Why are blatantly racist threads allowed?

Border enforcement Nazis ?

 

I hope you are not trying to pitch that Europeans are seeing the Guy Fawkes Anonymous guys, and the Black Bloc anarchists, etc rioting in their anonymity and agents of provocateurs...as right wingers?

 

Surely you do not believe right wing anarchism doesn't exist?

http://attackthesystem.com/2010/06/06/right-wing-anarchism/


I can post a few dozen more of these if you wish or you can do your own Google search for further Truth.

 

Yes, is it possible to hold people accountable after they're banned from the forum then? How is that done, because debating such people may appear somewhat one-sided. Still, at least you'd be odds on to win the debate.

This forum has been online for years, through racists, humanists and linguists like yourself there.

If you think people here can't differentiate a propaganda platform racist from a non-native English speaker, get the popcorn out because you are in for a tricky time. Your English is good but as another poster pointed out, it doesn't follow flowing natural syntax or grammar and is somewhat stilted to a native speaker, although UK and US English are different in some respects as you no doubt know... On an international forum, it is only use of the language and there are many language barriers. It is the most banal and unimpressive of tactics to resort to "language Police" commentary, as clearly that happens when one has no valid counter to present. It is a step above personal attack, IMHO. Good luck though.

Racists are the one thing I will exert myself to discredit and debate as their views are completely offensive to me and sometimes I have left the forum temporarily when there is an influx of the headcases. But there are different types of racist as you know and while the most mindlessly offensive are often those organised Stormfront escapees who come in posting their unacceptable views couched in the latest well-prepared hypothetical "this is my own personal experience and I'm a nice person, if you only listen to me you must realise you are really a total racist and you just have never been aware of it" scenarios...those are also the easiest to debunk as their strategy is so transparent and frequently used.

There is sometimes another type of racist, who often happens to be older and has lived in a time or culture where racism was/is not unacceptable or unpalatable but is genuinely intertwined for them with patriotism and that is more complex. They are not necessarily holding those offensive views from the same perspective as the daft Stormfrontroopers, as they lived in different times and will never change their view on this long held bigotry. It's like debating your dear old Grandad, they don't mean any harm by it.

Whatever their motivation, I am offended at times and leave the forum to calm down. However, if they break the forum rules they are banned and as you pointed out, unless you read them at least for a while, you cannot learn to recognize and combat their misguided bigotry.

I have seen the people you refer to, the left anti-Semitics and they can be very virulent and blinkered. It is not confined to US posters, there are plenty of Euros who are in that category. They can be quite angry when referred to as anti-Semitic, if they view themselves anti-Zionist but not anti-Semitic. In US pol it seems to be more of an anti-Rightie and anti-Semitic/Zionist as part of that political mindset in the same way the Righties appear frequently pro-Israel as part of their political mindset.

Did he say it is confined to US pol...

...may mere Europosters be allowed to touch the hem of your garment, oh great one....

"Julios" could be viewed as a bit racist, btw.

Everyone knows that quite well. Who cares? It is not a difficult matter to smoke out racism and hold it up to the light. Is that not part of our reason to be here, to fight such abhorrent views?

Or you'd rather sweep it under the carpet and let it go unchallenged?

Hero, yer Mum's in.

Dearie dearie me. Fierce stuff indeed......

 

I am indifferent to people whose language is less than perfect and very tolerant, more admiring, of those who post here in a second language. But when people start off criticizing people's grammar, there is nearly always something to criticize in their own.

My point is highly pedantic but it concerns the use of the word proper and properly. Proper has an ambiguous meaning as an adjective. It's primary meaning is not "appropriate" or "correct", as you used it but "belonging to one" or "own". This is because it comes from Anglo French "propre". As a Frenchman will know "mes propres mains" means "my own hands". This is the primary meaning of the adjective "proper" in English. As in "Proper Noun". Your meaning is secondary. It is correct when applied as an adjective, but if used in a sentence where it can apply as an adverb, as here in "use properly", this would be the preferred usage in plain English where the meaning "correctly" or "appropriately" is more usual. The adverb avoids the allusion to the meaning "belonging to oneself" (and other meanings) that the adjective carries.

Your quote above is also poor English. "Proper grammar is key to..." is terrible English. "The use of proper grammar is key to..." would be better. "Using grammar properly is key to..." is best. Internet authorities are often not the best teachers.

 

Quite right. I understand that the best English in the world is spoken in Inverness.

 

Hahaha...new to me, but I'm not very much in Inverness. I understand it's become an expansive and thriving, much more populated place since I camped there once and became involved in a 2 a.m. beer testing situation with a group of German bikers and one in particular named Gunther. His English wasn't great, but we understood each other perfectly. My husband misunderstood everything, when he came to see why I hadn't returned to the tent. We were just talking..... Gunther, if you're out there...

I hear the most beautiful and purely preserved Spanish is spoken in Peru, btw.

 

Thanks for that dissertation upon the term proper. I have always understood the word proper to imply propiety - appropriate, respectable, customary, not lewd or licentious, in behaviour. I have further understood its adjectival usage (with the exception of Proper Nouns) to be largely informal (he gave her a proper seeing to. ) and it is more usually and correctly used in the adverbial sense you describe. In my experience, the adjectival sense is rarely used, and then jokingly, usually with class conscious overtones. Little Britain presented some good examples thereof.

 

You wanna watch those Germans you know. They have ways of making you talk!

V funny Viv!

 

You are of course correct. It is because of the fact that proper is used in English dialect, colloquially as an adjective, that the adverb is always better in more formalized speech (ie writing). "He was a proper gentleman" would be one example. I think (I might be wrong) that young persons such as yourself now use the word to mean "good". "That's proper that is". Or in the North: "That's right proper!". All the more reason to use the adverb.

 

'Quite right. I understand that the best English in the world is spoken in Inverness.'

I copy from your post, Viv, because I don't see this person's posts. It was at one time universally accepted that 'the best' English' was spoken in Inverness. Who awarded this prize I don't know: it would be an interesting point to research.

 

Quoting Viv:

Having debates in which there is intelligent exchanges of ideas is good. But racists who continue to vent hate in a forum such as this does nothing that is constructive. Giving them the opportunity to spread more hate does not quell the tide of hatred. European forums such as the one in which I am a mod know that Truth and stops the racism for that reason.

My reply to Julio hardly meets the definition of language police. It was an effort (a successful one) of ferreting out what was clearly a racist trying to stir up trouble. The Truth of what I wrote quieted him and stopped his racist nonsense. By contrast, Heroclitus accused me of bad usage (and he did so again below your post). However, the encyclopedic source I used proves otherwise.

As for the rest of your spiel, perhaps it would be best if the two of you dealt with racism in your part of the world. We Yanks have our problems (just as you have yours) many of which are settled with more civility than you do. For example, I can watch our version of a baseball derby when my NY Yankees play against the Boston Red Sox ~ sure, we'll argue with each other but after the game we shake hand like good sports do. In Scotland when your Rangers-Celtics play you kill each other because one team is Protestant and another Catholic. Such hatred should have died out with the Middle Ages. Yet, after all this time you still haven't learned to respect each other. It is so easy to point the finger at us for our deficiencies while ignoring your own bigotry and the violence it causes.

Open display of sectarian hate in Scotland during Rangers-Celtic rivalry:






Blood, gore, hate, dead bodies, police injured, property destroyed ~ all because you people hate each other for their religion. Now, that's fierce stuff.

 

Some may not agree:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNN6NigGNM"]Doric call centre - YouTube[/ame]

 

Like it. You should hear the burghers assassinating 'Welsh' names. It is all one united country, of course. Happy days!

 

It's OK ... it's the last sound you hear before a Dinosaur Dies.

 

I didn't say anything about existing.

Just to keep on point to where I believe you stand.

Anonymous posters act as agent provocateurs on forums, and they, as well as standard racists, should be banned immediately (by mods making that distinction), to ensure legitimate discussion by those who are not the above.

The reasons being. 1) Immediate hurt feelings by minorities (or those who aren't minorities, but hate racists) reading something hateful by the standard racist, and, potentially hurt feelings by the statements agent provocateurs make in more diabolical fashion.

2) Recruitment possibllities for the racists cause.

3) FCC shutting the site down via complaints lodged.

Is there an extent to this, btw? Meaning, agent provocateurs for homosexual agenda, anti-homosexual agenda, OWS, TEA Partiers, religions, atheists, pro life, pro choice, gun, anti-gun, one world government, sovereignists?

Are log cabin republicans who don't support gay marriage gonna get some extra scrutiny, along with racists who emphatically endorse the TEA Party, or over the top, mind numbing liberalists to the nth degree, or screamingly raged out anti-abortionists etc?

The lines you are drawing in the sand make an X.

 

You are right, I'm too against Muslim and Black racists!

 

I find it's usually "jews" who whimper about "racism" when they're the WORST RACISTS THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN. Read their talmud (http://talmudunmasked.com) - they're prejudiced against anybody who's not a "jew". IN OTHER WORDS, 99% OF THE WORLD!

 

"When I make a post about how blacks have a much higher statistics per capita than any other race, that is a fact, not bigotry."

And when I say "jews" control the bulk of America's media, I'm simply speaking the truth, not being an antisemite.

 

Enjoy your remaining time here on earth ...

 

I say the site should allow each member to ban one topic from discussion throughout the entire forum when they join, applicable to every single member. That way, there will be nothing to talk ab--I mean, get offended over.

 

Racist are a minority now ... and it's easy to tell.

They're getting louder because they're ignored by many more.

 

provocateurs

Glad to see you agree they should be banned as nothing constructive is generated from their hate. Recruitment being a significant point.

[II] FCC

The FCC is obligated by law to insure the air waves are used to advance education, information, the arts, and communications. The agency is fully capable of discharging its duties as it is directed by Congress (the Congress is empowered by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to oversee this). What constitutes acceptable communications changes with the times. I will allow this agency to discharge its obligations within the strictures imposed by Congress.

[III]

People have their own agendas in life. Most Log Cabinites actually endorse marriage equality (so called "gay marriage"). The rationale being that corporations have these rights via merger. People should have the same rights as entities. **********s may have bizarre ideas about the role of government but it is their right to express their ideas so long as it is done in a law abiding manner. Ditto for anti-abortionists of which I am one. Whatever your agenda is, promote it in a civilized manner being ever respectful of the law.

 

I don't agree with you.

Back around the mid 90's I was constantly in search of reliable proof of provocateurs on Yahoo message boards, that were working in unison to promote the homosexual agenda. Never did find anything. (although somone on this very forum a while back did give me a hint that I was quite correct)

My position is: I want them exposed. I do not want them censored or banned, despite my dislike for their tactics or positions.