More political correctness

In a Skypeland venue named "S" recently, someone anonymously posted the following image

This Skypeland venue advertises itself as "fair and unbalanced". Interestingly, several participants in Skypeland immediately objected to this image. For example, one posted on an associated website:

I humbly request

Submitted by P on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 07:12.

That whoever is in charge of this site (S) takes the photo and text down. Please

This sort of response, which I have seen repeatedly in Skypeland, is interesting to me. This product, its name and this article are part of US history. They represent a particularly and distinctly ugly part of US history. But this article is so politically incorrect that it is comical.

I am amazed at the demands that S must be politically correct. Why must it be politically correct exactly? What about "fair and unbalanced" is not understood here?

So, to be "politically correct", should this Skypeland site:

*Put only proIslamic arguments on its site?

*Put lots of Holocaust denials on its site?

*Allow 911 conspiracy stuff on its site, but ban all debunking of 911 conspiracies?

*Put only antiAmerican rants on its site?

*Put Black Supremacist claims on its site?

*Describe Nation of Islam positions on its site? (I bet the Europeans do not even know what these are: try researching them on the internet and prepare to be shocked)

*Put only antiIsrael and proPalestinian material on its site?

*Have only pro-Obama propaganda on its site?

I am stunned over and over that people do not quite understand the obvious bias of Skypeland venue S. S is pro-American and pro-Israeli. S is against Islamic extremism. Period. This is not a secret.

However, people believe that they have a right to demand that S have a different agenda than it does. Or that people who visit S have different views than they do. And when they make their request or try to dictate what opinions others hold, and they are unsuccessful, they are surprised. Absolutely incredible.

In some cases, some Skypeland visitors (like Mucus and BT and mystery man A) call for the killing of those that disagree with them. Well go ahead and demand it. But realize that your demands might create a pretty negative image for you. It sort of colors how people think of you, you know?

Interestingly, this person P has a long record of intervening in the middle of arguments, ostensibly to plead for comity and a pleasant environment. However, after a few months one notices that P always intercedes on one side only; that is, to try to silence anyone arguing against Holocaust denial, or anyone disagreeing with 911 conspiracy theories, or anyone siding against Naziism or anyone deploring antiSemitism or anyone opposing anti-Americanism or anyone attacking left wing dictatorships or Islamic extremism.

Interesting.

I have noticed that a lot of people will therefore attribute various unsavory positions to P, since he always seems to interfere in a discussion to defend people holding these sorts of postures. P objects strenuously over and over that he does not subscribe to this sort of anti-American, anti-human rights, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel agenda.

However, actions speak louder than these denials, frankly.

A reasonable person might easily draw the obvious inference that P is in favor of killing all Jews, and killing all Americans, and Islamic terrorism and so on. Since P never disagrees with anyone spewing anti-American or anti-Semitic nonsense, and in fact defends them, a casual observer might interpret this as support for these people and their platforms. And guess what? People do interpret the evidence this way.

And then P gets offended when someone mentions it. Sorry. They are just stating what is quite evident to everyone else already. People should be careful about what sort of image they project, if they are sensitive about the impressions others might acquire.