MSN recently took theirs down. And my local paper, The Spokesman Review, just took theirs down this morning. Huffington Post got rid of theirs a long time ago. Yahoo News still has a comments section (though probably for not much longer). It's a sad, sad trend.
shareThese sites, like IMDb, are recognizing that trolls post FAR more than people intent on actual discussion. It becomes a waste of bandwidth for them, and the moderating becomes an expense.
I wouldn't want a forum in my control to become a soapbox for trolls, either.
But so many people commenting on MSN had constructive, edifying things to say. Why should a forum that showcases their exemplary contributions be removed because trolls just so happen to show up at these forums too? Since time immemorial we've had trolls. We're just going to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
share[deleted]
Even worse, a lot of UK sites turn off comments for individual stories. Daily Express stories on Barcelona, Finland, and Dusseldorf attacks, and on ISIS generally -- no comments allowed. Stories on Charlottesville attack -- comments allowed.
We should all just slow down here on the Barcelona, Finland, and Dusseldorf attacks and not jump to any con.... aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand it was Muslims....
shareIn fairness, there hasn't been a positive ID on the Finland and Germany attackers. Given Germany's media laws, we may never get the info on that one.
share[deleted]
Do people also use that excuse for the neo-nazi who ran over people in Charlottesville? It has everything to do with islam. The murders were committed in the name of islam and islamic terrorism is encouraged and supported by many of its religious leaders. Sure, you can follow the quran without becoming violent, but there clearly is a huge problem with islamic culture.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
What would give you that idea,klownz?
shareIt is just the basic shit in their book. kill the infidel.
It is funny as well because I had a Muslim pal & he had to explain to me what a honer beating was I really liked the dude... he was really honest So funny because he was serious religious & i am a fucking hardcore pub drinker!
Amazingly people who do different shit can get on... trust me & it is really nice.
Hardcore pub drinker...no offence,but do you drink something before you post here?
shareYes of course. Is it all cool with you that i sneak a cheeky drink in? That must be okay?
shareI don't mind,if that's what you meant...i asked because of your posts,that's all😉
shareFair enough. I do mostly post slightly shit faced... always post slightly shit faced. I am kinda putting a stop to that though because MC has a sensitive bunch of people.
I am on a 13 step process to phase out my drunken comments.
Dazed, you know I love ya, and I agree; there are actual peace-loving muslims who condemn radical Islam., But I don;t thi9nk you can apply that same philosophy to neo-nazis and similar hate groups
shareI think Dazed is right,napsdufroid...
share@Dazed & Napster,
Being from the South, I have been among members of the KKK, not aware of whom they were until later. These are the so called "peaceful" ones. But, if they subscribe to the ideology of the KKK, they cannot be of good character. Same goes for the neo-nazi groups; members may be peaceful, but the ideology is based on hate. Again, the radical Islamic may not act out the doctrine, but their belief is hate filled. Same goes for the Black Panther groups; some who intimidated folks from voting. The anarchists (with face masks may also include members of Black Lives Matter) travel the country to riot and destroy property because they don't believe in free speech or they just have an intense hatred for the white man. "Pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon!" I firmly believe if any of the rioters hurl rocks, bottles, anything which can cause harm or death to the police, s/he deserves to be shot! The Ferguson riots, Boston, Berkeley, etc. accomplished nothing, but hurt businesses. Businesses which employed lawful folks.
We are judged by the company we keep. IMO, the groups above can be described with two words "POND SCUM!"?
BTW, I still believe if the anti-nazi group had stayed way, the damned fool neo-nazis would have done their march and went on their way. No continuous media coverage which bolstered like kind. Both groups were wrong. Recall Skokie, IL? The nazis were permitted to march. Correct me if I am incorrect; I don't remember any violence. As I previously wrote, the price of Free Speech is to be tolerant of the other's speech no matter how much you disagree with their belief. The biggest insult to these hate filled groups is to turn your back and walk away.
The removal of Confederate statues is silly. We cannot erase history. "Those who forget history are bound to repeat it." I agree with Pres. Trump, "Who's next?"
Are there really millions who condemn it? Man, I really wish thousands of muslims in Indonesia would go the streets to protest muslim terrorism, like people in the West protest against "islamophobia".
These terrorist acts are not done in the name of "other muslims", jeesh, those islamic terrorists even kill their fellow muslims. These acts are done in the name of islam and encouraged and supported by many religious leaders AND normal muslims. You don't want to know what European muslims say about their fellow countrymen who are not muslim, I actually read their websites and it's often very disgusting. Your mention of Daesh shows there's a huge problem within the muslim community. I certainly don't like neo-nazis, but it's hardly a problem in comparison.
And who says there are no "peace-loving neo-nazis"? It's very much possible to believe in nonsense like the superiority of the Ayrian race and still think violence is not the way to go. Obviously most neo-nazis are not violent, otherwise we would hear about it everyday. If you check the quran, you'll notice it isn't any less violent or more peace-loving than nazi ideology.
I've never heard any neo-Nazi who didn't advocate violence as a way or eradicating those they consider inferior
shareHow often do you hear nazis? How often do the media give them a voice? Even if they go to some website like Stormfront and talk tough, do neo-nazis all over the world commit terrorist acts every day? Now neo-nazis are pretty radical, so you'll more likely find violent followers within those groups. But I'm sure there are more people out there who believe in the supremacy of the white race and don't advocate violence.
shareActually, they're often on talk/news shows. I think the reason they don't commit more terrorist acts is because they're much more easily found, smaller in numbers, and rarely fanatical enough to die for their cause. Most are cowards. Witness the one who talked real big in Charlottesville then became a blubbering coward when the police closed it.
I dunno; to me, if you believe one race superior to another, you're not peace-loving.
I'm sure those are the more radical ones who mostly say what the media wants to hear. For all you know, your neigbour is a neo-nazi who's afraid to come out because, let's face it, it's not socially acceptable.
I believe neo-nazis are all talk and no action. They're pretty weak. They're a much smaller group not financed and supported by powerful people all over the world. They also come from a culture that very much condemns such ideologies, even for them it's difficult to cross that line and become a martyr. I think a lot of followers know this and feel attracted to this comparatively "safe" ideology that doesn't ask much of you except to be a jerk.
Believing one race is superior is nonense, but it does not necessarily mean you're not peace-loving. Pretty much every country has large groups of people who believe their country is the best in the world, but they have no interest in being violent.
Thank you, napster.
You have described correctly the meaning of Rascism. People throw that word around ad nauseam when in actuality the word should be "Bigot". One can be a bigot, but not necessarily a rascist.
The media has changed its approach in the last few years. The conventional thinking was not to give Nazi's a voice so as not to encourage more people to join their ranks. With the advent of Hillary's campaign last year the approach now is to give a voice to rally the left such as it was with Trump.
shareBig difference between a country and a race, no? Thinking your country is the best is more tantamount to thinking your state, school or sports team is the best
shareWhat exactly is the difference? And why would it make you more peace-loving? Look at countries like China, Korea and Japan. Technically they're all the same race, but they each believe they're the superior race and are constantly at conflict with each other. It's not about the achievements of one's country, they believe they're inherently superior to others. Some extremists use that for their own violent means, but most who believe that are peaceful.
shareExactly...those three don't believe their countries are superior as much as they believe they are superior to other Asians. Again, not the same thing.
shareAnd that sense of superiority is based on nationality, that is what I meant. I guarantee you that most Chinese, Koreans and Japanese feel superior to other Asian nations. However, most of them are peaceful as well.
shareThink of what the japanese done to the chinese,during ww2...you know,at some point there was a contest between two japanese soldiers...how many chinese can kill...that's sick.
shareThey all did horrible things to each other throughout the centuries. But that's really beside the point.
shareSo not exactly all that peace-loving, are they? China's history is far more recent.
shareSo you're saying that most people in the world are NOT peace-loving?
shareSome more so than others. I don't consider Japan or China particularly peace-loving, no.
shareI doubt that most Japanese condone violence, even though they think they're superior. On the one hand we've also had communists and socialists who believed in the equality of all humans and were still brutally violent. Violence is not necessarily related to a feeling of superiority.
share"I doubt that most Japanese condone violence"
Not at the present, no. But they literally had to be beaten into that mindset between 1941 and 1945, didn't they?
"Violence is not necessarily related to a feeling of superiority."
Never said it was. I thought this particular discussion was about being peace-loving.
But still the Japanese (and many other peoples in the world) believe they are superior, even though they wouldn't dream of being violent.
Doesn't peace-loving mean that you don't condone violence? At least, that's what it meant in the context of muslim terrorism. You suggested that those who believe in the superiority of the white race are not peace-loving.
I believe most who believe that are not peace-loving, yes.
shareOnly when it comes to race or also when it comes to nationality, like the examples I gave?
Most is not all. I really think if all of them preferred violence, they would actually show more violence. Like I said, they just like to talk crap.
And what would happen if, say, Japan suddenly started promoting violence again? Or China? They'd both put their economies in serious trouble, since we're the biggest consumer of goods made in both countries. Why do you think China has been relatively quiet (notice I said relatively) about Lil Kim in North Korea for so long? It likes money more than communism.
shareYou're talking about governments, not citizens.
shareAnd you;re talking semantics now. Would love to keep discussing, but really have some stuff I need to attend to in real life. Maybe tomorrow...
shareNothing to do with semantics. Governments don't have the same interests as citizens.
That's a cheap shot. You're the one who spends a large amount of time here on discussions like this and even more trivial ones.
Yeah, I hung around a few minutes because I realized what I said could be taken the wrong way. I really do have stuff to do.
And no cheap shot intended. Let's be real; net forums are not real life, no matter how much time we spend on them.
Okay, simply a misunderstanding then. I actually do have some other business to attend to as well. Good day.
shareAll I am saying is the approach is to give the dumbest person in a movement the microphone to motivate people who were against said movement but not motivated to activity about it prior to dumb person opening their mouth.
shareAnd I find that pretty reprehensible, especially because they try to link those groups to conservatives. Why rally against groups that aren't your real opponent? It only creates more division.
shareTry? Seriously, how many liberal Neo-Nazis, Klan members, or white supremacists do you know?
shareMaybe the ones you know are too afraid to tell you, huh? I know no neo-nazis or white supremacists, I do know conservatives. Those are the kind of people who voted for Trump, it's dishonest to target a extremely small group that does not represent them.
shareNever said it wasn't. I'm just saying that by definition, if you're a KKK member, neo-nazi, or white supremacist, or even a racist for that matter, you cannot be a liberal. Impossible.
shareWell, that really has nothing to do with my point.
There are different definitions of liberalism, though, so it might be possible. Although I doubt they would want to be called liberal.
I am not so sure on that when abortion, birth control, drugs such as MJ legal appeal to those same people and the fore mentioned issues were cornerstones of liberal agendas at least as of decades gone by. I am sure there are plenty of pot smoking, condom carrying or birth control carrying, made their wife or girlfriend have an abortion KKK or Neo Nazi members. How many Neo Nazi's or KKK members are on public assistance? If you are a true conservative you are not receiving any public assistance at least on a long term basis. It's easy to throw labels on people but it is much harder to define who is truly a liberal and conservative at least when it comes to "traditional" definitions.
shareTrue liberals are pro choice, not pro abortion, therefore one wouldn't insist on someone getting one. If they do force it, they're not liberals. Using birth control isn't an exclusive bastion of liberals either, nor is pot smoking.
"If you are a true conservative you are not receiving any public assistance at least on a long term basis."
Sorry, Biff, but that's utter nonsense.
Now you are using definitions you are comfortable with. Some conservatives would say that you are not apart of their group if you do smoke pot, made your girlfriend get an abortion, or take any public assistance. The world is by far larger than your domain or my domain Pro-abortion at least in my corner of the US is the same thing as pro-choice. In any event many conservatives would not be open to a choice that would include abortion.
On the other side of the coin I know "liberals" who are not pro-choice, pro-illicit drugs, or pro-public assistance. What makes them liberal you ask or better yet why should they be able to place themselves under the banner of being a liberal? Pro-labor or laws favoring labor versus ownership or management. Reduction or elimination of tax money for national defense. In favor of gay rights. Equal rights regardless of origin or nationality. Is there a threshold for for being a conservative or liberal in that out of ten issues that you have to favor 7, 8, 9, or all positions that your "group" favors?
Being liberal is, again, about choice. The choice to get or not get an abortion. The choice to use drugs (and that's far from just a liberal problem). The choice to receive public assistance. If you're not in favor of people being given a choice, you're not, by definition a liberal, no matter what you call yourself.
"Pro-abortion at least in my corner of the US is the same thing as pro-choice."
Again, sorry, but that doesn't say much about that corner.
As far as the other things you mentioned, if you're anti anyone's rights (with the exception of those who promote hate, bigotry, terrorism, etc), you're again, by definition, not a liberal.
You are saying that all people should have the right to public assistance? Should people have the ability to choose to own a firearm or not? That people should have a choice to pay property and income taxes or not? Pay user fees for government services? Terminate their own life?
sharelol. Seriously.
shareHuffPost still has comments but you have to make them through FaceBook.
shareThe CBC, bastion of all things "Liberally" and shill for Trudeau Lite, still have their comments section, but given how selective they are for which stories they allow comments, they might as well just remove them all together. Anything that could contradict their lefty globalist agenda, such as immigration and the boy wonder himself, is almost always off limits.
shareIt's disgusting. They don't like people criticizing their politics.
shareI wonder if YouTube will ever take their comments section down. It would be bad for the YouTubers if they did, but sometimes I can't believe the comments on there. No matter what the video it seems like people can get into a fight about race or religion.
shareA lot of people on YouTube posting about hot-button issues - like, say, religion -- often have the comments section disabled. I find that dispiriting since a hot-button issue, if nothing else, generates discussion. And while a lot of the comments bring nothing meaningful a lot of them do. I guess those posting just refuse to have their pre-conceived notions challenged in any way. Bummer.
Lots of youtube channels have had their money switched off recently, basically anyone who makes fun of SJW's and libtards is being targeted.
Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAeiWm1v02M
Yes, this is crazy
shareYes, I have noticed that too. If it is something that might be considered "controversial" usually the comments will be switched off. I can see both sides of this. There may be great comments but if not or if these are outweighed by trolling it can take away from the video. Also I have known people who approved their comments and only allowed the positive which is kind of censorship in a way, but also weeds out the idiots. Sorry for the rant, was kind of all over the place!
shareTwitter do this shit as well. There is a gay dude called Milo Yiannopoulos who only goes out with black men.... Twitter banned him for racism because he did a little trolling on Leslie Jones calling out her utterly shit job in the Ghostbusters remake.... Literally everyone who called that bag of shit film rubbish got accused of being a sexist racist biggot & the media loved it & the fake reviews hammered in.
I haven't seen this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3686998/ but caught some vids about it on youtube & the director is being hounded by the press.
Why am i not surprised😎
shareNot even just fighting about topics that are hot. YouTube is the worst, even worse than IMDb used to be. I watched a non-controversial history documentary, decided surely the comments section on it would be interesting and sans fighting. Wrong! It was filled with people throwing verbal poo at one another.
share[deleted]
Ridiculous. Some people want to fight about anything!
I stopped reading YouTube comments a long time ago. Foolishly, I thought the comments for this video would be drama-free. Now I know even the most benign topics are likely to become fodder for pistols at dawn.
Some people do want to fight about anything, you are right about that. I don't read them often but I have found myself sucked in now and then. haha
shareSquare-enix forums are still active😉
share[deleted]