The most absurd moderation in Sci history
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
hypewaders:
Am not falling for that one either. Last time I tried that I got warned for reporting.
Its still an abuse of power. Applying your standards wholesale to any people regardless of their perspective is what the holocaust was about. And when the same attitude is applied to the memory of the holocaust, what are you changing, exactly?
Even enshrining the holocaust is a a bleddy act of arrogance. Suddenly, nothing is so bad if its not as bad as the Holocaust. Even suffering is graded.
Am not falling for that one either. Last time I tried that I got warned for reporting.
Gustav said:
Its still an abuse of power. Applying your standards wholesale to any people regardless of their perspective is what the holocaust was about. And when the same attitude is applied to the memory of the holocaust, what are you changing, exactly?
Even enshrining the holocaust is a a bleddy act of arrogance. Suddenly, nothing is so bad if its not as bad as the Holocaust. Even suffering is graded.
Last edited:
Love It, or Leave It.
'sno problim (hic)
:sleep:
:sleep:
Oh. My mistake. I thought that was implied in what you wrote.
I don't.
Why do you think age is a bad thing?
For the record, 40+ is what I would consider aged.
That sounds like something a 20 year old would say.
Bells
Staff member
I see. What if he lives in Texas for example? Or does this come across ethnic lines?
One could also say that Arabs for example, may have a clouded view of Jews because of the Palestinian conflict with Israel. So who is right and who is wrong?
Do you think expecting someone to back up their claims about Jews being at fault for their own Holocaust is a "ridiculous European standard"? I guess I have difficulty in anyone not finding the mass slaughter of millions of people in a few years to not be sacrosanct to the human species, religious and ethnic lines aside. Just as I find the genocides before and since then to be sacrosanct to the human species.. mostly because we are too stupid to learn from our mistakes of the past.
Your point has basically set it down racial and religious lines. That if one is not Muslim or an Arab, then one should not care about the plight of the Palestinians, for example. Something which Gustav appears to have picked up on.
I believe my reasons were quite clear.
Ah, but he made an assertion of fact and then claimed that it did not matter if history wasn't correct and that all that mattered was what he believed. People are challenged all the time. I am. You are. But here is the thing. We tend to provide our evidence as we post. Norse does not. And when requested, he refused to and claimed that history does not have to be correct. Therefore, I have to question where his views of Jews comes from. Where did his history stem from, you know, the history even he admitted wasn't correct.
Really? Like when members are challenged about Christianity and Islam for example? But again, the greater majority do provide links and back up their claims about history. I don't recall anyone saying that it didn't matter if their history wasn't correct as an excuse, do you?
No it is not. But tell me, has there been some evidence unearthed that has not been reported that Jews were responsible for both World Wars and ultimately, their own near destruction in the death camps?
I see. So if I turn around and say that the British did not allow and cause the deaths of millions of Indians in the past, that's fine and true, because that is what I say it is?
My my. Who'd have thought that altering history was so easy.
You do realise that I am seen as an anti-semite by some psychos on this forum, don't you?
And the funny thing is that my requesting evidence from Norse is considered anti-semitic by some on this forum... So win so me and lose some I suppose.
That is a matter of personal opinion. We are accused by some Jewish members when it comes to Muslims. As i said, win some lose some.
Okay Bells, I'll take you up on your assertion. Lets play the evidence game
I said:
You said:
Why don't you show me where any mod or admin has challenged a historical opinion which was not about Jews? Show me a single instance where someone was banned for having an unfavourable historical opinion which was not about Jews? Clearly you believe this has happened and I would like to be proved wrong.
Note that James R has not given any evidence why he does not believe Norsefire. You can easily show me why you do not believe him.
I have had similar discussions on native Americans with iceaura, Maoris with Trippy, even Aboriginals in general and I have read several discussions where the history of black slavery was discussed as a responsibility of black slavers. Not once do I recall anyone being banned for having an opinion which was not supported. I don't even recall anyone being challenged that their version of history was somehow more sacrosanct than others [and if you remember, the argument with Trippy was far more heated and convoluted with both of us arguing our versions of what we perceived]
One more thing:
is it illegal to hold an opinion of history which is not mainstream? Is it the job of sciforums administrators and moderators to tell people what to think?
Let me quote the recently departed Tony Judt quoting Arthur Koestler:
I said:
You said:
Why don't you show me where any mod or admin has challenged a historical opinion which was not about Jews? Show me a single instance where someone was banned for having an unfavourable historical opinion which was not about Jews? Clearly you believe this has happened and I would like to be proved wrong.
Note that James R has not given any evidence why he does not believe Norsefire. You can easily show me why you do not believe him.
I have had similar discussions on native Americans with iceaura, Maoris with Trippy, even Aboriginals in general and I have read several discussions where the history of black slavery was discussed as a responsibility of black slavers. Not once do I recall anyone being banned for having an opinion which was not supported. I don't even recall anyone being challenged that their version of history was somehow more sacrosanct than others [and if you remember, the argument with Trippy was far more heated and convoluted with both of us arguing our versions of what we perceived]
One more thing:
is it illegal to hold an opinion of history which is not mainstream? Is it the job of sciforums administrators and moderators to tell people what to think?
Let me quote the recently departed Tony Judt quoting Arthur Koestler:
Last edited:
The discussion you had with me about Reds in North America was not similar.SAM said:
It isn't that "the Jews" are a special case. It's that the anti-Semites are a special case. They have a standard set of fantasies and paranoias, attached to a standard agenda, and when these are spotted the label is affixed and any policy applicable applies.
In the rest of those cases, there are actually relevant historical complexities and a relative shortage of paranoid delusions - there is no large number of people running around claiming that black people caused their own enslavement, or NA Reds their own colonization and dislocation and extermination.
I think the difference is that discussing anything related to Jews and the Holocaust is restricted in the West and irrelevant in the East. I remember one argument we had where I stated that native Americans were subject to genocide and [possibly in the same discussion but probably in a related one] quoted Noam Chomsky's views on denial on this issue in Americans.
I have no idea if Chomsky is right or wrong. The references he made to the issue are not ones I am familiar with. You were equally vehement that disease and not massacre were the primary cause of death. There was a discussion about infighting among the natives which both preceded and continued along with the westward expansion.
Neither of us actually supported our statements with evidence - personally, I wouldn't know where to begin looking for it - a lot of national narrative is rationalisation. The discussion about Maoris with Trippy was more complex and was related to personal experiences he had with the community and a more generalised spectator viewpoint which I have as an outsider. Again, much of it was resolved by private communications between myself and Trippy. .
The discussions about black enslavers can be compared with discussions about Jewish slave ships to see how much difference it makes to the discussions when Jews are introduced into the mix. If I sit down and spend some time thinking about it, I can come up with umpteen examples of how differently Jewish history is treated compared to all others. I know of no other situation where you are not permitted to have a negative opinion of one side of the debate.
Why do you suppose that is? Is Jewish history devoid of historical complexities?
I have no idea if Chomsky is right or wrong. The references he made to the issue are not ones I am familiar with. You were equally vehement that disease and not massacre were the primary cause of death. There was a discussion about infighting among the natives which both preceded and continued along with the westward expansion.
Neither of us actually supported our statements with evidence - personally, I wouldn't know where to begin looking for it - a lot of national narrative is rationalisation. The discussion about Maoris with Trippy was more complex and was related to personal experiences he had with the community and a more generalised spectator viewpoint which I have as an outsider. Again, much of it was resolved by private communications between myself and Trippy. .
The discussions about black enslavers can be compared with discussions about Jewish slave ships to see how much difference it makes to the discussions when Jews are introduced into the mix. If I sit down and spend some time thinking about it, I can come up with umpteen examples of how differently Jewish history is treated compared to all others. I know of no other situation where you are not permitted to have a negative opinion of one side of the debate.
Why do you suppose that is? Is Jewish history devoid of historical complexities?
Last edited:
Bells
Staff member
Why don't you read the whole of what was said in that part of the quote? As I pointed out, the vast majority are able to back up their assertions on this forum. Why should Norse be exempt from that?
But we have draqon, who was reported by one moderator for failing to substantiate his claims and was banned for it. Then of course we have members like Sandy.
You want me to show why I don't believe that the Jews were responsible for the wars and the Holocaust? Do you want me to prove show you why I don't buy into Norse's beliefs about Jews during that period?
I asked him to provide proof. He advised that his history did not have to be correct and refused to provide any proof. You may not recall, but I can. I posted one above and there is always issues with Sandy, as another example. But then again, the greater majority of those you deal with on this forum do provide proof with links for example. But saying it's so does not really make it so.
Nope. But you should at least be able to back it up. Saying history doesn't really have to be correct does not really cut it.
So why did he refuse to post anything to support his assertions?
Don't give me links Bells, give me arguments. I am asking you why YOU don't believe Norse. Do you believe the holocaust was a result of "nationalistic tensions, unresolved issues, and resentments resulting from the First World War "? Then why Jews? Why the Roma? Why not, say, the English?
And truly, if draqon was banned over the Falklands war, its ridiculous. If this is the standard sciforums is aspiring to, where people are banned for expressing an opinion, its ready to fold.
This is a discussion forum, not boot camp.
And truly, if draqon was banned over the Falklands war, its ridiculous. If this is the standard sciforums is aspiring to, where people are banned for expressing an opinion, its ready to fold.
This is a discussion forum, not boot camp.
Bells
Staff member
I'm sorry. You asked for evidence. I did not realise that evidence no longer matters in this forum. Did I miss that memo?
You are well aware Sam that you can express an opinion. You just need to be able to back it up. Saying it is so, does not make it so. You are basically arguing that we should not be expected to back up our claims.
If you want to be able to say whatever you want without any expectation of being able to support it, might I suggest facebook or other social sites?
Bells:
Yes, I asked for evidence why you don't believe Norse, I expect that if you feel strongly enough about the issue to ban him for it, you should be able to formulate an argument describing your viewpoints. I am well aware that history is written by the winner. But even losers have a perspective. Its not about who is right or wrong. The Germans are not an evil alien species anymore than the Jews are. Do you believe that antisemitism and racism is a quality of European culture? [I recently learned from kmguru that cultures have a quality]. Did you know that Germans who come to India are surprised at the admiration some people have for Adolf Hitler there? Apparently its unbelievable to them that historical leaders who commit mass murders by proxy can have admirers. Imagine that! Oliver Stone has his work cut out for him.
Yes, I asked for evidence why you don't believe Norse, I expect that if you feel strongly enough about the issue to ban him for it, you should be able to formulate an argument describing your viewpoints. I am well aware that history is written by the winner. But even losers have a perspective. Its not about who is right or wrong. The Germans are not an evil alien species anymore than the Jews are. Do you believe that antisemitism and racism is a quality of European culture? [I recently learned from kmguru that cultures have a quality]. Did you know that Germans who come to India are surprised at the admiration some people have for Adolf Hitler there? Apparently its unbelievable to them that historical leaders who commit mass murders by proxy can have admirers. Imagine that! Oliver Stone has his work cut out for him.
Last edited:
You are perfectly well allowed to have a "negative opinion" of all sides of any actual debate concerning Jews - as you have noticed in the cases when that negative opinion also includes Muslims, and is held by the belligerently anti-religious.SAM said:
The only restrictions would be on the standard, cataloged, short list set of paranoid and fanciful bigotries that were so closely associated with the propaganda efforts supporting the mass slaughter of Jews a mere generation or two ago. Those are not sides of a debate. There is no debate involved.
I don't see where actual Jewish history, as opposed to the standard anti-Semite's handbook of fantasies, is treated differently than, say, Mormon or Lutheran or Catholic history.
As far as "evidence":
I agree with Chomsky about the denial.SAM said:
As far as evidence for my assertions re disease etc - try your good common sense: where are the kinds of massacres that would have been necessary supposed to have happened? The NA continent was fully inhabited, by people numerous enough to have built huge pyramids and extensive mound systems, to have a trade network of obsidian and seashells and copper that crossed the continent, in 1492. Reducing that population to the one present in 1892 by massacre would have taken industrial level organization - Genghis Khan tactics and dedication, and a Mongol Horde for an army.
SAM:
You think the Holocaust is irrelevant in "the East"?
I think it's an object lesson for all people on the planet. It is a pity that so many people are ignorant and that there have since been similar repeats of such atrocities.
Europeans? Half of Europe fought against those who perpetrated the holocaust.
Very revealing, SAM. "Ridiculous European standards" like respect for human rights. "Meaningless concepts" like not persecuting a people on ethnic, religious or racial grounds. Thanks for the insight.
And apparently Asians and Arabs have no guilt. How interesting. How much do you know about Japanese actions in World War II (to take one example)? Consider Manchuria, for example. As for Arabs, they have been fighting petty wars among themselves for centuries. I'm sure it was all noble though.
Another interesting insight. No objective fact, eh, SAM? Been reading too much Derrida?
You'd better be on the right side of opinions about black people or else you're a racist. Right?
Antisemitism is just the same kind of prejudice by a different name, SAM. It's not special.
I think you're hypocritical to claim to stand up for human rights etc. when you pay lip service to or discard those rights whenever they apply to a racial, ethnic or religious group you despise.
You want me to teach you the history of the 20th century leading up to World War II? Go look it up. Do a bit of work yourself SAM. It's ridiculous to expect me to coach you through European History 101.
They exist everywhere. There are libraries full of them. There's the internet. If you're really lazy, there's wikipedia, which isn't hard to find.
What's the holocaust card? Wishing to hell that you'd discard your loathsome prejudices and recognise an obvious case of genocide for what it was?
Where did you get the figure that 2% of aborigines have no say in their self-determination? What do you mean? Are you talking about Australia? I'm not sure of the relevance of child abuse either. Try to stay on topic, please.
Absolutely. Antisemitism, like racism, is a mindless prejudice. "The Jews" for you and other antisemites is an imaginary conglomeration of stereotypes, all of whom are essentially non-human as far as you're concerned. And you make no distinction between Zionism and Judaism, either because you don't know there is a difference or because it is convenient for your prejudice to blur that distinction.
See what I mean? To you, there really is only one archetypal Jew. As we all know, all Jews everywhere share the same politics, don't they SAM?
Oh, and by the way, please don't claim that you speak for Indians.
I answered your questions specifically and honestly. And here you misrepresent what I said, deliberately. That's low, SAM, but really par for the course for you, isn't it?
You think the Holocaust is irrelevant in "the East"?
I think it's an object lesson for all people on the planet. It is a pity that so many people are ignorant and that there have since been similar repeats of such atrocities.
SAM said:
Europeans? Half of Europe fought against those who perpetrated the holocaust.
Very revealing, SAM. "Ridiculous European standards" like respect for human rights. "Meaningless concepts" like not persecuting a people on ethnic, religious or racial grounds. Thanks for the insight.
And apparently Asians and Arabs have no guilt. How interesting. How much do you know about Japanese actions in World War II (to take one example)? Consider Manchuria, for example. As for Arabs, they have been fighting petty wars among themselves for centuries. I'm sure it was all noble though.
Another interesting insight. No objective fact, eh, SAM? Been reading too much Derrida?
You'd better be on the right side of opinions about black people or else you're a racist. Right?
Antisemitism is just the same kind of prejudice by a different name, SAM. It's not special.
I think you're hypocritical to claim to stand up for human rights etc. when you pay lip service to or discard those rights whenever they apply to a racial, ethnic or religious group you despise.
You want me to teach you the history of the 20th century leading up to World War II? Go look it up. Do a bit of work yourself SAM. It's ridiculous to expect me to coach you through European History 101.
They exist everywhere. There are libraries full of them. There's the internet. If you're really lazy, there's wikipedia, which isn't hard to find.
What's the holocaust card? Wishing to hell that you'd discard your loathsome prejudices and recognise an obvious case of genocide for what it was?
Where did you get the figure that 2% of aborigines have no say in their self-determination? What do you mean? Are you talking about Australia? I'm not sure of the relevance of child abuse either. Try to stay on topic, please.
Absolutely. Antisemitism, like racism, is a mindless prejudice. "The Jews" for you and other antisemites is an imaginary conglomeration of stereotypes, all of whom are essentially non-human as far as you're concerned. And you make no distinction between Zionism and Judaism, either because you don't know there is a difference or because it is convenient for your prejudice to blur that distinction.
See what I mean? To you, there really is only one archetypal Jew. As we all know, all Jews everywhere share the same politics, don't they SAM?
Oh, and by the way, please don't claim that you speak for Indians.
I answered your questions specifically and honestly. And here you misrepresent what I said, deliberately. That's low, SAM, but really par for the course for you, isn't it?
[Edit: For some reason, there's a post missing between my last post and this one. In it, SAM said that she wouldn't reply to the previous post because she didn't see that there was any point made in it.]
----
SAM:
That's ok. I don't see any point in most of the stuff you post.
You know what I think? I think I struck a nerve with that post. It's good I got you thinking.
----
SAM:
That's ok. I don't see any point in most of the stuff you post.
You know what I think? I think I struck a nerve with that post. It's good I got you thinking.
Wishful thinking James. I thought mostly, did he even read my post? Is there a point in there somewhere?