"OK to be a nationalist" thread.

Post Reply New Topic

A lot of good, quotable material there, Walrus.

Is it fair for a mod to ban people because of their own biased and misguided views? Why is it not OK for a user to support European countries mainly having indigenous people in their country but it is OK for a mod to openly support blowing up numerous countries?

We also have users that pretty much said that the US state should murder Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning.

Let's say for argument's sake he is racist. How is that worse than advocating the state execution of whistleblowers and journalists? And the state mass murder of millions in illegal wars?

So the message is, everyone's welcome, apart from those who carry out wrongthink crimes? I might have been able to change him from being an ethno stater.

Everybody IS welcome, as long as they don't encourage or promote the unfair or prejudicial treatment of people and groups based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, disability, nationality, culture, religion, political persuasion, citizenship status or sexual orientation. Those that do are shown the way out.

Baiting the moderators into senseless arguments should also be a bannable offense.

You both support Israel so should both be banned by your own standards. I will just tell the truth as i see it, not blow smoke up.... to get special treatment. You have attacked me and other members personally hundreds of times but always get away with it.

Do you think advocating people to be murdered by the state is not unjust and prejudiced? Try to stick to your own 'rules'.

I support Israel's right to exist, same as every other legitimate sovereign state. Saying I should be banned for it seems like some kind of racist statement.

Did you support apartheid South Africa's right to exist? It's just hysterical propaganda. Israel can exist with equal rights for everyone, which you surely support without excuses.

You've asked quite a few questions there, John. I'll try to answer them.

1) Is it fair for a mod to ban people because of their own biased and misguided views?

I'm unsure whether you mean "because of the user's biased and misguided views" or "because of the mod's biased and misguided views". If the former, yes, if those views breach WrongPlanet rules. If the latter, strictly speaking the answer is no, but I suppose one could argue that the rules are "biased and misguided". It is the moderator's job to enforce the rules as best as they can. This may sometimes appear biased or unfair, but moderators should try to act in such a way as to minimise this perception.

2) Why is it not OK for a user to support European countries mainly having indigenous people in their country but it is OK for a mod to openly support blowing up numerous countries?

This seems like a bit of a silly hypothetical. As far as I am aware, no moderators have ever supported blowing up numerous countries. I don't believe a user who supported terrorism would be appointed a moderator.

WrongPlanet's rules explicitly forbid racism. White nationalism is a form of racism.

3) Let's say for argument's sake he is racist. How is that worse than advocating the state execution of whistleblowers and journalists? And the state mass murder of millions in illegal wars?

WrongPlanet's rules forbid racism. WrongPlanet's rules do not forbid support for the death penalty or for war necessarily. WrongPlanet's rules do not claim to be perfect measures of morality, they only dictate content which is acceptable on WrongPlanet. That content is not necessarily objectively "better" or "worse" than other content.

4) So the message is, everyone's welcome, apart from those who carry out wrongthink crimes?

As already stated, wrongthink is fine. Hate speech, on the other hand, is not.

Oh dear, those last three posts came in after I finished my post. Aaargh. Please let's keep the thread constructive and not get sidetracked on political discussions

Yes, quite … sorry about that. When things start getting personal, it's hard to keep an even keel.

Can you tell me one war you've been against Walrus?

"Wrongthink" vs. 'Hate speech." There's a whole conversation to be had right there, my friends. Who gets to draw the line where "wrongthink" crosses over into "hate speech." Yikes!

That's both a distraction from the topic at hand a much more complex question than you're making it out to be ("against" from what perspective? Because from the right perspective every reasonable person should be against every war, but from another they should be for every war) but of the two wars my country has fought in my lifetime, I was against one of them, Iraq. I still would not support initiating it even though it achieved its objectives. Afghanistan is a more complicated situation. I don't know if that war will ever truly be "won" but it has markedly improved Afghanistan and weakened al-Qaeda.

If you want to discuss this further, may I suggest starting a new thread?

It's remarkably easy. I don't care very much what's in your head. I do care what comes out of your mouth, or in this case, what you type and submit.

You can think things that are racist, sexist, or homophobic, but you can't say them.