of a national pride song which went something along the lines "we are the proud arians".
And so it's OK for Muslims, who don't view Jesus as a Messiah, to be antisemetic?
Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth. (stealing discussion ignored)
The GP was not putting words in his mouth. This is exactly what he said -- that it's wrong to hate Jews because Jesus was a Jew. This is an apallingly bad argument. What if Jesus was Taoist instead of Jewish? How does Jesus's religious affiliation have anything at all to do with anti-semitism??
Gays, on the other hand, have free will and they do what they choose to do.
It's really simple: if one could choose one's sexual orientation, then a heterosexual man could choose to be gay.
I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!
He was tyring to illustrate the absurdity of the original poster's statement (that homosexuality is a choice). You're right, it was a poor example. Let's get back to the original point: do YOU think that gay people have any choice in the matter? Can they simply decide to be attracted to women from now on?
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13."
So God didn't have room on those stone tablets to jot down "Don't be gay" on Mount Sinai? Pretty interesting that Ol' Infallible Himself was able to include relatively minor things like "take a day off every week" and "put up with your parents" but seemed to think that an outright capital offense wasn't worth mentioning.
I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude - do you really think a list of 10 things can meaningfully cover all possible "really bad" actions?
You missed the OP's point. If God felt so strongly about homosexuality, then why didn't he ever SAY so? Even Leviticus is incomplete and open to a number of different interpretations. Even if we were to assume that God is talking about homosexuality in general here, apparently He thinks that it only merits a brief mention among a whole bunch of other things to avoid, like yoking an ox and a donkey together. So why should you attach such grave importance to it?
If I ran into a burning building and saw a man refusing to be saved, heck yes I'd do everything I could to drag him to safety. But this is an analogy, and it's a poor one. Where is the burning building? Are you suggesting that people who do not share your religious beliefs are going to suffer certain death or damnation by fire? You've got to be kidding me.
You're a coward then, in the truest sense of the word. If you believe in what you say then you shouldn't be affraid of being persecuted for your beliefs. The fact that you hide behind AC tells me you're using your "religion" as a shield to be bigoted.
I happen to be Christian, I just don't happen to believe that you're interpritation of Christ's message is correct. Preaching hate and intolerance goes against everything Christ stood for.
Bigots will use whatever rationalization they can to justify their hatred. I'm saddened to see people continue to use religion as a rationale for ignorance.
If you were a true Christian you'd know that the New Testament is a new Covenant between God and Man. All the hatred found in the Old Testament are historically interesting but irrelevant if you believe in Jesus Christ. As Christ never preached hatred or intolerance, you do him a diserve by using his name to justify your sin.
Hate all you want, but don't blaspheme by bringing God into the picture.
Mods, wake up. Nothing Flamebait about this.
"Kill them quickly and have no regrets."
"Disemvowelling works. Consider it."
"If...a post is offensive, upsetting, or just plain unpleasant, it's important to get rid of it...as quickly as possible."
"You can let one...unpleasant jerk hang around for a while, but the minute you get two...they both have to go, and all their recent messages with them."
Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
But alot of the people who don't align themselves with the anti-women, anti-free-speech, anti-tolerance, islamic fascists are aligning themselves with the anti-women, anti-free-speech, anti-tolerance, christian facists.
You're of course correct. I guess I wasn't reading this thread too carefully. (i.e. Nothing to see here, please move along...)
A lot of comments have claimed that anonymity is a prerequisite for this kind of behaviour. I disagree.
I've been involved in a number of discussion groups that meet in person in public venues, and it doesn't take more than a few meetings before someone comes along who wants to talk about the great Jewish conspiracy that runs the world. The next week, they'll bring a like-minded friend, and the next week another, until they run out of friends (which doesn't usually take too long), by which time the group has become untenable.
These people can be anything from outright Nazis to decent but gullible people who once read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and thought "My God! This explains everything!" Either way, they will attend any public meeting they happen to hear about, and leave a trail of destruction in their wake.
In related news Orkut is plagued by pedophiles, terrorists, hackers, pirates, and people saying George Bush sucks.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I am on the verge of releasing my reply to the whole orkut thing : www.ihateorkut.com
:
... soon it will be open to a few lucky ones, and soon everybody will be receiving invitations, or what I like to call "threats"...ahhaahhaah
it will work like this
if you hate somebody, you send a invitation, convocating a confrontation on I Hate Orkut battlegrounds... it will be a discussion battle that will be judged by others on the community.. whoever wins, wins points.. whoever has more points has more power on the votes..
soon there will be gangs that will be controlling the battlegrounds.. so when you hate someone, you will call upon your gang to destroy your enemies... all your gangstas will vote with you...
and of course will be 2 or more gangs...
it will be awsome...
the invitation sistem will be awsome too, and irresistable, because nobody on the net can resist a good argument.. especially when they are encouraged to curse, and destroy your enemy by all means necessary... it will be sweeeeet...
keep visiting www.ihateorkut.com
"Hey I have a great idea - how about arguing against what he said and not words you decide to put in his mouth."
The guy said "it's silly to hate Jews because Jesus was a Jew." He did not say "it's silly to hate Jews because they're human beings, too." His rationale for not being antisemitic was based entirely on who Jesus happened to be and not, say, what he taught. It appeared that if Jesus were not a Jew, then the poster would have little issue with hating them.
I didn't say "related," I said "forced to relate." The poster seemed to be accepting Jews because he was forced to relate to Jesus' Judaism.
"I'm sure he wants to save criminals too - does that mean he should try doing things he feels are wrong (i.e. violating his conscience) just to gain a better understanding? That's insane!"
If they don't want to be "saved," the least he could do is try to understand why instead of stonewalling. Otherwise, you'd serve everybody better by moving on, which the poster seems to refuse to do (constantly wanting to "save" those who would have nothing of it).
"I think you'll find out that things like rape and incest (things we feel are bad still today in modern society) were also offenses of similar magnitude"
All covered by "Don't murder" and "don't covet." Also goes against "do unto others..." None of those, however, apply to consensual homosexuality.
"I don't know why he felt it was unnecessary to say this (or that those recording it did not record it) but perhaps people of the time already knew that was wrong?"
We're talking about divine scripture here. Everything in it is supposed to be important and everything important is supposed to be in it. There are many things Jesus preached about that were copied down that everybody at the time were supposed to know better about, and homosexuality didn't make the rather exhaustive list.
"You have created a false dichotomy - Ten Commandments vs Stuff Not In The Ten Commandments."
Because it's not a false dichotomy. The commandments say "don't murder." Leviticus says "kill homosexuals." You can't have both without some serious handwaving, and ultimately "don't murder" was what was written directly by the hand of God while Leviticus involved some vague inspirations.
"Maybe the Ten Commandments are just the Ten most important"
Covenant what? What was the point of making this short list to begin with, then?
"The *ENTIRE* message of Christianity is that it is possible to have a direct, personal connection of God"
Having such a direct and personal connection with Him is not the same as knowing His will; this is why you're supposed to be willing to do what He asks of you even if you do not understand it. However devout the poster believes himself to be, there are contradictory statesments, attributed to either God Himself or divine inspiration, within each and between both testaments. It was my understanding that the Christian solution is to approach God directly through prayer and meditation to find what His command is supposed to be in your life rather than, say, playing favorites with scripture. After all, there should be no need for such slavish devotion to scripture if you have such a direct connection to the source of that scripture.
"If you went into a burning building, and a helpless guy in there said they didn't want to be saved - would your conscience allow you to simply leave them to burn alive - because that's what they said they wanted?"
If they said it because they thought they couldn't be saved, I'd try. If they said it because they actually sought death, I'd let them have what they wanted. I may try to argue, but I will certanly not attempt to force my opinion on someone who does not want it, especially in a life-and-death matter.
I suppose this all depends on your denomination's view of the role of Pilate, doesn't it?
"Would you
You can pretend that these thoughts don't exist all you want. But they do exist. And you, like everyone else, have them.
Speak for yourself. I've noticed that many racists try to justify their hatred by claiming that everyone feels the same way. I suppose people just want to feel "normal" and not the exception. Well, let me tell you something: You are the exception. Racism is a learned behavior and you are a part of an increasingly small minority of indoctrinated people.
Your "science" is also horribly flawed. Here are a choice quote from the AAA:
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions.
After all, I am strangely colored.
I hate Google ... Grrrrr.....
You know, I've recently begun to think of trolling as more than just trying to get a rise out of people. The truly successful trolls get people to betray their principles. This is why they're so often found in places like this, where folks have hoity-toity principles just waiting to be popped.
Klerck was a successful troll, even though all he did was crapflood with that stupid "page widening" stuff. But it was because of him that the lameness filter was added.
The Wikipedia article on the GNAA (which mentions the structural changes the GNAA made to Slashdot by their trolling) has been put up for deletion more than any other article. If the article is deleted, they "win" by making Wikipedia betray its principles. If the article stays, they "win" by being advertised on Wikipedia.
At least, that's what trolling seems like to me. As a troll, what's your take?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
He's just stopped reading at -1, I believe. There's a lot of good stuff left out at +5, but it also leaves out the people bitching about moderation and how awful it is here.
And, hey, if no one's complainin', it must be working well.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I quit doing anything on Orkut months ago, since their servers have become so overloaded and buggy that it's nearly impossible to follow a thread or post a reply.
In fact I run (or ran) my own community with over 600 members, but I suspect most of them got up and left about the same time I did. When I go back to check, the conversation has died.
If the Brazilians have found a way to use Orkut without constantly seeing "Bad Server: No Donut for you!", then more power to them. And if enjoying yourself in Brazil means whipping losers into a frenzy of scapegoating and irrational racism and hate, well, I'm just not that impressed with Brazilians....
In direct social interaction it's possible to wander away from the boors, the cranks, the simply or creatively obnoxious. However in online conversation they're able to continually re-interject themselves in conversation after conversation until the whole space becomes overwhelmed and falls apart.
In the real world the host would have long ago gone up to the offending party and asked them to cool it, or to leave. TNH is simply pointing out the exact same responsibilities in an online host and the unlikelihood of not doing so suddenly resulting in constructive conversation.
BTW, "disenvoweling" is the tactic of removing all of the vowels from a particularly noxious post. By leaving the style but not the substance it reflects that this person did post and it was judged inappropriate by the host, serves as a warning to other like-minded folks
This is akin to the tactic of slicing off 1/2 of those annoying pseudo-anonymous "WORK FROM HOME" / "HERBAL DIET" / etc. placards affixed to many of the street poles in the US. By not entirely removing these, but rendering their contact #'s incomplete, it informs following sign posters that their investment will be quickly disabled and to not waste their time doing so there.
If you find these sorts of checks & balances offensive I suggest you open up an online conversation space without any such moderation. Or check out the squirming spam & flamer ridden remains of many, including much of Usenet.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
You can pretend that these thoughts don't exist all you want. But they do exist. And you, like everyone else, have them.
/not/ all think like racists.
No. I do not have these thoughts you speak of. In fact, I find those thoughts to be morally repugnant. Not, as you surmise, because I want to go along with current trends, but rather because I do believe that all beings are created equal.
Please, everyone here who does not think like this closed minded, hate filled near-human, respond here and prove the parent wrong... we do
Tolerance is not a 'social trend'. Intolerance is an outmoded thoughtform that is being rejected by rational, thinking people, and only embraced by reactionary non-thinkers.
The chains are broken
Loki is free
Ragnarok is at hand...
While I think that to a certain extent you have a point, I also think it's pretty silly for you to imagine you know what every other person thinks.
I'm sure there are in fact a number of people out there who are to some extent racist and hide their true feelings because those feelings aren't popular. There is likely a whole spectrum of racist attitudes from very minor to very extreme. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that there aren't ANY people who truly aren't racist.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
Over 60% of the bodies he left to fester were white. He's black. Not one of the mass media ever mentioned this. Had the colors been reversed, the NAACP, Al Sharpton, Jessse Jackson etc... Would have been up in arms.
2 + 3 == cats
It's almost as beautiful as e ^ pi * i + 1 = 0
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Orkut tries to maintain an air of "exclusivity" by having reference-only membership. People then think that they have the right to say anything because they were "invited". Lack of any overall moderation lets people become extremists. I was in Orkut for a short while and found the anti-Brazilian hate-mongering to be too much to put up with. Some Americans seemed to be the worst of the bunch - they thought they had more "rights" to be on Orkut than anyone else since Orkut was "American" (although written largely by a Turk), and objected to the Brazilian language being used.
When I heard the head of the John Locke foundation giving Michael Barone a tongue bath on CSPAN today I realized they're just Republicans who smoke better weed.
Moderation +1
/. mods thought this was more than a troll. Like Holocaust deniers and flat-earthers, open racists like this are really beyond rational persuasion and best left sitting in the shadows. Responding to them as if they make arguments just convinces them that they are a part of some sort of lively debate instead of simply being an unpleasant odor in the room.
30% Interesting
40% Insightful
30% Overrated
OK, who the hell thought the rantings of some random bigot were "insightful" or even particularly "interesting," for that matter? It bugs me that any
Make cheese not war 8:)
So, religion isn't a choice?
And the two clauses are related because...? The only way they could be seen as related is if you ignore Judaism as a religion and consider it solely on terms of race.
He said:
- Hatred of Jews is bad because Jesus was a Jew
- Hatred of $SKIN_COLOR is bad because people had no choice
- Ultimately, hatred of homosexuals is OK (if not required) because they had a choice and because Jesus was not a homosexual
By the poster's logic, if Jesus were not a Jew, then Jews who chose not to convert to Christianity are in the same boat as homosexuals: they made the wrong choice and therefore must be punished (apparently by death and/or dismemberment)."And you expect people to treat you seriously?"
Oh, and one more thing: If I wanted to be taken seriously, would I really be posting on Slashdot? I'm here to piss people off and make enemies, all while demonstrating how utterly contemptable and evil I am to all who would read the posts I put at score: 1. Or haven't you noticed all the other responses I've been getting? Hello, McFly?
I think there's also a pervasive belief among some minorities that pulling the race card will get them anything they want; I also think that there's some truth to that. After all, nobody wants to be called racist, and certainly not in public. White people will generally bend over backwards to avoid being seen as racists. Rather than get a bad public image, they'll grease the squeaky wheel. In the end, the minority often achieves their goal even though no racism occurred.
For example, there was a group that came through town a couple of weeks ago trying to boycott the Dillard's department store chain, claiming that they don't hire enough black people. They don't offer any proof of this, no one's come forward saying that Dillard's fired them or didn't hire them because they were black. This group just has it in their mind that not enough blacks work at Dillard's (maybe they just aren't applying there?) so they call it racism and stir up a boycott that all of 10 people showed up for. If there's any meat to the story - like, you know, even remotely circumstantial evidence that Dillard's discriminates - the black boycotters and black reporter didn't bother to mention it.
As another example, one of our local school systems is outsourcing the custodial and janitorial positions to a private company. Instead of hiring custodians directly, the school system is going to pay a private company to manage that part of their workforce. This will supposedly save the school system, which is about 80 million in the red, some money. Immediately, the head of the custodial workers' union (yes, there really is one) went on the news and started calling it racism and discrimination because 90% of the janitors are black. Well, I doubt that the private company has located a secret cache of white people who are lining up to be janitors. It's still going to be 90% black once it's privatized, but something is happening that affects black people, so it must be racist.
Then there's one of our esteemed state Senators, John Ford. Over the past month, he's been caught up in four separate scandals. Now he's trying to say that it's all racism.
First off, he's trying to pass legislation that would ease the child support burden on fathers who maintain more than one home - and guess what, he qualifies, seeing as how he has kids with 3 different women and apparently lives with two of them part-time. Next, he's trying to pass legislation that would significantly raise the standard of entry for newcomers into the funeral home business. Guess which business his family has been in for generations? Thirdly, he didn't report a significant chunk of income, as legislators are required by state law to report. Finally, it came out that he used upwards of $20,000 in campaign funds to pay for his daughter's wedding expenses. This isn't just unethical, it's outright illegal.
What's his response? He's saying that the "white media" (his term!) are out to get him. That's right, it's not his fault that he's a philandering, corrupt politician who seems to spend most of his public time trying to legislate new financial benefits for himself and his family. No, of course not. Even though half of the local news anchors and reporters are black, all of this is the "white media's" fault.
He's going for the "get what I want because I'm in the minority and they're all racists" ploy. Unfortunately, it works fairly often around here. It's probably not going to work for Senator Ford, though.
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
You may consider me pathetic, fine, that's a personal opinion no different than my belief in your idiocy, however I will go to sleep tonight happy in the knowledge that my beliefs are the result of a widely read, open and enquiring mind, unlike your slavish devotion to a 2000 year old text of dubious provenance. You have my pity.
Oh yes, you may wish to find a remedial English lesson, 'holded' is not a word, 'held' is what I think you were grasping for. Sleep tight.
I'm surprised that nobody has responded so far. Maybe all Slashdot readers are having a computerless Sunday? We should ask racists to answer this informal poll, so that not answering is not considered as agreeing with racism.
I feel sorry for you.
> The cause of racism is honesty, not
overpopulation.
Of course it is. You feel it, and you
are honest about it. What you do not
know, though, is that not everything's
right in your head.
If you seek help, maybe you can become a
healthy, happy and free individual.
I'd say you lack self-esteem which you
then project unto others. You hate others
for what you are.
Read some books about Jung's concept of
shadow and its connection to racism and
seek professional help.
> You just want to pretend to go along
with the current tolerance in the zeitgeist.
But, seriously, how long can that last?
You better hope it can last long enough as
you may live long enough to become a member
of a minority (race).
To paraphrase that line from American
History X, "in the future, you will be
black".
> the laws in Europe. They're actually
trying to regulate people's thoughts. It's
quite sickenning.
IIRC, in Europe (I think you mean Germany
here) they're still free to think whatever
they want, but Nazi parties and propaganda
are illlegal. What's wrong with that? Like
the society needs their contributions!
What is sickening is that people have the
ability to hate so much so that they have to
be legally restrained from creating a new
Nazi state.
P.S.
Modding the parent interesting is the
triumph of the Slashdot moderation system.
Moron after moron...
Its the same reason people focus on men being sexist towards women, or straight people being homophobic towards gays as opposed to the reverse.
Its not a level playing field and until it is these ism's just aren't equal. Just like its incorrect to assume that sexism and racism are the same, you can't assume that white racism and black racism cause the same amount of damage. The group with power is the one with the responsibility.
Its like that tired racist arguement "How come there are all black fraternities, but if we had an all white fraternity people would call us racist?". I hate it when people (particularly white people) say that they don't think about race... its because they (we) don't fucking have to. You don't need a white fraternity because chances are you live in a predominately white neighborhood, your group of friends are all white and so are your coworkers.
I think America has every bit as much hatred, racism, and bigotry as other countries.
Then you either have a distorted picture of America, or of other countries.
Look, in places like Rwanda or Yugoslavia, significant segments of the populace were ready, with not so much provocation, to rise up and slaughter other segments. We simply do not have that here. In the last thirty years, the largest civil unrest was the LA riots, confined to one city and a whole lot of property damage. Show me the mass graves, like they have in Yugoslavia, in Iraq, in Germany.
If you think being denied employment or shunned in school is the worst thing that happens in other places, you've clearly been reading too much "Indy Media" or something.
(Before you leap up and mention the locals who were here before the Americans came and drove them out/murdered them---that's not civil unrest. It's a horrific act of war, but it was carried out by one nation against another.)
I'm not saying there's no racism in America. But to throw one's hands up and state that everyone has racism, and we just pretend it isn't so bad... it's intellectually lazy, and dishonest.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Ok, I haven't done an exhaustive study, but I've never seen a 2 legged insect, All insects I've seen had 4(or more) legs and thusly go about on 4 legs. Since we are having a pointless semantical discussion.
And Owph... the word (mis)translated fowl in Leviticus 11:13 means Flying creatures.. including insects, and logically bats and superman.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
This whole KDE vs. Gnome thing just makes me sick to my stomach. A whitesheet wearing users group slagging another users group that can barely reach the keyboard.
Break the cycle, stop the violence.
yes, all hatred is equal, right? Saying 'I won't hire blacks' is absolutly the same as 'Hey, lets go there, kill them all, then rape their corpses and burn their houses down'. No it isn't. It might not be a qualitative difference (arguable) but it certainly is a quantitative difference. Hatred in the US does get expressed 'less' in the sense of the forms it takes, therefore, hatred actually IS less.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
I'm not buying that. Racism isn't something that's purely one color and not another. Having a single group that excludes others based on the color of their skin is racist. Period.
Until people are completely color blind about all this, having an all "this-group" or all "that-group" is just contributing to the problem, not helping solve it.