Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the only thing I find curious is how Stalin slaughtered probably more than Hitler yet he isn't looked uo with eyes of repulsion. Why does one mass murderer escape the judgments of the world?
Joseph Stalin was a communist so he gets a free pass because in the eyes of liberals commies can do no wrong.
If you can't show some respect for those who died, then at least try to show some for those people, hundreds of times better than you, who risked their lives stopping the murders.
One of whom was Dane_in_LA's grandfather (which I happen to know because DiLA is my husband ).
Yeah I know what communism is and Joseph Stalin is the face of it hence why he was given the title of GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION.
So don't try to spin things around and say that he was some rightwing capitalist.
My Father was one of the first people into the Death camps to liberate them. He still finds it difficult to talk about, but to any idiots out there who do not believe that the Holocaust happened... You really need help!
The IHR strives to present itself as an academic and scholarly body, holds annual conferences, and publishes the Journal for Historical Review, which has every appearance of a standard academic journal. The IHR tends to recruit a well-educated membership, including university professors, and wealthy supporters. The Committee for the Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH), at one time associated to the IHR, specifically functions to recruit college and university students. Its main tactic is to hide behind a veil of "free speech" and liberal debate. Over the last five years it has been successful in placing ads in student newspapers suggesting the necessity of such a debate, and following up the ad with an actual visit to the university to carry out Holocaust-denial propaganda under the cover of a well-orchestrated debate. Unfortunately, many naive university professors acquiesce in this process by upholding the fraudulent "right" of fascists to organize on campus.
They have adapted the formula too well to messageboards.
Yeah I know what communism is and Joseph Stalin is the face of it hence why he was given the title of GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION.
So don't try to spin things around and say that he was some rightwing capitalist.
Big mouche was pretty much a capitalist in spirit, given the way he furthered himself over his party or his peers and mentors.
But the commies, nazis, fascists, socialists, some centrists, some liberals and many more, all derive their inspiration from one man in some form or the other - Karl Marx.
Location: Encyclopedia Dramatica (Looking for LULZ)
8 posts, read 10,636 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Debate Restrictions.
For as long as there have been public debates about race, liberals have tried to restrict the spectrum of allowed speech by declaring their opponents' best arguments out-of-bounds. They corrupt the governing rules of forums with administrative policies that establish their own views on the subject of race as the only permissible views and define dissent as "hate speech." Then if anyone disagrees with the liberal thinking, he will be found guilty of "violating the rules" and banned.
In other words, the liberals gain the power to write the rules, and then they cheat while writing them. Their justification is preventing offense to racial minorities. Although there's nothing wrong with choosing to remain silent in order to avoid giving offense, the freedom of speech has a higher value than politeness does. When one value must be sacrificed to preserve another, then the lesser should be let go and the greater kept.
What the liberals are doing, of course, is leveling heresy charges against racism, and then acting as both prosecutor and judge of the matter. Whether racists sometimes make good arguments, in the sense that they include statements that are both important and true, doesn't matter to liberals, who don't consider truth to be a defense. The better a racist's argument is, the more it threatens to expose the errors of liberalism, and therefore liberals are more inclined to call for the censorship of thoughtful racist arguments than for the censorship of poor ones.
These are the same liberals who argue that anti-Christian themes in movies, such as Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," and in art, such as Andres Serrano's "**** Christ" crucifix in a jar of urine, ought to be protected speech despite their offensiveness to many Christians. What blasphemous themes are to Christians, racist opinions are to liberals. Liberals always seek censorship of racist arguments so that they will not have to present opposing arguments that they might not be capable of presenting.
It isn't necessarily wrong to exclude points of view on a board. If the stated purpose of a forum is to glorify a particular god, race, political philosophy, or brand of consumer goods, then it's perfectly all right for the board's owner or moderator to come along and censor posts inconsistent with the forum's mission. You can legally criticize Jesus, but you shouldn't go into a church to do it. If you do, the preacher has the right to throw you out.
But when a board's stated purpose is to engage in debate, for the purpose of arriving at the truth, or at a better understanding of the reasons for disagreement, then a priori restrictions on unpopular views are hypocritical attempts to "fix" the debate so that only the popular point of view can seem to win. The advocates of the unpopular viewpoint (racists in this case) will be allowed only to score small points with their lesser and more oblique arguments, while the liberals can bring forth their whole array of verbiage unfettered by any fear that they will be censored.
To give the liberals ground for calling for the censorship of racist opinions, the rules of debate are written to exclude racist opinions and, even more especially, the reasoning behind those opinions. "Racist remarks" and "hate speech" are ruled illegal, and then the rule is used not only to prevent racial insults, but also to censor arguments that the liberals find too threatening to their belief system to deal with forthrightly.
That's how things are in most race-related debates. They are not so much "debates" as controlled pretenses thereof. It's surprising to find a media venue that will host ideas that fall outside the spectrum of opinion that liberals are comfortable with, e.g., by letting racists present the case for racism, in their own write, unedited and without preconditions.
I just had to make that my introduction. Hello everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
