I am aware of some comments made in recent times on other threads which are offensive to any balanced person. I have banned those who made them and erased the comments. It’s impossible for me to police every comment on every thread but let me spell it out; This is a place for polite debate, and I won’t tolerate vicious ad hominem if I am made aware of it. I am naturally open-minded and respect views that contradict mine BUT the credibility of this site will not be compromised. I trust that is clear to all and I thank all of you who respect this on a daily basis.
STANDARDS…
Bookmark the permalink.
Thanks for your decisive action, David Vance. I believe in freedom of speech but I also believe there should be a limit, and mockery of those who suffered unspeakable agony and slaughter during the Holocaust goes way beyond the limit.
Good man – and may this site go from strength to strength!
Obviously missed something big today
Anyone give a quick summary please?
Number 6,
Overnight, while most of us were sleeping, someone posted some very serious anti-semitic comments here. I didn’t read them all and some had been taken down by the time I logged on. There was some discussion about freedom of speech , but I think the consensus was that the comments were beyond the pale and David has clearly banned the poster. I am sure others will comment but that is my take on it.
Number 6. The limits of decency were reached courtesy of the contributor formerly known as D-D-D-D in a series of posts that were deeply offensive. This led to Oldartist stating quite rightly that he/she could not take any further part on this forum while such comments could be allowed to stand either by this website or fellow contributors. I hope Oldartist returns. I always enjoyed their posts.
Thanks for the intervention David.
Whilst I don’t like offensive remarks, and there have been a few trolls on here who have been very offensive. I believe posters should be allowed to make a contentious opinion on the basis that they can justify their views through respectful and thoughtful discussion.
If DDD’s comments were unacceptable, and if they were anti Semitic I’m sure they were, was he offered the opportunity to justify his point of view
Willful, intentional abuse of a personal nature is never acceptable.
@wronged
I don’t see how anyone could ever justify calling someone a “filthy kike” as DDDD did, nor any other derogatory racial/religious epithet.
Mike Hunt,
Nor would I, but that wasn’t the point I was making.
On the subject of offensiveness.
I also find your name offensive on this site and you need to change it, unless of course it is your real name.
@ Wronged: In your pure-minded way you have drawn my attention to something I should never have (and wish I never had) noticed.
Banania,
using Mike Hunt is an old ‘joke’. Many years ago it was often given to naive taxi drivers to pick up someone in a crowded pub. He/she would call out the name and some people in the pub would find it funny. I didn’t then and I don’t now.
Mind you I’ve never really approved of bad language.
His moniker will be a hindrance to his arguments, wholly because it will initially undermine any useful points he may wish to make in future posts.
And there lies the thin end of the wedge, and it’s a very nasty wedge.
Gillian Duffy was infamously branded a bigot by Gordon Brown, because in his eyes she used a derogatory racial remark.
The point is that there is a line in the sand which has to be drawn and it is clearly drawn then there is so much room for mischief making that it becomes meaningless.
I have just had a massive argument with Greater Manchester Political Correctness Enforcement Squad after reporting more ‘enrichment’ which involved two broken windows and the use of the word ‘Paki’ in the report.
As a result GMPCES downgraded the response (although it was never made clear in what way) and claimed an offence under section 5 of the public order act had been committed. They have later admitted that no such breach took place and no racism was intended.
If you are prepared to go down this slippery slope then you are on the verge of admitting the BBCs political bias is in fact correct!
Back in the day we had something the left really hated, called manners. Good manners was a sign someone had a proper upbringing by a family which cared about themselves, their offspring, and others too. Christianity had taught us to do unto others. Unfortunately this was a red rag to a bull to lefties as it more often than not showed a middle class Christian upbringing – it had to go.
Now there are no manners, no hard and fast rules of right & wrong, only shades of greyt
There’s no such thing as Racism or any other ‘ism’ or ‘phobia’ the Fascist left have made up. An insult is an insult and that’s that. It shouldn’t matter if the insult makes reference to race or religion the insult is sufficient and all that matters.
When the section 5 act was changed to remove Labour idiocy in 2014 it contained this advice:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practicing their religion or belief system.
Good manners are very important, as they say, ‘manners maketh the man’, insulting comments do need a line in sand, but it’s where you draw the line that is so difficult to ascertain in our society. This line has become stretched to the point on confuscation, especially where the multicultural/feminist language and their needs are met.
I am of a very much older generation so I try and stick to the standards from which I was born into, certainly in terms of manners. I was always taught to do unto others as they would have them do unto you. In effect treat as you would like to be treated. Be kind and don’t swear as it defines a lack of vocabulary in a person. One should never, ever have to earn respect, it should be given freely. This was my long departed mothers’ dictum -you can only lose respect for someone. She was a very kind and gentle lady, admittedly sometimes too generous in these areas.
In terms of feminism, there is no such word as ‘wimmin’ only woman. If that’s rude then I’m a Dutchman, which I’m not, in case you’re wondering. I’m being bad mannered the feminist is just illogical, anti men and nuts in my book.
As for multiculturalism, now this has really muddied the waters on manners. I feel very let down by politicians in allowing so many immigrants of different cultures into our country so very quickly.Completely irresponsible. In truth, multiculturalism is something I have found very hard to come to terms with.I honestly don’t know sometimes, what I can say or what I can’t. Some words like ‘nigger’ a black person can say but a white person can’t! Ridiculous. I was recently criticised for calling someone coloured when apparently I should have called that woman a ‘person of colour’. I didn’t mean to be rude, but the person I spoke to decided to take it that way. I don’t get met many coloured people where I live, sorry I meant ‘people of colour’. I didn’t mean to appear to be mannered but by all accounts, I was. ‘Isms’ have made life very confusing where manners are concerned.So I now completely ignore ‘isms and decided to stick to my old traditional values of what is and isn’t good manners I reckon I’m in a good place.
I have, in some ways, as a result of the introduction of ‘isms’, become seen by my grown up children, as an anti establishment type of person. It is as though I no longer fit in with modern society. They may be right but I reckon it’s the other way around, they are too compliant to political liars. However, above all else,I detest the lying BBC who I regard as responsible for so many of the ills contained within our society. I blame them for everything that is wrong with Britain.
Now had politicians and the BBC acted honestly and politely stating their intended aims towards supporting immigration the story might be different. But they didn’t. They lacked class, veracity and above all, good manners.So I’ll just stick as I am, set in my ways and will always believe that wilful swearing is still to be viewed as bad manners in my book. it doesn’t impress me or that person’s argument.
Sorry about the rumination of my post and its length. My children say I ramble on a bit.
Great post wronged. If you always “ramble” like that as you say at the end then please ramble some more. It’s great to see many well-argued posts on this site – something woefully missing from left-wing ones.
Thank you Demon that’s very kind of you.
Wronged – I do agree generally with you on these manners. I have occasionally used a few naughty words on this site (and probably still will occasionally) but I agree that it does generally define a lack of vocabuary or just downright laziness as the person who swears and who generally cannot be bothered to emphasise their point with “real words” (This included me sometimes as well)
Regarding your use of the word coloured to describe someone rather than referring to them as a “person of colour” Well to be perfectly honest what a load of nonsense!
How is this offensive – Its not! It is merely the PC brigade trying to lead us around by the nose and keep us quaking in our boots in case we cause offense. Hoping that we will be more pliable in accepting more of this tripe.
I suppose I should say (in case our trolls are looking and want to point a finger) that I am a person of “non colour” Got be honest though I think I prefer being called white its simpler.
Yes, exactly right with regard to the coloured issue Oaknash.
I’ve contracted a bit of vitiligo on my hands and eyelids. That I believe would make me a matt white with the odd touch of brilliant white gloss.
“How is this offensive – Its not! It is merely the PC brigade trying to lead us around by the nose and keep us quaking in our boots in case we cause offense. Hoping that we will be more pliable in accepting more of this tripe.”
Spot on. And the more people apologise, the worse it will get. When people object, tell them to get lost. In my experience, a blunt refusal to back down usually takes them by surprise, suggesting that it doesn’t happen anything like often enough.
Never apologise for failure to conform to their rules and never walk on eggshells on PC issues.
In other parts of the World that are multicultural by their very nature races are very particular about how they are identified.
Coloured people identify as mixed race and are proud of their heritage and object strongly to being identified as Black.
Blacks similarly look down on coloureds as being impure and would be highly offended at being called coloured.
Heartily agree with all the above, and big thanks to DV for swift and decisive action. Freedom of speech is great, and being able to agree to disagree is one of the cornerstones of our free society; but to intentionally insult people on racial or religious grounds is simply not OK, and racial epithets are quite clearly beyond the pale. Very glad to see this has been dealt with so swiftly and decisively.
I didn’t see any of those comments mentioned above but to play devils advocate this forum has many offensive anti-muslim comments which are allowed to stay. I don’t see why one religion should have the right not to be insulted whilst another one doesn’t.
One reason might be that Judaism is a better and less poisonous religion than Islam.
If I read something that might be considered anti-Muslim, I ask myself both is it justified (ie the truth) and if it was said about Jews, would I be offended.
I can see where you’re coming from, and it’s a good point, and to be fair as you say yourself you haven’t seen the comments as they’ve now been deleted.
Without wishing to repost everything he said, what blew it for me with DDDD was him referring to a prominent Jew as a “filthy kike” and then referencing the Nazi trope “The Eternal Jew” in relation to something vampire-related. It was utterly disgusting, and chilling to find in the 21st C.
I’ve only been here a few days and yes some people sometimes sound fed up with some aspects of Islam. But I haven’t read anything which would even come close to equating to the kind of obnoxious obscenities which were issuing from the keyboard of DDDD.
As someone who has been called a “twat”, accused of being a ‘troll’, and wrongly labelled an anti-Semite (when I was discussing a political issue regarding Israel), it would be good if we could extend this standard across the board so that those with conflicting views (i.e. those who do not agree with Alan’s or David’s blog posts and views) are not relentlessly intimidated by the usual pack of mongrels who round on those unfortunate enough to question their train of thought.
As certain people have made quite clear in the past that I shouldn’t post comments here because I don’t agree with everything Alan says, the level of democratic debate here is very poor – and very biased. I’m sure whatever offensive comment was made deserved to be shut down ASAP and the poster banned. But the rhetoric here is very anti-Muslim and not very friendly to those of a secular nature.
“…the credibility of this site will not be compromised…”
It has already been compromised a thousand times over!
Most of the “anti-Islam” comments are anti-extreme, or against those who give support, even only vocal, to terrorism. I have sometimes seen comments that are generally racist against Muslims and have reported some that I’ve seen. These should not be tolerated any more than other offensive remarks as quoted above. However, there is plenty of Islamism (ie the unhealthy extreme stuff) that remains a fair target.
Perhaps the “pack of mongrels” as you call them disagree with you, not because they are David or Alan fans per se but because they have strongly held views, and they are on this site for that very reason: ie that they tend to agree with David on most of the big issues. So where you disagree with David, they disagree with you so feel they are as justified in debating your points as you are in debating David’s.
Not on the BBC: Countering Radical Islam – A Reformist Muslim Speaks Out
My reason for criticising Islam here is twofold; it is a belief system which despite arguments to the contrary supports violence against unbelievers, such as Jews, Christians and many other Moslems. And secondly I criticise it because support for everything Islamic by act or omission is a central feature of BBC bias in its news and drama productions. My use of words like RoPers is intended to counter the Obama,Cameron, BBC, falsehood that terrorist acts have nothing to do with Islam.
I reserve my right to criticise gays and transgenders and feminists insofar as they are presented by the BBC as part of a programme to transform by stealth the values which have been fought for by people in western nations for centuries. Beyond that I have no opinions about them.
There are times when I feel justified in criticising Jewish organizations and individuals in England especially when they participate in cover ups for Islamists, as when they support demonstrations in unity with unpleasant forces such as the UAF.
I regard my criticism, however strongly worded, as legitimate contribution to political debate.
However, whilst rejecting any form of personal abuse I must confess to enjoying a little ribaldry with comrades Jerrod, aka Scotty and all.
Remarks made by DDDD were unpleasant and nothing ofcontestible value in them
“I have sometimes seen comments that are generally racist against Muslims ”
And what race is Muslim exactly?
An excellent point. Islam is an ideology. You might as well scream ‘waycist!’ at someone objecting to communism or fascism.
Edward,
The level of debate here is “very biased “. So what ? Unlike the BBC, this site is not pretending to be impartial.
Grant,
That is the most damaging comment anyone could make about a site that wishes to credibly expose bias of any sort.
You should be ashamed. I hope that David Vance deletes your comment too!
Edward,
Sorry, what I meant was that many of the posters on this site are convinced, through evidence, that the BBC is biased and are exposing it here . The title of the site gives it away. It does not have a question mark after the title. Sure, if other people can post here and convince me that the BBC is unbiased , I shall change my mind.
Anyway, let’s see what other posters think.
My personal view is that ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy and should therefore not be allowed in civilized discourse. Whether calling someone a filthy Jew, Muslim, Christian or Atheist is ‘offensive’ is subjective, but objectively it adds nothing to a debate.
Cranmer, I would not go so far as to call for a ban on ad hominem arguments. Some are fallacious, some are offensive to the point where they contribute nothing to the discussion. But there are cases in political argument where the ad hominem rebuke has a value. For example when arguing with a gay person who has established a credible reputation for defending gay rights I may remind him that he is gay when he publicly supports Islamic teachings.
GWF I take your point. By ad hominem I meant irrelevant personal insults, which I realise is something different (I don’t think the Greeks had a word for it because anyone using them would simply have been laughed out of the Forum).
“Most of the “anti-Islam” comments are anti-extreme…”
Islam is a religion. It deserves as much respect as any other religion (and non-religion). What you are referring to is Islamism which is a different kettle of fish. Think of it as the difference between ‘social’ and ‘socialism’.
” I have sometimes seen comments that are generally racist against Muslims…”
This is EXACTLY what I’m talking about! Muslims are not a race. Islamism is not a race. Jews are not a race. Zionists are not a race.
With respect, Demon, there has been a lot of racism here.
I’m not convinced that religion deserves respect, people do, religion per se does not. Religions should be subject to the same analysis and criticism as any other institution.
The “Jews are not a race” again, I’m not sure that is a completely true statement. In some languages Jews are primarily regarded as an ethnic group not a religious one, Russian for example. Also I cannot just become a Jew in the same way I can become a Muslim or Christian.
Englands,
Well said ! In both cases. And non-religious people deserve respect too. The question of whether Jews are a race or not has been and is still being debated.
I think any private site that is not exploiting any resource or monopoly, or taking money with menaces from the public, can say what it likes.
Nobody is obliged to come here, nobody is obliged to pay for it, and there is nothing to stop anybody setting up their own site in opposition if they wish.
To me, it’s a bit like a private discussion in a public place like a pub. Nobody is entitled to force their way into the group and push it in a different direction.
This damn post is in the wrong place. It should be higher up.
Maria,
Exactly !
Maria,
That is a technical fault with the website, if one wants to reply several hours or a day later one’s comment lands up in a place where it seems totally out of context.
Now where will this land once I press ‘Post Comment’…..?
I lost an entire post on here earlier today. It simply vanished. I’m sure no one is crying because of it but if I’m posting less these days, that’s a main reason why.
“I’m not convinced that religion deserves respect, people do, religion per se does not. Religions should be subject to the same analysis and criticism as any other institution.”
Agree entirely. Atheists like me are not entitled to special treatment either. However, I’d say that even people can lose their right to respect in extreme cases. I know some people won’t like that.
Jews seem to be a genuine special case – falling somewhere between race and religion. There is shared DNA which supports the race claim but there are also people who dispute this. Lots of information on the net for those who wish to read up about it.
I am a simple chap and I can’t follow the detailed discussion about Jewish race or religion.What I do know is that there has been a small Jewish community living in the UK for a couple of hundred years and that they have preserved their religion and culture whilst integrating well, threatening no one and truly enriching our society. This cannot be said of Muslims, who reject our way of life, seem to have an endless list of ‘demands’ and pose a real and present danger to us. If not why are we on ‘high alert’ all the time? I see ‘anti Muslim’ comments as being driven by genuine fear , for the present and the future of our country. I simply see no ‘moral equivalence’ between the UK Jewish community and the UK Muslim community.
“I’m not convinced that religion deserves respect, people do, religion per se does not. Religions should be subject to the same analysis and criticism as any other institution”
Ah that ‘respect’ word! Do we tolerate the intolerable!
I think ‘respect’ has to be set in context. For example, following the death of a well-known person that one didn’t like it is respectful to keep one’s mouth shut whilst others mourn. There will be other times and places to say what one really thinks.
Similarly I happen to believe that Islam is a vile, false, cult. It should be obvious that no sane ‘superior being’ would trust a demented illiterate serial adulterer and killer to pass on ‘the word’ – this is the being that created the universe remember, could they have not carved out the Koran on a rock the size of Everest suspended a metre above the earth? Pretty convincing. I also believe that I should not be prevented from expressing such opinions. However I wouldn’t seek to defile a place of Muslim prayer, or for that matter, harangue an individual not known to me, there are limits to how far one can go in polite debate. As the great Dave Alan once joked, “You worship God in your way…and I in His”!
I wasn’t going to comment in this thread but I must take issue with:
“Islam is a religion.”
That is a matter of opinion. IMO, it has more in common with a cult. There are various definitions of “cult” floating around so I’m not going to repeat them here.
“It deserves as much respect as any other religion (and non-religion).”
Or as little. People choose their religion and I don’t see why anyone, including atheists like me, should be entitled to a free pass in the name of “respect”, which is a much abused word anyway.
“Islamism which is a different kettle of fish”
Again, a matter of opinion.
Maria,
Good post . I get a bit annoyed when some religious people imply that we atheists are not quite part of the human race but , unlike some religious people, I quicky get over the insult and don’t rush out killing innocent people.
Agree that Islam is more akin to a cult. A cult which is difficult to leave and absorbs a lot of your money. And a death cult at that.
The difficulty we all experience in these debates is we are having the debate within the paradigm of enforced multiculturalism…..which holds and propagandises that all cultural phenomena are of equal value to humanity, and holds that victimhood and inferiority are badges of special status and engender special rights, even privileges.
We all know this to be false, we can all understand evidence such as for example Nobel prize winners, economic indicators, openness to innovation, the acceptance of human rights, the acceptance of democracy, levels of trust and corruption within a society, the acceptance of private property rights balanced with reasonable provision for the needs of the poor, of loaning money for profit, the levels of state enforced executions, the levels of anti semitism, etc etc
All these indicators suggest the Judeo-Christian culture with its influences from the Ancient Greeks and Romans has a unique propensity to produce civilisations that people will defend to the death and will literally die in their attempts to be allowed to enter.
Institutionally Atheist (think soviet bloc and communist Albania) and Islamic societies appear, on the historic evidence, to produce the opposite effect.
Embolden,
Top post !
Glad you said ” Institutionally Atheist ” ! If I ever become religious , it will be Christian. But I have no problem with any of the others, except one !
Embolden
The last two paras are one of the best I have read. Succinct. To the point. True.
Primarily, especially as it relates to non-Muslims, Islam is a supremacist political ideology.
As sharia seeks to rule everyone, everywhere, for all time, Islam is certainly not a “personal” religious choice. Never mind that apostasy is punishable by death.
The UK should redefine Islam accordingly – the privileges accorded it as a “religion” must defer to the curtailment of its extreme political ambitions.
http://wisermonkeys.uk/islam.html
“It deserves as much respect as any other religion…”
You are begging the precise question than many people wish to explore. Is Islam as respectable as any other religion?
I merely observe that one particular religion/ethnicity appears to be “over-represented” when it comes to cutting off peoples’ heads on Youtube, flying hi-jacked planes into tall buildings, setting off bombs on London Transport, destroying historic artefacts in the MIddle East, and generally subjugating women.
The biased BBC seems to have a policy of appeasing this particular religion and putting it on a pedestal. Perhaps it hopes that by ‘being nice’ it may avoid becoming a target. For example just yesterday the bBBC reported on fighting dogs but was careful to avoid or show any mention of the ethnicity of owners – film of dogs with owners was carefully, I say deliberately edited to this effect. Yet the film was from Luton where (quote) …..”a dog breeder…offered young dogs of the Bully Kutta breed – a fighting dog from Pakistan, although not a banned breed”.
Such bias makes the BBC fair game on this website and the religion liable to more scrutiny IMO.
‘Perhaps it hopes that by “being nice” it may avoid becoming a target.’ I believe this is part of it. I also think that some on the left may believe, with the best will in the world, that the only hope for a country faced with a rising Muslim population and all that entails, is to censor any negative publicity pertaining to them and to make increasingly desperate attempts to enforce multiculturalism. The alternative – to control immigration and enforce British values – is unthinkable.
Cranmer
“Being nice”, Winston Churchill had something to say about that ………………….
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”.
That is a misquote:
The complete quote is:
“Each one hopes that if he feeds the crocodile enough, the crocodile will eat him last” the actual quotation continues with “All of them hope that the storm will pass before their turn comes to be devoured. But I fear greatly that the storm will not pass. It will rage and it will roar ever more loudly, ever more widely.”
Which is a remarkably powerful and pertinent quote.
I would like to express support for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It’s theology is no more crackpot than Islam and likewise its dress code requiring the wearing of a collander on the head is less offensive than a complete facial coverage. It is gradually being recognised as an official religion and in some countries, including the Netherlands, passport photographs of the subject wearing the collander are becoming acceptable.
http://metro.co.uk/2016/01/28/the-netherlands-has-recognised-the-church-of-the-flying-spaghetti-monster-as-a-religion-5649017/
New Zealand has recognized its first wedding . See video.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/04/19/new-zealand-sanctions-first-legal-flying-spaghetti-monster-wedding.html
See the video here for arguments supporting the truth of Spaghetti Monster theory which are clearly as evidential as Islam, with an added bonus: apostates are not sentenced to death
Must pick up on the comments from Edward:
“Islam is a religion. It deserves as much respect as any other religion (and non-religion). What you are referring to is Islamism which is a different kettle of fish. Think of it as the difference between ‘social’ and ‘socialism’.”
This is sophistry in so many degrees. As is so well pointed out above – Islam (and all the other religions) ‘deserves’ no more respect than any other tales of fairys or sea monsters. In fact it deserves a great deal of disdain for the murder, violence and suppression of freedoms embodied in the Koran and incumbent on its adherents to practice. And it may be a religion, but as has been pointed elsewhere in this thread, as a totally unreformed 7th century religion, it is also an ideology in every way as evil an as was Stalinism or Fascism.
It is also non-negotiable. The term ‘Islamism’ is a pure invention of the liberal western elite. When did you ever hear an actual Muslim talk about being an Islamist? The term was invented to pretend that Islam is negotiable and make an imaginary divide between ‘extremists’ – who take the tenets of Islam literally – and ‘moderates’ (whom – if they don’t, like the Ahmadi shopkeeper in Glasgow – are guilty of apostasy and liable to pay the ultimate price for their ‘moderation’).
A real shame to have missed this brilliant thread.
Great retorts on behalf of my fellow Al Beliebers who have answered perfectly why Islam MUST be challenged and it’s dark and horrific intentions are brought out from behind the smoke and mirrors created by the traitors amongst our own people.
Islam hasn’t changed since its creation. The mechanisms of subjugation are eternal. Its relentless pursuit in oppression, domination, death and destruction are at at its very heart and can never be subdued by man. Its purpose it’s to be forever above the control of man. The Koran is the pure word of Allah himself. Of course it’s a cult. Its a death cult created to take over the world and submit it to Allah in his honour. For anyone to say it’s racist to just paraphrase the exact words of those who are practising the only pure form of Islam in the world in Islamic state, are utterly and completely wrong in every way. People who use such simpleton language are nothing but delusional fools. Islam transcends race, creed, borders and family. Only those who submit to the word of Allah are allowed to exist. Ask the yazidis. Ask the Christians or Syria massacred for not just being different. Ask those family members killed for not being Islamic enough. Islam will not change what ever we do. Its at war with us no matter what we do. Do you want to sit there and pretend it isn’t happening?…