Frog wrote:
How about people use their own discernment to determine what was meant using their own cognitive skills and contextual meaning etc. If your brain processes the meaning in the purely political sense of the words meaning then I guess that is a matter for you and your own discernment and reasoning skills.

Here is a clue as to how the average person would determine the actual meaning...

extremist [ɪkˈstriːmɪst]
n
(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical
adj
(Psychology) of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc.
extremism n

How they apply that and rationalise it is entirely up to the individuals interpretation - which could be affected due to any number of reasons such as but not limited to...personal bias, prejudice and life experience etc.

I guess ultimately it can mean whatever the you want it to mean. Some people may paint a picture with a purple sky, even though others observing the same scene may see that sky as blue. In this instance the person I was addressing seems to have managed to interpret it as it was intended by me.

Now define sweeping generalisation....

Frog, what is your point?

6 million Jews weren't killed in the second World War, now what?

ronisron wrote:
For my part, mushy did have a point about people being irrational. Personally I despise bigotry and prejudice and believe people ignoring and not standing up to them is what allows them to take root. So I will challenge them. And having challenged the ame people for years in some cases - for example I've known rodin and stelios online since 2006/7, eternal spirit since 2007 - I have realised most of them are not rational. So it's best to have a bit of fun with them as you're not going to get anywhere with them anyway.

And though he put it badly, mushy did have a point about soapboxes. They don't deserve to be treated like their views are worth any respect. I'm not going to pander to their bigots who irrationally hate certain groups of people deserve love and respect too line.

dogsmilk wrote: Yes! Unless they're bigger then me, of course.

I don't think they should have any national flag on the front page of their site, if they're an anti-fascist site, but having the Israeli flag as the first image you encounter on their website is, effectively, tacit support of Israeli policy, unless they were to balance it out by having a Palestinian flag, which they haven't. I consider it to be totally inappropriate. I think it's ironic that Philosophy Football, who do not proclaim to be an anti-fascist site, have numerous products supporting the Palestinians and donating aid to them, whereas the self-proclaimed anti-fascists have an Israeli flag on their front page. If they were going to have any sort of image of nationality on the front page, particularly something that relates to the situation is Israel-Palestine, I would much rather see this:

www.philosophyfootball.com/product_image...g4961644291fcf_front

But if they wish to give the impression that they're giving support to Israel, and therefore, tacit acceptance of the conduct of their nation on the front page of their site, that's up to them. It doesn't reflect greatly on them, in my opinion.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Where did he call you a racist?

I don't want to speak for the guy but it sounds like he was coming across with the 'no platform for fascists' line. And that is a tricky debate - on one hand there's the notion that if you deny people their opinion you yourself act to oppress, on the other hand if you treat their views having sufficient validity as to be treated with respect you can be inadvertently granting them a level of legitimacy. I don't think he put it very well, but I think he raised an interesting issue.

dogsmilk wrote:
I can't see him raising anything tbh, I don't even know why I was named as giving racists a platform?
I argued at length against that crowd, either mushy has the memory of a goldfish or he's never been on DIF.

The DIF mods are basically handing their forum over to stormfront on a silver platter and I left because of that so I completely fail to see the relevance here?
To say he didn't put it very well' is utter madness when he specifically names wub and me of all the people its hilarious!
Yeah sure give racists a platform here I would really like that yeah...WTF??

wake_up_bomb wrote:
It's a photo of a protest - at which an Israeli flag is present. It's not the Israeli flag is the central theme. I also don't see what Israel has to do with fascism - Israel may be guilty of many things but ideologically it is not fascist (though can be said to be racist).

I'm sympathetic to your feelings on national flags as I hate them too, but unfortunately people do still identify with countries and do feel an affinity for national symbols. I mean, I'm sure you don't go round international football matches ripping the flags out of people's hands. And as a cricket fan I'm guessing you probably feel pleased when England win the cricket.

If it concerns you greatly, you could always contact them and ask them about it...?

andyh wrote:
Yes, as I said, I don't think it was put across very well and I agree perhaps the targeting was wonky, but I thought what I perceived he was trying to say had got lost in the way it was said.

dogsmilk wrote:
Targeting wonky?

He's been taking lessons off Gareth Southgate lol

andyh wrote:

dogsmilk wrote: mushy wrote: I will not accept any implication that I wished to "give a soapbox" to racists, nor any opinion, whether expressed implicitly or explicitly, that it is a reasonable opinion, and that I should be under some form of suspicion for having done so. It is absolutely abhorrent to me, and everything I believe in, and it is completely and utterly untrue. I despise any form of bigotry. It is doubly untrue for andyh, who spent a lot of time challenging the racists on the Icke site, and left almost entirely for the reason that it was not dealt with. I myself challenged them for quite a while, until it became absolutely obvious that nothing was going to be done, and that they were never going to be reasonable. This does not equate to "giving them a soapbox", and nor is it reasonable for me to be under some form of suspicion.

If there are any further posts stating that it is the case that I "gave a soapbox" to racists, and somehow should be under suspicion as possibly being a racist myself for having done so, whether implicitly or explicitly, then they will be reported to the owners of the site, as they are lies; libellous and defamatory lies at that. It is personally offensive to me, potentially damaging,.and totally unacceptable, and I will not stand for it. If it's not stamped out, I will leave the site permanently. I must oppose it in the strongest terms possible, as mud sticks, leaving aside the way I feel personally about being accused of tacit acceptance of racism, which I was very angry about.

I don't understand why there's any confusion about why I would find this statement offensive!

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Yes I understand your ire and I understand you didn't like him saying he was "suspicious" (without actually saying what this meant). But he did not say you were a racist - fair enough you took issue with what he said, but I don't think it helps express that by claiming he called you a racist when he didn't.

like I said, I think he raised a valid issue, but it was put across in a way that got people's backs up. And so I'm anxious that what is an interesting and important issue doesn't get lost in acrimony over who allegedly isn't anti-racist enough. It's not about that. It's about how do you approach these issues. So I'm not saying you're wrong for taking issue with what he said, I'm just trying to say there is a point in there that I don't think should get lost in conflict over what was said.

Look, and I really don't think 'mud would stick' with you on that front. Fucking hell, we've had some proper run-ins but if there's one thing that's abundantly clear to me it's that you don't do prejudice. I've seen you going at the homophobes loads on the DIF for one thing,. I understand your offence - I'd be offended if I perceived such a thing was being implied - but I seriously don't think anybody on teh interwebz would be going that WUB...I hear he's a racist now....

I think it's understandable - not accurate - that he had the perception of you and Andy simply because although I myself know for a fact you stood up to these people you tended not be to in the epic humdinger wars everyone saw happening, because that's not your style.

dubmeup wrote:
I agree.

dogsmilk wrote:
lol, I definitely did have some epic humdingers with the likes of benloon,arcyclus,hadaka jimmy,gonzo75,fist fury and a few others.
It definitely was my style to give them hell and ridiculously often.
I also gave the loony authoritarian lefties who admired George Galloway a tough time too...because I like to be consistent

dogsmilk wrote:
This.

Wub I don't think anyone that has ever either read your words or interacted with you would ever think of you as a racist.

dogsmilk wrote: That's fine, mate, all I will say is that mud sticks, and I'm not going to accept those kind of statements being made about me. Although he didn't explicitly say "you are a racist", he did imply it quite strongly, and I will not accept this. I also gave him every opportunity to apologise and / or retract it, neither of which he did. He, in fact, attacked the person who told him that he was being offensive.

You are right about me "going at the homophobes", until I also realised that was pointless, but I abhor any form of bigotry and some people's views on the subject used to disgust me. I've been called every name under the sun on there for standing up to prejudice, but one thing I will not accept is even the remotest suggestion that I might be tacitly accepting of racism. This was more than a remote suggestion, it was quite explicit.dubmeup wrote: Thanks. I do know this, I am more concerned about how people who haven't interacted with me might think.

Any suggestion the WUB or Andyh are racist, or racist enablers, is beyond fucking ridiculous.

dogsmilk wrote:
You gotta laugh

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Sreiously WUB, I really do understand your affront and I'd feel it too, but it really does make me laugh you'd think people would honestly start believing you're a racist. It's a bit like me feeling I'd been accused of being a Holocaust denier and thinking people would honestly start believing I was.

I did like your posts with the homophobes - homophobes get on my tits.

Yes it does not apply to you (or Andy) but what I was trying to get across is there is this broader point of if you accept these ideas and lend them validity this can be perceived as inadvertant (which mushy didn't say but it's how I see it) tacit acceptance. That's the point I didn't want to get lost.

As ever bare with me on this - having given more thought I am in agreement with dogsmilk that mushy made a valid point for discussion lost somewhat by the mentioning of names that actually have no merit to be mentioned - which ties in with what you said above.

If I am correct in my reading of what was said - though my understanding may be way off - it was something along the lines of engaging with the racists etc gives them legitimacy - if that is what he ment it makes less sense to me the names that were given as to my knowledge those mentioned gave up engaging with the likes of rodin and stelios et al waaaaaaayyyy before as an example. I did.

The people as far as I am concerned giving those with racist views a platform is those who have the ability to remove them but choose not to. Again had the forum rules and posts made to the effect of posts made that are hateful to any groups of people have no place on the forum not existed - then I would have just avoided the dif in the first place - as I avoid stormfront and other such sites - My issue with sean and his team is that they are not living up to the responsibilities they agreed to when I signed up - despite me living up to mine - except for that once where I discussed them not living up to their responsibilities on the forum...

I understand that people have been offended by insinuations - I hope that we can move on.