[The KKK still exists and they operate under the same principles they used 50 years ago. But now they try to be more legal. They're also devout Christians. Random tidbit of the day.]

peace. and. love!!!
*runs away*

raharney Wrote:Are you a Confucianist or Buddhist or Shinto fundamentalist? Why do you think Christianity-less Edo Japan had a better monopoly on truth than the heathen Occident?

You really want to put this through a historical lens, but the original post was really talking about the present day and so am I. It's basically impossible to determine how different Japan would have been if Christianity had not been banned here temporarily, so I don't see how it's useful to talk in that way. The original poster said that he is glad that Christianity has failed in Japan--i.e., he's glad that at present there are few people in Japan that take Christianity seriously and that there's not that that much cultural influence from Christianity.

Now most people in Japan who think about deep issues answer them without much help from the supernatural. If we imagine that Christianity was as popular in Japan as it is in a place like Korea, we could assume that more people in Japan would believe in the supernatural explanations and incorrect history associated with Christianity.

toshiromiballza Wrote:The Japanese on the other hand are intelligent enough to not commit ethno-suicide. And no, it's not me (or the Japanese) who's the "bigot," I want to preserve the world's diversity, it's pro-multiculturalism people who are the actual bigots, whose goal is (or simply don't care if this happens - which is happening) to blend all the people together and remove all traces of diversity. A truly sickening mindset. It's like forcing all Bonobos and Chimpanzees to breed together; who needs two kinds of apes when one does the trick, right?

Yeah, for the world to have a single almost uniform culture, which is a continuing process since the dawn of history, is better than having hateful ideas like yours, ideas that leads to wars and genocides.
Why are you getting pissed off protecting a culture you didn't contribute anything to? Why not work hard to eliminate Christianity and bring back your ancestor's Norse religion or Roman paganism, or whatever?

toshiromiballza Wrote:

undead_saif Wrote:BTW toshiromiballza, there are many liberal Muslims, Secular Muslims (see what happened to Turkey) and Muslims who interpret Islam in a softer way, a way that fit nicely into western culture, why don't you support them instead of your hate speech?

Yeah, because these are the third world immigrants we're importing into Europe on a daily basis, right? Liberal and secular (what?) Muslims. Which fairytale do you live in? Sounds like a nice place. I won't support any Muslims, not even "those who interpret Islam in a softer way," at least not in Europe. It's only a matter of time before one of them decides to follow a different "path" and gets a bigger following, and we're back at step one. They can do whatever they want - BACK HOME.

Secularity
It seems to me that you don't even want to understand what is being said, and I won't hand hold you, but the day people like you would happily make a genocide, I'll be there to fight you off. I'm unhappy to tell you that people like you that make me look down on the humankind.
It's indeed that the root of all evil is ignorance.

raharney Wrote:All religions (and non-religious ideologies) can be bad and have been bad given the circumstances. This is so obvious!

I'm not talking about being "bad" in the sense of hurting someone, but bad in whether it's tolerable in a modern society, or if it's a primitive remnant of a primitive society. The Abrahamic religions are clearly the latter, and the sooner the earth's population is rid of them, the sooner we'll have world peace and walk on Mars. Muslims can leave Burma if they want and all the issues will be resolved, as simple as that, as it's clearly them who have caused the problems in the first place.

vix86 Wrote:

Quote:bigot : : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

The fuller definition:

Quote:: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Lol, I guess you could call the Native Americans bigots then, because those bigots don't want non-Natives in their racist reservations. Quick, make up an excuse to show your double-standard.

raharney Wrote:Because for you:

Muslims: whether good or bad, are always bad
Buddhists: whether good or bad, are always good.

Their actions prove it time and time again, and this time it's no exception, lol.

undead_saif Wrote:Yeah, for the world to have a single almost uniform culture, which is a continuing process since the dawn of history, is better than having hateful ideas like yours, ideas that leads to wars and genocides.

There'd be no wars or hatred if everyone stayed in their corner of the earth, it's actually this constant pushing into other nations and forcing new beliefs down people's throats that's causing wars and hatred. And you're too blind to realize it, lol. Yes, it's a continuing process all right; Europeans coming to America and committing genocide: spreading diversity, a "continuing process" of forming a uniform culture. Maybe if the Natives weren't such bigots and simply accepted them, there'd be no genocide, right? Moors coming into Spain: spreading diversity. Maybe if the Native Spanish hadn't been such bigots and simply accepted them, they could have lived in peace. Turks coming into Europe: spreading diversity. Maybe if the Native Europeans hadn't been such bigots and accepted them with open arms, there'd be no wars. What's that? There's no democracy in Afghanistan? Quick, let's bomb some sense into them and import our culture and values so we'll be one step closer to a "uniform culture." "Better" than having "hateful" ideas like mine, such as preserving the world's human diversity, both biological and cultural, a product of tens of thousands of years of evolution, simply because one's mind is diseased with the unnatural social construct of political correctness and the Communist "utopian" one-world-no-nations nonsense. I think I know who the real hater here is. Also, it brings tears of joy into my eyes whenever my fellow students of Japanese (or professors) complain about how ethnocentric or "racist" and "bigoted" Japan is, or how they should be "more open" like us. Thank the Kami they have avoided the deadly grip of multiculturalism this long, and hopefully they'll never succumb to this mental illness of Cultural Marxism that we Europeans have. I bet it irritates them (you) so much, lol!

undead_saif Wrote:Why are you getting pissed off protecting a culture you didn't contribute anything to? Why not work hard to eliminate Christianity and bring back your ancestor's Norse religion or Roman paganism, or whatever?

Because I'm not a selfish genocidal maniac like some of you egoistic multiculturalists are. As I said, I'm pro-diversity worldwide, and I will side with everyone that wants to defend their culture and people from nation-wrecking genocidal psychopaths that want to destroy the world's diversity. I'm such a bigot, I know, defending even people and cultures I have no connection to - from the real bigots. Such terrible hatred, oh the humanity. My ancestors were neither Roman nor Norse, and while I respect the pagan religions of the past because of their inseparability from nature's ways (unlike the Abrahamic cults), there is no place for paganism in modern Europe. Christianity has over the centuries integrated well into European society and later society was built on Christianity, so whereas I'd still prefer eliminating Christianity, the real danger now is Islam with the millions of uneducated third world immigrants flooding into Europe every year, imposing a religion that is incompatible with western society, slowly taking over. It is a fact they will become a majority, and only absolute cretins (who I'm surprised don't forget how to breathe) don't see it or don't think it's a bad idea. I'm guessing there were also such cretins among the Native Americans: "nah, you're overreacting, they're just bringing joys of diversity and their religion, no biggie." Not really, nobody in the history of mankind was ever so dumb like the EU sheeple of today.

undead_saif Wrote:Secularity
It seems to me that you don't even want to understand what is being said, and I won't hand hold you, but the day people like you would happily make a genocide, I'll be there to fight you off. I'm unhappy to tell you that people like you that make me look down on the humankind.
It's indeed that the root of all evil is ignorance.

I understand exactly what is being said, but you clearly don't. You mentioned "secular Muslims," there is no such thing. There are secular Arabs, secular Turks, but not secular Muslims. The majority of third world immigrants are not secular or liberal, the majority are poor and uneducated Muslims, or in some cases, poor and uneducated Christians. Funny, you're supporting a policy and ideology of multiculturalism and mass immigrations that's essentially causing the genocide of a people and their culture by replacing it with a foreign people and culture. I don't think you have any right to talk about looking down on humanity or about ignorance.

I'm gonna have to call BS on world peace without religions. As long as there are resources there will be wars. As long as there are people that want power there will be wars. As long as there is government there will be wars. As long as there is greed there will be wars.

Without religion you've probably taken one tool they can use to mobilize people and veil their desires with "moral high ground". But we still have nationalism, and that is still able to be used to trick people.

Basically as long as humans have a "us" and "them" mentality there will be people who will use that "us" vs "them" and fear to mobilize people to be against "them". Religion is just an easy way to make people part of "us" without having to actually be geographically close to them. (I'm not saying all people do, but the majority do)

[Until everyone is part of the "us" group (never gonna happen), world equality (never gonna happen nor would I want it to), or everyone dies there will never be world peace.

と思う]

I don't have any particular affinity either way for the rest of your points though. And thus do not endorse nor contest them.

@toshiromiballza
Even though I thoroughly disagree with you, I respect that you're willing to stand behind your beliefs despite the criticisms and unpopularity of your position.

Most of the critiques of your views have been external ones thus far, i.e. one's that reject the values and assumptions behind your views and assert alternatives. However, these criticisms have been obviously unsuccessful because you refuse to accept the alternative values and assumptions of "multiculturalists" and "social Marxists." So, to better understand your views and evaluate their merits on their own terms, I think it's best if we look at their internal logic. In this spirit, I'd like to ask the following questions:

1. What do you think gives us a right to limit, on the basis of cultural background or any other similar criteria, who may immigrate to our countries? In most countries, those who may not immigrate are clearly defined in legal terms, and this is to prevent arbitrary decisions on who may or may not immigrate. One common example is the refusal to allow known felons to immigrate since they obviously threaten the safety of society. How do you think the kind of blockage of immigration you propose can be done without being arbitrary? Obviously not all people from Middle Eastern countries are Muslim and there are Muslims born and raised in Western countries. Therefore, a blanket blockage of immigrants from the Middle East doesn't really seem to solve the problem you identified.

2. Do you think culture is static and owned by particular people? You seem to be very much against foreigners coming to a culture and changing it, but you seem to assume culture is static and ought to be preserved. However, culture is in constant flux. The cultural changes that occurred during the period of Japan's isolation is strong evidence for this. Perhaps your view is that it's fine that culture changes, but that change should be brought about without foreign influence? If that is, in fact, your view, then there are two problems.

First, it is incredibly difficult for a culture to change without any foreign influence at all, and so complete removal of foreign influence would require absolute isolation from the rest of the world. That means no imports, no traveling abroad, no globally connected Internet, and so on. This seems quite extreme, so I suspect you take a weaker position that supports minimizing foreign influence by making it can only be introduced through direct choices made by fellow citizens, e.g. through buying foreign products, discovering foreign knowledge, etc. But isn't voting to allow immigration also a direct choice?

The second problem for the view that culture should develop without foreign influence is that it assumes culture is something owned by certain people. In a sense, certain people do indeed seem to have some kind of ownership of their culture, and that's why we have terms like "cultural appropriation" and "cultural genocide." However, cultural ownership is only relevant when exploitation occurs, such as when a culture is aped in an offensive way or exterminated in a violent way, and is therefore irrelevant in cases of non-exploitative, external influence. Therefore, it is fine to say, "I don't want to be friends with you because you disrespect my culture," but it would be ridiculous if someone were to say "You can't join my group of friends because your cultural background is different." Hence, if there is a thing such as cultural ownership, it's only in the very limited sense that one may protect one's culture from exploitation, but in no sense is one justified in barring others from taking part in one's culture.

Of course, you can still argue that Muslim immigrants are being disrespectful and exploitative of the cultures of the countries to which they immigrated. However, if that's the case, then it would be arbitrary to block all immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. A less arbitrary approach would be to require new, or even prospective, immigrants to undergo some kind of cultural orientation. Designing such an orientation program, however, is a separate issue.

toshiromiballza Wrote:Lol, I guess you could call the Native Americans bigots then, because those bigots don't want non-Natives in their racist reservations. Quick, make up an excuse to show your double-standard.

What? Were you expecting me to say "Oh but thats different, they aren't bigots!"
It doesn't matter who you are or the circumstances. If you are completely hateful and intolerant of other people simply because of the color of their skin, where they are from, or what religion they practice; then you are a bigot. If Native Americans are hateful of everyone else simply because they don't come from the reserve and aren't pure blood, then ya, they're bigots.


I'm pretty sure we've had practically the same line of argument before about ethnicity and the purity of "races." And I'm pretty sure that before everyone told you or someone else that the concept of "ethnic groups" is a completely social construct. There is no "pure" anything. Everyone is a big mix of everything and we have the current 'looks' today of people thanks to years of evolution brought on by groups from many different regions co-mingling. In fact, from a purely biological standpoint. The whole idea of "only Japanese can mate with Japanese" and "only blacks with blacks" is a pretty surefire way to eventually F the human race over. Since if you leave small groups to procreate in the same group over time, you'll eventually end up with lots of bizarre diseases due to a stale gene pool (ie: inbreeding). So I'd say even nature is against your idea of maintaining "the purity of races."

I'm pretty sure the stagnation of Europe and some of its problems with immigration are actually a result of the massive welfare state systems in place in those countries and not the immigrants themselves.

I also think Muslims just like anyone else are prone to becoming more moderate with rising wealth. Christianity used to be pretty crazy too back in the day. Crusades, inquisitions etc. I don't think Europe is in danger of turning into a caliphate any time soon.

vileru Wrote:1. What do you think gives us a right to limit, on the basis of cultural background or any other similar criteria, who may immigrate to our countries?

A sovereign nation should be able to write their own rules on who (or IF) they want to let immigrate into their countries. The standards are extremely high in Japan, and I applaud them greatly for that. In the EU, there are no sovereign states, and what the Marxists at the top say goes. Naturally, all their policies lead to the destruction of European people and cultures. And I, as a native to my country and Europe, have every god damn right to oppose these policies. If that somehow offends the immigrants, that's too bad! They have their own country they can go where they won't be "discriminated." Not to mention If all the Muslims decide to immigrate to, say, Saudi Arabia, they won't have any issues with integration, language, religion, cultural clashes, etc... Why come here? It's because of the welfare state, that's why! They know they will be showered with benefits such as free housing, free money, free everything, all at the expense of native Europeans! It's their dream come true! I will absolutely not tolerate such mass third world immigration that threatens the very existence of my people and culture, nor would any other people who aren't completely brainwashed by the Marxist lunacy (Japanese).

vileru Wrote:In most countries, those who may not immigrate are clearly defined in legal terms, and this is to prevent arbitrary decisions on who may or may not immigrate. One common example is the refusal to allow known felons to immigrate since they obviously threaten the safety of society.

The problem is once they get here, they turn turn to crime. In Sweden, 100% of all rapes in 2010 (or 2011?) were committed by Muslim and African immigrants. The crime rates have increased in all European countries where there is mass third world immigration. Of course the leftist retards all blame Europeans and "racism" for that, for not "doing enough to integrate the immigrants" (hint: they don't WANT to integrate!). And once they are convicted of these crimes, sending them back is a "violation of their human rights." So we're stuck with criminals forever! The immigration reform has to become stricter: you steal a pack of bubble gum, you're out and banned for life. Got no education to be beneficial to our society? Banned until you do. Got no money to support yourself, your wife and 10 children? Banned until you do. Not this communist bullsh*t of letting everyone in and giving them benefits on our expense because we should "feel sorry" for them. Saudi Arabia has so much money they don't know where to put it. Why don't they take in all these Muslim immigrants and provide them with benefits? Why should we do it?

vileru Wrote:How do you think the kind of blockage of immigration you propose can be done without being arbitrary? Obviously not all people from Middle Eastern countries are Muslim and there are Muslims born and raised in Western countries. Therefore, a blanket blockage of immigrants from the Middle East doesn't really seem to solve the problem you identified.

A complete immigration BLOCK for the next 30 years will be a good start. Nobody gets in except qualified professionals. You're a refugee from a war-torn country? Too bad, try Turkey, Israel or Saudi Arabia. You're gay and will be persecuted in your country? Too bad, try Turkey, Israel or Saudi Arabia. There's more countries they can try their luck with, Europe is in critical condition and can't take in any more without committing suicide.

vileru Wrote:2. Do you think culture is static and owned by particular people? You seem to be very much against foreigners coming to a culture and changing it, but you seem to assume culture is static and ought to be preserved. However, culture is in constant flux. The cultural changes that occurred during the period of Japan's isolation is strong evidence for this. Perhaps your view is that it's fine that culture changes, but that change should be brought about without foreign influence?

Culture is not static, but the current European cultures have been more or less inert for the past centuries. They have developed over the centuries to be what they are today. The problem is when you bring in a completely alien culture into an already firmly established culture, which over time overthrows the old culture and replaces with the new foreign one. This is exactly what is happening in Europe, and only completely braindead individuals do not see it. I do not want such a gigantic cultural transformation to occur, not in Europe, not in Japan, not anywhere else. Maybe you think it was a good idea the British came to Australia and replaced the Aboriginal cultures with the British one? After all, culture is in a constant flux... Well, I think it was wrong, and I support the Aboriginal "bigots" who oppose it, and I am the "Aboriginal 'bigot'" here in my own land who opposes this "culture flux" from third world immigrants. I have nothing against them, I do not hate them, but this immigration and cultural transformation must stop. Go back home and be Muslim/whatever there.

vileru Wrote:First, it is incredibly difficult for a culture to change without any foreign influence at all, and so complete removal of foreign influence would require absolute isolation from the rest of the world.

I have nothing against political/economic cooperation, which includes tourism, education, goods and so on. I am simply against multiculturalism and mass immigration as in present-day Europe and historically in the Americas, India, and so on. It is a form of isolationism and non-interference in domestic issues, yes, but not complete isolation as in locking yourself in a dungeon and throwing the keys away.

vileru Wrote:But isn't voting to allow immigration also a direct choice?

I don't remember having the choice to vote on EU policies regarding that. And even if this was up to the common people (hah-hah), and the majority vote FOR, there's not much I can or will do other than have my own opinion and oppose it, and of course feel sorry for the sheeple who voted for their own cultural, national and biological demise. And when it becomes tough and unbearable, I'll do what every other mentally stable white people do when their hometown becomes unrecognisable and dangerous: white flight.

vileru Wrote:Hence, if there is a thing such as cultural ownership, it's only in the very limited sense that one may protect one's culture from exploitation, but in no sense is one justified in barring others from taking part in one's culture.

Europe's existence and cultures are threatened by the ever bigger mass influx of third world immigrants. I think that justifies my concerns and a complete block to the immigration system, save for the qualified professionals.

vix86 Wrote:If Native Americans are hateful of everyone else simply because they don't come from the reserve and aren't pure blood, then ya, they're bigots.

Well, at least you're consistent with your PC crap, so you're better than most leftists, I give you that!

vix86 Wrote:I'm pretty sure we've had practically the same line of argument before about ethnicity and the purity of "races." And I'm pretty sure that before everyone told you or someone else that the concept of "ethnic groups" is a completely social construct.

No, the "purity" thing you made up, because nobody made that claim, but yes, we had the discussion on ethnicity and race, where somebody did come up with the pseudo-scientific baloney that "we are all the same, it is all a social construct," to which I suppose I properly responded with scientific facts that prove their politically correct theories are junk, and that they are evolution denying buffoons.

vix86 Wrote:Since if you leave small groups to procreate in the same group over time, you'll eventually end up with lots of bizarre diseases due to a stale gene pool (ie: inbreeding).

I think you made the same claim last time (or it was in another discussion elsewhere), to which I responded by saying that this only applies to extremely small populations of a few hundred or thousand, but is completely irrelevant in practice, because there are very few such small groups today, and certainly not in Europe or Japan. Europeans or Japanese of today can do perfectly fine without mixing with foreigners, without having to worry about any genetic diseases, and without having to inbreed, because there is enough diversity among the millions of them already.

vix86 Wrote:So I'd say even nature is against your idea of maintaining "the purity of races."

Nature doesn't care one way or the other, because it's not conscious, though if she were, she'd probably wish all humans died off. It's up to us humans to decide whether we want to be nature's protectors and preserve human diversity, and all the unnatural man-made cultures associated with each and every distinct human population, or to be disgusting, bigoted, genocidal maniacs with the world-wide destruction of human and cultural diversity as their goal.

Myself, I choose to be the former, because I'm a good person that loves diversity and believe everyone should have the right to their biological and cultural existence. But some of you are simply egoistic bigots who hate diversity. What can I say...

nadiatims Wrote:I'm pretty sure the stagnation of Europe and some of its problems with immigration are actually a result of the massive welfare state systems in place in those countries and not the immigrants themselves.

It's the welfare state that is so attractive to immigrants, and that's the reason they mass immigrate. Both are a problem.

nadiatims Wrote:I don't think Europe is in danger of turning into a caliphate any time soon.

"Any time soon" is relative. The fact is, it will happen within the next 100 years. Native Europeans (Western) will become minorities in their own countries within the next 30-50 years. Sorry, but I'm not a fan of genocides or population replacements to support that. Not in Europe, not in Japan, not anywhere.

"It's the welfare state that is so attractive to immigrants, and that's the reason they mass immigrate. Both are a problem."

Is not the obvious solution then to tweak the welfare state back to sustainable levels such that being net drain on society is no longer a possible/attractive option?
Oh wait then lazy Europeans have to give up their benefits too.

nadiatims Wrote:Is not the obvious solution then to tweak the welfare state back to sustainable levels such that being net drain on society is no longer a possible/attractive option?
Oh wait then lazy Europeans have to give up their benefits too.

The obvious solution is both to stop the welfare leeches and mass immigration, nothing less.

You seem to be equating immigrants with welfare leaches just because. Fix up the welfare situation and you wouldn't get huge amounts of problem immigrants. And if they aren't a problem then what's the problem? It's retarded that some Europeans blame the Muslim minority for their problems and ignore the much larger non Muslim majority. You could kick out all the Muslims and Europeans problems wouldn't go anywhere.

nadiatims Wrote:You seem to be equating immigrants with welfare leaches just because. Fix up the welfare situation and you wouldn't get huge amounts of problem immigrants. And if they aren't a problem then what's the problem? It's retarded that some Europeans blame the Muslim minority for their problems and ignore the much larger non Muslim majority. You could kick out all the Muslims and Europeans problems wouldn't go anywhere.

You seem to be forgetting about the problem of total population replacement, an ongoing process of immigration that will eventually result in the native European population (and their culture) becoming a minority in their own countries.

Why are you turning a blind eye to this? Immigration isn't just a problem because of "problematic immigrants," it's a problem in itself for the aforementioned reason.

Maybe you have no problems with walking around Osaka and 90% of the population being European immigrants, where 90% of all restaurants are focused on Italian, French, Hungarian, Spanish, etc. cuisine, with Churches at every corner, and if you want to actually see anything culturally Japanese at all, you have to go deep into the countryside where the foreigners haven't reached yet. I have a problem with that, and I have the same problem with that in Europe (or anywhere else). And this isn't "racism," "bigotry," or any other fancy PC term you want to throw at me, it's a basic human right. Vix86 is even so bigoted, he basically called the Native Americans in reservations racists and bigots for wanting to protect this basic human right of theirs. I find that despicable.

What if Japan doesn't want their current "Japanese culture" (which I assume is what, kimonos? sake? Japanese-seeming things?) and instead prefers to adapt Western culture? Are you advocating for forcing each country to keep things how they were a century ago so you can visit it and look at each place's culture like some sort of exhibit in a zoo?

Western culture isn't being forced on the Japanese at the end of a gun barrel, they're embracing various parts of it on their own. Maybe that means creating music based on Western style rock, or opening up western fast food joints.

vix86 Wrote:What if Japan doesn't want their current "Japanese culture" (which I assume is what, kimonos? sake? Japanese-seeming things?) and instead prefers to adapt Western culture?

Whatever they want, it's definitely not mass immigration (or any kind of immigration) of foreigners, because they're not mentally retarded like Europeans are. And comparing willingly adopting a civilized western culture to having the primitivism of Islam imposed on you... Give me a f*cking break. Try using the left side of your brain for a change without activating the PC lobe.

Dirty, racist, bigoted Japanese, for trying to remain Japanese, right? You sound like my college professor.

Let me guess, your response will be: "There is no such thing as 'Japaneseness,' it's all a social construct, everybody can become Japanese!"

LOL! I'll be damned if you're not my college professor. In any case, I won't know what your response will be, because this is the last time I opened this thread.

Don't insult other forum members

Well, one thing's for sure: the above person's arguments would be marginally more convincing were it not for all the name calling and the supplanting of the "mouth frothing man" image via the style of writing. Honestly, not much better than the "radical leftists" in terms of pursuasiveness.

It's nothing new, this is almost all that person posts here. It's better if people just ignore him.

yudantaiteki Wrote:It's nothing new, this is almost all that person posts here. It's better if people just ignore him.

Agreed. I'm actually curious how he's not been banned, since his diatribes seem to be the only 'contributions' he makes around here.

We rarely ban people here, and even though I find his rhetoric incredibly hateful and spiteful, I don't think it constitutes a ban in my book. Their his ideas and opinions, even if I think they are completely maligned.

EDIT: It might be different if he was posting about the need to genocide and kill off large groups of people, and trying to encourage others to do so as well.

vix86 Wrote:We rarely ban people here, and even though I find his rhetoric incredibly hateful and spiteful, I don't think it constitutes a ban in my book. Their his ideas and opinions, even if I think they are completely maligned.

EDIT: It might be different if he was posting about the need to genocide and kill off large groups of people, and trying to encourage others to do so as well.

Or if he were repeatedly insulting posters on the board?

In any case, a forum devoted to foreign language learning should have no tolerance for this kind of crap.

vix86 Wrote:We rarely ban people here, and even though I find his rhetoric incredibly hateful and spiteful, I don't think it constitutes a ban in my book. Their his ideas and opinions, even if I think they are completely maligned.

EDIT: It might be different if he was posting about the need to genocide and kill off large groups of people, and trying to encourage others to do so as well.

I've seen users banned for far less around here. Someone recently got banned for insulting other users because he was offended by remarks made about Benny's accent.
There have been far worse insults being used in this thread, not to mention the hostility. Don't the rules state "This website is a labour of love, animosity...will not be tolerated."?
It's bad enough he chased away Icecream. Seeing posts spewing hate speech makes what should be a fun, interesting and encouraging forum into something unwelcoming and negative. I might have to take my own advice and just leave because I don't like what's happening here.
I think Yudanteki is right - a foreign language learning forum is hardly the place for hate speech.

Regardless of his beliefs or convictions, all we need is..
Peace. and. Love!!!

or Jesus, whatever floats your boat.
Y'know what they say, different strokes for different folks.

Debates often conceal the truth... Opinions are like nails: the harder you hit them the deeper they go.

[s0apgun]

toshiromiballza Wrote:Also, I nominate this thread for closure.

Your wish is my command.