Lib: I do not want to be associated with the slurs I accidentally posted. Another person’s intolerance and bigotry is now on here under my name. I do not wish to be connected to them.
In this context, white women who date black men.
Well said, Lib.
I don’t think anyone will connect you to them, Kal. Your reputation is one of tolerance and kindness.
Tars
Googling “mud shark slur” shows that a mud shark is a white woman who dates black men.
One more thing with respect to the WNs delight with a woman’s suffering. Wasn’t it last week that a popular Pit thread celibrated Jerry Falwell (whom I despise) being a hit target?
I’m not saying that the WN’s hate rhetoric is excusable. But I am saying that pretending there is no hate here is either naive or hypocritical.
Thanks, Weirddave. Most everybody seems to be taking what I said the way I meant it. I’m thankful for that.
WTF? I posted “Well said, Lib” in response to Lib’s 2:20 post, and just now it shows up? Where has it been for the last 3 hours? I haven’t read the rest of the thread, I don’t know if Lib continued to speak well or not.
Damn vB limbo!
Don’t worry, Kal. I’m sure every one understands those aren’t your words, and that you’re simply quoting one of the reprehensible bigots from that site.
Just caught up with the thread, you’re still good, Lib. 
In not in favor of automatic bans for merely identifying oneself as a white supremacist either, but have no problem with the mod’s actions as a matter of practicality. The boyos who trooped over here from Stormfront were making mass postings into GD with no intention of debate; this kind of thing apparently puts a serious strain on the boards’ limited resources and any persons who spam the boards in this way have routinely been banned. Banning has also been invoked for persons who blanket GD with false information, which Kukulkon and his ilk certainly did.
OTOH, I’m not going to worry too much about whether or not white supremacists can post here, simply because I’ve never seen a convincing argument for such a stance. So much of this stance is based on fabricated ‘facts’ and outright lies that it’s IMO pretty much impossible to make a reasoned argument in its favor. I think the supremacists themselves mostly recognize this, based on their extreme defensiveness, hostility and insistence on bullying tactics.
Hey, if some of them want to come back and present their views for something resembling civilized discussion, no problem as far as I’m concerned. But they’d better be prepared to defend their arguments with logic and facts, as pretty much anyone who posts to GD is expected to do.
I would? DAMN, that SUCKS!!!
I don’t want to be acceptable to them. I’d rather piss them off.
Oh well, at least I’m still a liberal.
Libertarian, I’m pretty much in favor of your OP. I was there Sunday morning, and got a look at most of the threads from No 1965 Chain blahblahblah. I actually got a coherent, if idiotic reply to a challenge I made in one thread.
The I went to the Pits and started “No 1965 Chain Immigrants”, you are one SCARY FRUITCAKE!
But before I did that, I edited my profile and made my personal email address invisible to Members. I figured these Stormfront folk as people I wouldn’t trust not to harass me in every possible way, should they get ticked at me.
I guess I’m gonna leave it invisible for a while. Not that I got much in the way of direct communication from folk here anyway, but I felt a level of trust and comfort a week ago that I don’t today.
If we were the democratically elected government of SDMB, we be holding hearings on the bannings from the Stormfront. But since we’re not… ALL PRAISE TO THE MODERATORS, CAST OUT THE UNCLEAN! 
Ya gotta put your money behind the incumbents. 
Libertarian, I’m pretty much in favor of your OP. I was there Sunday morning, and got a look at most of the threads from No 1965 Chain blahblahblah. I actually got a coherent, if idiotic reply to a challenge I made in one thread.
The I went to the Pits and started “No 1965 Chain Immigrants”, you are one SCARY FRUITCAKE!
But before I did that, I edited my profile and made my personal email address invisible to Members. I figured these Stormfront folk as people I wouldn’t trust not to harass me in every possible way, should they get ticked at me.
I guess I’m gonna leave it invisible for a while. Not that I got much in the way of direct communication from folk here anyway, but I felt a level of trust and comfort a week ago that I don’t today.
If we were the democratically elected government of SDMB, we be holding hearings on the bannings from the Stormfront. But since we’re not… ALL PRAISE TO THE MODERATORS, CAST OUT THE UNCLEAN!
Ya gotta put your money behind the incumbents.
Ah, virtual warfare. This reminds me of the good old days back when alt.flame took over alt.bigfoot and that cat group (what was it–rec.cats or something like that). Oh yea, and that Mensa group too–that was a blast…
Well, I’m older and wiser now so I’d say we leave them alone unless they try to start something. If they do, we should all go over enmass, register, and start posting multiple parody threads every day (how to achieve greater whiteness by applying hydrochloric acid to your epidermis, etc. etc.). That’d be amusing at least.
Lib, having spent a significant portion of my internet time today there, I couldn’t disagree with you more. There are some that are of the type that you suggest, but there’s quite a lot of the “kill em all” variety too. As might be expected - anyone opening up a MB for WN is going to attract all sorts. But some of the mods appear to be pretty hard-core as well.
As for automatic banning, I’m of two minds. On the one hand, I don’t see why any position - no matter how offensive - should be censored here. And if they won’t argue, then ban them one by one as they violate the rules. OTOH, if they are going to be making a concentrated effort to keep coming back under assumed names it would be rediculous to keep starting from scratch every time a new incarnation shows up.
I would warn against a board war. They have an insurmountable advantage in that all new users have to have each post cleared by a moderator before it gets posted. (Then it gets stuck into the thread at the time it was posted, bumping any posts that were posted later. Very annoying - I was relieved when I finally got banned). And new posters means anyone that they don’t trust yet - one regular was whining that he had been there several months and was still on delay. Bottom line is that going over there en masse etc. will not work, especially if they know it is a board war. I think the only thing to do is to hope they go away (I did not mention the SDMB or use my SDMB screen-name).
Over on their board, I saw that KKK is now referring to the SDMB as “Fighting Free Speach [sic] since 1973.” The guy can’t even frickin’ spell speech. If there’s one thing a trip to that board did for me was to make me ever so frickin’ thankful that people on this board can spell.
Yeesh.
Neo-Nazis=bad
Stupid Neo-Nazis=worse.
Free speech…and they complain that WE censor them? Look what they do to newbies!
All too true, Guin. In one thread, the moderator threatened one “jude” [sic] with banishment for talking “jewspeak”, which he apparently describes as some form of sarcasm. When another Jew responded to this post, he was in fact banned. It’s funny how several of the white supremacists’ posts in a row can sound rational and nonoffensive, even if wrongheaded, but then suddenly you see something like that reminding you “Oh, right, this is a racist message board, duh!”
Ironically, IMHO, the mod goes by the handle “Muad’Dib”. That a white supremacist would stylize himself after a fictional character who led a revolution of sand people strikes me as amusing. Well, they were blue-eyed sand people, but only because of the spice, not genetics.
Izzy wrote:
Actually, you probably could. Since the Opening Post and follow-ups have now moved back a page, I’ll just assume you missed them.
To summarize:
[ul]
[li]I don’t know whether the mods here have an unspoken policy of automatic bans for political views or not. And I’m not saying they do.[/li]
[li]I think people who claim superiority are mistaken, but people who advocate voluntary segregation may well be libertarian.[/li]
[li]I oppose a board war, and I don’t think anyone should flood either board with spam.[/li]
[li]If they were banned for spamming, I have no problem with that. But it is reasonable not to expect people automatically to know about our anal retentive sock policy. Such a policy is not universal. (Yes, I know they can read the rules, but we can also give them a warning.)[/li]
[li]Inasmuch as I find an abundance of offensive views here already, I don’t mind another one. Since Great Debates has gotten a bit stale, a fresh topic would be welcome for me.[/li]
[li]Pointing fingers at them for shocking treatment of others is remarkably disingenuous. We are the people who have cheered the deaths of others whom we don’t like, who have called the literature of people we disagree with trash, who have celibrated hit men going after political figures with whom we disagree, and who have taunted a Christian girl mercilessly with vile insults because she believes the Bible to be literally true. It is not so clear-cut that we are any better than they with respect to civility.[/li][/ul]
I still maintain that the action was taken to forestall the possibility of a spiralling problem of misconduct; (it is my perception) that, based on experience, the board administration chose to exclude a group of individuals based on the behaviour of a subset; if the decision was a political or ideological one, I’d agree that it amounts to gagging.
I’ll welcome the chance for rational debate with persons of any viewpoint, but (from the limited samples I saw - remember that the mods’/admins’ decisions were based on the full set of data) it really didn’t look like they were here for tea and cakes.
It may be that one or two people who came here for reasonable discussion got banned as a result of the general behaviour of the rest of the group; this is regrettable, but I’d expect any board to do the same. I’m sure that in such cases, the administration here would be open minded about letting them back in.
I ain’t gonna disagree with you at all Lib.
Regarding my own ethnicity, I’ve read worse on the SDMB then over there. However, I think I have way more chance of fighting ignorance here.*
Anyway, the main reason I’m posting is:
From what I gather they have similar rules about socking. That and several of them have been bragging about being here under many, many aliases. Seems to me they know the rules.
Kal
*And sometimes Lib, when you’re talking about your Native American heritage, I really wish you were Romani. There’s no way I can be so eloquent.
Kal
What a nice thing to say!
Incidentally, if you will agree not to call me a […cringe…] Native American, I will agree not to call you a Gypsy, okay? I am a Cherokee. Or if you must group me with people from other tribes, I am an Indian.
Amerigo Vespucci was one of the most vicious and cruel of our conquerors. He captured more than 200 Indians on his first visit and sold them as slaves in Spain. It is not known how many he slaughtered and raped.
Our conquerors were tyrants, but they were also stupid. Most of us prefer to be called Indians because it reminds us of how stupid they were.