# M-1 Finally gets some publicity just not the kind they hoped for.



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Saw this on the front page of AOL today.

http://mma.fanhouse.com/2009/08/31/mma-fighter-toni-valtonen-has-swastika-white-power-tattoos/?icid=main|main|dl7|link6|http://mma.fanhouse.com/2009/08/31/mma-fighter-toni-valtonen-has-swastika-white-power-tattoos/




> oni Valtonen is a Finnish mixed martial artist who fights all around the world for Team Finland in the M-1 Challenge, including two fights in the United States this year. A veteran with a 19-9 record, Valtonen hasn't done much in the ring to distinguish himself from any of the thousands of other athletes who compete in MMA.
> 
> But he is now attracting attention for something unrelated to his fighting: Valtonen has a swastika tattooed on his shoulder and the words "white pride" tattooed on his back.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flaw (Dec 28, 2006)

I really dont see the big deal with the White pride tattoo. But the Swastika yeah. Cain Velasquez has Brown Pride on him, so the white pride shouldn't be a big deal.
http://www.mmaoverload.com/images/cain-velasquez.jpg


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

The Brown Pride tattoo hardly has the same social stigmas attached to it. White Pride is directly connected with racism while Brown Pride is seen as more of a racial pride symbol. Either way you slice it though when combined with a swastika it doesn't look good for the sport.


----------



## D.P. (Oct 8, 2008)

Flaw said:


> I really dont see the big deal with the White pride tattoo. But the Swastika yeah. Cain Velasquez has Brown Pride on him, so the white pride shouldn't be a big deal.
> http://www.mmaoverload.com/images/cain-velasquez.jpg


There's a BIG difference between having Brown Pride tattooed on you and having a white pride tattoo..


----------



## Flaw (Dec 28, 2006)

I agree with the both of you. But if he did not have a swastika it would not seem as bad. Atleast it does not say ***********...


----------



## CornbreadBB (Jul 31, 2008)

I'm Jewish (suprise!) and I honsetly would not be offended if I saw him with the swastika. I'd dislike him (and probably try to start something with him in person and get beat up miserably) and hope he got knocked out, but it's his body, why should he not put what he wants on it?

But since it's a professional sport and he represents his company, I can see why they would want him to cover it up.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

Brown Pride is a known and dangerous gang, even partly being showcased on History Channels "Gangland" when they spoke of the Mexican Mafia prison gang. SO yeah i hafta agree that Brown Pride is pretty offensive. http://askville.amazon.com/teens-co...ed-charged/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=57007147

http://www.knowgangs.com/photo/showphoto.php?photo=1144


edit to clarrify, not saying that his tattoos are fine and dandy they are pretty idiotic, yet i do think its stupid that white pride is racist yet brown pride is a sign of pride... considering they are a known hispanic gang.


----------



## Flaw (Dec 28, 2006)

JuggNuttz said:


> Brown Pride is a known and dangerous gang, even partly being showcased on History Channels "Gangland" when they spoke of the Mexican Mafia prison gang. SO yeah i hafta agree that Brown Pride is pretty offensive. http://askville.amazon.com/teens-co...ed-charged/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=57007147
> 
> http://www.knowgangs.com/photo/showphoto.php?photo=1144


Finally someone understands!


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

If he is ashamed of the tattoos, get them removed. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that he still believes in the ideals attributed to those symbols.

Also, why do people always feel the need to call/write in to complain when their delicate sensibilities are offended? If you don't like it, don't watch. If you don't like the guys beliefs, root for him to lose. America is becoming a country filled with whiners and it drives me nuts.


----------



## joshua7789 (Apr 25, 2009)

This is stupid. If he had a tat that said black pride, people would think that this was a proud man who was happy to display a symbol of hope for his people. But, it says white pride. What the hell is wrong with that? Is there somthing wrong with being proud of your heritage? Im white, and im happy to be white, does that make me a bad guy? if you think it does then you should kiss my ass. Its ok to be proud of your heritage as long as it doesnt involve white people. In that case you should act like you are responsible for slavery. Be super nice to folks that lean on the crutch of racisim, its possible that someone you are related to wasnt very nice many years ago, so all white folks should allow any ethnic folks to be as racist as they want to be and laugh like some huckleberry idiots at every racist remarks anyone of none caucasian descent makes. Im drunk and the bullshit is to much at the moment. Ban me, i dont care, the truth works against the just.


----------



## Couchwarrior (Jul 13, 2007)

I don't buy the bullshit about him regretting the tattoos. That swastika is tiny, it would be easy to tattoo something over it. The text on his back can't be removed as easily of course, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad without the Nazi flag.

About White Pride vs Black or Brown Pride, yes at a first glance it seems hypocritical to say that they are different, but when I think about it, I can see that there's a difference between a minority or a majority in that sense. 

For a minority, "pride" can be seen just as refusing to consider yourself inferior to the majority. But if you express pride in belonging to a majority, it's not really pride in yourself, (because most people around you are just the same), but rather contempt for the few people who don't fit into the norm. 

So the smaller the minority of people you are proud not to belong to, the more threatening it will appear to them, and the more fascistic your opinions will appear to a third party. And in Finland you literally have to walk inside an ethnic food restaurant to find someone who is not white, at least outside of the capital.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Flaw said:


> I really dont see the big deal with the White pride tattoo. But the Swastika yeah. Cain Velasquez has Brown Pride on him, so the white pride shouldn't be a big deal.
> http://www.mmaoverload.com/images/cain-velasquez.jpg


A swastika can mean anything if it's only a swastika. It's not like the Nazi's invented that symbol. The swastika is a symbol in Northern Mythologies and in Asian religions for the sun and other sun-related stuff. Combine it with "white pride" though and we have a white supremacist.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

JuggNuttz said:


> Brown Pride is a known and dangerous gang, even partly being showcased on History Channels "Gangland" when they spoke of the Mexican Mafia prison gang. SO yeah i hafta agree that Brown Pride is pretty offensive. http://askville.amazon.com/teens-co...ed-charged/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=57007147
> 
> http://www.knowgangs.com/photo/showphoto.php?photo=1144
> 
> ...


 I hardly see how a comparison can be made of gang members killing other gang members and the Nazi extermination of the jews. The Brown Pride gang isn't accused of killing people because they are white but cause they are gang members. If you want to compare a Brown Pride tatoo to a Bloods or Crips tatoo than be my guest but compared to clearly racist symblos and text I don't know how you can't see the difference.



Hammerlock2.0 said:


> *A swastika can mean anything if it's only a swastika*. It's not like the Nazi's invented that symbol. The swastika is a symbol in Northern Mythologies and in Asian religions for the sun and other sun-related stuff. Combine it with "white pride" though and we have a white supremacist.



No, no it cant, maybe a hundred years ago this was true but it has been so closely intertwined with Nazi Germany and the ideals behind ethnic cleansing that there is only one meaning in the modern world. Also the Asian symbol for the sun is not a Swastika it actually goes the other direction and is a mirror image of a Swastika (it goes the wrong way).


----------



## Couchwarrior (Jul 13, 2007)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> A swastika can mean anything if it's only a swastika.


Yeah but a red flag with a white circle in the middle, and a black swastika inside the circle rotated 45 degrees, like the one pictured on his shoulder, can only mean one thing.


----------



## xbrokenshieldx (Mar 5, 2007)

joshua7789 said:


> This is stupid. If he had a tat that said black pride, people would think that this was a proud man who was happy to display a symbol of hope for his people. But, it says white pride. What the hell is wrong with that? Is there somthing wrong with being proud of your heritage? Im white, and im happy to be white, does that make me a bad guy? if you think it does then you should kiss my ass. Its ok to be proud of your heritage as long as it doesnt involve white people. In that case you should act like you are responsible for slavery. Be super nice to folks that lean on the crutch of racisim, its possible that someone you are related to wasnt very nice many years ago, so all white folks should allow any ethnic folks to be as racist as they want to be and laugh like some huckleberry idiots at every racist remarks anyone of none caucasian descent makes. Im drunk and the bullshit is to much at the moment. Ban me, i dont care, the truth works against the just.



The whole black vs. brown vs. white pride being equal makes sense on the face. However, we have to realize that our society doesn't live in a vaccuum. We aren't just living now, as much as some of us would like to think we are, however, we are very much living in a society and world that has been greatly influenced by our ancestors. Today, we may feel that white pride is just as harmless as brown pride, but the fact is we are living with the consequences that our fellow "white" ancestors made in the past. Brown and Black Pride is not associated with hundred of years of overt racism, oppression, slavery and murder, especially not on a multi-national scale. White Pride is. We all must be conscious of this, because these choices and actions that were so terrible for so many people have made it necessary that we today be sensitive to the way we conduct ourselves.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Toxic said:


> No, no it cant, maybe a hundred years ago this was true but it has been so closely intertwined with Nazi Germany and the ideals behind ethnic cleansing that there is only one meaning in the modern world. Also the Asian symbol for the sun is not a Swastika it actually goes the other direction and is a mirror image of a Swastika (it goes the wrong way).


There are still cultures that don't necessarily think of Nazis when they see the swastika. In most parts of the western world it might not be that way, but in Scandinavian art it is still used as a mythological symbol (yes, I know that Scandinavia is part of the Western World). The Asian version doesn't necessarily go the other direction either. The Hindu Swastika goes the same way.











Couchwarrior said:


> Yeah but a red flag with a white circle in the middle, and a black swastika inside the circle rotated 45 degrees, like the one pictured on his shoulder, can only mean one thing.


That's true.


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

D.P. said:


> There's a BIG difference between having Brown Pride tattooed on you and having a white pride tattoo..


Umm no..

Im tired of people jumping on whites for being racist yet anyone thats not white gets a pass. Bad life choice? sure but here in America we allow people the freedom to be douchebags.

As for the White, Brown and Black pride and what it means ALL three sayings are a symbol of race and the believe that you need to stand up for that race and all three are racist, I dont care really what someone says to attempt to justify the symbol.

What about the Tango Blast tattoo I saw one one guy? There are a lot of fighters with gang symbols tatted up so if you want to get hard ass on this I would hope you take that on as well.


----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

Its funny how so many claim to not be racist but are so quick to try and justify the clearly racist views of others or outraged when others are upset by racism..


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Villian said:


> Its funny how so many claim to not be racist but are so quick to try and justify the clearly racist views of others or outraged when others are upset by racism..


I'm not outraged by people getting upset by racism, I'm simply tired of people bitching and complaining about some random guys personal beliefs. 

Should the guy be banned from his profession because he happens to be a bigot and a racist? Of course not. As Voltaire (a far wiser man than all of us) once said, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

If you give this crap air time, it gives it power. If you ignore it, all power is lost.


----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

Are they still personal beliefs when he shows it off to the world on TV? By the way his personal beliefs represent Racism, violence and murder to certain people. Think about Bin Laden his "personal beliefs" are to kill as many Americans as possible. Is that ok too? I doubt it. I guess it all depends on who your hatred is directed at..


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Villian said:


> Are they still personal beliefs when he shows it off to the world on TV? By the way his personal beliefs represent Racism, violence and murder to certain people. Think about Bin Laden his "personal beliefs" are to kill as many Americans as possible. Is that ok too? I doubt it. I guess it all depends on who your hatred is directed at..


Is wearing a cross on a chain around your neck a symbol of your personal belief? Of course. Just because you are letting people know what your personal beliefs are, doesn't make them any less personal.

I didn't say his beliefs are ok. I never even implied that. I would say, however, that it is perfectly ok for him to believe whatever he wants. You can't force someone to believe what you want. Also, according to American laws (I know he is finnish or something like that) Freedom of speech allows him to say/believe whatever he wants, as long as it doesn't break any other laws. IMO, his tattoos represent an extension of his freedom of speech. 

Like the Voltaire quote states, I don't have to like anything about what he believes/says, but I should, and will, defend his rights to believe/say it. 

And please, never imply that I am a hypocrite again. If an american citizen held the same beliefs as Osama, yet never broke any laws in furtherance of those beliefs, then I absolutely think it is acceptable, according the bill of rights, for them to believe that way. 

Comparing Hitler to Osama is a good analogy IMO (both want the death of a certain kind of people), and I would apply the same logic to both.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

I agree with what Tito and Bas said on "Inside MMA". Regardless of the guys personal views now or in the past, it reinforces the negative misconceptions some have about MMA and is therefore bad for sport. He should either have the tattoos permanently removed/covered or else he shouldn't be allowed to fight.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

Villian said:


> Are they still personal beliefs when he shows it off to the world on TV? By the way his personal beliefs represent Racism, violence and murder to certain people. Think about Bin Laden his "personal beliefs" are to kill as many Americans as possible. Is that ok too? I doubt it. I guess it all depends on who your hatred is directed at..


No, it depends on whether or not you act on it. Bin Laden murdered thousands of people. How many people has this guy murdered? Or advocated the murder of? Or done anything illegal? Nothing that we know of so saying he shouldn't be allowed to fight is idiotic censorship. He is allowed to be a dick and still be a professional athlete.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me


----------



## Villian (Jul 23, 2008)

To be clear I'm all for freedom of speech. My beef is with people trying to downplay the issue at hand. An MMA fighter with a swastika tattoo, *********** on his back and "Born to hate" on his stomach....But Like you said I cant force anyone to believe what I believe and obviously those symbols mean different things to me and you.


----------



## legking (Jun 15, 2007)

Davisty69 said:


> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
> 
> ...


That has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

Toxic said:


> I hardly see how a comparison can be made of gang members killing other gang members and the Nazi extermination of the jews. The Brown Pride gang isn't accused of killing people because they are white but cause they are gang members. If you want to compare a Brown Pride tatoo to a Bloods or Crips tatoo than be my guest but compared to clearly racist symblos and text I don't know how you can't see the difference.


either way you look at it, they are both evil discusting people, who kill people for their own empowerment. and what about the gangbangers who kill innocent kids sitting in their living room by stray bullets in a drive by? or who open fire on crowds of people because 1 rival gang member is in that group of 30 people..... i dont understand how you can hold one higher then they other. one kills to keep a status, the other kills to keep its hold of a drug corner... either way they are shit people.

and to say they arent racist either is pretty ill informed, as you have to be only mexican to get into the mexican mafia, and in the prisons, they are constantly at war with the black gangs. prison life can different animal i know, but race is a huge factor in gangs too.

so all im trying to say is, wether its a racist tattoo or gang tattoo i dont like it and yes i hold it against the fighter.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

legking said:


> That has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here.


Maybe the issue you were discussing, but not the issue I was discussing. I was discussing the necessity of defending someone else's right to free speech/expression, even though I don't like/despise the viewpoint.

That quote clearly has something to do with what I was talking about. Thanks for playing though.


----------



## legking (Jun 15, 2007)

Davisty69 said:


> Maybe the issue you were discussing, but not the issue I was discussing. I was discussing the necessity of defending someone else's right to free speech/expression, even though I don't like/despise the viewpoint.
> 
> That quote clearly has something to do with what I was talking about. Thanks for playing though.


Well yeah, except that quote you used refers to taking objection to physical persecution/genocide, so it isn't really the same thing.


----------



## jennathebenda (Jul 24, 2009)

Its his body, but to be a professional he needs get those covered up.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

legking said:


> Well yeah, except that quote you used refers to taking objection to physical persecution/genocide, so it isn't really the same thing.


It applies directly to defending any group being persecuted. The meaning is the same, no matter what it was originally applied to. 

Persecution is persecution. And the point of the article is that every group needs to be defended or Tyranny will rule everyone. 

Therefore, I defend a racists right to free speech/expression, because I want to keep my rights to free speech/expression.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

Davisty69 said:


> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
> 
> ...


You could add your own little bit to that

"but when they came for the Nazis, I finally said something!"

Your using the quote completely out of context, in an incredibly ironic way. The poem you used was written to condemn tolerence of the Nazis and everything they stood for, not condone it.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

Davisty69 said:


> First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Socialist.
> 
> Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
> 
> ...


Awesome quote man, that shit is epic.


legking said:


> That has nothing to do with the issue being discussed here.


If you actually read the thread you would realize the thread is being used in a discussion they are having over people's rights to there own ideals and freedom of belief therefore its relevant.


JuggNuttz said:


> either way you look at it, they are both evil discusting people, who kill people for their own empowerment. and what about the gangbangers who kill innocent kids sitting in their living room by stray bullets in a drive by? or who open fire on crowds of people because 1 rival gang member is in that group of 30 people..... i dont understand how you can hold one higher then they other. one kills to keep a status, the other kills to keep its hold of a drug corner... either way they are shit people.
> 
> and to say they arent racist either is pretty ill informed, as you have to be only mexican to get into the mexican mafia, and in the prisons, they are constantly at war with the black gangs. prison life can different animal i know, but race is a huge factor in gangs too.
> 
> so all im trying to say is, wether its a racist tattoo or gang tattoo i dont like it and yes i hold it against the fighter.



Im not saying gang members aren't racist or evil but so are a lot of people but the couple hundred innocent people accidently killed by gangs (some intentionally but rarely I'm sure they were completely innocent.) fails to compare to the millions of people intentionally killed in the name of ***********, I'm white but do you realize that it really hasn't been that long since white people were burning other races on crosses on this continent. I'm hardly supporting the whole "Brown Pride" motto but I have never heard of a Brown Pride rally where they all got together to discuss how much they hate the ******* (Is that the right slang for ******?)and how they are ruining there country and there numbers are not nearly as prevalent or organized as white supremacy groups. There really is no comparison. Here is my comparison for you, your arguement is like you throwing a watermelon at somebody walking below a ten story building and you using the fact that I threw a grape to justify it and you using the argument they are both fruit.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

Toxic said:


> Im not saying gang members aren't racist or evil but so are a lot of people but the couple hundred innocent people accidently killed by gangs (some intentionally but rarely I'm sure they were completely innocent.) fails to compare to the millions of people intentionally killed in the name of ***********, I'm white but do you realize that it really hasn't been that long since white people were burning other races on crosses on this continent. I'm hardly supporting the whole "Brown Pride" motto but I have never heard of a Brown Pride rally where they all got together to discuss how much they hate the ******* (Is that the right slang for ******?)and how they are ruining there country and there numbers are not nearly as prevalent or organized as white supremacy groups. There really is no comparison. Here is my comparison for you, your arguement is like you throwing a watermelon at somebody walking below a ten story building and you using the fact that I threw a grape to justify it and you using the argument they are both fruit.


im not justifying anything, never did. someone else brought up the brown pride tattoo is offensive too, and i agreed, and showed some proof of the gang to back it up. so i dont know where im trying to justify anything.

and yes innocents get killed all the time from gang violence, here in chicago there seems to be reports every day of children getting killed by stray bullets, or some person on the street going to work or what have ya.

and because a large group of retards set up rallies to talk about how much they hate people is now way worse then the gangbangers killing people each and every day in virtually every city across america? i dunno man that doesnt sound right to me.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Godzuki said:


> You could add your own little bit to that
> 
> "but when they came for the Nazis, I finally said something!"
> 
> Your using the quote completely out of context, in an incredibly ironic way. The poem you used was written to condemn tolerence of the Nazis and everything they stood for, not condone it.


It was written about Nazis, and how people ignored when they massacred a race of people the didn't belong to. Yeah, I get it. I'm not a retard. 

However, the overarching idea of the quote is about how you should stand up for other people, even though you don't really have any sort of connection to them. 

Hence my usage of the quote, in reference to free speech, to demonstrate that even though I completely despise the Nazi ideal, I will not allow those that do believe in it to be discriminated against. 

Let's change the quote so you guys can understand what it means, above and beyond its original reference.

First, they silenced the Nazis, but I didn't say anything because I don't like the Nazi ideals.

Then, they silenced the Atheists, but I didn't say anything because I believe in God.

Then, they silenced the Jews, but I didn't say anything because I'm a christian.

Then, they silenced the Catholics, but I didn't say anything because I'm a protestant.

Then they came for the Protestants, but everyone was already silenced so nobody could speak up for me.


Same idea. I don't why people think that simply because this quote was originally applied to people ignoring Genocide committed by Nazis, that it can't just as easily be applied to Free speech and protect any and all people?

You do not have a right not to be offended by someone else's beliefs.


----------



## pt447 (Sep 1, 2006)

So long as he's never hurt anyone--outside the ring--nothing he says, writes, speaks, or gets tattooed on him matters. If you start punishing people for what they think you're no better than the Nazis he respects so much!

Not a newsworthy story at all!



Godzuki said:


> I agree with what Tito and Bas said on "Inside MMA". Regardless of the guys personal views now or in the past, it reinforces the negative misconceptions some have about MMA and is therefore bad for sport. He should either have the tattoos permanently removed/covered or else he shouldn't be allowed to fight.


hypothetical:

I believe that religion is the scourge of humanity and that everyone who blindly believes in religion is directly responsible for all the hate and death and war in the world. I therefore believe that everyone who has a religious tattoo--Hey, Brazilians, I'm looking at you--should not be allowed to fight unless they get their tattoos removed or covered up. I believe that fighters displaying their allegiance to criminal organizations such as the Catholic church a bad example of MMA fighters and speak poorly for the sport.


----------



## ZENKI1 (Apr 19, 2009)

swastika tats are not illegal to have.. Honestly I don't see what the big problem is as long as hes not displaying any racist behavior in the sport which he hasn't.. He said its all in his past.. He shouldn't cover it up either if he doesn't want to.. Our pasts mold us and he apparently is in a positive direction now.. :thumbsup:


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

ZENKI1 said:


> *swastika tats are not illegal to have..* Honestly I don't see what the big problem is as long as hes not displaying any racist behavior in the sport which he hasn't.. He said its all in his past.. He shouldn't cover it up either if he doesn't want to.. Our pasts mold us and he apparently is in a positive direction now.. :thumbsup:


He probably shouldn't fight in Germany then. :confused05:


----------



## MexHaHaHa (Mar 20, 2009)

Not a fan of this tattoo being called the ''White pride'' tattoo. I am known to be white and that tattoo is sure as hell not my symbole for pride.

Also, do not let the bear jew see this guy...bad things will happen to his head via a baseball bat.


----------



## HexRei (Apr 27, 2007)

Bottomline is, the promotion is employing him. It's bad news for a promotion to be seen as tolerating open racism. As a private business they have every right to ask him to cover up his tattoos when he fights, or even to tell him to take a hike until he gets rid of them.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

Davisty69 said:


> It was written about Nazis, and how people ignored when they massacred a race of people the didn't belong to. Yeah, I get it. I'm not a retard.
> 
> However, the overarching idea of the quote is about how you should stand up for other people, even though you don't really have any sort of connection to them.
> 
> ...


The poem is not about "how you should stand up for other people, even though you don't really have any sort of connection to them." It is about the dangers of political apathy. Your definition of the poem was invented by American activists in the 1960's who hijacked the poem for their own ends . 

Your idealism is naive and your logic flawed. You say that "even though I completely despise the Nazi ideal, I will not allow those that do believe in it to be discriminated against." But the Nazi ideal *is to discriminate*. You are essentially saying that you will not allow the discrimination of discrimination. 

"You do not have a right not to be offended by someone else's beliefs."

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. You've used a double negative and I'm unsure of whether you meant to or not. Regardless, I'll clarify my views either way.

I have the right to be offended or not offended by what ever I please. 

Anyhoo, it's nearly 5am and my brain is starting to shut down. I'm off to bed.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Godzuki said:


> The poem is not about "how you should stand up for other people, even though you don't really have any sort of connection to them." It is about the dangers of political apathy. Your definition of the poem was invented by American activists in the 1960's who hijacked the poem for their own ends .
> 
> Your idealism is naive and your logic flawed. You say that "even though I completely despise the Nazi ideal, I will not allow those that do believe in it to be discriminated against." But the Nazi ideal *is to discriminate*. You are essentially saying that you will not allow the discrimination of discrimination.
> 
> ...


It is the same difference. Political apathy occurs because a lack of connection to others. Had the author been a socialist or a trade unionist, then the connection would be there and apathy wouldn't occur.

My idealism is flawed huh...? SO you are saying that the government's of the world should censor what people are allowed to believe and say? Who decides what believes are acceptable? What is to stop them from deciding that your beliefs, whatever they may be, are unacceptable and censor you? It isn't flawed, and it relates directly to the spirit of the quote/poem. 

It doesn't matter what Nazi ideal is. Freedom of speech should be absolute, to the extent that it doesn't break other laws, i.e. slander, yelling "fire" in a movie theatre... And, it isn't saying that I won't "allow the discrimination of discrimination." It is saying that I won't allow the discrimination of the belief of discrimination. There is a huge difference. One doesn't make much sense, the latter does. 

The double negative is intentional. I'm saying that there is nothing that guarantees that you will be protected from being offended. Freedom of speech allows the speaker to offend you. So you are right, you can be offended by whatever you want, AND, every person has the right to say their piece, even if it happens to offend you.


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

Funny how everyone is acting so offended by this guy being a White racialist but yet have no problem with a guy like Cain Valesquez being a Chicano racialist with his "Brown Pride" tatto prominently displayed on his chest. A classic case of "Doublethink" which is getting more and more common in the Western world.


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

i failed.......


----------



## JACro (Aug 12, 2009)

You can debate morals and ethics all day and all night,and there will be arguments from every part of the spectrum.

BUT 



HexRei said:


> *Bottomline is*, the promotion is employing him. It's bad news for a promotion to be seen as tolerating open racism. As a private business they have every right to ask him to cover up his tattoos when he fights, or even to tell him to take a hike until he gets rid of them.


You live up to your title. You finish threads.


----------



## Hammerlock2.0 (Jun 17, 2009)

Godzuki said:


> Your idealism is naive and your logic flawed. You say that "even though I completely despise the Nazi ideal, I will not allow those that do believe in it to be discriminated against." But the Nazi ideal is to discriminate. *You are essentially saying that you will not allow the discrimination of discrimination. *


And you are discriminating someone who discriminates. Same difference.

I think this has gotten way out of hand here...


----------



## smokelaw1 (Aug 3, 2007)

Hammerlock2.0 said:


> And you are discriminating someone who discriminates. Same difference.
> 
> I think this has gotten way out of hand here...


Discriminating against discriminating? This is a BAD thing? YOU BET YOUR ASS I am discriminating against those who preach hate, and wear swastika tattoos. 
It is MY JOB as a man who lives by a certain set of moral values to do so. He is free to think I am subhuman, and I am free to think the same of him. Just because he has the RIGHT (I believe STRONGLY in freedom of speech) to think it and say it, he must also know there are consequences to broadcasting it. As long as the government isn't stopping him from expressing these views, his "right" to say them are uninfringed. A company can stop their employees from showing such messages, and I sure as hell can rail against them as a private person. Ought I NOT think him wrong for thinking me subhuman? Ought I say, "Yes, yes, very good, allow me to curb myself for you, sir?" 

I believe the racist superiority crap to be QUITE different from, as discussed earlier, gang tats. Do those also represent those who are violent, often based on skin color...sure do. BUT, they are not coming from a place of "you are different color, and hence I am SUPERIOR, and will eliminate you." If one can not see the difference in where the malice is born from, one is blind, either intentionally or not. Now, it is MALICE, either way, and we should, as caring humans, want to eliminate both forms. 

Ah, forget it. If you will fight against the discrimination of discrimination, you clearly do not, can not, or choose not, to understand. Should the discrimination of people based on skin color at the workplace be OK? If not, then aren't we discriminating against the discriminatory boss? I'd love to hear your answer.


----------



## DahStoryTella (Jul 11, 2009)

Toxic said:


> The Brown Pride tattoo hardly has the same social stigmas attached to it. White Pride is directly connected with racism while Brown Pride is seen as more of a racial pride symbol. Either way you slice it though when combined with a swastika it doesn't look good for the sport.


nuff said.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

HexRei said:


> Bottomline is, the promotion is employing him. It's bad news for a promotion to be seen as tolerating open racism. As a private business they have every right to ask him to cover up his tattoos when he fights, or even to tell him to take a hike until he gets rid of them.


QFT



Davisty69 said:


> It is the same difference. Political apathy occurs because a lack of connection to others. Had the author been a socialist or a trade unionist, then the connection would be there and apathy wouldn't occur.
> 
> My idealism is flawed huh...? SO you are saying that the government's of the world should censor what people are allowed to believe and say? Who decides what believes are acceptable? What is to stop them from deciding that your beliefs, whatever they may be, are unacceptable and censor you? It isn't flawed, and it relates directly to the spirit of the quote/poem.
> 
> ...


I didn't say your idealism is flawed (it was your logic I said that about) I said it was naive. In a perfect world where everyone expresses themselves without harm or consequence to others, your ideology makes perfect sense. However, in the real world, belief is not divorced speech nor speech from action. The free speech of Nazis incites/provokes violence and persecution and often does "break other laws". IMO that is an abuse of the right to free speech. It is up to us all as a society to judge what is acceptable, using common sense and morality. 

When you tolerate the dissemination of hate, IMO you are nurturing/encouraging the kind of circumstances that can lead to the type of atrocities witnessed during World War II.

I respect your viewpoint, especially the way you've expressed it, but we aren't really going to get anywhere and neither are we really discussing MMA any more. We could both probably go on for days, lol. I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one.




Hammerlock2.0 said:


> And you are discriminating someone who discriminates. Same difference.
> 
> I think this has gotten way out of hand here...


Yes, I am discriminating against someone who discriminates. I believe that in a decent, moral society it is the one kind of discrimination that is acceptable.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Godzuki said:


> I didn't say your idealism is flawed (it was your logic I said that about) I said it was naive. In a perfect world where everyone expresses themselves without harm or consequence to others, your ideology makes perfect sense. However, in the real world, belief is not divorced speech nor speech from action. The free speech of Nazis incites/provokes violence and persecution and often does "break other laws". IMO that is an abuse of the right to free speech. It is up to us all as a society to judge what is acceptable, using common sense and morality.
> 
> When you tolerate the dissemination of hate, IMO you are nurturing/encouraging the kind of circumstances that can lead to the type of atrocities witnessed during World War II.
> *
> I respect your viewpoint, especially the way you've expressed it, but we aren't really going to get anywhere and neither are we really discussing MMA any more. We could both probably go on for days, lol. I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one.*


Agreed. It has been fun. I could keep going, and it seems like you could as well . I'll happily debate you any time


----------



## Chileandude (Jan 17, 2008)

Mex said:


> Not a fan of this tattoo being called the ''White pride'' tattoo. I am known to be white and that tattoo is sure as hell not my symbole for pride.
> 
> Also, do not let the bear jew see this guy...bad things will happen to his head via a baseball bat.


He actually has the words White Pride tatooed on his back, how do you want them to call it?


----------



## slapshot (May 4, 2007)

smokelaw1 said:


> I believe the racist superiority crap to be QUITE different from, as discussed earlier, gang tats. Do those also represent those who are violent, often based on skin color...sure do. BUT, they are not coming from a place of "you are different color, and hence I am SUPERIOR, and will eliminate you."


Yes, yes they do and to say that they don't is uneducated about how many organised gangs operate. Its also very relevant to the topic because gang tattoos represent a negative image.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

Davisty69 said:


> Agreed. It has been fun. I could keep going, and it seems like you could as well . I'll happily debate you any time


(Deep voice) Then...until we meet again, mighty nemesis! MUHAhahah (vanishes in puff of smoke) :thumb02:


----------

