• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nationalist/far-right subforum?

Would you use a nationalist or far-right subforum?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 14.3%
  • No

    Votes: 14 66.7%
  • Don't know/maybe

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • Total voters
    21

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Anything that breaks the rules is obviously not allowed.
What a wicked sense of humor you have!
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.
The restricted forums each have a post defining the category.
The definitions are oddly dysfunctional though, allowing some
cross-over which isn't reciprocal.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
But then why have a Communist section? Commies have been brutal b******s too who genocided millions upon millions.
Let's dial that back a sec. Is that a genuine form of communism or a brutal dictator acting under the guise of communism?

For reference:
Communism: a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
I'm not really sure it matters at this point.
I think it is pretty important. If you are going to throw the entire ideology under the bus because one government system abused the label as a means to carry out diabolical things, it is not an accurate representation.
 

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it is pretty important. If you are going to throw the entire ideology under the bus because one government system abused the label as a means to carry out diabolical things, it is not an accurate representation.
It wasn't one government. It has been many.
 

The Emperor of Mankind

Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic
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).

The problem with this position is that it assumes far-right points of view are open to criticism, reconsideration & alteration in the light of rational dialogue. They aren't. This is why far-right regimes always silence their detractors & dissenters violently: they can't handle facts. If the far-right denies freedom of speech to others out of hand then it should itself suffer the same fate. Turnabout is fair play.

And I don't oppose granting free speech to far-right activists out of cowardice or weakness; more out of a desire to not have to live through the modern equivalent of Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. I resent your implication. Allowing the far-right to become mainstream in society has had horrific consequences in every instance and as a minority which would in all likelihood be targeted as a result of that, I refuse to sit back and allow such evil to operate unchallenged or unchecked.

Free speech is not absolute and never has been. There are reasonable restrictions such as advocating violence etc which far-right ideology falls under. The fact that ******** like Spencer (who calls for a '"peaceful" ethnic cleansing of black people') are inserting the word 'peaceful' into their ideas does not make them such. What if he called for the 'tolerant' incarceration of everyone to the left of him? Would you support that?


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.

But you do view it as unnatural which you view as reason enough to restrict their rights. If you view something as unnatural it's far easier to dehumanise those who engage in it. To draw an analogy you'll understand quickly: in this scenario you wouldn't be an Islamic State supporter, you'd be a 'moderate' Muslim who believes the Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified.


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?

Your point would be cogent if you can highlight a Marxist doctrine that calls for the mass murder of proletarians and the creation of thought police. Self-proclaimed communist governments have all been corruptions of actual Communist ideology. Fascist governments have not.
 

MD

qualiaphile
One can argue that abortion has extinguished hundreds of millions of souls, all in the name of some made up concept of 'choice'.

One can argue that Islam is an Eastern far right ideology, which gets a lot of support from the Left.

The best argument from the Right is that the Left has caused the demographic death of the West. Extremely low birth rates, breakdown of the family and a general sort of hedonism and apathy. This has led to other, culturally stronger groups to gain power.

The far Right has grown because of the Left. The suppression of alternate views by the Left, the complete dissociation from the working man, etc has led to it's rise. Putting them in the shadows only makes their narrative stronger.
 
Last edited:

Rival

Diex Aie
Staff member
Premium Member
Your point would be cogent if you can highlight a Marxist doctrine that calls for the mass murder of proletarians and the creation of thought police. Self-proclaimed communist governments have all been corruptions of actual Communist ideology. Fascist governments have not.
It's been a long time since I read it, but the communist manifesto (iirc) does call for a violent and bloody revolution. Perhaps this is why Pol Pot saw fit to do what he did to an entire class.
 

Quetzal

A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
Premium Member
I thought it was a sense of hummus?
DID SOMEONE SAY HUMMUS?! IM ON THE WAY!
giphy.gif
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The problem with this position is that it assumes far-right points of view are open to criticism, reconsideration & alteration in the light of rational dialogue. They aren't. This is why far-right regimes always silence their detractors & dissenters violently: they can't handle facts. If the far-right denies freedom of speech to others out of hand then it should itself suffer the same fate. Turnabout is fair play.

And I don't oppose granting free speech to far-right activists out of cowardice or weakness; more out of a desire to not have to live through the modern equivalent of Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. I resent your implication. Allowing the far-right to become mainstream in society has had horrific consequences in every instance and as a minority which would in all likelihood be targeted as a result of that, I refuse to sit back and allow such evil to operate unchallenged or unchecked.

Free speech is not absolute and never has been. There are reasonable restrictions such as advocating violence etc which far-right ideology falls under. The fact that ******** like Spencer (who calls for a '"peaceful" ethnic cleansing of black people') are inserting the word 'peaceful' into their ideas does not make them such. What if he called for the 'tolerant' incarceration of everyone to the left of him? Would you support that?




But you do view it as unnatural which you view as reason enough to restrict their rights. If you view something as unnatural it's far easier to dehumanise those who engage in it. To draw an analogy you'll understand quickly: in this scenario you wouldn't be an Islamic State supporter, you'd be a 'moderate' Muslim who believes the Charlie Hebdo massacre was justified.




Your point would be cogent if you can highlight a Marxist doctrine that calls for the mass murder of proletarians and the creation of thought police. Self-proclaimed communist governments have all been corruptions of actual Communist ideology. Fascist governments have not.

See here: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Seriously- you really don't understand communism if you think we're all about love and peace. We are absolute Nazis if you give us the chance. Commies kill people out of ideology and thrill of power whilst believing their right.

Why else do you think I'm so nice and reasonable? It's me trying to find a way to live and let live because I know my beliefs require me to kill you all as enemies of the people...

...and that makes me feel sad. :(
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I have not noticed a lack of far right sentiments, with or with out a special DIR.
I am not keen on the ideas of any forum that gives political views a place to hide from critical challenges.
As most political views seem to have a religious counterpoint.
And like religion, politics share many social and ethical questions.
A political forum is an excellent outlet for those Ethical and social questions better dicussed in one.

The present political crisis certainly brings this to the for, and is being expressed in many countries, in relation to their own political agenda... people need an outlet for debate and here semes a resonable place to do so.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
See here: The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Seriously- you really don't understand communism if you think we're all about love and peace. We are absolute Nazis if you give us the chance. Commies kill people out of ideology and thrill of power whilst believing their right.

Why else do you think I'm so nice and reasonable? It's me trying to find a way to live and let live because I know my beliefs require me to kill you all as enemies of the people...

...and that makes me feel sad. :(
That's your Stalinist nonsense and that's completely on you for holding those views. You'd have to kill me, too, by the way. Change your views since you're obviously ashamed of them (and should be, imo).
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Paging @Laika since I don't know much about the topic.

As a Communist I can assure that we are complete *******s intent on destroying you and everything you care about. Communists are comparable to the nazis in terms of the means and ends of unlimited state power although there are significant differences in behaviour and motivation. arguably communists are worse because we do away with the "civil society" as a space independent of the government. We don't want your conformity- we want you to love big brother. Your thoughts are not your own- they belong to the party.

Of course, I am a communist so I could be lying to you for the good of the party. But How will you know? :eek:
 
Top