Nationalist/far-right subforum?

[Laika]

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...

RF is not a democracy though. We don't say we can't have scientologists or mormons because the majority gets to decide the value of their beliefs. Its up to the staff to decide if the demand is there for a sub forum because RF is a (largely benevolent) dictatorship. It couldn't be this diverse unless it was otherwise we'd be purging entire religious or political groups.

 

[Kirran]

RF is not a democracy though. We don't say we can't have scientologists or mormons because the majority gets to decide the value of their beliefs. Its up to the staff to decide if the demand is there for a sub forum because RF is a (largely benevolent) dictatorship. It couldn't be this diverse unless it was otherwise we'd be purging entire religious or political groups.

It's not about the value of the beliefs for me. It's about the fact that the open voicing of their ideas definitively increases the legitimacy of hateful sentiments. Certainly, there are such being voiced openly here in the name of religion, but that's unavoidable given the nature of the forums. But I draw a line at legitimising far-right politics.

I know I have no choice in the decision-making process. But I'm gonna voice my opinion on the matter.

 

[Quetzal]

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?

Some alt-right principles transcend traditional political ideologies and get voices of disapproval from across both sides of the aisle.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you mean the "X only" forums?

Yup, those ones.

It's the nature of political discussions to be critical of outside groups and for a lot of conversation to focus around what those other idiots are doing that's so dumb. That sort of discussion (within reason) is fine in areas like "Political Debates" but they are a problem once we start having them in public "only" areas. It hasn't been a massive issue this far, but we basically don't want to see the public "only" areas used as a cover to bash outside groups, just as we don't want to see DIRs being used in that way. It was suggested that they would work better as private forums, as all the other "only" forums are private forums. Trouble with moving them to private forums is that is just as good as killing them, because private forums get very little activity.

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

I suspect if we made that, it wouldn't be an "only" space. We already have that "only" space as a private forum, so making another "only" space in a public area would be a bit redundant, perhaps? So no, it wouldn't impact it.

 

[Laika]

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.

The value of free speech lies in the ability to get to the truth even when it is uncomfortable. The importance of a nationalist or far right subforum is in recognising that the members who want it should not be silenced or intimidated into conformity because we find their views to be objectionable. If they are not true we should not be afriad of them because they will lose in a fair debate. The fear of such opinions shows our weakness and our cowardice rather than our strength. Free speech is free speech for all opinions that do not incite violence and directly cause harm. It is a right that belongs to the individual and is not a privallage granted to a person by either a state, a democracy or a higher authority (in this case, the staff).

 

[Quetzal]

Yup, those ones.

It's the nature of political discussions to be critical of outside groups and for a lot of conversation to focus around what those other idiots are doing that's so dumb. That sort of discussion (within reason) is fine in areas like "Political Debates" but they are a problem once we start having them in public "only" areas. It hasn't been a massive issue this far, but we basically don't want to see the public "only" areas used as a cover to bash outside groups, just as we don't want to see DIRs being used in that way. It was suggested that they would work better as private forums, as all the other "only" forums are private forums. Trouble with moving them to private forums is that is just as good as killing them, because private forums get very little activity.

Do they get much action anyway? I don't see them used that often. Maybe a few times a week?

 

[Rival]

Some alt-right principles transcend traditional political ideologies and get voices of disapproval from across both sides of the aisle.

I'm aware. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with everything on the FR or AR. I don't.

 

[Quintessence]

Do they get much action anyway? I don't see them used that often. Maybe a few times a week?

Fair point... lol. I wonder if the "only" scares people away.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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

Not very fair.

I don't think that's being said at all. Trust me, there's a lot that I really want to say sometimes, but I don't. Because while I wholeheartedly stand by it and agree with it, I know that I would likely be punished for it.

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

Like what? You mentioned abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty; you are able to say whatever you want about those things, and no one can do anything. With the "Alt-Right", though, should we allow "peacefully" talking about ethnic genocide?

 

[Quetzal]

Fair point... lol. I wonder if the "only" scares people away.

I don't use it anymore because then @Revoltingest picks on me.

 

[Quetzal]

I'm aware. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with everything on the FR or AR. I don't.

I know you don't. I see your point and its valid, I just might not agree this time. That's all.

 

[Rival]

Like what? You mentioned abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty; you are able to say whatever you want about those things, and no one can do anything. With the "Alt-Right", though, should we allow "peacefully" talking about ethnic genocide?

Anything that breaks the rules is obviously not allowed.

I'm not sure about things like discussing homosexuality, abortion etc. in the Conservative Only, because here in the UK 'Conservatives' legalised gay marriage and are O.K. with abortion. This, as far as the UK goes, appears to push me 'far right'. I feel as though my views would be challenged even in the Conservative Only, when I'm not looking for a debate.

 

[Laika]

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):



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.

The far right has potential to violate rule 3. But so does every religion or belief that insists on exclusivity. The issues of moderation can and should be handled on a case by case basis rather than assuming a group cannot be trusted to express their opinions.

This thread is built on the assumption that the far right is already here btw, rather than inviting them in.

The forum is driven by profit and inorder to maximise profit, it necessarily needs to increase activity. To do that, all the staff have to do is have a libertarian-ish approach to free speech. Creating space for political diversity won't hurt RFs profits as the far right still has to battle its way through the 90% of members on RF who do not accept it.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

here in the UK

I think we found the issue; I didn't know you're in the UK.

Here in the US, "Alt-Right" basically is a kinder term for Neo-Nazi.

 

[Laika]

I don't think that's being said at all. Trust me, there's a lot that I really want to say sometimes, but I don't. Because while I wholeheartedly stand by it and agree with it, I know that I would likely be punished for it.



Like what? You mentioned abortion, homosexuality, and the death penalty; you are able to say whatever you want about those things, and no one can do anything. With the "Alt-Right", though, should we allow "peacefully" talking about ethnic genocide?

Yes. Because then you know who they are, and it will serverely damage their reputation on the forum unless they can actually back it up or will fight to defend that positions. If they do it in such a way it violates the rules like bullying the jews in their own DIR- they'll get banned. If not You can still talk them out of it. Words don't kill- morons do. All you have to do is be smarter than them.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Any more we know who they are regardless. Why give them a stage and weep when they get punched?

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

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?

No, it's not very fair. Neither is the way the far-right views & treats people. Aside from the fact that normalising it here would damage the board's image & reputation, the saddest thing of all is that the far-right is becoming increasingly mainstream. It has entered the corridors of power in the U.S., it's got into the corridors of power in Westminster hiding behind the Conservative Party and there's a distinct possibility it could get into power in France.

Anything that breaks the rules is obviously not allowed.

I'm not sure about things like discussing homosexuality, abortion etc. in the Conservative Only, because here in the UK 'Conservatives' legalised gay marriage and are O.K. with abortion. This, as far as the UK goes, appears to push me 'far right'. I feel as though my views would be challenged even in the Conservative Only, when I'm not looking for a debate.

In my opinion that move was a ploy to earn the support of the centrists and to trick people into thinking the Tories are a progressive party. Back on the subject of this forum, there are plenty of threads open where people are condemning abortions & people who advocate for womens' right to choose to have them. There've also been countless threads where people bash equal marriage and gays in general. You don't need a 'Far-Right Only' section for that.

 

[Quetzal]

The far right has potential to violate rule 3. But so does every religion or belief that insists on exclusivity. The issues of moderation can and should be handled on a case by case basis rather than assuming a group cannot be trusted to express their opinions.

This thread is built on the assumption that the far right is already here btw, rather than inviting them in.

The forum is driven by profit and inorder to maximise profit, it necessarily needs to increase activity. To do that, all the staff have to do is have a libertarian-ish approach to free speech. Creating space for political diversity won't hurt RFs profits as the far right still has to battle its way through the 90% of members on RF who do not accept it.

Or they can do away with exclusive spaces all together.

 

[Lyndon]

There are enough Nazis in this world without pandering to them and giving them their own forum

 

[Rival]

No, it's not very fair. Neither is the way the far-right views & treats people. Aside from the fact that normalising it here would damage the board's image & reputation, the saddest thing of all is that the far-right is becoming increasingly mainstream. It has entered the corridors of power in the U.S., it's got into the corridors of power in Westminster hiding behind the Conservative Party and there's a distinct possibility it could get into power in France.

Doesn't this tell you something? That it's more popular than the narrative would have you believe?
I also think the view that the left has that the right 'hates' gays is wrong. You know I don't hate anybody; there are gays on the right themselves. Just because we view something as abnormal, doesn't mean we hate it.

And I agree with your second point.

But then why have a Communist section? Commies have been brutal b******s too who genocided millions upon millions. Yet a member can openly label him or herself a Communist and sport a Stalin avatar. Bit lopsided, no?