Nationalist/far-right subforum?

[Laika]

I think its reasonable to say that RF now has quite a few outspoken Trump and Brexit supporters. This doesn't automatically make it "far-right" but there are similarities and patterns. So it struck me as odd that there isn't a subforum for it. I'm just curious whether there is actually demand for one. Its the numbers that counts.

Given that members have consistently expressed concerns over immigration, multi-culturalism, political correctness, cultural threats to western values such as Islam or cultural marxism/the left and feminism, etc, I thought I'd throw this idea out there to see if it sticks. It is true that self-censorship limits the scope of debates that are possible on the forums. many subjects such as asserting inequality on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc remain taboo. A subforum just gives you one area to be open and a tacit recognition that you have a legitimate point of view.

I'm voting no in the poll (obviously) but its seemed that- given all the changes over 2016 and the way politics has become fractured and polarised- there may now be enough people to make it worth the staff considering setting up a "nationalist only" sub forum. Left-wing nationalism does exist but its a bit of an abberation so in practice nationalism is often a solidly far right position. I don't agree with trump voters, etc and I don't believe setting up a subforum automatically invites more people (I mean we have an Amish DIR remember?) I do realise you get alot of **** for not accepting RFs prevailing "centre-left" political culture and could just want the breathing space. Maybe you want somewhere to discuss Fox News without it being treated as fake?

Just a thought.

 

[Kirran]

I'll be honest, I am very wary of legitimising such viewpoints, which seems to be what you advocate here. We've got a Conservative DIR, we've got a Capitalist DIR, that's right-wing stuff. But Far-Right?

 

[Quetzal]

I'll be honest, I am very wary of legitimising such viewpoints, which seems to be what you advocate here. We've got a Conservative DIR, we've got a Capitalist DIR, that's right-wing stuff. But Far-Right?

Well said.

 

[Quintessence]

We've actually been talking recently about decommissioning the "political only" forums altogether. They've been causing enough challenges that some of our staff felt that needed to be on the table. But if we make any sort of change like that, we will definitely run it by the members first.

 

[Laika]

I'll be honest, I am very wary of legitimising such viewpoints, which seems to be what you advocate here. We've got a Conservative DIR, we've got a Capitalist DIR, that's right-wing stuff. But Far-Right?

This thread is hypothetical and may well come to nothing. But I think simply silencing people into conformity is not the same as changing their mind. If you want them to sincerely change their views they have to be in a position to discuss what they believe with you. We have to respect them enough to know that their concerns (real or not) won't just be dismissed without a "fair trial".

if there is truth behind many of the cliams coming out from the far right we can't ignore it or push it under the carpet by making emotionally charged accusations or shaming them into silence. RF is about diversity and that should include political diversity. There is a problem with political correctness and I don't agree that nationalism is the solution but I think we have to show we can handle disagreement. whats the point of debating something when only one side turns up or the others is too uncomfortable to express their point of view?

 

[Quetzal]

We've actually been talking recently about decommissioning the "political only" forums altogether. They've been causing enough challenges that some of our staff felt that needed to be on the table. But if we make any sort of change like that, we will definitely run it by the members first.

Do you mean the "X only" forums?

 

[Kirran]

We've actually been talking recently about decommissioning the "political only" forums altogether. They've been causing enough challenges that some of our staff felt that needed to be on the table. But if we make any sort of change like that, we will definitely run it by the members first.

Would this impact the proposed 'LGBTQ+ Safe Space'?

This thread is hypothetical and may well come to nothing. But I think simply silencing people into conformity is not the same as changing their mind. If you want them to sincerely change their views they have to be in a position to discuss what they believe with you. We have to respect them enough to know that their concerns (real or not) won't just be dismissed without a "fair trial".

if there is truth behind many of the cliams coming out from the far right we can't ignore it or push it under the carpet by making emotionally charged accusations or shaming them into silence. RF is about diversity and that should include political diversity. There is a problem with political correctness and I don't agree that nationalism is the solution but I think we have to show we can handle disagreement. whats the point of debating something when only one side turns up or the others is too uncomfortable to express their point of view?

Right, fair enough - but you spoke specifically of respecting their views as legitimate and helping them feel that was the case. I have seen former Nazis etc who very strongly advocate against such ideas.

 

[Rival]

I'll be honest, I am very wary of legitimising such viewpoints, which seems to be what you advocate here. We've got a Conservative DIR, we've got a Capitalist DIR, that's right-wing stuff. But Far-Right?

The Leftists have 'Communist Only', which is super far left. Why not show the Right the same courtesy?

 

[Kirran]

The Leftists have 'Communist Only', which is super far left. Why not show the Right the same courtesy?

I suppose because from my own perspective I see the dissemination of the ideas of the far-right to be very actively harmful. We can plainly see their manifestation in racial tensions, in homophobic sentiments, in Muslimphobia and so forth. I do not observe the same phenomenon with Communism.

 

[Rival]

I suppose because from my own perspective I see the dissemination of the ideas of the far-right to be very actively harmful. We can plainly see their manifestation in racial tensions, in homophobic sentiments, in Muslimphobia and so forth. I do not observe the same phenomenon with Communism.

I see the Far Left as harmful. This is all about perspective. If you don't give these people a venue to discuss their viewpoints, you are merely confirming their biases that the Left does not provide everyone with a voice.

 

[Kirran]

I see the Far Left as harmful. This is all about perspective. If you don't give these people a venue to discuss their viewpoints, you are merely confirming their biases that the Left does not provide everyone with a voice.

I see your point of course, but I stand by my stance anyway.

Recently I read a piece by a former neo-Nazi who said that, as far as your average far-righter goes, the best thing to do is refuse to give them any legitimacy and keep them in the shadows, so their views stay fringe. I am not 100% convinced, but I'm inclined to sympathise.

 

[Rival]

I see your point of course, but I stand by my stance anyway.

Recently I read a piece by a former neo-Nazi who said that, as far as your average far-righter goes, the best thing to do is refuse to give them any legitimacy and keep them in the shadows, so their views stay fringe. I am not 100% convinced, but I'm inclined to sympathise.

You can't lump all Far-Rightists with National Socialists. Some of them agree more with Il Duce, who believed that race did not exist (at times, as his views changed with the weather) and that there was thus no 'Aryan ideal'. Some of them agree more with Milo, who is himself a homosexual and part Jewish, who writes for Breitbart. Some are merely Nationalists with no other defined viewpoints. Some are like me and are more on the 'Authoritarian Left' but we come across as Right-Wing because of our strong views on abortion, homosexuality, death penalty et al. when our economic ideal is socialism.

I think these things should be discussed.

 

[Laika]

We've actually been talking recently about decommissioning the "political only" forums altogether. They've been causing enough challenges that some of our staff felt that needed to be on the table. But if we make any sort of change like that, we will definitely run it by the members first.

I'm not part of that discussion but just for me personally that rings alot of alarm bells. my politics is my religion and I face alot of crap if I tried to debate my ideas on the main forums. So for me it would be like shutting down my groups DIR. admittedly they aren't used much but it will make it alot harder to express a minority political opinion on the forums.

An open discussion on it would be welcome though and you can bet I will fight my corner on that one. I'd contemplate a rule change though as a middle ground if the staff have specific concerns in mind that need a change.

Identifying peoples politics is probably the issue for mods to know who belongs were. so perhaps creating a section for politics in personal deatils (like we have for religion) to make it easier to identify who belongs in each subforum is a solution?

I see the Far Left as harmful. This is all about perspective. If you don't give these people a venue to discuss their viewpoints, you are merely confirming their biases that the Left does not provide everyone with a voice.

Exactly.

 

[Kirran]

You can't lump all Far-Rightists with National Socialists. Some of them agree more with Il Duce, who believed that race did not exist (at times, as his views changed with the weather) and that there was thus no 'Aryan ideal'. Some of them agree more with Milo, who is himself a homosexual and part Jewish, writing for Breitbart. Some are merely Nationalists with no other defined viewpoints. Some are like me and are more on the 'Authoritarian Left' but we come across as Right-Wing because of our strong views on abortion, homosexuality, death penalty et al. when our economic ideal is socialism.

I think these things should be discussed.

Sorry if I implied that I thought all Far-Rightists were Nazis. I'm aware of Milo et al. However, I think to be defined as far-right takes more than nationalism, it takes a very firm ethnic nationalism at the least, and/or profound homophobia. These are both hugely damaging ideas, in my opinion, and the latter gets quite enough of an audience here as it is in my view.

I am aware these are my own opinions only. But I stand by them nevertheless, and would oppose the creation of a far-right section on these grounds.

 

[Rival]

Sorry if I implied that I thought all Far-Rightists were Nazis. I'm aware of Milo et al. However, I think to be defined as far-right takes more than nationalism, it takes a very firm ethnic nationalism at the least, and/or profound homophobia. These are both hugely damaging ideas, in my opinion, and the latter gets quite enough of an audience here as it is in my view.

I am aware these are my own opinions only. But I stand by them nevertheless, and would oppose the creation of a far-right section on these grounds.

I think we will never see eye to eye here.

 

[Kirran]

I think we will never see eye to eye here.

Come on, it's easy, all you've gotta do is accept all my views

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I don't like this grouping of nationalism in with the far-right as if nationalism can only be right-wing. That aside, I do not support this idea and the complaints of those on the far-right that the Left claim to give everyone a voice while not actually doing it is phony because the Left has never, ever claimed that everybody should be given a chance to air their views in the open. Free speech does not extend to hate speech.

Look at what happens when free speech doesn't have reasonable restrictions; the USA is a perfect example of this. American society has had huge problems with institutionalised homophobia & racism for decades because such opinions, although pushed to the fringes have continued to enjoy access to mainstream society. This has allowed right - far-right views to thrive for too long. Look at what happened in the run up to the last election; the things that were said and are being said now in the corridors of power. That makes my point for me.

 

[Quetzal]

I see the Far Left as harmful. This is all about perspective. If you don't give these people a venue to discuss their viewpoints, you are merely confirming their biases that the Left does not provide everyone with a voice.

Eh, let's talk practicality in regards to this forum structure, which is what the OP is about. Sure, I suppose you could give them one on principle, but how many people are going to be actively using it? Further, some ideals from the far right have the potential to directly conflict with rule three (from my perspective):

Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion.

Finally, from a business perspective, the alt right is a fringe group with a negative bias held by a very large percentage of the population. It could be a risk to future profits/sustainability plans if such a thing existed.

 

[Rival]

That aside, I do not support this idea and the complaints of those on the far-right that the Left claim to give everyone a voice while not actually doing it is phony because the Left has never, ever claimed that everybody should be given a chance to air their views in the open. Free speech does not extend to hate speech.

Quite sad that you get to voice your view on an internet forum and I can't voice mine?

Not very fair.

Some of the things the left considers 'good', we consider 'harmful'; some of the things we consider 'harmful' the left considers 'good'.

How will we ever agree?

 

[Kirran]

Quite sad that you get to voice your view on an internet forum and I can't voice mine?

Not very fair.

Some of the things the left considers 'good', we consider 'harmful'; some of the things we consider 'harmful' the left considers 'good'.

How will we ever agree?

It's basically a majority-rules thing here. When it comes to morality, it often plays out like this.

From a personal level, I empathise with you. But at the principles level...