A poster on SDMB has on at least two occasions (one, two) posted a link to a website which seems to me like a racist muslim hate site.
On both occasions he was asked not to link that site by other SDMB members. The poster has denied that the site is a hate-site:
The website is publishing anti-Arab news links & information, and have a substantial user community actively participating in commenting.
Some examples of what editors of the website has posted:
“Islamic Jihad has announced that they will take a short pause to rest, reload, and rearm, before they resume murdering Jews.”
“Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen was told that if he met with the bloodstained murderer Yasser Arafat, he would not be allowed to meet with Israeli officials. He chose to meet with the terrorist.”
“The Palestinian Arab murderers are doing their best to get in a few last killings before their leaders agree to a “cease fire” - which they will, of course, immediately violate.”
Some examples of what members of the site has posted:
“I have much too much respect for my own vomit than to waste it on such trash.”
“In my eagerness to send the islamists to the next dimension I had lobbed them all together in the same category. And I still think they need to go through the same door out.”
“I read about that also Brenda…muslim households in Pakistan who have little girl “employees”, muslim “employers” raping and beating them because they say that in their view since Iraqi children have to suffer then so will the Kafir children. Islam is the religion of sex and violence.”
“Again, an interesting form of logic: “I shall rape you, little infidel child, because I need to exact revenge”. Morality? Doesnt exist in Islamic. What these animals do to other people is always shocking, but never surprising.”
"Yeah…good thing their kids are right smack in the middle of the scene. Islam, Muslims, Palestinians MUST be destroyed…every last one of 'em. "
"i cannot even dignify these creatures with my hatred… im too exhausted for that, they simply disgust me on the smae gut level a cockroach would.
i just want to stomp on them already and make them all, all, all, dissapear, to be squasehd and swept up and flushed down the toilet… and mostly, i cant forgive them for bringing me feel that way… "
I feel links to such sites should not be on any repectable board. Others say links to Indymedia is just as bad. I know that links to porn-sites are not allowed on SDMB, but where goes the line when it comes to linking to “rough-languaged” sites?
The fact that the information reflects poorly on Arabs does not make it anti-Arab(especially since the information is mostly accurate). He posts information which reflects his political beliefs; you know, like every other political site in the world. I don’t know if it’s fair to hold the site responsible for what its users comment on its open message board. There have been hateful comments posted on the SDMB too, ya know.
As for the particular comments you site (LGF’s comments, not the users’ which I already addressed above):
[ul]
[li]Islamic Jihad has called a “cease-fire”, and while not certain, it is not unbelievable that this is merely a tactic to gain time before restarting their terrorist activities.[/li][li]I don’t know what part of the second statement you don’t belive. Cowen was given an ultimatum, Arafat is a murderer and terrorist, and Cowen was told to meet with him. You might believe this isn’t a wise policy of Israel’s, but denying that Arafat has been responsible for terrorist murders is rather like denying that Rush Limbaugh is a conservative.[/li][li]As for the last comment, I don’t really know what to make of it - he could mean Hamas/IJ/al-Aqsa by “Palestinian Arab murderers”, which would be an accurate way of describing them, or he could be making a racist statement, which would be wrong but I don’t think one such statement would be grounds for banning linking to the site. Claiming that they would violate the cease-fire is not ridiculous, since these groups have done that very same thing in the past.[/li][/ul]
Yeah, don’t believe anything december links to without thoroughly investigating it yourself. He’s fond of citing rabidly pro-Jewish/Israeli websites as cites in arguments about Palestine.
And while I don’t happen to think much of Islam as a religion, the guy who called it’s followers “animals” in that quote probably has more hatred in his pinky finger than most people do in their entire bodies.
Im glad you started this thread, Alien. If it’s improper to link to Little Green Footballs, I hope some moderator will say so. Then I will stop linking to this site.
I certainly agree that some comments posted at LGF are racist. Your examples are given without context, but I cannot imagine a context within with this comment wouldn’t be hate speech: "Yeah…good thing their kids are right smack in the middle of the scene. Islam, Muslims, Palestinians MUST be destroyed…every last one of 'em. "
The more interesting question is whether the posts by blogger Charles Johnson represent hate speech. I don’t think they do. I think they are blunt criticism of groups who deserve blunt criticism. People or groups who set out to intentionally kill large numbers of innocent blacks or Israelis or gays or abortion doctors or New Yorkers all deserve the utmost condemnation IMHO. I don’t see how it can be hate to condemn these people and their actions.
in order to avoid selecting the best or the worst, let’s consider the most recent column. It links to a WaPo story about a radical Muslim web site, which is unfortunately a link in the chaplains’ service Web sites for the Navy and the Air Force. I don’t know whether this site is as bad as WaPo says it is, but the Washington Post is certainly a respectible source for a story.
The point is that these two supposed main-stream organizations are actually quite radical in their views. From various readings, I believe that to be the case. In any event, it’s not hate speech to make the allegation along with supporting evidence.
Sorry, Alien, i can’t agree with the call the ban links to sites such as those. In an ideal world, the SDMB wouldn’t even need to ban links to porn sites; it would allow such links as long as they were not gratuitous and were accompanied by appropriate warnings. However, the administrators of the Board have chosen to disallow linking to certain sites, and i can’t really fault them for that, given the potential degeneration that might result.
But the sites you are discussing are of an entirely different order altogether. They are used in order to provide background or support for particular arguments that people make, and as such serve a useful purpose on this Board. I prefer that people make their own mind up about the sites and the argument, rather than relying on censorship.
Regarding “hate sites,” each person’s definition of what constitutes a such a site will differ, and it would be hard to arrive at a universally-accepted definition. Also, linking to hate sites is often done in order to expose or refute the arguments made there. For example, Fred Phelps’s website has been linked to on numerous occasions on this Board, and as far as i can remember every such link has been for the purpose of criticizing the hate-mongering perpetrated by Phelps and his cohort.
I would be opposed to link to hate sites being banned. I see no reason to do so, beside the difficulty of assessing what is a hate site and what is not. Plus, such links can be informative (it’s interesting to know what, say, white supremacists believe)…and…should I admit that…sometimes the content is so ludicrous that it’s fun.
i would be opposed to direct linking, but not opposed to linking. I don’t want some site to see 500 referals back to the straight dope and they all show up to reek havok. make everyone unclick the parse URLs button.
I wasn’t the one who told LGF about this thread, but I’m glad they posted the item. Some of the comments there are pretty interesting, such as this one:
I don’t know whether this “snopes” is the same person who does the Urban Legend Web Site. Anyhow, I think s/he has a point. Some of the comments are certainly offensive, and others sound offensive out of context. That’s the price Charles Johnson pays for having an open, unmoderated comments system.
OTOH Johnson’s items are well-sourced and interesting. LGF often gives coverage to Arab publications that one doesn’t find anywhere else.
BTW it would be convenient if the SDMB put numbers on the posts in a thread, so we could refer back using the number.
As a regular reader and commentor on LGF, I would echo the post from snopes. I don’t consider LGF to be a hate site. I do think hate is expressed by some of the commentors. Understandable when one considers the intense hatred directed towards Jews and Israelis in particular.
It’s important to understand that LGF exposes the ugliness that exists in Islam when very few others are. There are plenty who love to announce the failings of Christianity and one needent go far to find anti-semitism. Who is calling the Muslims on their faults other than LGF? The Muslim community for the most part is not.
It does take some getting used to working through some of the comments though.
Quotes, especially if provided by december, are carefully reviewed by the staff. However, this is on a case by case basis. I have no interest in judging that website right now, out of context.
I do have an interest in preventing a board war. I don’t blame the OP, as he didn’t start it, but we’re not going to allow any fight threads over this issue on the SDMB.