One Thing I've Noticed

@OmSigDAVID,

Counceler NOBODY is arguing about rights.

@OmSigDAVID,

I really do not believe you were an attorney. Unless my idea of attorney objectivity was misplaced, if the victims of knockout game are chosen at random, why do you keep bringing up whites as sole victims?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

A tad over the line, maybe? Pamela doesn't embarrass me, but she is embarrassing to explain to others. I wouldn't ban her, but I am posting on her thread to make her feel at least a little bit uncomfortable with her thread. To let her know she's not part of some secret majority.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I apply censorship everyday by ignoring, condemning, fighting back. We all censor all day, everyday.

1 Reply

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

Counceler NOBODY is arguing about rights.

I am. I do it all the time.

David

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

I really do not believe you were an attorney.

This is not important to me.
I only care that my clients, in another century,
were very pleased with the results that I got for them in court.
My professional services r not available to u.

Buttermilk wrote:

Unless my idea of attorney objectivity was misplaced,
if the victims of knockout game are chosen at random,

Is there evidence that thay were "chosen at random"??
Did u take a survay of the perpetrators
to ascertain how thay were chosen??
What is your souce of information on this point???

Buttermilk wrote:

why do you keep bringing up whites as sole victims?

I did not say that whites were "sole victims".
I challenge u on that point. Prove me rong. U can t.

FOR THE RECORD:
I have no reason to believe that whites are the "sole victims"
of crimes of blacks. I know that most crime of black felons
has fallen upon black victims.

David

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

bobsal u1553115 wrote:

I apply censorship everyday by ignoring, condemning, fighting back.
We all censor all day, everyday.

It looks like u r liberally re-defining censorship.

David

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

Ticomaya wrote:

Setanta wrote:
It is tedious to have to repeat this so often. No one here has any free speech rights. That's because we are not posting in public, we are on private property when we post here. The owners can, and frequently do, censor what is posted here. It is legal, and what's more, it is the moral right of the owners to control what is posted here.

Hear, hear.

I have Pamela Rosa on ignore, as well as Tabludama. Have for years. I would just as soon their sickening racist views be banned from this site. That would be my preference. This is not a "right of free speech" bullshit argument. That's complete bullshit. Let them spew their bile elsewhere. I would prefer the powers that be take a stand and say enough with this crap, and ban it like the SPAM it is.

I think you are merely setting up a straw man when you libel Pamela. It is false to say that her stuff is "crap," "bulllshit,""racist," and "spam." I defy you to show us a single statement from her that is false. She documents everything she says.

Moreover, she gives us important information, which may help readers to avoid being victims of violent crime. For instance, she has posted quite a bit on the raging knockout game. People reading this, who have any intelligence at all, will take steps to avoid being a victim of this "game."

BTW, I have not seen posters claiming that Pamela, or other posters, have a free-speech right to post. That is just another strawman set up by you and Setanta.

6 Replies

@Advocate,

http://able2know.org/topic/163156-1

There was a discussion. Some opinions seem to have changed since then.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

I didn't claim that promoting openness in posting here - and restraint of banning people for untoward or gross opinions - is virtuous. It's quite self-serving to me.

I'm not gay or black, nor is anyone in my family, but I consider it my responsibility to go out of my way to make noise publicly and privately and use my votes to protect their rights. I feel like my rights are connected to theirs.

I could have been born into an unprotected group at any time in history. I feel like I'm performing a duty - that hopefully someone who had nothing to gain might do / have done for me if I found myself on the wrong side of equal rights.

I skimmed the old thread Should Members be Banned for Untoward Opinions - posted a link above. My view wasn't such a minority view then. Odd to me that the pendulum has swung so wildly since then.

Doesn't matter though. My opinion about banning people with disgusting opinions remains the same.

No virtue claimed by me.

2 Replies

@Buttermilk,

The assumption you made with this comment

Quote:

Your problem is you think if 20 people attack a view that is generally unacceptable you think we're censoring them, or "ganging up."

was incorrect.

I love the exchange of opinions.

1 Reply

@Advocate,

It's the first time that I notice, you defend a neo-Nazi. (I could document that, but I really don't want to quote her from stormfront or other white nationalist, supremacist and neo-nazi fora.)

1 Reply

@Advocate,

How could I quote her? The only time I faintly see her, since I've had her on ignore forever, is if I see her name in new posts and then I click on the post and thumb her down.

Ignoring does have that problem, in that you stop the piling up of down thumbs, which probably shut down what some first users see (those who accept x number of downs as close, not saying no re preferences).

I happen to think that arguing with such slime is a kind of feeding. I'm also for arguing with it, so of course I'm confused. I'm slightly more against constant arguing on it.

I think I too have a problem with her not being banned, in contrast to others who have been. I am very aware of my take on Robert et al's views re speech, and, despite the fact that he's no fan of mine, I mostly get him (et al) re opinions around the world being heard, thus the facilities for shutting people down via speech or thumbs or IGNORES.

I'm here all the time for this bit of time. People who show up and read favorite threads every week or two will have different opinions.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I've been here more than a dozen years and it is a community I care about, including people I argue with or snap at. I don't want to click on at seven in the morning to read torrential filth in my view, so I thumb and advance to ignore when applicable. Sometimes ignore is only a rest for me, and sometimes it's permanent.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

It's the first time that I notice, you defend a neo-Nazi.
(I could document that, but I really don't want to quote her from
stormfront or other white nationalist, supremacist and neo-nazi fora.)

Just speaking for myself,
Let the record indicate that I have no information
qua how she stands in regard to German National Socialism,
but, as an INDIVIDUALIST LIBERTARIAN I hold all collectivism
and its authoritarianism in abhorrence. I favor government that grows progressively more feeble
as freedom of the Individual citizen increases. That is radically inconsistent with nazism and any socialism.

Having acknowledged that, I admit that it is theoretically possible
for a pariah to do something good once in a while, e.g. to point out
such social problems as lethally violent crimes. A deed shud be honestly judged
on its own merit, not by WHO has done it, Walter. If the foulest of the low yells: "FIRE"
when there really IS one, then he gets my thanks for that, not condemnation.

Perhaps u see it differently.

David

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate,

Over the years, I've noticed that Pamela almost exclusively brings articles and starts threads with the singular pursuit of disparaging blacks. If she had additional things to talk about - and mixed in occasionally negative views of blacks, I'd be more likely to consider her a person worth arguing with - rather than just an agenda-driven mouthpiece for racial hate.

I think this may be the primary reason most members ignore her and categorize her as litter on the landscape. The only other voice here to compare is the ever-America-hating JTT, but even he dabbles in grammar / language issues for a few posts before inexorably damning Americans for shitting up the King's English...

2 Replies

For purposes of consistency,
it shud be pointed out that we did not try to censor
discussion of the George Zimmerman trial,
which was the product of racial agitation by Jesse Jackson n Sharpton.
Neither of them wud have been interested if the fatal battle
had been between 2 whites or 2 blacks.

David

0 Replies

@Ticomaya,

spam
noun
1.
irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.

Why do we now call unpopular opinions "spam?" We decide someone's opinion is irrelevant or inappropriate, and co-opt a word to change the meaning to borrow strength for our opinion?

How I hate this word perversion.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Word perversion is liberalism; i.e., distortion.

David

0 Replies

@Lash,

One other does that (oh, never mind..)

JTT reached out to me once. Maybe he or she noticed that I said I agreed with him on some/most matters, just hated his hate. I've said that off and on, each time he blasted me, adding up to many, years going by.

It was a pm with an offer of help.

I don't hate JTT, but I couldn't get myself to answer. I should apologize for that, so here it is,

I do apologize, JTT, for not answering the reach.

1 Reply

One Thing I've Noticed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know