Or by you answering it. Which would be a simple yes or no, surely?
the neoliberal vision of the future
- Thread starter Dillinger4
- Start date
Or by you answering it. Which would be a simple yes or no, surely?
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I for one don't take kindly to being compared to a nazi by someone who goes onto defend pinochet, make dodgy holocaust revisionist claims and then moves onto dodgier racial 'theories'. Just a personal thing.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
That was essentially my contention at the beginning of this thread. Actions generally speak louder than words. And I was un-convinced that neo-liberals even existed.
And then along comes this one who seems to fit the bill almost exactly. And yet even he doesn't seem to think he's one.
I am still un-convinced about this neo bollocks, but Onar is about the closest thing you can get and it's a shame, given the thread title, that few people are interested in his views of the future. I guess that's because it's easier to argue about the past where there's a touch more certainty.
I think it'd be a shame to ban someone given the sheer amount of opposition they have had. It means that they haven't really received a fair chance to air their views without the pressure of misrepresentarion and multiple arguments.
Not that I'm particularly defending Onarchy... but I do think banning should be banned.
When Rachamim was banned, the vast majority stayed quiet about it.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I don't imagine many people would shed tears if Onar was banned, but remember rach was here defending his racist views and arguing in favour of an apartheid state for ages longer than this clown has been around, before a ban was imposed.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I think Onar's abandoned us 
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
probably crying into his blog again.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
Come on, then. The question was originally directed at you....
OK. I was originally going to say that when you self-banned yourself, after some nasty racist provocation, a lot of people stuck up for you. That's because while you may be deliberately annoying and provocative sometimes, you're not a massive twat like rachamim or Onar.
(E2A: I know I'll regret posting that)
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
I didn't self-ban - I flounced. And it's nice to hear that people stuck up for me.
If your point is that both onarchy and rachamim are twats, it makes my question that much more pertinent: why argue against banning onarchy, while calling for rachamim to be banned; or at least staying silent when he was?
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I think you've probably still got me on ignore JC, but I'll say it anyway. I don't think bans on Urban are primarily freedom of speech issues.
I think they're generally about how much shit a person generates for the mods to clean up and from comments earlier in the thread by Mrs M, I gather at least some of the mods think so too.
As for rach, I'll reiterate what I stated earlier, while his views were at least as repellent as the stuff onar is pushing, he was around here promoting them for ages before finally getting banned.
I think they're generally about how much shit a person generates for the mods to clean up and from comments earlier in the thread by Mrs M, I gather at least some of the mods think so too.
As for rach, I'll reiterate what I stated earlier, while his views were at least as repellent as the stuff onar is pushing, he was around here promoting them for ages before finally getting banned.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
My point: is there a hierarchy of free speech? While Onarchy's views on race and intelligence are abhorrent or at least unacceptable, people have argued that it's better to have his views aired, so that they can be debated and debunked.
When people called for Rachamim to be banned, I made that exact argument: free speech means an open and spirited debate about controversial ideas. But to no avail: he was banned, and many were pleased by that.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Put it another way: the debate with Rachamim was mostly theoretical. Certainly there are people here who have become involved with the Palestinian cause, but mostly there aren't too many Palestinians participating in the boards. There's a fair number of posters of african descent, however: and many posters are either related to such a person, or interact with them daily. So Onarchy's comments rachet things up a notch. He is airing beliefs that demean those posters. His attack isn't theoretical; it's personal for many here. Yet people argue to retain him, but give rachamim the boot.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
I think he may have made this question irrelevant anyway - every day since he came here he's been on, posting a relentless shower of shite, well before this time of the evening. I reckon he's flounced.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
He might be out buying groceries.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Onar strikes me as a man who has his groceries internet ordered and delivered through a slit at the bottom of the door.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
Absolutely - he wouldn't want to walk the streets of fascist Norway, which is full of fascists who want to tax him at knife point.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
fWIW I was slightly puzzled by the banning of rachamin at the time as it seemed to be a ban for doing nothing more than he usually did.
Onar here deserves a ban much more, and I don't agree with Bernie that it's just a question of moderator convenience. What Onar has been posting is vile lies. That normally results in an instant ban. That this hasn't happened this time is mostly due to people wanting some sport. Well I, for one, am tired of this particular game.
Onar here deserves a ban much more, and I don't agree with Bernie that it's just a question of moderator convenience. What Onar has been posting is vile lies. That normally results in an instant ban. That this hasn't happened this time is mostly due to people wanting some sport. Well I, for one, am tired of this particular game.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well to be honest, I don't see much to choose between one sort of racial supremacy argument and another. Both are odious. I merely point out that rach was allowed to push his views for quite a while before the ban happened.
As for bans, the mods can speak for themselves. I think it's probably fair to say bans are generally due to the poster creating excessive work for volunteer mods, but I'm pretty sure I've seen some bans for outright racism in the past.
As for bans, the mods can speak for themselves. I think it's probably fair to say bans are generally due to the poster creating excessive work for volunteer mods, but I'm pretty sure I've seen some bans for outright racism in the past.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
OK, but please, nobody start a thread giving me grief. I would have done it hundreds of posts ago but I can't please some of the posters most of the time, or something, as in, I seem to forever be between a rock and a hard faced poster.....I can't remember the rachamin banning even though it's possible I did it.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Actually, i'll be honest. It took me ages re. this thread to twig that when you were on about rachamin you weren't talking about some long dead discredited pseudo-scientist.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
It wasn't you. It was..... The Hatchet Man.
If I recall correctly.I'm not usually a fan of banning. I believe in free speech, and I think that often these ban politics are more about power than about principle. In this case, though, I'm with LBJ. This guy isn't arguing or debating. He's spreading a message. We don't need to debate with someone who isn't debating.
Good for you.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
£10 says his next blog post is about the fascist socialists proving they're fascists by censoring a free thinking peace loving libertarian.
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
That would have been Lysenko.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
My very first banning was for a poster called KKK
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm not meaning to have a go. I'm just tired of him. He's proved to us all what he is. What else is there?
Similar threads
