Prussian Blue., More racism! Yay! Options

[PsychWardMike]

So I found this article.

And I must say... I'm disgusted. The white trash parents, the racism of children. It boggles my mind, but that's not really what this topic is intended to be about.

How far does the American First Ammendment go? How much until we say "enough" and mute people like Fred Phelps, the KKK, NAMBLA, and this music label? How far can freedom be extended until it becomes an abuse and a laughable mockery of everything that the American founding fathers envisioned?

Now, I'd like to think myself an ardent supporter of free speech, but the aforementioned groups are nothing but pure evil. They have caused problems and they will again.

Should we stop them?

[pgrmdave]

How far does the American First Ammendment go? How much until we say "enough" and mute people like Fred Phelps, the KKK, NAMBLA, and this music label? How far can freedom be extended until it becomes an abuse and a laughable mockery of everything that the American founding fathers envisioned?

The freedom stops where my freedom to not listen begins. It is never right for the majority to stop people from saying what they think, even if they are certain of their correctness, even if almost everybody agrees that something is wrong. It is only wrong for someone to force their opinions out there, or to act upon said opinions. Just because it is morally reprehensive to me, you, or anybody we would deem sane does not mean that we are right to censor it.

[Mata]

Just because it is morally reprehensive to me, you, or anybody we would deem sane does not mean that we are right to censor it.

On that logic, computer generated child pornography would be completely acceptable, and I just don't agree.

I'm an idealist. I hope for a society with wise leaders who can make liberal but strong decisions. Freedom of expression is a liberal concept and should be encouraged, but when that infringes on the rights of others, for example by encouraging a climate of fear, then I think that limitations need to be imposed. Again, this can be taken too far; how much fear is necessary to make something wrong? Is it wrong to interpret data in a logical manner?

An example I've used on here before runs that the police commisioner for London found that the majority of muggings were done by young black men, and so stated that he would be putting additional police in areas that had a high population of young black men. This was interpreted by many, including the press, as being racist, but I don't agree. I think that he was responding to a symptom, and that is his job. It's the job of politicians to then say 'the police commisioner has had to increase policing in areas with a high population of young black men, so what is it that is meaning the people who are 1. young, 2. black, and 3. male are more likely to commit crime, and how can we change this?' That wasn't his job, and I believe he was reacting in a justifiable way to the data. If he had said 'we will assume that all young black men are criminals' then that would have been racist, but he did not say that.

It takes balance to ensure a safe and stable community, and some of that balance, in my opinion, does need to be ensured by occasionally restricting the behaviour of individuals who may damage others. It's a difficult balance to find, but simply defending obviously anti-social behaviour with a blanket 'freedom of speech' argument I think is to deny the nature of a modern multi-cultural (on a mirco and macro scale) society.

[Witless]

For me this is why extremists of anything are never good.. being left or right wing is one thing.. being extremist left or right wing is always bad.
I am fully in support of freedom of speech.. but.. 100% freedom of speech? To let anyone say whatever to any audience.. whether receptive or not... regardless of offence caused and on any stage.. anywhere on the face of the planet?
An absolute extreme case would be to allow preachers of every faith to have their 10 minutes in every christian church against the wishes of everyone in the actual church in the case of fairness.
That's a pretty far fetched proposal.. but I do believe in the magical phrase of "within reason". Freedom of speech should be within reason of common sense. The idea of freedom of speech was to have everyone be able to put forward their opinion. I don't think it was so the rights of people throw slander at each other would be protected.

This particular girl band however I don't think falls under the category of slander.. they are no worse than half the rappers of the US' lyrics. As far as I have read in that link they haven't even actually said anything negative about the other races. I think they're foolish and that they are idiots yes. But no more so than the 1000 rap acts out there that give the same messages and normally worse about white people.

Take Public enemy.. a rap group from the 80s/ early 90s. Find the lyrics to a song called "Fight the power". I actually agree with some of it.. but certainly not all.. but they certainly do preach a 'black power' theme in all their songs. They are however painted as heroes to this day, with greatest hits albums STILL being released to this day.

I believe in freedom of speech within reason.. reason being when real damage is being done, and there is no real harm to the person speaking to tone it down a little.. and lets be fair.. that's all most people want.. not an all out ban.. just toning it down so it's not so in their face. But this particular pair of girls.. I can't say are AS bad as all that.

[Astarael]

It's really disturbing to see two girls who appear to be nice sing scuh racist messages. Their parents must have started brainwashing them early to get that effect. It's just sick. However, I do have to agree that the same message, tailored to be anti-white, shows up in rap and other modern music all the time. I don't like it, but it's still everywhere. Prussian Blue is simply more shocking because children are promoting the racist messages. There is a problem here, but sometimes there's a very fine line between angsty music and music full of racism. How far should we go in restricting freedom of speech? There are times when it should clearly be resricted, times when it clearly should not, and times when people disagree violently over whether it should be restricted. Many shows and songs fall into the murky category. It's hard to know where to draw the line sometimes, unfortunately.

[Rykan]

I agree with freedom of speech, but I don't know to what extent; I don't really know in my mind where the line should be drawn. People all have their own opinions, and their own right to express that.
I do know that people getting hurt or being caused serious distress is deffinately too far, but when does the freedom to express your beliefs go too far (without being hypocritical at any rate)?

[PsychWardMike]

Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate the anti-white messages in much of the rap music today. However, I thought that this was just... disturbing. Anyway, this topic is free to that as well. It'd be a falsehood to think that the only racists were white!

[sjbbandgeek]

Last time I checked, the whole freedom of speech thing was for giving the option of people bieng opressed to tell the world that they are bieng oppressed. It should be so that if somebody is bieng screwed over by their government, they have the right to explain their discontent and to promote the change of said government.
The same should apply to society. Racists aren't bieng oppressed, they are disliked for thier standards and morals. Most any change that they wish to promote would work against the will of the majority. Which is an opression in itself.

[Mata]

Racists think that they are being oppressed, either by a Jewish banking conspiracy, immigrant workers taking the jobs, such-and-such a group buying all the cheap houses forcing house prices up, or such-and-such a group moving into the neighbourhood and puching house prices. You name it, they can feel oppressed by it and blame it on someone that they don't like.

Additional: I initially typed 'Jewish banking conspiracy' as 'Jewish baking conspiracy', which has far more amusing images associated with it: 'Ah ha! We shall subjugate the the Christian masses with reeeeeeally tasty Yemenite kubbanah! Bwahahaha!'

[Astarael]

Mmmm... I should bake some Christmas conspiracy cookies as a counterattack. The best typos are the ones that still make an odd sort of sense.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't advocate the anti-white messages in much of the rap music today.  However, I thought that this was just... disturbing.  Anyway, this topic is free to that as well.  It'd be a falsehood to think that the only racists were white!

Just stop reading here if you're not in the mood for a rant.
And we've arrived at one of my pet peeves. Don't worry, I've taken no offense, you've hit a truth. (I'll be using black instead of African-American so I don't kill my fingers. I'm very sorry if anyone feels offended, but I'm comfortable saying black until some people call me Caucasian instead of white. See the later stuff about double standards.)
In my school and in the neighborhood, some black kids cluster together and won't talk to any non-black who shows up. It seems rude, but we put up with it. When a cluster of white people is antisocial to everyone, including whites, they get accused of racism. It's a really annoying double standard.
If I'm reading and don't want to talk with anyone and I tell a white person to go away, they laugh, possibly call me a snob, and leave. Fine. If I say exactly the same thing to a black person who starts bothering me in the exact same situation, I'm suddenly a racist and the person is screaming in my face about how horrible I am. Given the school administration's knee-jerk policy to any hint of discrimination, this leads to a lecture about how I should be nicer and more tolerant. Quite frankly, the times when I'm the most impatient with people are the times when they're being deliberately idiotic and ignoring the common courtesy of respecting other's desire to be alone. One day I'm going to come to school wearing a shirt that says: "I'm only a racist if stupid people have formed their own race." Then I'll count the seconds until I get in trouble with a teacher.
Sorry for the rant. This has been annoying me for *years.*

[Witless]

Ah.. that's sure fun huh?

I wondered about how that can ever be fixed.. I have no idea. As a black person I know why black people form into clusters like that. People relate to people like themselves more than others.. it's common sense. It's pretty isolating feeling to be alienated in a physical way. So they tend to gravitate towards people that "get them" regardless of whether they're alike at all.

It's unstandable.. but very very unhelpful. People that feel alienated also tend to get hyper sensitive to everything. It's like when people that are larger than average sized assume that everyone that is staring at them must be staring at them for their weight even when people really are doing no such thing. Add a bucket load of pride to the situation, and you have a grand recipe right there.

I've never really been bothered to fall into that pattern to be honest, part of me being quite happy with not being a part of stuff possibly. Maybe I just realised it's a foolish endeavour at a young age.. or maybe 1000 reasons. But I do think it's unhelpful situation. It's basically over the top sensitivity that's come from people still hearing their parents stories of what they had to go through... and hearing what people in certain localised areas go through.

I don't see how to fix this one, but I know things have to change.. it's rediculous hearing the words "it's because I'm black" as some kinda over done cliche`

[sjbbandgeek]

American History X was a great movie.

Any Jewish Baking conspiracy would probably fail, unless they invented the unleavened frisbee.

School administrations suck when they deal with morals and ethics.

Rapper's Delight is a good song

[{Gothic Angel}]

I read this article in a magazine last night, and was considering making a thread about it (this is their own website for the sake of completeness, and the only place one can purchase their music).

I agree with the majority opinion above - it's horrifying to see children preaching messages of hate, particularly pretty young girls who are apt to receive more attention - even if the media is saying entirely negative thinga about them, their message is being made more public, and some people will agree with them.

The thing I was going to say about it, though is that I went to a "rockmass" thing at my local church (to support a friend who was singing- I'm not christian). It was basically a communion mass, but with the hymns etc replaced by rock music praising Christ.

DISCLAIMER: Before I go any further with this story, let me just make it perfectly clear that I am in no way comparing Christianity to Naziism or any other racist or supremicist group. I am fully aware that at the time of this anecdote I was willingly sitting in a christian place of worship, and as such was fully aware there would be pro-christianity messages and such, and that the veiws of the majority of the people in the place might conflict with my own. It's not for me to declare that christianity is wrong or something anyone else has no right to believe.

Amongst this music were some quite catchy versions of the songs which praise various parts of the Holy Trinity. I was actually quite enjoying the music, up to the point where someone gave a reading of something. He'd written it himself and basically, he was explaining how like most people, he wanted to be a certain fantasy version of himself. "Some people want to be pop stars, some want to be famous actors and so on - I want to be the world's most famous evangelist. Just think how great a feeling would be to have hundreds of people saved by you - convert thousands like Jesus did, and bring them back to the right path, saving their souls."

After this point, the lyrics of some of the songs made me feel extremely uncomfortable. The basic message had turned from "God is a great being, he loves us all and we're blessed because he's wonderful and forgiving and we chose to follow him because of this" to "It doesn't matter how good you are, if you don't follow God, you're going to hell, and he'll solve all our problems for us". I found that both disturbing - the metaphorical flock of sheep really were behaving like sheep - and worrying. There were people there who really did seem to think that they didn't have to do anything to make their life better other than believe in and follow God and Jesus.

So, back to the topic of Prussian BLue - when I read the above article, I started out by being slightly shocked at the messages of hate and racism, the denial of the holocaust, etc, but then I had the sudden thought that a lot of the ways they tell things and preach things seems to be similar to the way I was having things told to and preached at me by the christians at that mass. And it also occurred that people who have tried to talk to Prussian Blue about their beliefs have got much the same non-helpful, non-relevent type of answers I get when I end up talking religion to my christian friends.

Once again, this is absolutely not a criticism of the christian religion. I know more christians than any other religion, so it may be that all religions behave in this way and this is the only section of it that I've seen. I also know some very nice, well-adjusted, non-evangelical christians. And I am aware that religion is a very important thing to a lot of people, I wouldn't dream of taking it away from them, it's great that they're able to have that level of faith, I just disagree with the attitude from anyone that they should be able to push their beliefs on anyone else.

Eep, I'm not sure if this is suitable now. If it isn't, feel free to delete/edit it, it was just something that occurred to me.

[Mutilation]

David Duke — the former presidential candidate, one-time Ku-Klux-Klan grand wizard and outspoken white supremacist

Gandalf the White?

Here in Britain we've also been having a recent increase in votes for the British National Party. One problem is if the press ignored them, it would make them seem more mysterious and romantic, and writing about them, even negative comments, gives them free publicity. I real answer is not to ban the BNP, but to educate the people who vote for them.

[Izzy]

However, I do have to agree that the same message, tailored to be anti-white, shows up in rap and other modern music all the time.

Agreed with.

....Apparently the Purssian Blue haven't heard of " We hold truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".This makes me wonder what their mom teaches them for Social Studies.

I think, that an Amendment should be made to make racists illegal.

[Jonman]

Agreed with.

....Apparently the Purssian Blue haven't heard of " We hold truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".This makes me wonder what their mom teaches them for Social Studies.

I think, that an Amendment should be made to make racists illegal.

Errmm, the Declaration of Independance (i.e. what's quoted above) was written in 1787. Slavery was abolished in the US in 1865. So, 'all men are created equal' is *NOT* mutually exclusive with slavery by any stretch of the imagination, as slavery was still perfectly legal when it was written.

[Izzy]

Agreed with.

....Apparently the Purssian Blue haven't heard of " We hold truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".This makes me wonder what their mom teaches them for Social Studies.

I think, that an Amendment should be made to make racists illegal.

Errmm, the Declaration of Independance (i.e. what's quoted above) was written in 1787. Slavery was abolished in the US in 1865. So, 'all men are created equal' is *NOT* mutually exclusive with slavery by any stretch of the imagination, as slavery was still perfectly legal when it was written.

Actually, The Declaration of Independence was approved by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, so it couldn't have been written in 1787.

[monkey_called_na...]

Censorship is wrong. No matter how wronge there message is they still have the freedom to represent it.

Look at it this way, the kkk and nazis get censored.

Is it ok for the government to ban all religious icons because they dont agree with every person in the country? Is it ok for the govenment to ban me from wearing my hammer and sickle t-shirt becasue we have a capitalist government? Is ok for the government to ban types of music becasue the majorty of people dont like it, or becasue a specific groupe finds it offencive? Is it ok for the government to ban "gothic" clothing because some (to be read as "christian right") people think it is offencive?

Why should somones veiws be repressed becasue they dont agree with the majority?

Also note: child porn infringes more rights of the child being used in said porn, then the rights of the man or woman filming it. For one, any form of it which includes sexual activities is considered rape.


I think that by censoring these orginised racist f*cks would really just give them more fule to there fire. There are more racists in the world then the ones that joind orginisations. By censoring there politics you would have a large swing to that direction of all these "semi-racists" who feel that the orginisations are being mistreated. Extream action in one way without the thought of the back blow is a very bad idea. Remimber now, for every action there is and equal yet opposite reaction. It's the same idea as using terroist tactics to prove a point. i.e. blowing up a building. You have more people that are going to sympothise with the people who were blown up, no matter who they are.

Education is the key tool to fixing many problems. Racists are more often then not, a product of there enviroment. They are taught to be racist by there parents or other family members.

jonman you are thinking fo the constitution. the united states constitution was written sept 17 1787

[PsychWardMike]

Well, either way, Devil's Daughter's facts are wrong. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document period. It's a statement of philosophy, but completely inadmissable as legislature. If you want to alk equality, that's the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Anyway, I'm not a proponent of making any form of thought illegal. I'm not really in favor of censoring most hate speech out there, but my original thought (which, admittedly was not articulated well initially) is how can we draw the line between freedom of speech and something which incites violence? Do I think racism is deplorable? Hell yes. Is it protected by the Constitution? Yeah, it is.

Still, Congress could never pass legislation making racism illegal. From there, any form of thought deemed morally reprehensible would be made illegal and in ten years time, we'd be living in 1984. It's up to the majority to understand that the opinion exists and it is stupid, to give no credit to it, but repect the right of idiots to spew stupidity so that the common man can have his own say.

[Izzy]

Well, either way, Devil's Daughter's facts are wrong. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document period. It's a statement of philosophy, but completely inadmissable as legislature. If you want to alk equality, that's the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

I never said that The Declaration of Independence was a legal document. It doesn't have an laws in it, just a bunch of statements.

[elphaba2]

The Constitution includes an amendment that makes hate crimes illegal*--i.e: any kind of violence or harassment that relates to the victim's appearence, religion, lifestyle, etc. I would think that working on these lines, the minute Prussian Blue begins advocating hateful actions towards non-whites or non-Nazis or whoever they're against, they are at risk for prosecution. All it takes is an angry listener to sue--it worked with Eminem.

So why are we complaining and not suing?

*wrong word really, the amendment makes the penalty for hate crimes more severe than it would be for less discriminating criminals. Crime is illegal, regardless of motivation, but the judiciaries especially don't like hate crimes.

[Izzy]

I don't think it's fair to sue two 13 year old girls. They'll *probably* regret what they'redoing in the future. If anyone's going to sue anyone, sue their mom! She's the one who influenced them.

[PsychWardMike]

GAH!

The Constitution holds NO such line on anything having to do with hate crime legislation! In fact, it's much easier to argue that the Constitution does not support it in any way due to the 14th amendment which demands equal protection (and thus, equal punishment) for all under the law. Hate crime legislation is a reactionary, derived from a combination of the Clinton administration's liberal views, the Matthew Shepherd case, and the PC age which is a savage hypocrisy which only serves to create more distinct seperations of races, sexual orientations, disabilities, and genders.

Anyway, the girls in Prussian Blue won't be soon regretting their songs. It's lucrative, attention attracting, and they are far too into the message to ever come out, I'd wager.

[Calantyr]

Anyway, the girls in Prussian Blue won't be soon regretting their songs. It's lucrative, attention attracting, and they are far too into the message to ever come out, I'd wager.

If you've ever heard one of their interviews they believe it totaly and unquestionably. One of the themes was "It's a pity we're girls so we can't be racial warriors" kind of thing.

It's a tad unnerving.

No, I'm betting they'll believe this rot until the day they die.

[LoLo]

How far can freedom be extended until it becomes an abuse and a laughable mockery of everything that the American founding fathers envisioned?

I've always found this argument to be a bit shotty. The founding fathers weren't non-racist, all about everyone actually being equal and bladdy blah, that history books make them seem. They were all about equality, if you were a white male who owned property yeah. Yes writing into the constitutioin that a black person was only 3/5 of a person really points to someone who thinks equality is for everyone. They actually stole the bill of rights from a Native American tribe by the way, damn plagerists. Anyway I know that was a bit off topic, but oh well.

As for freedom of speech, one of the beauties of it is that I have the right to say what I want to say, and people who may have a message I don't agree with have the right to say what they want to say. I personally don't think you can truly believe in freedom of speech if you are unwilling to have people be able to say something that totally sickens you.

As far as those girls go, I think it's sad that they have parents that raise them in such a way that they are already seemingly brainwashed with those ideas. Let's just hope as they grow up they will change their minds, but that's being overly optimistic.