Sanding our assholes with 150 grit.

Meta - Racially Motivated Posts

this is just to get you started.  come on people.  Dan has been making anti-jewish posts today?

POST THEM HERE.


seriously, I will remove them.


GIVE ME A LIST!
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 5th, 2007 8:29am
You could start deleting this one :)

http://www.crazyontap.com/topic.php?TopicId=20170#232771

=)
Permalink Send private email Masio 
July 5th, 2007 8:44am
bah.  Im off to bed.  AG, Pharisee..Im looking at you.  You registered a complaint, Ive made you a good faith offer.

the ball is in your court.
Permalink worldsSmallestViolin 
July 5th, 2007 8:45am
your court has no balls.
Permalink $-- 
July 5th, 2007 9:02am
The best refutation of his posts, is their content!

Don't delete because they're offensive. 

Do delete them because they're boring.
Permalink s 
July 5th, 2007 9:08am
"Boring" is in the eye of the beholder.  What do you do if somebody decides that every post 's' makes is by definition boring?

And we have a solution for "boring" already -- don't read, don't answer such posts.

This usually works for anti-semitic, or anti-Arab posts too.  Must be a full moon, or something, usually Dan's posts are safely ignored.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 9:10am
And I'm not immune, I found myself hooked on a few of those threads.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 9:11am
Dana starts to feel the itch when there's nothing to bitch about for a sufficient period.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
July 5th, 2007 9:13am
I feel the itch when there are four or five of these posts in one day instead of one or two every couple of days.

Fine, we should all start posting several threads a day of our favorite topic until everyone else goes insane with boredom.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 5th, 2007 9:17am
>I feel the itch when there are four or five of these posts in one day instead of one or two every couple of days.

Why?  It'll taper off again.  Your problem is that your philosophy is one of laws and boundaries.  This is pretty incompatible with CoT.  You'd be much more comfortable confining yourself to Blah, but you refuse to do so.

You're EXACTLY like religious wackos who sit out in front of abortion clinics screaming and shaking signs at people who enter and exit them.  Rather than simply making your own choice to live as you want to live, you want EVERYBODY ELSE to live/want to live like you, too.
Permalink Send private email muppet 
July 5th, 2007 9:20am
for once, I more or less agree with muppet, though he goes a bit overboard (dana isn't *exactly* like those people ... but then I like language to be used in an *exact* way ...)

basically, the more you get upset at these things, the more energy you give them. somewhere, the shitlump troll that is denman is laughing and happy to have upset you. why give the pleasure?
Permalink $-- 
July 5th, 2007 9:24am
Yup, she's like, exactly like those religious wacko's.  Literally.  Why, I'll bet she's stapling her sign together as we speak.

Please.  This is AG we're talking about.  "Religious wacko" doesn't really fit.  Yesterday was the fourth of July, so everybody had WAY more time than they usually do to post.

I wasn't going to mention Blah, but now that you've done so, I think it would be much more appropriate to have a civilized conversation about this over there.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 9:25am
It would be more appropriate to discuss the moderation of CoT over on Blah?

Why can't Blah just be its own community and stop trying to influence CoT?  Why do you need TWO sites?
Permalink Send private email muppet 
July 5th, 2007 9:26am
Man, all the whack crackers here always goin' on about this racial bull-shit.  Like they got the slightest fuckin' clue about what a brother has to deal with every damn day.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 5th, 2007 9:33am
Do keep up, 007.  My point was, if you want to discuss Israeli policies, or Judaism, or Palestinians, or Hamas, and you don't want the discussion to degenerate into propaganda flinging, having that discussion on CoT is not a good idea.  It may not work on Blah either, but you have a slightly better chance.

I wasn't discussing CoT moderation.  In point of fact I happen to be with wSV on this one -- that which can be easily ignored doesn't need to be deleted, until it gets to be 'too much'.  And 'too much' is a judgement call.  Which wSV has said if we list the threads we'd like deleted, he'll do it.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 9:34am
The threads with the explicit anti-Semitic (as opposed to anti-Zionist) crap have rolled off. I remember the Israeli model on a laddy magazine thread.

I guess, if you could honestly say that you would leave the crap there were "African American" substituted for Jew in those posts, then fine.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 9:49am
"My point was, if you want to discuss Israeli policies, or Judaism, or Palestinians, or Hamas, and you don't want the discussion to degenerate into propaganda flinging, having that discussion on CoT is not a good idea."

It never works anywhere, in any forum. It's an Arab blood feud, there's no middle ground, there's never any quarter given.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 9:51am
is it 'cos I is black?
Permalink Ali $-- 
July 5th, 2007 9:54am
Well, frankly, the Israelis have been asking for a shitload of trouble these last 60 years.  Kicking a bunch of Arabs off their land is just bound to go over poorly, especially when you're bloody surrounded by Arabs.  I won't openly advocate against the Israelis, but I won't advocate for them either.  If something bad happens to them, so be it.  If life becomes untenable there, there are plenty of places where they can move and earn an honest living, instead of taking land from others by force of arms.  Heck, if they like that sort of thing there's plenty of work for them in Baghdad right now.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 5th, 2007 10:01am
Well, frankly, the Americans have been asking for a shitload of trouble these last 400 years.  Kicking a bunch of Indians off their land is just bound to go over poorly, especially when you're bloody surrounded by Indians.  I won't openly advocate against the Americans, but I won't advocate for them either.  If something bad happens to them, so be it.  If life becomes untenable there, there are plenty of places where they can move and earn an honest living, instead of taking land from others by force of arms.  Heck, if they like that sort of thing there's plenty of work for them in London right now picking strawberries.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 5th, 2007 10:32am
Ah, but P.E., you seem to have missed the point.  Or maybe you've never read anything about American history.  Indeed we did kick a shitload of aboriginals off the land.  Now you just go ahead and count the full blooded aboriginals left in the U.S. and compare that to the general population.  And bad things did happen.  A lot of the Indians worked out that this whole invasion thing wasn't good for them.  They fought back.  But the damned whites kept coming in wave after wave.

The aboriginals have finally gotten their revenge though.  They own all the casinos, and have a lot of fun taking money from the silly white people who think they're gonna go to a casino, gamble, and win.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 5th, 2007 10:58am
Bit late for the American Indians. Not in living memory.

It's still in living memory for the Palestinians - there are quite a few out there who remember being kicked off their land the first time around.

And frankly, the US could swallow the whole of Israel. It's not very big. London could probably swallow a third of them at a pinch (there's more than 2x as many Londoners as there are Israelis).
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 11:02am
Oh, and PE - are you endorsing the wholesale slaughter of the American Indians? Cause it sure sounds like you're making a moral equivalence between that and what happened during the establishment of Israel.

If that is your point then, of course, you're a little extreme since there wasn't wholesale slaughter of Palestinians (just a bit of slaughter), but you're essentially on the money.
Permalink Send private email Colm 
July 5th, 2007 11:04am
The Israelis were certainly much kinder than the Americans were. (Compare pre-occupation and post-occupation demographics for each example: Native Americans would kill to be in the situation Palestinians are in.)
Permalink Send private email strawdog soubriquet 
July 5th, 2007 12:46pm
Most pre-Columbian Americans were accidentally killed by introduced diseases. There were more Americans in 1491 than Europeans.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 1:27pm
> you're a little extreme since there wasn't wholesale slaughter of Palestinians (just a bit of slaughter), but you're essentially on the money.

I keep hearing that Palestinians have the highest rate of master's degrees in the world (?).

If they are being slaughtered oh so much, the academic world must really be publish-or-perish.
Permalink Send private email heartsheep 
July 5th, 2007 3:53pm
Oh!  Is THAT where they're getting so many suicide bombers?  Getting a 'D' on your psych master's degree can really get you down.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 5th, 2007 3:56pm
There's still a large amount of discussion how many died of samllpox, how many were murdered, and how many died because of atrocious conditions of bonded labour.

And of course the introduction of disease was not always voluntary. Stories of smallpox infected blankets are part of the folklore of the wild west.
Permalink Send private email Stephen Jones 
July 5th, 2007 4:04pm
They're part of the historical record here in Michigan.  When the Huron got too problematic, the English sold them infected blankets.  Since then, no problem with Huron.
Permalink Send private email Clay Dowling 
July 5th, 2007 4:20pm
The book 1491 is my source. One of the theories as to why such a populated place was overrun by foreigners is that the English brought malaria with them, as well as other diseases.

There was an estimate of a 98% mortality rate from the introduced diseases.

Great book. Highly recommend it.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 5:01pm
It was mostly the Spanish. The disease spread from Central America north as the Indians did trade with each other. The diseases were usually the first (and last) Old World visitors most Native Americans saw.

By the time English tried to colonize the Eastern seaboard 100 years later there were practically no Native Americans there (otherwise they really would have taken them out).
Permalink Send private email heartsheep 
July 5th, 2007 5:06pm
"By the time English tried to colonize the Eastern seaboard 100 years later there were practically no Native Americans there (otherwise they really would have taken them out)."

No, not true. The French settled in Quebec because Cape Cod was too populated, for example.

A 100 years of contact via ships was enough to spread the disease.
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 5th, 2007 5:12pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics