[very heavy] Virtues

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
The aims and motivations of the war should obviously be paramount. The US aim was to prevent the spread of oppressive communism, therefore the Vietnam war was a moral war.

Whatever the stated principle of the Vietnam war, some of the methods used to conduct it left a lot of people wondering what it was all about. You can't simply waltz into a country on the premise of a "moral" message and expect your motives to wipe away the imperial/colonial legacy of French Indochina, the guerilla culture developed in response by its indigenous people, the mistrust of some country called America that wants to step in and make it all better in pursuit of their own goals, etc.
We've done well, I think, to document how poorly we understood the Vietnamese people, their culture, and the politics informing their history. We didn't care what they thought of Communism. We couldn't fathom that after decades of French imperial control, Communism might be worth a try in the eyes of some Vietnamese, Laotian, and Khmer leaders. We had every reason to invest influence in the region during WWII -- to help the Indochinese resist Japan -- and a strong ally in Ho Chih Minh.
It was, not coincidentally, Vichy France (the faction in the early 40's that collaborated with Nazi Germany) that ceded a foothold to the Japanese in the region. I think one can very rightly consider the "Communist threat" in northern Vietnam a form of pre-emptive self-defense on the parts of the Chinese and Soviets.
Curious how the US insists on seeing its own mission (proselytizing its own form of government) in the motives of others, as if no one is worthy of defending their own interests except us.
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Joe Pluta]

Is calling someone an idiot a civil rebuttal to what they said?
No, but it is every bit as civil as equating America with Nazi Germany. Why? Because the original statement was uncivil. It may be permitted by the First Amendment, but while free speech is paramount in our society, there is a difference between free speech and civil speech. It has been made clear to me that JavaRanch insists on civility, which demands a higher standard than the First Amendment. Depicting America as complicit in the Holocaust is uncivil. Free speech, but grossly uncivil. And yet, it is allowed.
However, if I were to describe [insert any country other than America] as a festering cesspool of disease and pollution, with a population completely unable to support themselves and unimaginably backwards in their morals and ethics, I'd get called on the carpet for it. This is a fact, because we saw one person taken to task just for VERY CIVILLY stating her belief that a country had a parasitic economy. Oh the arms that were upraised in indignity at that statement! Yet, it's perfectly acceptable to slam America with far worse inflammatory diatribes. It is this sort of uneven treatment that I find distasteful.
Joe
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Jason Menard]

I get the impression that a couple people may be a little confused about the Vietnam conflict and the actions by the Communists who are being cast as the heroes here. An immoral conflict? Hardly.
Our political decision to quit Vietnam enabled the Communists to take over in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, resulting in the murder of at least hundreds of thousands, possibly in to the millions. Ever heard of the killing fields?
Here's a nice summary of the legacy of the heroic Commnuist movement in the South East Asia region. I guess it doesn't seem like there was any reason to oppose the spread of Communism throughout South East Asia after all.

[Jason Menard]

Equating National Guard service with draft dodging is in extremely poor taste, not to mention incredibly insulting to the millions of Guardsmen who have honoarbly served, fought, and died in order to preserve the way of life and freedoms of those same people who would attack them for their service.
Guardsmen have served in every major conflict in our nation's history, including Vietnam. A Guard unit is always subject to being called into active service and its members never know when that is going to happen. It could be at any time including the beginning, middle, or near the end of a conflict. Even when entire units aren't called up, individual Guardsmen are often sent to serve in active units. Anybody joining the Guard during a conflict is very well aware that they may very likely end up participating in that conflict.
If some folks have such a low opinion of the National Guard so as to equate them with draft dodgers, would it be out of bounds to think that the same opinion was held of people who joined the Reserves or who joined the active duty military but ended up serving in Europe or the United States for the duration of the Vietnam conflict?
By the way, somewhere around 200,000 Guardsmen and reservists are currently on active duty, including about 25% of the troops in Iraq (as of December). At least 80 of them have been killed thus far in Iraq (as of December). I guess according to the standards of a previous post, none of them were serving their country either.
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe Pluta]

I have a very good friend who is in the Reserves, and I can tell you that the Guard and the Reserves are some highly honorable folks. While in peacetime it may seem a pretty easy gig, in time of war those folks probably have more upheaval in their lives than the regulars. Remember, the majority of their lives are outside the military - jobs and families and mrotgages and car payments and all that other stuff that you and I have. And yet when conflict occurs, these people have to be ready to go active at a moment's notice. That may mean leaving your wife and kids and job and friends and home and hopping on a plane into harm's way.
And he never talks about it unless I bring it up. I personally think of this man as a hero of the highest stripe, and yet you'd never hear him speak of himself that way. Instead, he's just doing what needs to be done. It's people like that who inspire me.
Joe

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
However, if I were to describe [insert any country other than America] as a festering cesspool of disease and pollution, with a population completely unable to support themselves and unimaginably backwards in their morals and ethics, I'd get called on the carpet for it.

Can anyone provide me a link where someone said the same about America? And further more that the person who made that post got away with it?

This is a fact, because we saw one person taken to task just for VERY CIVILLY stating her belief that a country had a parasitic economy.

As far as I recall that thread was never killed.. it is still alive somewhere. And the person who called country A's economy to be parasitic did not get "taken to task" by the moderators but by the javaranch community. Same as what is happening here...

[Joe Pluta]

Can anyone provide me a link where someone said the same about America?
Paul, a post in this thread said America was complicit in the Holocaust. That is what I took exception to, and was told that it is acceptable.
According to this logic, my previous post, even if I were to direct it at a specific country (which I was careful not to do), would be entirely acceptable here at JavaRanch. Since "there's just as much room for people here that are happy with America, its people, its policies, and its President as there is for people who aren't" covers accusing America of complicity in the Holocaust (perhaps one of the most heinous things I can imagine accusing someone of), simple extrapolation would imply that anybody can say anything they want about any country and it's perfectly acceptable.
Just don't use the word "you".
Joe
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

It has been made clear to me that JavaRanch insists on civility, which demands a higher standard than the First Amendment. Depicting America as complicit in the Holocaust is uncivil. Free speech, but grossly uncivil. And yet, it is allowed.

It appears to me I cannot explain the difference we see between calling America a Nazi state and calling the person who said it an idiot.
The first point is up for debate, obnoxious though it may be. And if it is tolerated by the moderator community as a whole, then it is. The second point is clearly a personal attack, and suggests that a specific participant is "less than perfect," as Paul puts it.
I for one have no response to the implication that slighting America, its people, its policies, and its President is somehow personal. I hear it all the time by people who, privately, I feel have no clue. But saying nasty things about my country requires no judgment, no retaliatory comment. My America can take plenty of cheap shots. This America spit on my uncle and his closest friends when they came back from Vietnam. They paid it no mind. They did not serve their country because they hoped other citizens would approve. They did it because they felt obliged to serve it.
JP: However, if I were to describe [insert any country other than America] as a festering cesspool of disease and pollution, with a population completely unable to support themselves and unimaginably backwards in their morals and ethics, I'd get called on the carpet for it.
ME: Well, let's see if someone calls America exactly those things and see what its context is, and see if we tolerate it. Until then, it's too early to tell. To my recollection no one has said those things about America, regardless of context, in any thread I have covered.
JP: This is a fact, because we saw one person taken to task just for VERY CIVILLY stating her belief that a country had a parasitic economy. Oh the arms that were upraised in indignity at that statement!
ME: I think the moderators on the whole are pretty open about the differing interpretations that exist among them. Some will find certain posts that merit removal while other don't. We're not, as a whole, inclined to reverse each other, or question the application of policy on a case-by-case basis.
Some people find it difficult to figure out where we stand. But we're still just a group of volunteers. We rely on the best judgment each person can exercise on any given day. No one among us really wants to spend much time ensuring uniformity of judgment.
JP: Yet, it's perfectly acceptable to slam America with far worse inflammatory diatribes. It is this sort of uneven treatment that I find distasteful.
ME: Apparently the moderators, as a whole, do not agree, or they find such statements tolerable. For me, they're just noise.

[John Smith]

Jason: I get the impression that a couple people may be a little confused about the Vietnam conflict and the actions by the Communists who are being cast as the heroes here. An immoral conflict? Hardly.
I am still confused. John Kerry is a Vetnam War hero who helped to found and supported the organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against the War". Then in 1971, he led a major protest in Washington against the war and threw the medals he earned in Vietnam over the White House fence. Here is what he wrote:

"It was when one of your men got hit or you got hit yourself that you felt most absurd � that was when everything had to have a meaning in order for it all to be worthwhile. And inevitably, Vietnam just didn't have any meaning. It didn't meet the test."

Interestingly enough, Kerry's anti-war stance marked the dawn of his career as a politician.
Whatever I think about the Vietnam War is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. What is relevant, however, is Kerry's line of thought in the context of his presidential campaign. I guess my question is, which side of him appeals to his supporters, -- his honorary military service in the war, or his view that the Vietnam war was meaningless? Perhaps both?
I don't hold it against Kerry that he responded to the "call of the government" and ended up protesting it, -- some things are not immediately clear. But if he believes that the Vietnam War was immoral, why not brag about his protest record, rather than his service record? And this is what I am trying to get in this thread. The answer that I have to my own question is that the masses respond better to the "positive message" of answering the government call to kill, rather than the "negative message" of saying "Fuck you, government!". It's the difference between "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's" and "Render to God what is God's". Does this make sense?
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Joe Pluta]

ME: Well, let's see if someone calls America exactly those things and see what its context is, and see if we tolerate it. Until then, it's too early to tell.
If you can't rule on the statement as written then there's really no standard.
To my recollection no one has said those things about America, regardless of context, in any thread I have covered.
No, but they said America was complicit in the Holocaust, and I find that far more repugnant than my statement, as would just about anybody I know. And rather than respond, I asked the moderators to identify the policy on such a statement. And according to the response, the policy is: "that is perfectly acceptable".
What gets interesting is that it's pretty clear I'd get in trouble for my other statement had I actually specified a country. If my other statement is not tolerated, but calling America a Nazi state is tolerated, then I would say that the moderation is uneven at best. It would appear that Justice Stevens' pornography litmus ("I know it when I see it") is the standard, which makes it completely arbitrary, and that has always been what I find problematic. What is and isn't acceptable is arbitrary, and the arbitrariness seems tilted towards allowing broad, sweeping negative statements about America.
If on the other hand my statement IS acceptable, then at least we have a reasonable standard. Free Speech is adhered to, provided you say nothing "not nice" about a specific JavaRancher (the "no 'you'" clause).
I'm just making sure that the policy is clearly defined. Part of the reason I stayed out of MD for a little while was to acquire just this sort of understanding. So I'd love to hear the final answer on this.
Is saying America was complicit in the Holocaust acceptable?
Is saying [country X] is a cesspool of disease and pollution acceptable?
If one and not the other, why?
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

JM: Our political decision to quit Vietnam enabled the Communists to take over in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, resulting in the murder of at least hundreds of thousands, possibly in to the millions. Ever heard of the killing fields?
ME: Are you suggesting the US is complicit in those deaths?
JM: Here's a nice summary of the legacy of the heroic Commnuist movement in the South East Asia region. I guess it doesn't seem like there was any reason to oppose the spread of Communism throughout South East Asia after all.
So, Democrats favored maintaining a role in Southeast Asia, via the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but the Republican administration that followed chose to back out, leaving a power vacuum in which so many people had to die. Gads -- I'd never thought about it in those terms before.
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Joe Pluta]

So, Democrats favored maintaining a role in Southeast Asia, via the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but the Republican administration that followed chose to back out,
Johnson began the process.
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

ME: Well, let's see if someone calls America exactly those things and see what its context is, and see if we tolerate it. Until then, it's too early to tell.
JP: If you can't rule on the statement as written then there's really no standard.
ME: We don't have Commandments, Joe. We have moderators. Livingm breathing, wonderful human beings capable of error and skewed judgment at every turn.
JP: ...they said America was complicit in the Holocaust, and I find that far more repugnant than my statement, as would just about anybody I know.
ME: So it's repugnant to you. Some people say stuff in this forum that frankly leave me speechless. Doesn't mean they get deleted.
JP: And rather than respond, I asked the moderators to identify the policy on such a statement. And according to the response, the policy is: "that is perfectly acceptable".
ME: Strictly speaking, that's not a policy, that's a judgment.
JP: What gets interesting is that it's pretty clear I'd get in trouble for my other statement had I actually specified a country.
ME: If you say so.
JP: If my other statement is not tolerated, but calling America a Nazi state is tolerated, then I would say that the moderation is uneven at best.
ME: If if if.
JP: It would appear that Justice Stevens' pornography litmus ("I know it when I see it") is the standard, which makes it completely arbitrary, and that has always been what I find problematic.
ME: The stated principle is to be nice. I infer what Paul means is "be nice to each other," not "say nice things" or "leave my country out of your blatherskiting" or the like. We also give ourselves latitude, as I see it, to remove anything which, in the judgment of moderators, nothing good can come from.
JP: What is and isn't acceptable is arbitrary, and the arbitrariness seems tilted towards allowing broad, sweeping negative statements about America.
ME: Sez you, Joe. I for one simply don't agree.
JP: I'm just making sure that the policy is clearly defined.
ME: It sounds to me, from what I have heard you say, that you are trying to get a policy pinned down in terms that you feel most comfortable working with, starting with the idea that a statement is the atomic unit of measure by which clearly defined policy can be inferred. I, for one, often consider context as welL.
We do have a policy statement written; it's what we go by. The rest is good advice, salted with the admonition that if we deem some post unfriendly or headed in an unfriendly direction, we'll remove it.
That's it from me. I have no interest in answering hypothetical cases.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
So, Democrats favored maintaining a role in Southeast Asia, via the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but the Republican administration that followed chose to back out, leaving a power vacuum in which so many people had to die.

Interesting. I'd never thought to view war simply in terms of the political parties before. I'd always prefered to focus on the causes, stakes, and relative justness of these conflicts.
[ February 08, 2004: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe Pluta]

We also give ourselves latitude, as I see it, to remove anything which, in the judgment of moderators, nothing good can come from.
And what, in your opinion, is the good that can come from saying America was complicit in the Holocaust?
Joe

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
So, Democrats favored maintaining a role in Southeast Asia, via the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, but the Republican administration that followed chose to back out,
Johnson began the process.

Johnson's letter to Ho Chih Minh asks for a way to cease hostilities and end further build-up of the war effort. One thing you cannot accuse ol' Guns-and-Butter of, Texan that he is, is backing out of a fight he wanted in the first place. Ending it, yes. Bailing out, no.
Maybe Freedom's Nest has something that would help make this point. Otherwise, all signs point to the Nixon administration. Sorry.

[Joe Pluta]

That's it from me. I have no interest in answering hypothetical cases.
How about concrete policy questions? There was an implication that I'm unable to understand the rules, so how about answering the questions?
Is saying America was complicit in the Holocaust acceptable?
Is saying [country X] is a cesspool of disease and pollution acceptable?
If one and not the other, why?
This seems like pretty basic stuff to me.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

salted with the admonition that if we deem some post unfriendly or headed in an unfriendly direction, we'll remove it.
Which part of the post I indicated did you consider friendly or heading in a friendly direction?
Joe

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
That's it from me. I have no interest in answering hypothetical cases.
How about concrete policy questions? There was an implication that I'm unable to understand the rules, so how about answering the questions?
Is saying America was complicit in the Holocaust acceptable?
Is saying [country X] is a cesspool of disease and pollution acceptable?
If one and not the other, why?
This seems like pretty basic stuff to me.
Joe

Joe,
There is no concrete policy and it's all about context and the moderator who reads it. Some of the moderators are a bit more liberal with the delete button, and some of us only use it conservatively. We have general guidelines we operate within and each of us interprets them to the best of our understanding.
Nobody is going to pin us down on a concrete rule set. We should all be able to figure out by this time, well the regulars anyway, what the various tolerance thresholds are for the different mods who make it their business to police MD. For me, I'll generally let most things go as long as there are no blatant insults. Others might be quicker on the trigger.
So given your two examples, I would have left both of them. It's up to the people who disagree with those statements to attempt to form a civil rebuttal imho.

[Joe Pluta]

There is no concrete policy.
That's all I was trying to get at. So whenever some moderator comes stomping on my head with the "JavaRanch Policy", the truth is THERE IS NO POLICY. The only policy is whatever Paul deems it to be, as is his inalienable right as the owner of the board. Everything else is pure arbitrary decision.
The fact that America-bashing passes Paul's "nice test" as applied by the moderators is disappointing, but hey, it's good to know. I was hoping there would be some common decorum applied, that the moderators would be able to draw a line and say "this is simply uncivil and not to be allowed".
That's okay. I can have a little fun, instead. I think I finally understand Eugene a little better now .
Joe

[Marilyn de Queiroz]

Originally posted by michael bradly:
Joe, you and anyone else on this post can call me names by all means. I won't take offence. However I'd ask of anyone who does feel I'm an idiot or flaming this post to pass along references to be debated. I realize this is the Meaningless Drivel board, however that doesn't mean facts can't be introduced!

No he can't. No you can't. Flaming and/or name calling is forbidden here, with or without references.
[ February 09, 2004: Message edited by: Marilyn de Queiroz ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
We also give ourselves latitude, as I see it, to remove anything which, in the judgment of moderators, nothing good can come from.
And what, in your opinion, is the good that can come from saying America was complicit in the Holocaust?

1. The opportunity to ask for information or viewpoint that leads anyone to such a conclusion.
2. The opportunity to point to actual facts to support this view.
3. The opportunity to identify a foolish point of view, and use it to determine for onesself the credibility of the speaker.
4. The opportunity to say something equally blind, opinionated, and ludicrous, but pro-American.
5. The opportunity to let a point stand and show by utter lack of response that no one cares about that view.
I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of.

[Michael Ernest]

JP: How about concrete policy questions?
ME: This is as close as we get to your requests for concrete policy.
JP: There was an implication that I'm unable to understand the rules, so how about answering the questions?
ME: My comment is that we've had several people over the years who have expressed discomfort with the way we moderate. The idea that you are "unable to understand the rules" is your inference alone. You seem to ignore my statement that we do not maintain a hard, fast set of rules.
Joe, you seem to take my attempts to address issues generally as veiled attempts to disparage you personally. If America is insulted, you as an American are insulted. If I mention several people have complained about the way JR is moderated, you say it's been implied you can't figure out the rules.
I think, so long as you or anyone here feels that the use of language Paul adovcates is purposefully indirect, and only intended to couch an unflattering personal comment, you can only end up suspecting everyone somehow has it out for you.
In any event, I've answered your question. Context matters. There is no absolute set of rules, no formal appellate process, no grievance committee. Neither is there a "purely arbitrary" environment. The moderators in fact tend to agree far more often than disagree on these matters. In terms of total subscribers on this site, the number who feel they cannot participate happily, given the way we moderate, is very small.
If you refuse to accept from me anything other than "yes" or "no" as an answer to your hypothetical question, we're done on that point.
[ February 09, 2004: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Interesting. I'd never thought to view war simply in terms of the political parties before. I'd always prefered to focus on the causes, stakes, and relative justness of these conflicts.

Funny stuff.

[michael bradly]

I suspect the Mad Hatter would be proud of this thread. This thread seems to be going along like this:
A point is made-
The point is countered-
The evidence used to counter the point is manipulated and used as vindication that the original point was correct.
I've made a few points. Granted I don't expect everyone to agree with them, however I did profer anyone who disagrees with my ascertations to kindly offer references as a rebuttal. Instead, much of what I have come across refers to me inderectly through third person and vagueness. The result being that much of what has resulted from my post appears to me to be a bunch of strawman arguments.
Example:
[QUOTE}Equating National Guard service with draft dodging is in extremely poor taste, not to mention incredibly insulting to the millions of Guardsmen who have honoarbly served, fought, and died in order to preserve the way of life and freedoms of those same people who would attack them for their service.... If some folks have such a low opinion of the National Guard so as to equate them with draft dodgers... Jason Menard
I concur. Equating Nation Guard service with draft dodging is in extremely poor taste, which makes it all the more egregious when it is used as a means to avoid the war! At no point did I equate joining the National Guard service with draft dodging. I did make the point the Bush joined the National Guard to dodge the draft, that he got preferential treatment, that he did not pass his fly test, and that he deserted. Again, please feel free to post any evidence you have that this is not the case. I'm open to information.
Here are more references regarding this:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/national/s_177797.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4291-2000Nov2.html
Notice that these articles are almost four years apart and this is still an issue as Bush has yet to clear up the questions regarding his service record with tangible evidence to disprove the statements made by his detractors.
How about Colin Powell... He is a decorated General serving in this administration. What are his feelings?
"I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed... managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units...Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country." (Colin Powell�s autobiography, My American Journey, p. 148) "

Paul, a post in this thread said America was complicit in the Holocaust. That is what I took exception to, and was told that it is acceptable. Joe Pluta

Can I be quoted on that? I never used the word complicit, however I did make mention that there is evidence coming out and increasingly more so that the US knew what was going on in Germany. I did give a quote and a reference. I did make mention that there were profiteers in the US such as Prescott Bush, IBM- Volkswagen used slave labor provided by the Nazi regime as well. Somehow for bringing this up I'm offensive, yet the fact that Bush has inhereted wealth off the blood of others is inoffensive?
"President Bush acknowledged that he was apparently wrong in stating on the eve of war with Iraq that there was "no doubt" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction."
Dana Milbank Washington Post Staff Writer
To this day the Bush dynasty is still profiteering off the lives of others. Yet, I'm offensive.

As ever,
Michael

[Joe King]

A main reason that so many people have a go at america is because of its size. Just about every country does good things and bad things. It just so happens that america is so big that the things it does come more regularly to our attention. Yes its done things that I detest, but it has also done things that I applaud. I expect even andorra has done some good and bad things, but they just don't get heard about so much
[I'm not saying this as a supporter of communism (I'm most definatly not), but as someone who has studied economics and politics.]
Communism isnt explicitly evil. There is no part in the communist manefesto that stipulates mass killing. The main problem communism had was that, like many radical doctrines, it was hidjacked by people who used it to become dictators. This ease in which it was taken over by dictators was the key flaw in communism. Communism grew out of socialsm (which is very strongly democratic), but left that democracy behind. Unfortunatly this meant that it was twisted into something that could be used by people like Stalin to do the things they did. Where it done on a smaller scale and in a democratic way, communism could work.... but thats another thread all together

[John Smith]

JP: That's okay. I can have a little fun, instead. I think I finally understand Eugene a little better now.
You are doing well, Joe. Bear with me.

[Paul Stevens]

Bush was not AWOL that has been discredited.
Links and excerpts from the NYT and Boston Globe.
From the source.
I could also post some links on the earth is flat. But that would not make the earth flat. Some people will believe whatever they want anyway.

[Jason Menard]

PS: Bush was not AWOL that has been discredited.
Links and excerpts from the NYT and Boston Globe.
From the source.

Asked if McAuliffe was prepared to apologize to the White House for misstating Gen. Turnipseed's position on the Bush AWOL allegation, a spokesman for the DNC told NewsMax: "I don't know. We'll get back to you."

In this day and age, you simply can't expect people to retract their blatantly false and outrageous statements. Not even here.

[Joe Pluta]

If I mention several people have complained about the way JR is moderated, you say it's been implied you can't figure out the rules.
Hey, hey, hey, no personal comments, Michael.
In any event, my comment was in response to your remark: "I can't seem to explain the difference..." ya da ya da ya da. We both know I know the difference and I was simply stating my opinion that inferring that millions of Americans were complicit in the Holocaust is far less civil than calling someone an idiot for saying so. You disagree. I have my opinions on that, but at this point any further discussion is counter-productive.
To summarize: at JavaRanch, one cannot say anything even remotely negative about another person. However, if you feel like spewing the most vile, venomous bilge about America or its people, policy or President, no matter how offensive and how baseless, this is the place to do it. (And if I read the thread correctly, other countries and/or people are fair game as well, as long as they're not JavaRanchers.)
That, in a nutshell, is the JavaRanch policy.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: However, if you feel like spewing the most vile, venomous bilge about America or its people, policy or President, no matter how offensive and how baseless, this is the place to do it.
Joe, I wish I felt as secure about my country as Americans feel about um... our. Why do you feel America needs your protection? It is strong enough for not to care when a few putzes express their frustration.

[Joe Pluta]

I'm not worried about America, Map, I'm just trying to decide whether I want to participate in MD. If MD is going to be a place that tolerates hatred, then I don't want any part of it. That's why I LIKED Paul's "be nice" rule, and why I have tried to keep my comments civil.
However, as long as you're not talking about a JavaRancher, it seems that hatred is allowed. I suppose I can just ignore those kinds of posts and move on, but at that point MD is nothing more than a prettied-up Usenet, IMO, and one with some pretty nasty anti-American rhetoric to boot. So what's the point?
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: I'm not worried about America, Map, I'm just trying to decide whether I want to participate in MD. If MD is going to be a place that tolerates hatred, then I don't want any part of it.
1. That's a life.
2. You aren't required to tolerate hatred.
3. If you don't want to fight hatred, then whom do you expect to do it?
4. MD is as good as we make it. It cannot be better.
5. Most important: what you see as "hatred" can be as well seen as "opinion". You got a perfect opportunity to educate your opponents here, in this forum, and you complain?

[John Smith]

So, how was your vacation, Map?

[Mapraputa Is]

Just great. I am afraid I became more pro-American than Joe!

[Joe Pluta]

3. If you don't want to fight hatred, then whom do you expect to do it?
Hatred cannot be "fought" Map. Hatred is a disease, and it's victims are not the type to be swayed by logical discussion. People willing to exchange thoughts and debate issues, that's one thing. Blind, vicious hatred is another issue entirely.

5. Most important: what you see as "hatred" can be as well seen as "opinion". You got a perfect opportunity to educate your opponents here, in this forum, and you complain?
What education is performed by denying American complicity in the Holocaust? It's a ludicrous accusation, and denying it simply lends credibility to the accuser.

Joe

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Paul, a post in this thread said America was complicit in the Holocaust. That is what I took exception to, and was told that it is acceptable.

If someone were to state later on that India was complicit in 9/11 I would not be infuriated. Simply because I know it is false, much the same way I know America was NOT complicit in the holocaust. To take exception and debate the point is one thing, to start throwing accusations of bias is another thing all together.
As far as I know, there is a lot of India bashing in this forum as well but you dont see any Indian complaining of bias against India. Sure, if someone were to remark something against India he or she is going to be held responsible by the large Indian community on this forum. Similarly if someone said something bad about America, he or she is going to be held responsible by the American community on this forum. I dont see any bias in this!

[Joe Pluta]

As far as I know, there is a lot of India bashing in this forum as well but you dont see any Indian complaining of bias against India.
Exactly where is this India bashing, Paul? Show me one place where someone said something baseless and unfounded about India. The closest I have ever seen is where a nice lady very civilly opined that India had a parasitic economy and that person was absolutely thrashed by JavaRanch's Indian community.
You can say a lot of things, but one thing you can't say that any country gets as much blatant hatred as America on JavaRanch.
Joe

[Mapraputa Is]

... a nice lady very civilly opined that India had a parasitic economy
You type this with a serious face, don't you, Joe?
--------------------
"I wish I will be as tasty as any other meat" -- Ravish.

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Exactly where is this India bashing, Paul? Show me one place where someone said something baseless and unfounded about India.

I dont have the time to dig up old threads and hand it over to you but go ahead and use the search button on the upper right hand portion of your screen. Search for Rufus's nuke india comment or Natalie's parasitic economy comment or thomas's nuclear holocaust comment. What seems civil to someone else can be very offensive to me but then again I dont complain of bias.
Infact most of the threads on jobs discussion in the last couple of years will prove me right.

You can say a lot of things, but one thing you can't say that any country gets as much blatant hatred as America on JavaRanch.

Thats an opinion not a fact and I can have the same opinion that US is not the only country that is subject to bashing on this forum. The difference between our opinions is that I dont complain. That "nice lady" who "civilly opined" was taken to task by the Indian community on this board. Not by the moderators. Similarly it is the responsibility of the American community on this board to defend against any baseless and offensive comment. And as long as I have been on this board I have never seen the moderator community interfere in that. That is the whole point, where is the "bias" in this???