In Defense of the Anonymous Commenter 198
Hugh Pickens writes "Doug Feaver has an interesting story in the Washington Post 'in defense of the anonymous, unmoderated, often appallingly inaccurate, sometimes profane, frequently off point and occasionally racist reader comments that washingtonpost.com allows to be published at the end of articles and blogs.' Feaver says that during his seven-year tenure as editor and executive editor of washingtonpost.com he kept un-moderated comments off the site, but now, four years after retiring, he says he has come to think that online comments are a terrific addition to the conversation, and that journalists need to take them seriously. 'The subjects that have generated the most vitriol during my tenure in this role are race and immigration,' writes Feaver. 'But I am heartened by the fact that such comments do not go unchallenged by readers. In fact, comment strings are often self-correcting and provide informative exchanges.' Feaver says that comments are also a pretty good political survey. 'The first day it became clear that a federal bailout of Wall Street was a real prospect, the comments on the main story were almost 100 percent negative. It was a great predictor of how folks feel, well out in front of the polls. We journalists need to pay attention to what our readers say, even if we don't like it. There are things to learn.'"
Re:Let's go, AC! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:The value of First Post (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Very similar to Letters to the Editor (Score:5, Informative)
Okay, I don't want to defend white-nationalism or Stormfront, but I just want to muddy your picture of the issue.
Take this thread [stormfront.org]. This is the Intro to Stormfrontian(sic) white-nationalism which is affixed second to the top of the forum [stormfront.org] for anyone who wants to "know more about White Nationalism".
The main point of the OP seems to be conspiracy theory: "the Jews" control the media and the government and are hurting all the non-Jews, especially whites. So they see themselves at the victims of anti-white sentiment among Jews and "useful idiots" among non-Jews. "Also, I should have been more clear that the Jews are using non-White immigration and Blacks to destroy White America and Europe. They want everyone dumbed down and different Gentile races at each other's throats to prevent Whites from coming together against the Jewish threat" he says.
Notice the other poster, H2H: "Study demographic statistics and future racial population projections and you will see just how dangerous the situation has become. Again, it's not about "hate" or "Supremacy," but SURVIVAL and being able to control our own destiny. ... Remember we are not a "hate group" but a cultural and racial preservation group. In fact we are the true "Multiculturalists" and genuine believers of cultural and racial diversity. By keeping the different races and people separate the world can enjoy the diversity of the human species. ... Although Egypt and most non-white counties have nothing to worry about (except maybe Tibet), it is only White Nations that are invaded and threatened with genocide."
It's seems clear that the general theme on Stormfront is white survival and sovereignty. It does not seem to be fundamentally connected with ruling the entire world as you say. They have this saying the 14 words which is their sometimes motto. I can't remember the exact 14 words, but it's something about securing a future for white children. It doesn't say anything about dominating others. And you're right, you can seem them extolling Nazis and Hitler too. But then you have to remember that they are Holocaust deniers; they just think Hitler was protecting white people from Jewish domination and did not try to exterminate any Jews!
If you go to the forum which the thread was in, the one thread that was above that Intro was about how Barack Obama's church hates whites. Again, there you can see that their focus is on elites being against white people.
The big thread down [stormfront.org] from there is on the question: "Separatist is NOT supremacist?" Notice that the first answer to the question is from "WhitePowerMom": "We want to be with our own. ... I wish no harm to other races, I wish the[m?-ed.] the same purity we strive for. I just want to be surrounded by my tribe. In fact, our way of thinking is probably the most respectful and honorable way possible. We wish to be left alone...and by way of that, to leave others alone."
Anyway, you're right. Stormfront is not like the ADL. I think the poster that compared them did a weird thing. But I don't think white-nationalism is so clearly different from the Zionist, ADL position, as is evidenced by Foxman's comments. That white-nationalists are largely white-supremacists, you're probably right. That white-nationalism is fundamentally white-supremacist, you're probably wrong, as is evidenced by the general opinion on Stormfront about what white-nationalism is.
Re:Moderation is a dead end (Score:1, Informative)