Poll: should openly racist/xenphobic members be banned?

[UndercoverElephant]

Should this board prohibit participation by members who are openly racist or xenophobic?

[johnhemming2]

There are different views as to what is and what is not racist. I accept that incitement to racial hatred should be an offence. It is in fact a criminal offence. I don't see why this board should have any tighter rules than that.

[clv101]

I don't know.

One of the unique(?) aspects of this forum is that folk can basically say whatever they want, some people have a problem with this 'self-moderation' approach. I think it's interesting how well/badly people behave when they can basically do what they want.

There are hundreds of other forums available with tight moderation. They are more popular. But I wouldn't want this forum to just another tightly moderated forum.

[Little John]

Same here. The only condition I have for debating with someone is that such debate should be conducted honestly. Beyond that, the usual common sense rules of legality should apply,

[adam2]

Agree.
I fairly regularly delete posts that consist of personal insults or quotes thereof of replies thereto.
I do not delete posts simply because others find the views offensive, except very rarely in truly extreme cases.

Examples of controversial though acceptable posts include

"immigration into the UK should be strictly limited"
"we should let in anyone who wants to come"

Both views are valid and permissible, though of course no one could agree with both, and many would find one or the other totally unacceptable.

Examples of unacceptable posts include
" XXXXX is worthless turd"
"but YYYYYYY is even worse"
"He called me ABCD and XYZ"

These I usually delete though I make no claim to have found them all !

In very extreme cases I would delete posts for being grossly offensive, but this is very rare indeed, probably half a dozen posts in total, EVER.

Advertising posts are deleted without mercy or consideration.
Members who join simply to advertise are deleted without a second thought.

[UndercoverElephant]

There are different views as to what is and what is not racist. I accept that incitement to racial hatred should be an offence. It is in fact a criminal offence. I don't see why this board should have any tighter rules than that.

J2M does not "incite racial hatred." What he does do is attempt to "normalise" it. In other words, he argues that things like racism and xenophobia are normal human states of mind, even at the best of times, and that in the troubled times to come they will be beneficial. He also argue the reverse: that the lack of racism and xenophobia in mainstream politics amounts to racism against the indiginous white inhabitants of Britain.

There is no question about whether he is racist/xenophobic or not. He wears those labels as badges, and does not consider them insulting.

[UndercoverElephant]

Agree.
I fairly regularly delete posts that consist of personal insults or quotes thereof of replies thereto.
I do not delete posts simply because others find the views offensive, except very rarely in truly extreme cases.

Examples of controversial though acceptable posts include

"immigration into the UK should be strictly limited"
"we should let in anyone who wants to come"

But you haven't included what J2M actually says, which is basically:

"People like white South Africans can come, but blacks and muslims cannot."

[jonny2mad]

We sent the white south africans to africa they fought on our side in two world wars theres only about 3 million of them they have low birthrates , and they have zero future in africa largely because of our betrayal of them and their very racist anti white govt .

I think they are more likely to integrate faster. if you have a situation where your told society is racist and thats why black people under perform for example. and you need postive discrimination ie discrimination against non black people to make a equal society and this needs to go on for a indefinate period .

you can try to get society to change, or you can accept it and try to have immigrants who are less likely to be discriminated against .

you can look at the trouble we have now with islam domestic terrorism domestic traitors fighting for people like isis, jihadi sex slavery .

and you can make that worse by increasing numbers, or you can go for people who are less trouble .

Many countrys have age preferences or education preferences, why not have a integration preference, especially when you have massive problems with people you have already just given british passports too.

[peaceful_life]

Or...

The countrys to survive will be the first to be xenophobic

Now whether J2M actually believes that or not, it's still overtly crystal clear in it's intention.

Things have to be put into perspective and contextualised, so let's be honest about how dangerous and inflammatory things are getting ,personally I don't see any benefit in making already difficult times any more difficult by conjuring up ill feeling towards someone simply because they look different to me or hold a certain faith and god knows enough damage has already been delivered by white Christian values as much as any other faith.

We all know, on this board far more so than most others, that the real faith problem is that firstly of dominion, growth and greed, those traits have been embedded in us all by the systemic flaws, derived of our own short-sighted curiosities leading to these addictions, so if any religion should be chastised then it's that of growth, which is, by any definition a cult religion, secondly....this faith is open to all of any colour/geographic pigmentation and indeed...the high priests cut daily deals in a rainbow of commerce whilst the flock bickers between it'self on an ever stressed planet.

On the issue of numbers of folk coming in and out of the UK, I can think of a far more varied criteria than just who is welcomed here and who we'd be best rid of, any kind of real debate is completely debased by trying to influence it with misdirected blame.

That said, I'm not comfortable with banning anyone for anything, BUT.... if you want to forward, a least as far as the individual rightly or wrongly sees it, what's deemed as an uncomfortable truth then fine, but at least try and back up the statement with some coherent reasoning and not just drop poison for the sake of it. [/b]

[kenneal - lagger]

If you don't like what is being said there a link at the bottom left side of the page just below the page number which says "Stop watching this thread." Problem over. If enough people stop watching, and it would only take a dozen people, the person would be posting to themselves.

If you must have the last word, well that's up to you and your sanity!

[Little John]

The problem here, PL. is that, as much as I hate to say it, a large proportion of the population are none too clever and so are swayed by easy narratives and/or are morally weak an so are swayed by narratives that absolve them personally of moral responsibility.

You are no doubt familiar with the arguments I have put forward on this topic. They are not easy ones since they do not attempt to demonise these wretched human being who are doing no more or less than we would do under similar circumstances. Nevertheless, we still cannot let them come, in my opinion, for all of the resource based reasons I have given. in other words, I am suggesting that we must do a terrible thing and then live with it, because the alternatives are worse.

A much easier narrative is to say they are all baby eating, benefit scrounging monsters and so that is why we should not let them in. It provides a simplistic, easy to understand reason for not letting them ion and also allows one to not have to care about what happens to them. Or, conversely, the opposite, but equally stupid narrative is that we live on a planet of infinitely shiny possibilities where all we need is Love and so we should let them all in without exception.

humans are stupid and morally weak.

[peaceful_life]

If you don't like what is being said there a link at the bottom left side of the page just below the page number which says "Stop watching this thread." Problem over. If enough people stop watching, and it would only take a dozen people, the person would be posting to themselves.

If you must have the last word, well that's up to you and your sanity!

By that logic we'd have to stop watching the thread every time a meaningless racist comment is dropped in to poison it and end up having no reasonable discussion, on things like immigration, at all. What's the point of a poison echo chamber on a discussion forum, other than to shut debate down?

Besides..this particular thread, is about evaluating and analysing just that. If that bothers you, then you can always just stop watching the thread.

[peaceful_life]

The problem here, PL. is that, as much as I hate to say it, a large proportion of the population are none too clever and so are swayed by easy narratives and/or are morally weak an so are swayed by narratives that absolve them personally of moral responsibility.

You are no doubt familiar with the arguments I have put forward on this topic. They are not easy ones since they do not attempt to demonise these wretched human being who are doing no more or less than we would do under similar circumstances. Nevertheless, we still cannot let them come, in my opinion, for all of the resource based reasons I have given. in other words, I am suggesting that we must do a terrible thing and then live with it, because the alternatives are worse.

A much easier narrative is to say they are all baby eating, benefit scrounging monsters and so that is why we should not let them in. It provides a simplistic, easy to understand reason for not letting them ion and also allows one to not have to care about what happens to them. Or, conversely, the opposite, but equally stupid narrative is that we live on a planet of infinitely shiny possibilities where all we need is Love and so we should let them all in without exception.

humans are stupid and morally weak.

The focus has to be on addressing the causes of people movement in the first place, highlighting the symptoms in either a diplomatic or crass fashion doesn't address the long-term and far reaching issues, we simply won't be able to pull up a drawbridge, I'm not being naive when I advocate prevention being the cure, even for all it's difficulties.

[Little John]

The focus has to be on addressing the causes of people movement in the first place, highlighting the symptoms in either a diplomatic or crass fashion doesn't address the long-term and far reaching issues, we simply won't be able to pull up a drawbridge, I'm not being naive when I advocate prevention being the cure, even for all it's difficulties.

Firstly, Pl, you seem to be implying that my argument lies on the "diplomatic end" of a continuum that has the "crassness" of J2M's arguments at the other end. If you are, then you are conflating two arguments whose outcome may be functionally similar but whose philosophical and intellectual origins are worlds apart and it is, to be honest with you, really irritating to me that you have done this. There is nothing "diplomatic" about what I am suggesting should be done. It is brutal but, I think, necessary.

Equally, it is possible to both argue for doing something about the causes of these mass migrations that are now starting whilst at the same time taking practical measures to protect the integrity and security of this country for its ingenious population to the extent that those causes are not dealt with sufficiently.