I'm with you gal.
However, we'd possibly end up all agreeing on everything, and the thread may then fizzle out fairly quickly. Unfortunately, it does help to have someone with a slightly different view from ours to play devil's advocate. That arouses passion, and counter-argument, and then even some of the brilliance that was shown by HM and Three on that infamous but fundamentally racist thread.
I suppose the Prophet was merely trolling though. And perhaps someone like him doesn't deserve a platform on this wonderful forum. Either way, he has now been consigned to Hell... who am I to argue with God's judgement on that?
Musivore, I too wanted to read that thread again. I relish the rare opportunity to read or listen to an educated or intelligent sounding racist. When I get round to it, I want read David Irving on the Holocaust — and indeed Hitler’s own book. This place would be diminished if it were to become an echo chamber where everyone agrees with everyone on most things most of the time. I think a little bit of variety, a little bit of dissonance would be the desideratum. Keeping this in mind, I really wish if CallMe Ted wasn’t hounded by loads of members in the manner they did — I agree, he’s stirred up a hornet’s nest by assuming Ex Muslims weren’t intellectuals, but then I too had thought that and said so to you, Musivore, not very long ago; sometimes we all can be very arrogant and condescending without noticing it, and more importantly, without meaning to. If his last reply (#104) is anything to go by, CallMe Ted has now been blown from the forum after having been blown by it. I wondered how different this ganging up was from what bullying Muslims do when they outnumber you with their possibly halitosis rich Takbeeeer!
I don’t understand a lot about how this forum is run nor am I interested in such a thing but it always strikes me as odd when internet forums and participative websites say that views published on their platforms are not their views but that of the individuals saying them unless these views are said by our editors and mods. Yet they seem to restrict the posting of repugnant if not personal views expressed by others on their platforms all too quickly, killing off in the process the fine tradition of jesters, village idiots and outcasts. In the thread concerned, what David was thinking loud about from his gardener perspective also seemed to have the capacity to ruffle feathers. I find CERTAINTY in most matters suspicious and most of what we do here when we post topics is to think in the presence of reasonable others, with the chance of having our thinking examined, challenged as well as confirmed. Yet, very few make this I’m-only-thinking-not-sharing-my-convictions explicit in the manner or the language we use when posting. I put my hand up: unless I specifically state the contrary, I’m always thinking, always being something I probably couldn’t in real life because of social constraints and the often choking cloak of conventionalised conformity.
Recently, Sir Tim Hunt - a UCL scientist and Nobel Prize winner – made a stupid and sexist joke which cost him his position at UCL as he was made to resign; I really don’t see the link between his stupid sexism and scientific brilliance. Instead of acknowledging that ignoble side of our thinking, this way of institutions ironing out individuals’ stupidities only fosters the growth of lots of politically correct fakers, nodding their assent during work hours and in public only. Why was the Rosetta scientist Dr Matt Taylor -- who wore a T shirt with women wearing PVC and firing guns – crying his apology?
A mentor of mine, who used to write articles to the online Guardian, wrote an article in defence of President Jacob Zuma during one of his visit to the UK; wrote the article on having more than one wife, and how that should be put in the context of his south African culture; that it wasn’t for us in the West to universalise one-for-one formalised love, casting whomever went out to the devil. So what happened? He got his article thrown in his face and they stopped publishing three subsequent and unrelated articles as well.
P.S. bear in mind I'm only thinking.
Topic: Was it fundamentally wrong to move that racist thread?