Ah, but we’re not developing a curriculum around here. The more appropriate analogy is having a Jack Chick creationist show up in your freshman biology class. Are you going to rant and rave without substance like the caricature of a scientist in that tract, or are you going to demolish the idiot’s claims and make him look like the fool he is? I prefer the second course, with a healty dose of pointing out how very, very gay their sweaty muscleman avatars are.
Fenris, I see your point as well, and as far as the WNs are concerned, I totally agree, nobody is going to change what little minds these people have. I am more concerned with the “recruits” so to speak. People who are looking at WN, perhapse considering if it’s claims resonate within them. Here’s a hypothetical: A young man has come into the fringes of WN. One of his skinhead friends tells him about these great SF boards. He checks them out, sees a reference to us, comes over here to look and decides the WN are full of hooey.
Likely? Nah. Possible? Absolutely. As someone else said, let them have all the insults and sarcasm here, while disproving their “facts” in GD. To everything there is a season, little grasshopper, and for everything there is a place. The fun stuff ;)belongs here in the pit.
Lib, have you noticed that you explode on a regular basis with little or no reason? Perhaps the next time you want to blast off over a contention that is unclear, ask yourself, “wait… has this kind of thing happened to me before? Is my mood unstable? Am I in control of my emotions?”
It might save you the usual routine of apologizing as well as the harsh criticism from other posters!
I don’t know. One man’s little reason might be another man’s big reason. You, for example, apparently believed you had sufficient reason to ask the question. And since you did, I’ll answer it.
Sometimes I apologize, and sometimes I don’t. I apologize whenever I see that I was wrong. But I don’t when I believe I’m right.
For example, I exploded about the (most recent) December pile-on. I have not and will not apolgize for that. I perceived that he was on the verge of being bullied by a gang of cowards when he had done nothing wrong, and I’m proud that I came to his defense.
But here, it was a private conversation with someone via e-mail that convinced me that I had jumped the gun, and that there might be reasons other than David’s posts that set me off. And so I apologized.
I don’t mind criticism, even when it’s harsh. In fact, with my temperament, I am my own worst critic, and am always open to ways that I can learn, grow, or become a better person.
Just as David’s brutish tone comes as part and parcel with his posting style, so my passionate tone comes with mine. Some people like it; some people don’t. But I’m always glad to hear what people have to say.
This bears repeating. I call it the Army of Lurkers. That is who we debate for, folks–the people who don’t yet have a strong opinion one way or another. There are quite a few of them: go check out one of the vanity “who’s your favorite poster” threads and see how many people who registered in 1999 and have 132 posts, but say " I always read so-and-so’s posts because they always have such great insights." Wit, humor, scathing, on-point arguements all help us win these people. Beautiful, but substanceless, arm waving does not. (Dor the record, I didn’t read the thread in question—I’m talking about the general issue of debating with people with morally degenerate opinions).
[sub]on a side note, it just occured to me that “so-and-so” would be a kick ass board name.[/sub]
DavidB: If you act like a chirlish, sarcastic bully in GD, you will incline people to disagree with you on the general principal that they just don’t like you. This isn’t something you want to be doing when debating a white nationalist.
I’d like to apologize to everybody for the above post by Gomez.
I’d also like to apologize for Fenris in general, and in specific. Clearly he should understand that just because somebody is a Nazi that in no way justifies calling them one.
I’d like to think that we’ve gotten beyond such rhetoric. The fascist-enabled have feelings too, and just because someone wishes to commit genocide doesn’t mean that we should look down on them.
I don’t know whether anyone likes it. For me, it’s just that you’re worthwhile despite blowing up occasionally.
As for DavidB, in my view he is merely attempting to expose them for what they are. Yes, he puts the blow torch to the belly, but that’s ok. Just because the white supremists can post here if they are not jerks does not mean that their views have to be cossetted. Let them answer and be shown either to gravely mistaken or hatemongers. In some cases it is possible to respect the position of your opponents. In other cases they are enemies and should be exposed as such. DavidB gets the job done.
The way I see it, there’s no moral difference between John saying that Jane is subhuman and Jane saying that John is subhuman. Becoming a Nazi to defeat a Nazi is rather pointless.
Ok. I take major exception to this post, Lib. Let’s grant your premise that David was being unnecessarily rude. That does not make him a Nazi. However, whatshername…the Nazi chick…A) believes in a master race, B) wants Jews shipped to Israel and nuked, C) Thinks Hitler more-or-less had the right idea (…on second thought, that may have been the other one).
BIG difference Lib. IMO, it’s not namecalling to call a Nazi a Nazi.
What courtesy in your mind would a poster deserve who was espousing the extermination of Indians, and saying that those of Indian descent were subhumans who should be rounded and killed for the benefit of the gene pool?
It’s not an insult to call such people monsters. It ceases to become an insult when it becomes a simple fact.
