Crimes of color
 

Are there things you just shouldn't say or do if you're of middle- eastern descent, even if it's legal for whites?Don't click here if you're middle-eastern looking. That link is safe for whites only.

Where would Mr. John Young be today if he were of middle-eastern descent, even if he were born in the U.S.A.?

This depends entirely on what he was collecting. Still the fact they point out its only useful for ISLAMIC terrorism (was it instruction on how to attach a cresent to a bomb?)seems dodgy.

This is very disturbing. My current schooling is in National Security, so I read this site all the time. Fortunately fo rme, I'm a white Anglo-Saxon male with no ties to anything remotely terrorist (ok, my views are a little left-wing, but they're not that extreme). I have a problem when people try to suppress information.

For example, I'm writing a paper (which I get to present at a conference in Vegas next month...woo hoo!) on the security of our nation's cyber-infrastructure. One of my sources is this, which I found on this exact site. While I have a purely academic intent, how do we know what his intent was?

And when you get to talking about intent, it gets to close to the whole idea of Thought Police. And that's even scarier.

What do you mean "idea?"

The concept that you can become vanished for thinking dissident thoughts, like in Orwell's 1984 (sorry, I happen to be re-reading it right now).

He may have referred to the undeniable fact that thinking (and, by extension, showing that you are thinking by sharing your thoughts) unamerican / unpatriotic / improper / disturbing / confusing / trouble-causing thoughts can get you <a href="http://www.courttv.com/trials/taped/sierra/background_ctv.html">in trouble</a> in 'today's socio-political climate.'

I never thought I'd have to type those words ever since I last thought and wrote about how people acted in the late 60s and early 70s, how it was 'be with us or against us', how it was 'love America or leave it', and how socio-politics in part of the US has come full circle.

X.

PS: There are so many more instances of 'unhelpful thinking' being persecuted lately documented on the web that I'd care to think about. The above link is merely a simple example of.. justice.

Less hyperbole. its not so much 1984 as McCarthy again. Not that that is a good thing.

There's plenty of 1984 left to go around, seeing as you're in favor of deleteing posts from people you don't like. Of course, <i>that's different</i>...they disagree with you.

Oh shut up you stupid bitch. Opps where did that come from. You want to make this a personal war don't you? do get off on that or something?

All I said in another thread on an unrelated topic which for no good reason you've brought in here . Was that in dhams board he can do what he wants. Repeat: On Dham's Board He Can Do What He Wants Not The Main Boards.

If you're feeling that catty about it, make your own board, post nasty mean little bitch sessions in there and delete any replies, I’m sure you'll feel better and might even stop jacking other threads.

I love a closely reasoned argument.
You can't really talk about 1984 and McCarthyism and claim it's "unrelated" to censorship, can you?

Your previous post demonstrated why dham deleted your posts. Your last post has demonstrated a fundamental lack of understanding of either my post, or freedom of speach and the concepts in not only 1984 but McCarthyism.

Actually, there is a huge link between 1984 and the McCarthyism of the 50s. McCarthyism was a witchhunt against anyone that showed any signs of dissidence. In 1984, that's completely commonplace. The frightening part is that McCarthyism, which bases itself off of fear, could easily turn into the situation in 1984. I mean, who are they fighting in that book? It's armies from South Asia, which are trying to threaten their civilization. It took one man, Big Brother, to rescue Oceana from the peril it had been facing. The catalyst into a 1984 situation will be the rise to power of someone so egomaniacal, or in a situation where they deem it warranted, that the Presidency becomes dissolved; or the Executive Branch usurps more power (note the already complete disregard for the War Powers Resolution) and the Legislature becomes meaningless. McCarthyism, and the current climate, is just a first step on that path.

I meant a link between 'censorship' on dhamsaic's board and 1984/McCarthyism/anything on this thread really. See this
thread, for some reason maggie found is nessacary to drag iit in here.

But since you want to get into 1984..
While the book is a great warning the society could never exist. For the society to exist noone inside it can understand it, if noone understands it, how did it comes into being. The only way it could have been set up is if its creator died without passing on the reins, rahter inplausiable.

Socio-dynamical mechanisms in large societies often mirror those in smaller societies, once a certain size barrier has been passed. Scientology continues to be very successful, propagating itself despite the efforts of the federal government, amongst others. Draw comparisons to the statement made by jaguar; do Cruise, Travolta, Elfman, et al understand how their cult came into being?

On a macro-level, the similarities between organized cults/religions, and modern political systems can be surprising; consider that next time somebody's frothing at the mouth regarding the evils of communism (or capitalism) compared to the evils of Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, or Scientology. It's all about your perception of the world, and in 1984 Orwell (a fervent anti-Communist) attempted to show how reality is merely in the eye of the beholder.

Doublethink exists - does it shape your view of the world?

X.

I used to carry part of the following Orwell quote in my sig here:

<i>"[The English language] becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts."</i> from <b>Politics and The English Languge</b>

I think that exercising ideological control over information flows is not that different on the large scale than on the small, nor on the right wing than on the left. To pretend that it is strikes me as doublethink, glossed as <i>believing two contradictory ideas at the same time</i>.

Doublethink does have the seductive property of allowing the pot to call the kettle black. Or even "a bitch", while excoriating the kettle for negative attitude and personal attacks.

I'm not responding to maggies offtopic flames, ever again. Enough bait is enough. Anyway..

Xugumad, the key difference is that for the society in 1984 to work it requires noone to understand how it works, otherwise it would eventully colapse. Even in scientology those at the top understand it, or any other cult etc, that is the fundamental difference.

I think what you mean to say here is, "I can't defy your logic. Therefore, I will trivialize and demonize you."

some points:

offtopic -- well, I thought it was kinda clever how she linked the two topics, myself.

flames -- well, I don't think her language was inflammatory at all.

bait -- well, she was just stating her opinion. Just because you get tired of talking about it doesn't mean she's trying to trick you.

Every post she's made in this thread has been incendiary as hell, its entirely intentional and is entirely offtopic, her attempts to tie in each on vaguely with the otherwise interesting flow of conversation make it no less so. If she wants to rant on about 'censorship', do it in the thread in the home, not in an unrelated topic. I am not going to be bullied into spending my time reply to her flamebait. If you cannot spot at least two fundamental flaws in that post I’ve been giving you far more credit than you deserve.

You see, juju, "what you can say depends on who you are" has nothing whatever to do with the <b>real</b> topic of this thread, right?

Depending on who you are, of course. :-)

Just because you find her opinion inflammatory doesn't mean she's trying to be inflammatory. Grok this: your perception is not her perception. Just because you think you're being baited doesn't mean she's trying to do that.

I'm kind of tired of talking about it, too. But I still don't understand why people get so riled up about her. Maybe they just take things too personally?

An aside -- who gives a crap about anything being off-topic?

In a free discussion, it's okay, but when two parties are debating (or attempting to debate, or arguing - I'm not interested in redefining words here) a point, it can be frustrating if one of them continually moves the discussion off-topic.

I haven't been paying attention here, so I dunno if that's happening, but just chiming in about how someone might care about it.

My perception is based on past experience and is reaffirmed by the opinions of others over time. Grok that in-between the pseudointellectual, disattached comments that fail to grasp the contextualization of the issue or past events you seem to like making. Kinda clever linking? Kinda lame attempt to flog a dead horse. .

When the offtopic is an attempt to flog a dead horse, one that's done no good in the past and been resolved - I do. As for defining offtopic, attempting to drag another thread into an unrelated one I think is a good definition.

Fuckit. I'm in a bad mood.

Nice game of mutual masturbation you've got going there, good on you, now, lets get back to reality can we?

I explained why I wasn't reply - simply because I have wasted my time too many times in the past, and listening to flames will with personal attacks in response, why should I bother again? Clearly you've decided to pick a bone or you've missed some really long, ugly threads.

Translation: Because I can't bitch and whine in dhamsaics forums, its evilevil censorship, which should be stopped because I have some kind of special cellar elder status which means I know more than everyone else about cellar, which therefore adds weight to my opinion. Since I lost that one ill attempt to make not very subtle attempt to bring it up every time I can because I feel aggrieved about the issue.

Translation: Since I know jag is usually up for an argument and attacked me in that pervious debate about 'censorship' ill make some rather illogical(to clarify for those up the back - I attacked her for being offtopic and flogging a dead horse - not personal attacks) comments that specifically attack him with the hope of drawing some ire I can work with.

Translation: Jag is an evil hypercritical censor fascist.

If you want to talk about this so called censorship, bring it up in the thread about it and ill explain exactly what you can do about it. Namely, start your own website, or personal forum and say whatever you. Or maybe post every deleted post in that thread for all to see. Mayber wander into the street and exercise your first amendment rights as much as you want. Or jsut shut the fuck up about it, stop whining and live with it. Pick one, any one and stick to it and stop defecating on other threads.

This is in itself a demonstration of a: why dhamsaic deletes her comments, and secondly why i was refusing to answer her comments - another long, utterly pointless flamewar. I hope juju in your little domain of ethical piety the reality of the situation eventully got though. Sadly i doubt it.

If you're going to ignore my posts, you should probably stop quoting them . Even if you're going to grace us with your personal interpretation of what I said.

In *this* forum at least, you're not the arbiter of what's on-topic on a per-thread basis. Even if topic-drift was verboten (which it isn't), simply pronouncing points-of-view with which you disagree "off-topic" is feeble. "We're not talking about censorship here, so shut up and go away" looks pretty weak, too. McCarthyism and the works of Orwell are all about ideological repression. Claiming that's unrelated to censorship is silly.

I was making a point to juju, otherwise i would not have wasted my time. What you don't seem to get is its not fucking censorship, its a private board on a private forum, noone is taking away your rights, get over it. We're nto trying to destroy the idea's you're throwing up, jsut isck of listening to flamebait filled crud. Topic drift is different to violently grabbing the topic, throwing it out of the way and using it a vehicle to deliver your own little acidic rant.

I'm kinda with jaguar on this one. MaggieL decided that she wanted to bring the politics between her and...whomever and it served only to deaden the discussion, since everyone remotely impacted by her rhetoric jumped on the bandwagon in some way. Topic drift is acceptable and normal, but, like Jaguar said, topic hijacking isn't and shouldn't be.
Just my 2 cents. It pissed me off when I saw that vitriolic debate spill over into here.

Well, I'm not the one dispensing vitriol.

My original point was that some folks, who express outrage over an idea or speech only being criminalized when it comes from a certain person or class of people, seem to be quite comfortable with speech being suppressed for its *authorship* rather than its *content* when speakers *they* don't like are involved. What holds itself out as a "principled stand in support of the downtrodden" is revealed as being just "hurray for our side".

So then in reaction we've had page upon page of foul-mouthed flamage--apparently the new writing style in some circles--about how disruptive *I've* been. I think it's all just designed to distract from that original point.

These issues are *not* abstract and distant, they happen to us personally every day. This is what's at the core when a country originally founded on personal freedom is faced with the challenge of deadly enemies within its borders. (Will "the terrorists alrady have won" by causing us to "give up some freedom for a little safety"?) Sometimes it's easier to adhere to a principle than at other times. Those other times are the measure of how much you really believe in the principle...or keep it just for show.

Free speach only applies when its useful, ie of artistic, poltical etc value. The stuff that i've seen deleted was mostly pointless bait for your little games. For crying out loud quit bitching. As i said, you can freely post the deleted posts in that thread in home, you can make your own forum and post them there, or whatever you want, you can print them out and leaflet drop the across the United States for all I care - you freedom of speach is not being impinged on, we should just have the right not to listen to what you have to say if we so choose. Dham's is a private forum and he has the right to decide what is posted there.

My point is irrispective of who made the comment, stop trying to play some kind of victim, you write crap, expect it to be called crap and deleted, i expect the same and have been justly critisised many times for posting shit, you post shit on dhams board, expect it to be treated as such.

You have the express right to say whatever you want. I have the right to ignore it, and dham has the right to delete it. Don't like it? Go elsewhere. Personally your comments have infuriated me so much i lost my cool which i regret, some things aren't worth getting so worked up about. I'd lvoe to be able to see this all from your perspective but i just can't get my head that far up my ass.

The fact your post has turned this thread about an interesting and serious issue into a battleground about a completely different issue only serves to illustrate my point.

Your words do betray your values, Jag. That's probably the most outrageous thing I've ever heard you say. No wonder we seldom get along.

Who's going to judge its usefulness? Free speech should be allowed as long as it does not threaten another person.

'Person' is such a fluid description.

Evaluate the sentences below:

1. "I'd really like to kill the Unabomber."
2. "I'd really like to kill Saddam Hussein."
3. "I'd love to kill my boss."
4. "I'd love to kill the President of the USA, George Walker Bush."
5. "I'd love to blow up the Scientology HQ, since they brainwash and kill people."

Speech is only free while it's not restricted, and restrictions are only a law away in most countries. FYI, saying the fourth to another person, or typing it in earnest somewhere (I'm not, just for clarification), will get you arrested in the US, as it has several people in the past who clearly had no intention of actually harming the POTUS. The fifth might get you arrested, held without trial and without lawyer, without telling anyone where you are for an indefinite period, and then tried secretly by a military court without the right to a jury or lawyer.

The first will probably meet blank stares, the second might be greeted with applause, the third with a chuckle.

I honestly can't say what should be 'allowed', and what shouldn't. But since I don't think that any of us are wise and able enough to derive some sort of common law of freedom regarding speech, I believe we ought to stick with the default: unrestricted free speech. Isn't there an amendment somewhere dealing with that?

X.

Yes, but even under that law, you can't incite a riot to go up and kill the rich guy who lives up on the hill. You have the right to freedom of speech as long as that right doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else. There's a long history of court rulings that agree with this view.

On the other hand, on a board such as this, I doubt there's going to much conspiring to harm another person, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But, as the moderator of the forum, the guy has the right to control what is said, and remove what he wishes. It's not good moderating to do so discriminately, but...that's a topic for another thread that's already thriving well elsewhere.

Also, as to what you said about the potus, there's an old State sketch about that....one of the funniest sketches they did.

There is a legal definition of free speech, I was trying to remember it. That is not my personal view. My personal view is that the limit should be when it infringes on the freedom of others. Defining that point if of course, hazy at best. Please don't tell me you believe in absolute rights, that truly is farcical. You do not have absolute free speech, for a start slander/libel laws come into play, trade secret laws, protection of government secrets, thousands of other technicalities etc come into play.

This page covers all this damn well.
To quote:
So stop claiming you have an absolute right to say whatever you want, no one does. Ever. Realpolitik people.

Indeed, no wonder we can't get along, you live in the land of abstract rights, I’m dealing with reality.

As the Ice-T album title goes "Freedom of speech...just watch what you say."

That's the personal website of a criminal justice instructor at a small religious college in North Carolina. Not exactly a font of authoritative commentary on constitutional law.
If you simply have contempt for abstractions, arising from the depths of your profound personal knowlege of "reality", you'd probably better stay away from the law. It's all abstractions, you know.

Let us know when you remeber your "legal definition 'of free speech"....or perhaps when you realize that you're actually misquoting the Supreme Court definition of "pornography", the "redeeming social importance" standard, under which even indecent speech can be protected speech.

Its also worth noting the definition of freedom of speach varies from place to place, and the fact its entirrly irrelavent.

Your government and many others systematically ignore, undermine and blatnatly disregard their own laws. Your amendment rights are not exactly intact. Thus I pay more attention to the practical implimentation of laws, rather than their what they were meant for.

Feel free to bag the source for that neat little page as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that a myriad of laws impinge on your abstract right of 'free speach'. Not to mention that absolute freedom of speach, like absolute freedom of action are fundamentally impossible because one person would impinge on that of another. Abstractions are irrelavent.

It also doesn't affect the fact this is a dead thread.