Taylor Seraphim
Angel of Reason
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 like having extremist on here for 2 reasons.
1) To have more scope.
2) To try to help them.