jbg Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 This is a signature for one of the posters at MLW: "German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves."Waffen SS General Leon Degrelle - Epic: The Story of the Waffen SS (Lecture given in 1982). Reprinted in The Journal of Historical Review, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 441-468. I will defend to my death his right to spout this kind of utter nonesense. It should be condemned, not banned; ridiculed, not suppressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 That's ridiculous. There's no absolute freedom of speech here, and there never has been. If somebody doesn't like it, they don't have to post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 This is a signature for one of the posters at MLW: I will defend to my death his right to spout this kind of utter nonesense. It should be condemned, not banned; ridiculed, not suppressed. I agree... He has every right to say those things... He also has every right to be eviscerated for saying those things... Freedom of speech is'nt always pretty,but,it's far better than the alternative... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 "National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves." I will defend to my death his right to spout this kind of utter nonesense. It should be condemned, not banned; ridiculed, not suppressed. Of course you would. And here is your sig: "If it's us or them, I choose us." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 I agree... people should have the right to say such things, no matter how incorrect and offensive they might be. A right is something that the government should not be able to use coercive means to prevent you from doing. That being said, individual forum owners have the right to restrict content on their forums in whatever way they see fit. Certain forum owners may voluntarily choose to ban pro-Nazi propaganda on their forums, and this would not infringe on the general freedom of speech of individuals in society. Or they can allow such content, and that is fine too: it is their forum and thus should be their choice. Basically, the concept is this: you can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 That's ridiculous. There's no absolute freedom of speech here, and there never has been. If somebody doesn't like it, they don't have to post. And here is your sig:"If it's us or them, I choose us." My signature refers to war situations, not internal domestic speech. I am a strong believer in almost absolute free speech; no planning for overt illegal acts, no speech that itself creates danger. Otherwise absolute freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 My signature refers to war situations, not internal domestic speech. I am a strong believer in almost absolute free speech; no planning for overt illegal acts, no speech that itself creates danger. Otherwise absolute freedom. Really ? That sounds great. You should start a forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 Really ? That sounds great. You should start a forum. Wait a minute... The poster in question has'nt said anything "NAZIesque" yet,other than his sig. He has said some things that are anti-immigration and pro-European...It's a semantic arguement,but,bare with me... Lictor did'nt get banned for saying essentially the same things.He got banned once his Nationalist/Fascist ideas morphed into white supremecy and was spamming the board with essentially the same topic... There's alot of people here who have the same anti-immigration stnce,some of it is founded in reason...They don't get banned,and nor should they... If the poster in question wants to talk up the NAZI party and Adolph Hitler was simply misunderstood,that's on him... Most likely,some of us here will openly challenge him on it...That's always fun!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 Really ? That sounds great. You should start a forum.I did once. After having to choose between allowing someone to bring in some Quebec separatists and keeping certain others I talk to regularly on the phone I shut the forum down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 My signature refers to war situations, not internal domestic speech. I am a strong believer in almost absolute free speech; no planning for overt illegal acts, no speech that itself creates danger. Otherwise absolute freedom. So you really have no problem with it then. But you fail to recognize, your sig is just as racialist as the one that you posted about, irregardless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 But you fail to recognize, your sig is just as racialist as the one that you posted about, irregardless What "race" am I referring to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) What "race" am I referring to? I am not blaming you for writing in your sig about "us and them", but I am criticizing you for calling out someone else, for doing the same thing. One needs to examine the lines and fingers Edited August 24, 2010 by Sir Bandelot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 One needs to examine the lines and fingersI am 53 years old so I presume my fingers have some lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 24, 2010 Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 Basically, the concept is this: you can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone. I like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 24, 2010 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2010 But you fail to recognize, your sig is just as racialist as the one that you posted about,irregardless I don't concede that my signature was racialist but after six and one-half years the signature needs to change. Basically, the concept is this: you can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone. I like that. Note my own revised signature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 So you really have no problem with it then. But you fail to recognize, your sig is just as racialist as the one that you posted about, irregardless Racialist? (OK a misspelling) Irregardless?? What does regardless mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 I fail to see how "a choice between us or them, I chose us" can be contrued as racist. I construe it as common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 I don't concede that my signature was racialist but after six and one-half years the signature needs to change. Note my own revised signature. Nice. There was a positive outcome in the thread then. In response to other peoples problems, you changed yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 Racialist? (OK a misspelling) Irregardless?? What does regardless mean? Just dumbing it down for you countrified folk! And the know-nothing conservativen! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 I fail to see how "a choice between us or them, I chose us" can be contrued as racist. I construe it as common sense. You fail to see a lot of things, my friend. But to be fair, the phrase itself is not in question. For what is wrong with being biased, or having a preference for the protection and survival of ones own culture, ones own race? NOTHING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 You fail to see a lot of things, my friend. But to be fair, the phrase itself is not in question. For what is wrong with being biased, or having a preference for the protection and survival of ones own culture, ones own race? NOTHING So then... So you really have no problem with it then. But you fail to recognize, your sig is just as racialist as the one that you posted about, irregardless was just one of your usual unthinking brainfarts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) I agree with 100 % with Morris, i find nothing wrong with Jbg signature...And it's this liberal polictical correctness that i object to and all the presure that comes with it to conform to some liberals vision on how we should all be the same and just get along.....That being said there is going to be a time when we should challenge a person to Validate what they have said or written...Jbg is not one of them.... German racialism meant re-discovering the creative values of their own race, re-discovering their culture. It was a search for excellence, a noble ideal. National Socialist racialism was not against the other races, it was for its own race. It aimed at defending and improving its race, and wished that all other races did the same for themselves." I think if you have the balls to write crap on your signature block such our new german right winger did then he should expect to be challenged on it....And while there is nothing wrong with the words themselfs written in the signature block ,it is who has written them that is offensive,and the double meaning they have ....I think all will agree that the Actions of the Waffen SS and this general in question are the exact opposite of what is written....like he was trying to con someone into thinking that "Killing millions of the Unwanted" was all part of re-discovering the creative values of his own race....man did they ever do that.... Edited August 25, 2010 by Army Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 So then... was just one of your usual unthinking brainfarts? No inconsistency there. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16972&view=findpost&p=573210 Why cans't Johnny Read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 No inconsistency there. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16972&view=findpost&p=573210 Why cans't Johnny Read? Sounds and reads inconsistent to me. One one hand... This is a signature for one of the posters at MLW: I will defend to my death his right to spout this kind of utter nonesense. It should be condemned, not banned; ridiculed, not suppressed. Then you fart... So you really have no problem with it then. But you fail to recognize, your sig is just as racialist as the one that you posted about, irregardless Which it isn't...and you seem to agree.... But to be fair, the phrase itself is not in question. For what is wrong with being biased, or having a preference for the protection and survival of ones own culture, ones own race? NOTHING so you change tact... I am not blaming you for writing in your sig about "us and them", but I am criticizing you for calling out someone else, for doing the same thing. One needs to examine the lines and fingers Doing the same thing? What? Having a signature? The question ain't whether johnny can read...it's whether Sir Bandelot is addled in the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted August 25, 2010 Report Share Posted August 25, 2010 Sounds and reads inconsistent to me. One one hand... Then you fart... Which it isn't...and you seem to agree.... so you change tact... Doing the same thing? What? Having a signature? The question ain't whether johnny can read...it's whether Sir Bandelot is addled in the brain. I know it's very complicated, MDancer... but the last thing which you quoted me in your previous message, should be enough for you to figure it out, if you try very hard. One must exercise ones mental faculties regularloy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.