What is this "Do not mention Nazis" thing?

[ricechickie]

I have seen the use of the word Nazi being used on people they don't agree with. It is a form of a personal attack that should be stopped cold as it a pernicious way of trying to attach a hostile label on someone they want to knock down.

In other places the Forum Boss simply censored the word, or have the mods treat as a name calling violation, As a Moderator at WUWT, I have seen the word Nazi be thrown around casually that had no relation to history, it is an attack that was declared a no no by the blog owner, it quickly vanished.

Calling people names is only useful when you can back it up, but the word Nazi isn't of them since that awful piece of history ran out in 1945, that should be clamped down.

Got it, you vote for censorship.

Boooooo, hisssssss!

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

 

[Sunsettommy]

I quit a large political forum two weeks ago because the Moderator clamped down on me for the terrible crime of posting the announcement of putting someone on ignore. I got a three point penalty by the Moderator who thinks I was trolling with it.

I have THREE other warnings that were just as absurd, but no penalty points.

THAT is blatant censorship!

So you're a snowflake that puts people on ignore, aye? Quite telling, that is.

You have no idea what happened there...……………

I have ONE on ignore here because he post only smears and name calling on me, not worth reading and replying.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I have seen the use of the word Nazi being used on people they don't agree with. It is a form of a personal attack that should be stopped cold as it a pernicious way of trying to attach a hostile label on someone they want to knock down.

In other places the Forum Boss simply censored the word, or have the mods treat as a name calling violation, As a Moderator at WUWT, I have seen the word Nazi be thrown around casually that had no relation to history, it is an attack that was declared a no no by the blog owner, it quickly vanished.

Calling people names is only useful when you can back it up, but the word Nazi isn't of them since that awful piece of history ran out in 1945, that should be clamped down.

Got it, you vote for censorship.

Boooooo, hisssssss!

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Depends..is the genocide directed at people with Hebrew blood, or no?

 

[Marion Morrison]

I quit a large political forum two weeks ago because the Moderator clamped down on me for the terrible crime of posting the announcement of putting someone on ignore. I got a three point penalty by the Moderator who thinks I was trolling with it.

I have THREE other warnings that were just as absurd, but no penalty points.

THAT is blatant censorship!

So you're a snowflake that puts people on ignore, aye? Quite telling, that is.

You have no idea what happened there...……………

I have ONE on ignore here because he post only smears and name calling on me, not worth reading and replying.

In other words, you can't handle it.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have seen the use of the word Nazi being used on people they don't agree with. It is a form of a personal attack that should be stopped cold as it a pernicious way of trying to attach a hostile label on someone they want to knock down.

In other places the Forum Boss simply censored the word, or have the mods treat as a name calling violation, As a Moderator at WUWT, I have seen the word Nazi be thrown around casually that had no relation to history, it is an attack that was declared a no no by the blog owner, it quickly vanished.

Calling people names is only useful when you can back it up, but the word Nazi isn't of them since that awful piece of history ran out in 1945, that should be clamped down.

Got it, you vote for censorship.

Boooooo, hisssssss!

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Do you know what a "LOADED QUESTION" is?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Got it, you vote for censorship.

Boooooo, hisssssss!

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Do you know what a "LOADED QUESTION" is?

Of course she does.

Art thou a-triggered, snowflake? Awww..

 

[ricechickie]

Got it, you vote for censorship.

Boooooo, hisssssss!

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Depends..is the genocide directed at people with Hebrew blood, or no?

So if the person espouses genocide of native peoples, I shouldn’t call them Nazis. I should just call them Americans.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I quit a large political forum two weeks ago because the Moderator clamped down on me for the terrible crime of posting the announcement of putting someone on ignore. I got a three point penalty by the Moderator who thinks I was trolling with it.

I have THREE other warnings that were just as absurd, but no penalty points.

THAT is blatant censorship!

So you're a snowflake that puts people on ignore, aye? Quite telling, that is.

You have no idea what happened there...……………

I have ONE on ignore here because he post only smears and name calling on me, not worth reading and replying.

In other words, you can't handle it.

Are YOU suggesting that I just accept blatant abuse thrown at me?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Depends..is the genocide directed at people with Hebrew blood, or no?

So if the person espouses genocide of native peoples, I shouldn’t call them Nazis. I should just call them Americans.

Genocidal maniacs?

 

[ricechickie]

Got it, you vote for censorship.

Boooooo, hisssssss!

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Do you know what a "LOADED QUESTION" is?

Apparently, it’s one you don’t want to answer.

Save us both the time and add me to your iggy list.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I quit a large political forum two weeks ago because the Moderator clamped down on me for the terrible crime of posting the announcement of putting someone on ignore. I got a three point penalty by the Moderator who thinks I was trolling with it.

I have THREE other warnings that were just as absurd, but no penalty points.

THAT is blatant censorship!

So you're a snowflake that puts people on ignore, aye? Quite telling, that is.

You have no idea what happened there...……………

I have ONE on ignore here because he post only smears and name calling on me, not worth reading and replying.

In other words, you can't handle it.

Are YOU suggesting that I just accept blatant abuse thrown at me?

I suggest you suck it up and grow a thicker skin.

 

[ricechickie]

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Depends..is the genocide directed at people with Hebrew blood, or no?

So if the person espouses genocide of native peoples, I shouldn’t call them Nazis. I should just call them Americans.

Genocidal maniacs?

Genocidal maniacs of the American tradition.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Nope, I voted for keeping threads on topic without gratuitous personal attacks.

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Do you know what a "LOADED QUESTION" is?

Of course she does.

Art thou a-triggered, snowflake? Awww..

All you have left are childish name calling to offer. Not interested in a mature discussion at all.

Awww that is so good of you...….

 

[Marion Morrison]

Sunsettommy Do you ever actually answer a question, or always reply with another question?

 

[ricechickie]

Ban the word snowflake.

I don’t have crystalline structure, nor am I frozen.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I quit a large political forum two weeks ago because the Moderator clamped down on me for the terrible crime of posting the announcement of putting someone on ignore. I got a three point penalty by the Moderator who thinks I was trolling with it.

I have THREE other warnings that were just as absurd, but no penalty points.

THAT is blatant censorship!

So you're a snowflake that puts people on ignore, aye? Quite telling, that is.

You have no idea what happened there...……………

I have ONE on ignore here because he post only smears and name calling on me, not worth reading and replying.

In other words, you can't handle it.

Are YOU suggesting that I just accept blatant abuse thrown at me?

I suggest you suck it up and grow a thicker skin.

I suggest that you follow a more respectful and mature method of debate, leaving out the childish put downs that are not helping you at all.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Well, that’s virtuous and all, but who decides what’s “gratuitous”?

It is quite obvious: "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted."

The Nazi party ceased to exist as a political force...……………………………., in 1945, It is a personal attack nothing more.

Personal Attack Fallacy

"Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive and circumstantial): the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument."

When nasty gratuitous attacks are made, debate is quickly damaged or over, often degenerating into a tit for tat. I have seen this many times, usually the thread are closed down.

Do you want debates to fail this way?

Do you really want to yell FIRE in a crowded movie house?

Ok, what if the person in question espouses genocide? Is calling them a Nazi unwarranted?

Do you know what a "LOADED QUESTION" is?

Of course she does.

Art thou a-triggered, snowflake? Awww..

All you have left are childish name calling to offer. Not interested in a mature discussion at all.

Awww that is so good of you...….

So, in a roundabout way, you're calling me childish, but I can't call you a snowflake. Do I have that correct?

 

[sparky]

USMB is a privately owned and operated buisness , they've the right to censor anything they view , be it offensive or not

Most of the internets follow suit

Go bake cake if you don't like it

~S~

 

[Sunsettommy]

Sunsettommy Do you ever actually answer a question, or always reply with another question?

Surely you are jesting since I made a lot of comments in the forum that have no questions in them at all.

Being given a loaded question is often not worth replying, for a good reason. Being given a number of slights with silly name calling and disrespectful remarks tells me you are not here to advance a real mature debate.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Sunsettommy Do you ever actually answer a question, or always reply with another question?

Surely you are jesting since I made a lot of comments in the forum that have no questions in them at all.

Being given a loaded question is often not worth replying, for a good reason. Being given a number of slights with silly name calling and disrespectful remarks tells me you are not here to advance a real mature debate.

I'm here to express my concern over censoring the use of words, you?

You do realize I am the OP here, right?