Hitler

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

To those KG children who have been complaining to Praveen about me, take a look at this warning he has issued:

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/14863-must-read-your-attention.html#post224934

Don't even try to bring up a discussion of him even in veiled indirect fashion. If you do, I will respond. Let us all avoid unnecessary and unwarranted trouble.

Dear Shri Praveen,

The full post reads as under:

[Must Read] For Your Attention

Topics and Posts about EVR are banned in this forum. So any posts/topics that call him in a veiled manner including masking his name or posting alias (big river..) are not taken lightly. Members doing so will be suspened without any warning.

Whatever your personal opinion might be about him, this is not the place to talk about it.

At the same time please report any posts that talk about him so that action can be taken.​

With all my sincerity, may I tell you that such a blanket ban on EVR and any post about him, in this Forum, looks to me as an overreaction. I am no admirer or hater of EVR, but to me EVR looks as much relevant for the tabras today as perhaps U. Ve . Swaminatha Iyer.

May be some people have complained to you repeatedly and shrilly, and that was why you have been compelled to take such an extreme decision in this matter; or else, you or your family has had very bad experiences, in the past, from the DK people in the past. Whatever that may be, will it not be a more mature step to prevent only eulogisation of EVR and not prevent even adverse notices about him?

Now you have banned even aliases such as Bigriver etc. But then it is possible that DK, DMk, AIADMK, MDMK and so on are brought into the picture just to indirectly point the finger to the "Gangotri" of all these Kazhagams; will it be a feasible step, then, to ban any mention of any of these Kazhagams' names from discussions about Tabras?

I, therefore, feel that the name of EVR be allowed to be mentioned factually and that no eulogization of that person is allowed. If still some members find any post/s offensive, they can report and you are the final arbiter, of course. If the forum is to work in accordance with the sensitivity/sensitivities of some/all the members, then it will be like building a house according to everybody's liking, I feel.

This is just a suggestion, for consideration, please.
​

 

[sangom]

hi sir,

nara is not ONLY a writer but also good orator tooo....but the problem is with time/place......in his poorvashrama...a devout

SRI VAISHNAVA TOO.... but when a devout a vaishnava can become a naive ATHEIST TOO....he is worshipper of EVR/ AMBEDKAR....

he is not against sri ramanuja and but against latter saints of sri vaishnavas.............he is against brahmanism and some

part of hinduism.....he can manipulate any truth according to his choice....

Dear Shri tbs,

I do not think the words "a naive ATHEIST TOO" is becoming of a person like you, who, I have seen only as a mild-mannered writer not offending others.

If you feel that atheism itself is naiveté, then it is a highly controversial point. Shri Nara himself had given the wiki page of world famous atheists including our Jawaharlal Nehru, if my memory is correct. You may have therefore, to first prove that all these great personalities were really naive and it may also be necessary to point out their various naive actions/decisions.

If, on the contrary, your view is that Nara, the atheist is a naive person, I disagree strongly. But then, it is a matter to be settled between the two of you.

 

[zebra16]

You are a well known part time sniper anyway, never one to stay and finish a discussion.

A part time sniper is any day better than a full time terrorist like you. The part time sniper gives at least some respite when he is not on a job much unlike the terrorists masquerading themselves as rationalists (and arm chair at that) who try to hold the entire members here as hostage all the while and want it as their right and privilege.

I used to have some respect for you, but not anymore, I am sorry to say ....

You need not feel sorry. I do not come around here to look for respect from anyone. I refuse to accept it from you even if you attempt to thrust it upon me.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Shri Praveen,

The full post reads as under:



With all my sincerity, may I tell you that such a blanket ban on EVR and any post about him, in this Forum, looks to me as an overreaction. I am no admirer or hater of EVR, but to me EVR looks as much relevant for the tabras today as perhaps U. Ve . Swaminatha Iyer.

May be some people have complained to you repeatedly and shrilly, and that was why you have been compelled to take such an extreme decision in this matter; or else, you or your family has had very bad experiences, in the past, from the DK people in the past. Whatever that may be, will it not be a more mature step to prevent only eulogisation of EVR and not prevent even adverse notices about him?

Now you have banned even aliases such as Bigriver etc. But then it is possible that DK, DMk, AIADMK, MDMK and so on are brought into the picture just to indirectly point the finger to the "Gangotri" of all these Kazhagams; will it be a feasible step, then, to ban any mention of any of these Kazhagams' names from discussions about Tabras?

I, therefore, feel that the name of EVR be allowed to be mentioned factually and that no eulogization of that person is allowed. If still some members find any post/s offensive, they can report and you are the final arbiter, of course. If the forum is to work in accordance with the sensitivity/sensitivities of some/all the members, then it will be like building a house according to everybody's liking, I feel.

This is just a suggestion, for consideration, please.
[/INDENT]

Dear Sangom,

while I agree fully with the basic thrust of your appeal to the moderator I would like to qualify your appeal as given below:

Dear Praveen,

Banning a politician's words from the forum can become necessary and unavoidable for the common good of the forum in the following circumstances:

1. When those words are inflammatory.

2. When those words trivialize and trash and mock at the view expressed by majority of the members of the forum.

3. Those words are abusive or indecent or repulsive.

4. When a member repeatedly quote the nonsense(by majority opinion) uttered by the politician and goes ahead and glorify/deify him for uttering those very words.

The unmentionable person was just a politician. His words meet several of the above mentioned conditions and so deserves to be banned. If he has also said benign words which are not in the offensive category about any subject they need not be banned. Let us not appear to be afraid of/allergic to/fixated on the unmentionable person-only his views are not acceptable to us. One good thing that has happened is that Mr. Nara has done a service to the community by repeatedly bringing forth the unmentionable persons name and his words. That gave us an opportunity to understand why he should be banned or ignored. That also gave us an opportunity to understand how Hitler like people can easily freely distribute hatred opiate and mobilize a society. So I would recommend this:

1.Let us not ban names. Let us ban anti-brahmin views because this is largely a brahmin forum. Just because this forum supports free expression, it can not be exploited by people to sell their hatred wares here in sugar quoted doses.

2.We can still discuss the unmentionable person by name and take a look at his views on topics other than brahmins like the Tamil language, independence of India, women's liberty etc., as long as brahmins are not mentioned anywhere.

I hope you will consider this.

 

[tks]

My personal view is that people respect the Moderator's directive on such items since it is a unique role and rules imposed are very few anyway.
There are large number of topics to debate and discuss in anycase.

If I remember right, Sri Praveen did offer a separate area for -no holds barred- discussions based on my understanding. That would have been a reasonable compromise but it was 'voted down' .....

 

[sarang]

This will not work. Irrespective of the topic under discussion, the unmentionable person will be glorified with perceived yeomen service he has done to the tamil society by purging select communities. The flood gates then will open and the bb community under real or false identities will re-gurgle archives and vitiate any discussion. There are lots of other groups where his so called good work can be discussed. Even his true chelas have cast him to the dustbin, because they know that his views and actions are loudly disputed and condemned not only by brahmins, but other hindus as well.

1.Let us not ban names. Let us ban anti-brahmin views because this is largely a brahmin forum. Just because this forum supports free expression, it can not be exploited by people to sell their hatred wares here in sugar quoted doses.

2.We can still discuss the unmentionable person by name and take a look at his views on topics other than brahmins like the Tamil language, independence of India, women's liberty etc., as long as brahmins are not mentioned anywhere.

I hope you will consider this.

 

[indianassault]

Forum Admins,
In stead of banning him, ban this thread or me. I only created this thread

 

[sarang]

Does not help. The unmentionable name virus will creep in in gentle threads too.

Forum Admins,
In stead of banning him, ban this thread or me. I only created this thread

 

[praveen]

I am multi-quoting from the above replies...

With all my sincerity, may I tell you that such a blanket ban on EVR and any post about him, in this Forum, looks to me as an overreaction.

A year or so ago there was a topic on EVR and it went violently out of control with people trading insults left, right and center. Repeated appeals to see sense fell on deaf ears and i believe 2 or maybe 3 members were banned for crossing the line. While those who wanted to talk about him were few in number, those who opposed him were an overwhelming majority simply for the fact EVR is (and was) seen as anti-brahmin. The ban on EVR came into effect only after that.

Now you have banned even aliases such as Bigriver etc.

Obviously, that make me look like a stupid. Isnt it? If a topic/person is banned from being discussed, what does it say when ppll start using aliases? Put that in a real life situation and you will see my point.

If the forum is to work in accordance with the sensitivity/sensitivities of some/all the members, then it will be like building a house according to everybody's liking, I feel.

If that had been the case, the forum would have ceased to exist long time ago .

Those words are abusive or indecent or repulsive.

What defines abusive? indecent? People have reported posts for as silly as being called a fool or an idiot. In the context of the discussion those were not abusive at all. But, from what i have seen, the initial promises are like a writing on water. Fast forward a few days and it all starts all over again.

If I remember right, Sri Praveen did offer a separate area for -no holds barred- discussions based on my understanding. That would have been a reasonable compromise but it was 'voted down' .....

ditto.

My personal view is that people respect the Moderator's directive on such items since it is a unique role and rules imposed are very few anyway.
There are large number of topics to debate and discuss in anycase.

point to be noted.

 

[renuka]

No doubt I respect the Moderators decision cos this a majority TB member forum but I hope some members stop to think that each community has some one they totally dislike..so keep that in mind and at least put yourselves in the place of the Jews and do not try to glorify Hitler in anyway..just as much it hurts to read about some people we do not want anyone to glorify..some posts here too would be hurting and insensitive to the Jewish community.

It is not fair that we do not like to be hurt but indulge in games that hurt others.

I feel this thread should be closed..its of no use to keep it open...it would be utter hypocrisy to keep it open.

“Democracy is not merely a form of Government.
It is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.
It is essentially an attitude of respect and reverence towards our fellow men.”
― B.R. Ambedkar,

Enjoy this song: We Didn't Start The Fire

[video=youtube_share;2v2JcpolIQU]http://youtu.be/2v2JcpolIQU[/video]

 

[prasad1]

Dear Shri Praveen,

The full post reads as under:



With all my sincerity, may I tell you that such a blanket ban on EVR and any post about him, in this Forum, looks to me as an overreaction. I am no admirer or hater of EVR, but to me EVR looks as much relevant for the tabras today as perhaps U. Ve . Swaminatha Iyer.

May be some people have complained to you repeatedly and shrilly, and that was why you have been compelled to take such an extreme decision in this matter; or else, you or your family has had very bad experiences, in the past, from the DK people in the past. Whatever that may be, will it not be a more mature step to prevent only eulogisation of EVR and not prevent even adverse notices about him?

Now you have banned even aliases such as Bigriver etc. But then it is possible that DK, DMk, AIADMK, MDMK and so on are brought into the picture just to indirectly point the finger to the "Gangotri" of all these Kazhagams; will it be a feasible step, then, to ban any mention of any of these Kazhagams' names from discussions about Tabras?

I, therefore, feel that the name of EVR be allowed to be mentioned factually and that no eulogization of that person is allowed. If still some members find any post/s offensive, they can report and you are the final arbiter, of course. If the forum is to work in accordance with the sensitivity/sensitivities of some/all the members, then it will be like building a house according to everybody's liking, I feel.

This is just a suggestion, for consideration, please.
[/INDENT]

I think Praveenji has made his point (many times). As grown up we need to self police our posting, it is too much to expect one moderator/administrator/arbitrator to read and police each and every posting. If some members are not conforming even after repeated warnings, I think the moderator should take strong action.

I also agree with Renukaji's post that glorifying some Mass murderer should be allowed. The so called defense of mass murderer like Hitler is at best, on some half baked knowledge. Entire History can not be wrong just because some xxxx cries from the top of some stone structure.

I have met people who have been tortured in concentration camps of Hitler, I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom,

while I agree fully with the basic thrust of your appeal to the moderator I would like to qualify your appeal as given below:

Dear Praveen,

Banning a politician's words from the forum can become necessary and unavoidable for the common good of the forum in the following circumstances:

1. When those words are inflammatory.

2. When those words trivialize and trash and mock at the view expressed by majority of the members of the forum.

3. Those words are abusive or indecent or repulsive.

4. When a member repeatedly quote the nonsense(by majority opinion) uttered by the politician and goes ahead and glorify/deify him for uttering those very words.

The unmentionable person was just a politician. His words meet several of the above mentioned conditions and so deserves to be banned. If he has also said benign words which are not in the offensive category about any subject they need not be banned. Let us not appear to be afraid of/allergic to/fixated on the unmentionable person-only his views are not acceptable to us. One good thing that has happened is that Mr. Nara has done a service to the community by repeatedly bringing forth the unmentionable persons name and his words. That gave us an opportunity to understand why he should be banned or ignored. That also gave us an opportunity to understand how Hitler like people can easily freely distribute hatred opiate and mobilize a society. So I would recommend this:

1.Let us not ban names. Let us ban anti-brahmin views because this is largely a brahmin forum. Just because this forum supports free expression, it can not be exploited by people to sell their hatred wares here in sugar quoted doses.

2.We can still discuss the unmentionable person by name and take a look at his views on topics other than brahmins like the Tamil language, independence of India, women's liberty etc., as long as brahmins are not mentioned anywhere.

I hope you will consider this.

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

I don't want to begin a long discussion but when I joined this forum there was no disqualification on dissenting views or views which did not toe the line of the majority. I feel the forum attained the present level because of that "inclusiveness". If, however, it is the decision to make this an exclusive club for the majority only, so be it. But let that be spelt out boldly and clearly for all to see; the dissenters will leave.

 

[tks]

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

I don't want to begin a long discussion but when I joined this forum there was no disqualification on dissenting views or views which did not toe the line of the majority. I feel the forum attained the present level because of that "inclusiveness". If, however, it is the decision to make this an exclusive club for the majority only, so be it. But let that be spelt out boldly and clearly for all to see; the dissenters will leave.

All-

I really do not see any 'majority' across the board. There is always a majority view point in a given topic but the people making up that majority varies based on the topic.

Dissenting views are still permitted very much from my point of view. I do not see what harm has been done to any inclusiveness. The only request I have is to not attack any person directly and focus attacks if any on the post itself.

There is no exclusive club. Banning discussions about just one person is not a big deal - the reason is that responsible discussions do not take place with many of the adult-children here.

There are no one group of dissenters that always dissent on everything.

If someone wants to leave that is their choice - they are not doing any favor to anyone by sharing their great wisdom and thereby helping the forum in anyway. In fact it is the other way around - they tend to find a place to voice their opinion and find their mutual admiration society of people.

Let us be thankful that this forum exist for our time being spent on 4th quadrant activities

The offer to have a separate area for any discussion was voted down by many that are complaining now. Therefore let us not make a big deal about a small rule ...and move on ...

 

[praveen]

Dear Shri Vaagmi,

I don't want to begin a long discussion but when I joined this forum there was no disqualification on dissenting views or views which did not toe the line of the majority. I feel the forum attained the present level because of that "inclusiveness". If, however, it is the decision to make this an exclusive club for the majority only, so be it.

The forum has never ever been an exclusive club right from the minute it was started on Jan 9th, 2006.

But let that be spelt out boldly and clearly for all to see; the dissenters will leave.

What should be spelt when there is nothing to be spelt.

In the last 8 years only 2 people were "asked" to leave. Members have been banned for various reasons including profanity, abuse, and ofcourse for threatening (and stalking) my family. It has always been the members choice to stay or leave.
As with any place there are a few guidelines/rules that evolve as time goes by and members are asked (most of the times requested) to adhere to them. If asking to adhering to rules/guidelines is a crime, then my hands are tied.

my point made. thread closed as asked above.