Anti-Semetic Posts

submitted by Work2Death from (self.SaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Perhaps somebody wants to push all the non-racist people off the site?

[–]Zombi 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

While I'd rather not go that route (what defines a racist, anyway?) I'd also love it if all the blatantly antisemitic posts got the hell off the front page. All we can do is callout posts such as this one and not upvote their posts.

I don't agree with what they have to say, but it would be hypocritical of me to call for censorship.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

Posting non-political content and political content that doesn't focus on chopping people up into groups is probably the easiest way of getting these to go away, short of censorship which isn't on the table (and I'd feel uneasy about anyway).

Oh, and clicking on the anti-Semitic posts to upvote comments that call them out.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

So is criticism of any 'protected group', when due, actually bad under all circumstances?

It would be easy to see, once we go down this path, any relevant information could easily be flushed down the proverbial toilet simply by screaming the approved 'msm catch phrase of the day'......

Examples: 'Shut up you Nazi!!!'. I see that in the media often times, usually followed with NPC(none player charactors) group cheers, of course rooting for their 'home team', rather than cheering out of real owned, and thought out beliefs. Worse, yet, 'shut up nazi', or take a pick, 'shut up with your white privilege', being used across so many boards; I guess serial killers now, have 'white privilege'.......

You're so quick to want to silence talk, and discussion in a non approved direction, but what of the opposite, and crazy reactions we're seeing? An example? "My little pony" is now misogynistic......

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

So is criticism of any 'protected group', when due, actually bad under all circumstances?

Ooh! I was actually thinking about this in the shower, so I'm glad for a chance to share my thoughts.

So, basically, I have a pretty strong belief that large, non-homogeneous groups don't tend to share common goals and interests, and so blaming all individuals of a group for a wrong done by members of that group is pointless and counterproductive.

Protected groups are the groups that people frequently chop people up into to make these large blanket assertions about. (Or rather, protected groups are the subset of the aforementioned group of groups that have legal protection.)

So criticism of any 'protected group' is never due. Criticism of members of that protected group can be due, and when it is it is good, but there's rarely any point in bringing up the protected group when doing so – it dilutes your argument by introducing a non-argument into it.

I agree with you in paragraph 2, and paragraph 3 up until:

I guess serial killers now, have 'white privilege'.......

to which I say "sometimes they do, but this is irrelevant in determining their guilt". Specifically, it can be useful to observe what biases present in society lead to this serial killer being able to gain access to serial killer tools and prevent people from picking up on the serial killer's behaviour. Maybe it's because they're white? Or maybe it's because she's a mother of two, and when near the scene of a crime has a buggy with two infants in it, and a mother is clearly not a serial killer so isn't even added to the suspect lists.

You're so quick to want to silence talk,

Silence? No. Call out, refuse to support and boycott? Yes.

and discussion in a non approved direction,

I'd love discussion. In fact, I participated in the discussion about the last anti-Semitic post on the front page. The main concern is not the symptom (anti-Semitic posts being made) but the disease (people holding unsupported, generalised beliefs that harm people without allowing the people to accomplish their goals).

but what of the opposite, and crazy reactions we're seeing?

I also disagree with those, like the "my little pony" one.

Don't be as quick to place people into flawed categories as I am. Most of your assumptions about my beliefs are wrong, as I'm sure are my assumptions about others' beliefs.

[–]HeyImSancho 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Don't be as quick to place people into flawed categories as I am. Most of your assumptions about my beliefs are wrong, as I'm sure are my assumptions about others' beliefs.

I don't really have assumptions as such. I've noted a few people on the board, who tend to, 'innocently' steer directives back towards the same direction that the large social media groups, as well as the MSM are trying to steer people..... Yet, it's perfectly innocent, and organic... Spew lol

An easy example of this broad sweeping crap, would be the plight for 'no antisemitism' on the board..... But, the term, 'antisemitism' by modern standards is only towards "Jews", but is a Jew a religious affiliation, or a racial Semitic group? They play both cards at different times, and usually distinctly separate; most funny of all, the Ashkenazi are Europeans; I mean have you seen the Israeli Knesset lately? If Hitler is exactly how the victors wrote in history, then he'd be laughing, and smiling at the color of Israel.

Yet another aspect of 'antisemitism', directly back to the "Semitic" race angle, the Arabs, and brown people of the area are truly Semitic; I guess since European Jews have trademarked that though, the brown people are only 'slightly Semitic', and second class, when talking Semites, huh?(actually by MSM standards, to note the arabs are Semitic is somehow antisemitism, strange, no?)

The fact is, the world is run by assholes; who own the game, and have the rest of us chasing our tales. They're not Capitalists, Fascists, Socialists, nor Communists; they're slave masters running their traditional games of divide, and conquer. They keep us always guessing our individual rights, and our individual identities, WHY? Just like the military, they need to destroy individualism, and rebuild us into 'citizens', aka slaves; the ones in power are the slavers, and always have been. And yes, not all, but a great deal percentage wise have been, and are Jewish.

Is it wrong to note a trend? <<<----if anything of my post is answered, this is the question I would favor.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed Sancho. Awesome comment! No it's not wrong to note a trend.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Is it wrong to note a trend?

By pointing out this "trend" – which might not even be one; analysis of the selection biases involved is interesting but iirc hasn't been done for this yet – you're furthering that "divide and conquer" approach.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

By choosing to at least entertain information, I'm furthering 'divide, and conquer'? Whizz, that's silly, and on par with the govt. status quo; which usually dictates that no one is intelligent enough not to have a nanny; nanny state.

As long as my breath flows, there won't be a topic I won't discuss; that's freedom, and it must be exercised. Stupid people, will always be stupid, and do subsequent stupid stuff; people who can control themselves; why should they self limit when fate obviously rules the day?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Everything you say has a consequence. I don't think through everything I say, but I have pre-prepared rules that – if followed – limit my "frivolous speech" to stuff that likely won't have lasting negative impacts. I re-evaluate these aperiodically.

If you're not going to limit yourself to such rules, please consider considering the consequences of everything you say to a large audience. You could adversely affect your ability to achieve your goals, otherwise.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh Wizz, don't you comprehend? You can never silence, or quell anyone's ability to speak their mind.

Take whatever rules you think you're showing people, they'll be twisted, and exploited, until discarded. The establishment is also trying to get people to obey some sort of command protocol in regards to what can be said, or not said; yet it's lacking. The organic rules of the natural world, which do trump all, dictate you cannot control all things.

I mean go for it, but at the end of eternity, everything that could be said, will have been said. Life's not about being afraid of offending others, it's about living, and knowing that what others have to say, don't have to impact you; 'water off a duck's back'.

Weaklings unfit for life are who need safe places; I don't say that lightly, but through my years have seen it play out; just my experience I guess.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

I think that if u unsubscribe to s/conspiracy it should do the trick. Not saying I agree with what they say, but if you're reading a sub called s/conspiracy you should expect crazy shit.

[–]Zombi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean, I find it entertaining in some odd way and every now and then conspiracy theorists will be on to something. My point was that I don't think we should ban a sub just because it says things we don't like to hear. I think we should tolerate eachother so long as we aren't calling for violence or infringing on other's rights.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree, although there seems like a disproportionate content comes from there, and I never said to ban it, just that you can unsubscribe to it so that certain content won't appear on the front page.

I love a good conspiracy theory but it seems like there's a lot of quantity over quality.

[–]HeyImSancho 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Perhaps somebody wants to push all the non-racist people off the site?

Weak argument, designed for sympathy where none is due; last I checked, and read, most here get along. Grow up, and pick better arguments.

I could easily have said, 'i've noticed a continual parade of all the Sjw's offering advice to a new forum, which usually takes the form of, 'if you allow content like this(XYZ), then this site is doomed'....(presenting your basic premise, but from the other direction)

Yet, I've never come close to any absolute like this, and others with their own varying beliefs aren't saying this. It's the folks with the obvious PC, SJW, Libtard, MSM, and 'status quo Millennial', who're trying to paint the black, and white pictures of doom-nation for allowing 'topics', and the manner in which 'posed'.

I mean, yeah, I guess this post is a little harsh, but damn, quit using the arguments of websites like, 'lesswrong'; LMAO, it shows.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

last I checked, and read, most here get along.

Hey, I didn't say it was working! I put forward a hypothesis as to the intentions of a mysterious, unidentified figure behind the scenes… Ok, I heard it that time. Poor argument.

quit using the arguments of websites like, 'lesswrong'; LMAO

Hmm… This confuses me. Is there any particular argument from LessWrong that I've been using that is flawed? If so, I'd really like to know.

(LessWrong doesn't really have stock arguments, by the way; that's not what it's about. It's more… techniques, for identifying flawed arguments that humans regularly produce. The ultimate goal is to notice them before you make them when you're making internal decisions, and so become less wrong.)

[–]HeyImSancho 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Hmm… This confuses me. Is there any particular argument from LessWrong that I've been using that is flawed? If so, I'd really like to know.

(LessWrong doesn't really have stock arguments, by the way; that's not what it's about. It's more… techniques, for identifying flawed arguments that humans regularly produce. The ultimate goal is to notice them before you make them when you're making internal decisions, and so become less wrong.)

Wizz,

Other than many people calling you a 'shill', there's nothing wrong with your arguments; except for they seemingly, and continually get you labeled as such. I can see why they do label you though, as often enough, you're arguing what most would believe the 'status quo' narrative, or perhaps, 'the establishment narrative'.

I actually find value in that, in numerous ways; yet, again, I can see where others may blurt out, whatever it maybe, so that in their minds, they possibly 'saved' someone else who might not be as savvy as they perceive themselves.

On the topic of 'identifying flawed arguments that humans regularly produce', that's just life. Usually the real decider of any argument is who can simply sway enough people to agree in mass; that is easily accomplished with money. Money rules the world; after all, it's written right on the US Greenback(world reserve currency still), "In God We Trust".

The problem I see with lesswrong, and the rest of those types of sites, they never spill the beans on the injustices, and lies revolving around the power of money. When a site like that fails to talk about the ugly side of what we call 'factual', yet claims to be dedicated to 'finding truth', you just know it's full of something stinky.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wizz has numerously called out the facts when others wouldn't. Just becaue someone posts a conspiracy article doesn't mean it is true just because it is against the status quo.

Though, he s getting carried away with trying to paint this as something intentional.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

they never spill the beans on the injustices, and lies revolving around the power of money.

The site aims to be non-political (teaching a man to fish, not giving him them) but, I can assure you, the techniques I know allow me to draw that conclusion from the evidence available to me.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The site aims to be non-political (teaching a man to fish, not giving him them) but, I can assure you, the techniques I know allow me to draw that conclusion from the evidence available to me.

That's good whizz, I'm glad to hear that you possess the ability to discern what may, or may not be correct; innovative! However, on that note, I don't know why you mention 'political', as being excluded, or included; I was saying money dictates most decisions across all boards. meh.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The writings on that site are generally about a set of techniques that apply to things other than governments, economics and politics just as easily as to those things.