It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
KiNgBrAdLeY7: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/maria-ladenburger-raped-murdered-germany-freiburg-afghan-asylum-seeker-refugee-jailed-greece-corfu-a7477371.html

That subhuman species was imprisoned here, after rape attempt gone wrong against a girl university student. SYRIZA released him on the law enacted by Paraskevopoulos and Greece is at fault for such trash polluting our society and killing our angels, our future, our kids...

From "Sea has no border" to minister's of defense initial threats "to swarm europe with refugees unless you lower the debt", all the way to the government electing new laws to put out of prison activist-terrorists and murderers, before (Romanos, Ksiros), even Syriza youth itself, are in active meddling in unison with rebels and anarchists (skourletis' son was among the anarchists ranks who broke and torched offices of other political parties and they didn't arrest him).

Beware and take your measures; it is a bordello with wide open doors. All the scum of the earth come and go through there and straight into your homes.

But take care or you yourselves will throw your very own tombstones over your very heads:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4004480/Pictured-Afghan-migrant-17-modelled-gangsta-rappers-raped-murdered-EU-official-s-daughter-met-work-refugees.html

Pathetic, sad and pitiful. Blasphemy and sullying of the victim. Now, you will pay them, to rape your daughters and kill your people??? Their entire madhouse of a country will migrate here, then

Let's hope Trump puts an end to the nightmare of EU's external policy, before we all loose our heads. Heck, not even Merkel want more scum going to her before elections and ordered that clown of a prime minister, to make sure she has no new Scum sent over there, until then...

God damn it all, what takes so long for the disgusting monstrosity of a Union to fall into rabble??
Do you really think this is an OK thing to say on a public forum?
avatar
catpower1980: According to the Belgian radio (where I heard the news first this morning) and Arte (the French-German TV channel), the suspect is an afghan/pakistani who arrived in Germany as an asylum seeker in Februari 2016.

http://info.arte.tv/fr/afp/actualites/un-camion-fonce-dans-un-marche-de-noel-berlin-au-moins-12-morts

EDIT: adding the BBC article where they also confirm this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38373867
avatar
Matruchus: Breitbart London also confirms this: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/19/one-dead-lorry-plows-berlin-christmas-market/

avatar
fables22: Do you really think this is an OK thing to say on a public forum?
avatar
Matruchus: Its not politically correct yes, but not far away from the truth and if public discourse will be prohibited like its becoming more and more in Europe then we will have a bomb that will burst soon. He is insulting and probably way out of any acceptable line but if you don't let them speak it will make a bigger problem at the end.
I dare to disagree with that. If you let them speak, you encourage the hatefulness and it's not like it needs to be encouraged any more these days, right.
low rated
avatar
morolf: Yeah, German tv is pathetic, it's obvious they'd like it to be an accident...will obviously be bad for fat Angela if it turns out it was terrorism, even more so if the perpetrator came as a refugee.
avatar
Tyrrhia: True. But they’d much rather want the attack to be perpetrated by a German with a true German heritage and not just some German papers, to show that we are the true evil.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11500#efmAAGABr

(Attention! You must have CNN’s approval to read or even open the aforementioned link. Opening it without approval is illegal and will get you into trouble.)

avatar
fables22: Do you really think this is an OK thing to say on a public forum?
avatar
Tyrrhia: It’s not a question whether this is OK or not. The important thing is whether we’re standing behind it. And we are, because we know (“I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it.”) we’re doing the right thing.

It’s better to be suppressed for speaking common sense than inevitably be suppressed one by one (you included) by the “victims.” You are hiding behind a thick, biased veil of political correctness, scrutinising every word we use and every typo we make, and refusing to confront our ideas without resorting to (most of the time, non‐physical, fortunately) violence.

avatar
fables22: I dare to disagree with that. If you let them speak, you encourage the hatefulness and it's not like it needs to be encouraged any more these days, right.
avatar
Tyrrhia: Fairness reminder: “hatefulness” and “racism” aren’t exclusively White things.
No, whether it is OK or not is exactly the question. And no, it's not OK.

Also - no one said they were.
low rated
avatar
Starmaker: I'm surprised your mother let you live.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Has the phrase ''be the change'' ever been communicated to you?
avatar
fables22: No, whether it is OK or not is exactly the question. And no, it's not OK.

Also - no one said they were.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: That's the problem though. Many people here think the question is why they don't get to choose by themselves what's OK. A simple hide posts of users feature perhaps?

The question of whether its OK or not really depends on what the people managing the forum wants, ie you guys. To some forum owners, what Bradley said is OK. After all, forum and site rules aren't enforceable laws and what rules are obeyed is virtually fully in the hands of the managers. Its not anyone said online forums must have parity with real world laws beyond not allowing illegal activity.
Yes, but certain things (that do, unfortunately) happen on the forum as well are punishable under hate crime and/or equality laws of many countries. Hence why in some cases people shouldn't have the option to choose what's OK.
low rated
avatar
fables22: Yes, but certain things (that do, unfortunately) happen on the forum as well are punishable under hate crime and/or equality laws of many countries. Hence why in some cases people shouldn't have the option to choose what's OK.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Unfortunately, a state of absolute compliance with such laws can never be achieved on a forum, so its the choice of the forum owner whether an example may be an actionable one irl or not. That is, if illegality is the sole measure of removing posts.

An important difference though is that heavy handed laws that curb speech can be legally pursued in court in real life while on the internet, it will just be a gradual imposition of more and more regulations. Ofc any regulations can be had since its not the user's forum, but that's where the question how much control shows up.

I for one certainly don't want moderation like that on the default subs of reddit for example, or neogaf, where the actual rules are ignored and the real rules are little more than agreeing with a position or being banned. Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think ''conventional'' moderation is not something to aspire to.
The problem is that "I certainly don't want moderation like on reddit and neogaf" hasn't got an awful lot of value here, because I bet that for every opinion like that, we will get someone who is a 100% convinced that's exactly the level of moderation this forum needs. In other words, someone is always going to be upset. However, I think that if moderation is something that can resurrect the forum and slowly turn it into a place that people actually feel like contributing to, then that maybe is the way to go.

And it's not about having to agree with the mainstream opinion - it's about being able to voice opinions that differ without offending and/or insulting anyone. Which means changes of behaviour must be made on both sides, so we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
low rated
avatar
Avogadro6: Condolences for the victims.

American channels report that Isis claimed to be behind the killing, whereas European media are still going for the classic "maybe it was just an accident". So I guess that means it really was an attack, then...
avatar
Dismember77777: Victims? Eurotards brought all this on themselves, the only thing to be sad about is more people weren't killed.
Honestly, if you don't have anything better than hateful slurs to say, maybe....don't say anything at all?
avatar
Dismember77777: Victims? Eurotards brought all this on themselves, the only thing to be sad about is more people weren't killed.
avatar
throgh: Wow, simply disrespect because we "Europeans" brought this to ourselves? Much appreciated, because you show exactly with no further need for any evidence what the main problem here is: Pure ignorance and hatred!
Nail on the head.
Post edited December 20, 2016 by fables22
low rated
avatar
fables22: The problem is that "I certainly don't want moderation like on reddit and neogaf" hasn't got an awful lot of value here, because I bet that for every opinion like that, we will get someone who is a 100% convinced that's exactly the level of moderation this forum needs. In other words, someone is always going to be upset. However, I think that if moderation is something that can resurrect the forum and slowly turn it into a place that people actually feel like contributing to, then that maybe is the way to go.

And it's not about having to agree with the mainstream opinion - it's about being able to voice opinions that differ without offending and/or insulting anyone. Which means changes of behaviour must be made on both sides, so we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Yes, what you said is true, someone will be mad at whatever change happens. So I guess the only option is to select a method that makes a balanced compromise? But the question remains, if any type of moderation is to be implemented, what will it focus on?
Why would it need to focus on something? Or else - what should it focus on? Something other than making this forum a place where one doesn't feel like respect and dignity are long forgotten?
low rated
avatar
fables22: Why would it need to focus on something? Or else - what should it focus on? Something other than making this forum a place where one doesn't feel like respect and dignity are long forgotten?
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Ie what will it target? Shouldn't it have a more well defined goal? Ie stop the alt account and report and rep abuse or this ''hostility'' problem. If curing the forum is the objective, what the primary diseases are should be found out beforehand, right? Doesn't make sense to fight an invisible enemy.
Who said we'd be fighting an invisible enemy? There's plenty of very, very visible enemies. Alt accounts? Yes. Report and rep? Indeed. Hate speech, racism, xenophobia? Yes, yes, and yes. Why would it have to be one or the other? It needs to be all or nothing (and it's been shown just fine by now that that option does not work), otherwise we'd move nowhere.
low rated
avatar
GreasyDogMeat: Muhammad is the perfect role model of Islam. Muhammad was uncertain that he would reach Heaven. Yet the Quran offers a few guarantees of reaching Heaven.

-Immigrating to another country, bringing the message of Allah and dying in the process. "And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah."
-Jihad in the cause of Allah. "Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward (Surah 4:74)".

Yet you people either wonder why these acts are being committed or call those of us bringing this to your attention hate mongers. THE TERRORISTS ARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS!

Here come the down votes.
avatar
Dismember77777: You expect Eurotards to actually think?
Right. That's maybe enough. Once again, no valuable contribution to the discussion.
low rated
avatar
fables22: Right. That's maybe enough. Once again, no valuable contribution to the discussion.
avatar
Years_of_Chaos: Maybe your a white supremist?
*you're.

And maybe I'm not.
avatar
Dismember77777: You expect Eurotards to actually think?
avatar
GreasyDogMeat: I realize whats happening in the world is extremely emotional and I find it disgusting how blinded they seem to be about whats really going on, but you need to use facts and not insults to get your point across. Posts like this just make them close up and no listen to reason. That's bad for everyone.
I'm not saying I agree with what you've been saying, buy I a 100% agree with this. For some people, discussion equals throwing insults and slurs around. Until there's something other than just that, what's the point of pretending we're even having a discussion in the first place?
avatar
fables22: Who said we'd be fighting an invisible enemy? There's plenty of very, very visible enemies. Alt accounts? Yes. Report and rep? Indeed. Hate speech, racism, xenophobia? Yes, yes, and yes. Why would it have to be one or the other? It needs to be all or nothing (and it's been shown just fine by now that that option does not work), otherwise we'd move nowhere.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: So there is a rough idea about what is going to be done? Ie what is going to warrant a ban / warning? A revised set of rules would be great, or will it be sticking to the current ones?
Yes, there is a rough idea of what is going to be done, and the most important features of it will be implemented soon. Before the features are in effect, the community will be made aware of the fact that the rules have changed (if they end up changing), as well as what the consequences of breaking them are.
low rated
avatar
fables22: And it's not about having to agree with the mainstream opinion - it's about being able to voice opinions that differ without offending and/or insulting anyone.
avatar
WBGhiro: Well couldn't say something like "Fallout 4 is shit" either then.
No. That's not at all what that means. Think again.
avatar
Years_of_Chaos: You dont speak for everybody and you are intolerant.
avatar
throgh: No I don't speak for "everybody" but tolerating the "intolerance" sounds a little bit strange, doesn't it? You are talking about rejection. Talking about protection. You want to blame someone? Go ahead and take your own nose. We are ALL responsible coming to this result. So either we go on with hatred and prejudices making it even more worse or we stop this vicious ciricle. By the way: The responsibility also includes myself. Ah and it seems you are not willing to have more deeper thoughts so you just make it easy and simple: Declaring myself as "intolerant". Go on, as I've said ignorance is the best, fastest solution, letting us all to this.

EDIT: By the way, dear community-management ... I now it is quite complicate. But do you really think this all here can be called "community"? People using the forum as place to tolerate hatred and prejudices, crying out about intolerance when there are words against their opinion and of course making the postings going red. Nice one: Quite the best demonstration about our own intolerance here. We are learning good from our history! :D
Despite the second paragraph not having a lot of relevance to this particular discussion, I'll give you a response anyway. No, I don't think that this is a community in the true sense. The fact that it's been and continues to be called that, however, doesn't help (or impair) solving this community crisis anyway, so we might as well just stick to the wording.
low rated
avatar
Shadowstalker16: @throgh : please stop feeding the obvious troll. You are wasting your time by discussing against his low effort responses.

@Fables : so something regarding moderation is on the books? Will we see it this year?
No, it will most likely not happen in the next 11 days. Sorry :(