What if a racial supremacist called you a racist?

Post Reply New Topic

0, is that directed towards my initial post...? Because I never mentioned victims.

Well I forgot to say I would tell them to f**k off and then laugh in their face.

Unfortunately some people are victims. In psychology, "victims" are encouraged to express their anger. Ideally this is expressed in a controlled environment. The idea is to not continue the cycle of violence. Anger is normal.

Some "victims" wish to see themselves as "survivors." But if someone wishes to see themself as a "victim" that is their right.

One thing that the US does is never admit it's wrong. Which is why I think US is a bully.

This is somewhat missing the point of what I'm saying. Mandela taught us that we should strive to be free not rest on our victim status and pass the resentment onto the next generations. The idea that we should forgive, and try to understand each other rather then cementing division.


This is somewhat of a diversion from the topic but whatever.

The US is not a singular being, it has citizens of different opinions.

The US has admitted it is wrong more than you think, more than many countries have. Has Turkey admitted its role in the Armenian genocide? The Japanese don't even teach what happen in WWII properly in it schools.

At least the US allows people to express these views unlike many countries.

I agree they have been very hypocritical in their 'pro-democracy' escapades. I'm not fan of this war mongering. However a lot of the countries in question also create their own problem too. Sectarian tensions have to exist to be stirred up.

While I served as a hate-crime adviser to the U.S. Office of the Attorney for the District of Utah, I was on a talk-radio program sometime in the mid-1990s "against" the spokesman for a neo-Nazi advocacy group. The host was doing his best to favor my every utterance while cornering the spokesman with "gotchas." Having had enough of the host's game-playing to paint the spokesman as a caricature of hatred, I challenged the host by questioning his presumption that the First Amendment didn't apply to the spokesman because his opinions were repugnant.

I reminded the host that Free Speech applied to the spokesman every bit as much as it did to the host and myself.

The host's voice softened and the rhetoric became more accomodating once the host realized that he didn't have to support the spokesman's opinions, and it wasn't his duty to criticize or censor them. The spokesman thanked me. Both gentlemen were surprised.

I don't care what someone calls me, so long as he or she is fair.

I don't think ideas themselves shouldn't be discussed, but there is a difference between a description of something and the reasons behind its support and incitement of any actions which infringe upon others... i.e. if that spokesman suddenly started telling others of his beliefs to actively harass, murder, or even gang-rape (all of which is discussed online, although at least unlike TV and radio it's not broadcast to anyone who happens to have it switched on)... then should the program really hand him all the publicity he could ever dream of? It's just, that, out of the thousands or millions listening/watching the majority won't obviously obey like hypnotized slaves, but some tiny minority might already have had the gauge to anger filling up, and as such might possibly act on it. This isn't objectively what happens in the mind since I'm not sure if they could ever use brain scanning technology on premeditating murderers, but it possibly makes sense...

Probably better ways of dealing with it haha. Ask for Tyrion's advice!