Agreed. Read UNZ.com to catch up on the latest thought in antisemitic, eugenicist, racist, and elitist circles. Otherwise, don't get upset when dehumanizers get unpersoned.
To be sure, I don't have a lot of use for opinions of either stripe, but I'm glad that there's a place left on the Internet where both are suffered to exist in public, for a little while longer at least. Sticking your head under a pillow and your fingers in your ears doesn't make them go away, and all else equal, you're safer being able to keep an eye on them.
(Incidentally, the comment to which I'm responding is posted under a name that's 53 days old, with 1 karma, no submissions, 1 comment. It's almost as though someone made this account a while back so the green name would age off and then stuck it in a back pocket for eventual sockpuppeting use, but I'm sure that is merely an unworthy cavil...)
53 days ago I wrote a post but decided not to publish it. Thus am I compelled by you defend my right to publish here.
>it doesn't seem particularly to favor one side over the other
The non-racist voices, like Michael Hudson, get plenty of exposure elsewhere. They are used at unz.com to lend a civilized context to the sophistic racist writers.
>both are suffered to exist in public
Sophisticated argumentation leading to racist conclusions offends but does not enlighten and so is best ignored. There aren't two civil sides here, pretenses notwithstanding.
It is foolish, for anyone who cares about truth, to advocate suppression of information or opinions, by legal or other means. Because history demonstrates that, whenever such suppression is legitimized, it will be used by evil people to suppress truth.
Yesterday the cardinal sin was heresy against the church. Today the cardinal sin is racism. Tomorrow the cardinal sin will be something else. Someday the cardinal sin will be your own opinion. Only evil people and shortsighted fools advocate censorship of opposing views.
Anyway unz.com itself is an aggregator and doesn't publish everyone either.
And so far you have used this account, with all those stigmata, to contribute nothing of value; of the adjectives in your comment to which I originally responded, all save one ("latest") could be replaced with 'sinful' and the comment remain precisely as meaningful as it started out. You do nothing to support your claims of moral or intellectual failure; you merely insist upon them, and when those claims are challenged, insist on them still harder.
I grant this is a useful style of discourse among those who agree with you, or who are susceptible to believing that something is so awful that even to examine it for themselves and try to draw their own conclusions on its merit risks contaminating them with some sort of social or intellectual pestilence. You will find very few of the latter sort here, and even those of the former tend in my experience to prefer engaging on a higher level than mere accusations of heresy.