HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » OmahaBlueDog » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1

OmahaBlueDog

Profile Information

Member since: Fri Jan 4, 2008, 10:23 PM
Number of posts: 10,000

About Me

I\'m no longer active in DU under this name. I chose a new identity after my 10,000th post. I\'d like to say that DU has been welcoming to my new personal but I\'m here to tell you that many DUers are jerks to low-post count members.

Journal Archives

I have a bone to pick with the management regarding the hate speech standards

This is from the terms of service:

"{Hate Speech}...also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans, claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel, advocating the destruction of the state of Israel, or arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood."

I'll start with the areas of agreement:
"arguing that Holocaust deniers are just misunderstood."

The Holocaust happened, and is probably worse than the records the allies captured from the Germans indicate.

On to the areas with which I take issue:

A) "also includes any post asserting disloyalty by Jewish Americans,"

Why are we singling out Jewish Americans. Certainly, it cannot be OK to assert disloyalty because someone is a believer in Islam. I'd doubt that we'd tolerate the suggestion that Catholics place their loyalty to the Vatican above their loyalty to the nation of their birth. Why can't that be changed to "also includes any post asserting disloyalty based on an individual's faith or creed"?

B) "claiming nefarious influence by Jews/Zionists/Israel"

How are we defining "nefarious"? Israel is a nation state, and like most nation states, they have a lobby (actually, many lobby groups). Naturally, they ask the US to trade with Israel, send tourists... all of the normal nation-state stuff. However, they also ask the members of Congress to help defend Israel against its enemies. Many of those enemies are believed by many reasonable people to have legitimate grievances against Israel. Personally, I would like to see the US take a far more hands-off approach to dealing with those issues. Does my viewpoint constitute a claim that Israel is exerting a nefarious influence?

C) "advocating the destruction of the state of Israel"

I have several problems with this one.

Should anyone at DU be advocating the destruction of any nation-state with which we are not currently at war?

Is it OK to advocate for the destruction of the Vatican?

Is it OK to advocate for the destruction of Iran?

Personally, I am against faith based governance of any sort, so I'm just as opposed to the government of the Jewish state of Israel as I am to the government of the Islamic republic of Iran. I believe in Liberty for all, regardless of faith. Neither Israel nor Iran embrace granting the full spectrum of personal or property rights to those who don't share the faiths supported by their respective governments. Religious liberty is certainly an American ideal many of us hold dear. It is certainly not an ideal shared by Israel or Iran. Does my opposition to Israel's government make me "an advocate for the destruction of Israel"?

I'd like to get a response from EarlG, Elad, or Skinner. I'm hoping (but not entirely certain) that my response won't be in the form of a tombstone. If it is, it's certainly been fun chatting with all of you - GOBAMA!
Go to Page: 1