The Value of Extreme or Offensive Viewpoints on RF

[Sapiens]

FLDS and LDS are two entirely different groups. The FLDS are definitely extremists. The LDS are not. And I do not make a habit of hiding my head in the sand, if you were addressing that comment to me personally.

Extreme is a question of, "compared to what?" FLDS is exteme to where you sit. LDS is not, it is where you sit. Compared to Catholics and Protestants, LDS is, in fact, rather extreme, what with the New World stuff and planet ruling afterlife, things that (as far as I know) no other religion cottons to. Kinda the definition of extreme ... no?

 

[Valjean]

FLDS and LDS are two entirely different groups. The FLDS are definitely extremists. The LDS are not. And I do not make a habit of hiding my head in the sand, if you were addressing that comment to me personally.

no Katz, you've got it all wrong. You took exception to the Saints being caste as extremists. I agree. I'm just making the point that there are extremist offshoots of otherwise mainstream religions.

My 2nd paragraph was not aimed at you, it addressed the OP and opinions expressed in other posts. I'm saying yes, we should listen to extreme views and that hiding our heads in the sand won't protect us from extremism.

 

[Thief]

if you give some people a podium.....they will turn up the volume on the mic.....

the extreme form of any belief seems to coincide with a desire to be louder than anyone else
and kill if need be

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Extreme is a question of, "compared to what?" FLDS is exteme to where you sit. LDS is not, it is where you sit. Compared to Catholics and Protestants, LDS is, in fact, rather extreme, what with the New World stuff and planet ruling afterlife, things that (as far as I know) no other religion cottons to. Kinda the definition of extreme ... no?

"Extreme" is not a synonym for "unusual".

 

[Sapiens]

"Extreme" is not a synonym for "unusual".

So what?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

So what?

There's nothing sociopolitically extreme about believing that people will rule their own planets in the afterlife. The whole "Jesus coming to America" thing I get, because it's denying mainstream history. But the Mormon afterlife views aren't more extreme, they're just more specific. In a sense they're less extreme, because iirc Mormons believe that the vast majority of people will not suffer eternal damnation. (LDS people, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) In any case, you seem to have said that it's extreme because no other religion believes it, but that just makes it idiosyncratic.

 

[Katzpur]

Well I'm disappointed.
It was more exciting when I thought you were extreme.

Well, some people think I'm extremely nice and others think I'm extremely rude, so I guess that, in a way, I'm still an extremist. Does that ease your disappointment just a tab?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, some people think I'm extremely nice and others think I'm extremely rude, so I guess that, in a way, I'm still an extremist. Does that ease your disappointment just a tab?

A little.
To be mistaken for being rude is a sign of doing something right.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I find

Assume for a moment that there were six "extremists" on RF: A Pro-ISIL Muslim, A hard-line a Stalinist, a Neo-Nazi, an Anarcho-Capitalist or Ayn Rand Objectivist, an Anarchist-Nihilist and a Christian Fundamentalist.

[the range of opinions I've picked is to try to find views that the overwhelming majority of posters can imagine something deeply offensive rather than anything more specific. basically something we don't want to hear and we almost never would hear anywhere else but online.]

Further assume that these members abided by the Forum rules and did not simply "troll" as a way to push their views or an adgenda (and for the sake of admins and mods, said nothing that was illegal).

hypothetically, would the fact the expression of such opinions, as extreme, disconcerting and offensive as they may be, outweigh the level of insight and knowledge they could contribute into various discussions. Does expressing views which cause near universal offense still add something to debates as a form of dissent? Would you put them on the ignore list, or skim past them or would first hand experience with such people change the way you percieve them as a group?

I don't find specific views particularly offensive. Rather, I'm more annoyed by particular types of people and how they conduct themselves than their beliefs.

 

[Sapiens]

There's nothing sociopolitically extreme about believing that people will rule their own planets in the afterlife. The whole "Jesus coming to America" thing I get, because it's denying mainstream history. But the Mormon afterlife views aren't more extreme, they're just more specific. In a sense they're less extreme, because iirc Mormons believe that the vast majority of people will not suffer eternal damnation. (LDS people, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) In any case, you seem to have said that it's extreme because no other religion believes it, but that just makes it idiosyncratic.

Extreme has more than one meaning. I use it in the statistical sense. Believing that one will rule their own planet in the afterlife is a statistical outlier, I can think of no other religion with that belief, thus it is both extreme and unusual.

 

[Katzpur]

A little.
To be mistaken for being rude is a sign of doing something right.

Well you've got a lot of work ahead of you then!

 

[Scott C.]

OK, we can change that to a polygamous, science-denying Mormon expecting to rule over his own planet in the afterlife. See ... real easy to get a bit touchy, eh?

Are you nice in person?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Extreme has more than one meaning. I use it in the statistical sense. Believing that one will rule their own planet in the afterlife is a statistical outlier, I can think of no other religion with that belief, thus it is both extreme and unusual.

Doesn't seem to be a useful caliber of defining extreme religious beliefs as most if not all have something 'not statistically average.' Protestants would find Catholics extreme (views on the Virgin Mary and organizational system outside the statistical norm by denomination) and visa versa. (Heck Protestants can be Restorationist like Mormons too, which is outside the average).
So I guess every denomination and likely every religion has 'extreme' beliefs if we're using extreme interchangeably with outside the norm.

 

[Nietzsche]

Try being a gay, prolife, atheist, prude who likes the RCC. Who believes in personal responsibility, while expecting the government to do things that individuals won't do on their own. Including women, gays, blacks, and other people on the politically correct protected people list.
Everything I say offends someone.
Tom

Do you have Jewish ancestry? If so, I think you just hit Bingo for the "American extremist retard" edition.

 

[Jumi]

It's good to know all kinds of people. It's good to learn from both the extreme and the middle of the road folks, that way we can know where we stand and what's possible.

 

[Katzpur]

Are you nice in person?

You know what? I am EXACTLY the same in person as I am online. People who like me online like me in person and whose who despise me online would probably despise me in person, too.

 

[Aquitaine]

Assume for a moment that there were six "extremists" on RF: A Pro-ISIL Muslim, A hard-line a Stalinist, a Neo-Nazi, an Anarcho-Capitalist or Ayn Rand Objectivist, an Anarchist-Nihilist and a Christian Fundamentalist.

[the range of opinions I've picked is to try to find views that the overwhelming majority of posters can imagine something deeply offensive rather than anything more specific. basically something we don't want to hear and we almost never would hear anywhere else but online.]

Further assume that these members abided by the Forum rules and did not simply "troll" as a way to push their views or an adgenda (and for the sake of admins and mods, said nothing that was illegal).

hypothetically, would the fact the expression of such opinions, as extreme, disconcerting and offensive as they may be, outweigh the level of insight and knowledge they could contribute into various discussions. Does expressing views which cause near universal offense still add something to debates as a form of dissent? Would you put them on the ignore list, or skim past them or would first hand experience with such people change the way you percieve them as a group?

Yes, all opinions add to the diversity of the discussion. Hope that answers your question.

 

[Scott C.]

As a gay person, whose civil rights are commonly under assault by Christian fundamentalists like the LDS, I definitely think that they belong on that list.
You are free to believe that your reasons for opposing equality are better than the neoNazis, but I don't.
Tom

I'm not gay, so I can't pretend to understand how you feel when people want to deny what you feel is your right, e.g., marriage. But, I can see why that would not be well received. There's a big difference though, between exterminating the masses (e.g., Hitler and his Nazi's) and denying legally recognized gay marriage. But, if you feel as threatened or offended or persecuted by such religious people, as did the Jews in Nazi Germany, and if you see the one as being as extreme as the other, then I will have learned something new.

 

[Sapiens]

Are you nice in person?

Usually two or thee steps nicer than the situation calls for.

 

[Brickjectivity]

hypothetically, would the fact the expression of such opinions, as extreme, disconcerting and offensive as they may be, outweigh the level of insight and knowledge they could contribute into various discussions. Does expressing views which cause near universal offense still add something to debates as a form of dissent? Would you put them on the ignore list, or skim past them or would first hand experience with such people change the way you percieve them as a group?

Listening carefully to what another person thinks is one of the purest forms of caring, and I think it is the opposite of extremism. Sometimes non-extreme people fall in with extremists and begin to act like extremists, perhaps falling under the control of extremists, marching in step; but sometimes they wake up and leave their extremism. They learn to listen to other people or perhaps for the first time gain the ability to listen. That being said, offensive views are just views. There are some views that break the rules here, but aside from those all views are offensive to somebody. The problem seems to be the inability to read other people's material and to appreciate other people's thoughts rather than just having offensive views.