The Value of Extreme or Offensive Viewpoints on RF

[Laika]

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?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

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?

Why is a Christian fundamentalist in the same list as a neo-Nazi?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I'd be fine with them being around. What definitely make things interesting. I've talked to most of the types you've listed.

I'm not sure what you mean by an anarchist nihilist, though?

 

[Mister Emu]

I find your equating Christian fundamentalism with neo-Nazis, Stalinists and ISIL extreme and offensive.

I give everyone an opportunity before writing them off.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Not so much outweight as make it possible.

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?

It is all in the form of expression really.

I do not put anyone in the ignore list. Nor can I for technical reasons, but even if I could I probably would not. The only place where I do is facebook.

 

[Jumi]

Why is a Christian fundamentalist in the same list as a neo-Nazi?

Same goes for Ayn Randist, Anarcho-Capitalist and Nihilist. Those are not necessarily violent viewpoints, merely offensive to some.

 

[Erebus]

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?

Pretty sure we've had/have examples of each on the forum. It's interesting to see their views even if I don't share them or am offended by them. If nothing else, it provides a look into their mind.

I don't currently have anybody on ignore. The people I do put on ignore are the ones who respond to every single thread with a reel of scripture and none of their own thoughts.

 

[Revoltingest]

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 get why this sounds so hypothetical.
I fit comfortably with 2 of those "extremist" groups.
Perhaps that's why I'm told things like "choke you your own bile", eh?
People do get worked up over a mere difference of opinion.
But we should converse with those who are different.
We don't want an echo chamber.

No one's on my <ignore> list.

 

[Papoon]

I don't participate here to have my views affirmed, or to proselytize. This forum is a window on humanity. Philoso-porn, LOL.

Bring it on. Meet the Fokker's.

 

[allfoak]

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?

Those that run from what offends are aids in the persistence of such offense

 

[George-ananda]

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?

Your list of offensive groups is certainly not universal. But, if they can discuss rationally I want them included.

 

[Scott C.]

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.

Christian Fundamentalist in no way belongs on this list.

 

[Quintessence]

I think taboo perspectives absolutely add something of benefit. That said, it is not a simple matter to voice such perspectives in a way that is in keeping with the forum rules and the atmosphere we hope to cultivate here.

 

[Thief]

and of course.....the militant atheist.....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Christian Fundamentalist in no way belongs on this list.

I'm thinking it was meant to convey more of the "God hates [gays]" variety of Christian, if I had to guess.

 

[Quintessence]

Christian Fundamentalist in no way belongs on this list.

It's funny people say that, because of the groups listed, that is the one that poses the most direct threat to me personally by far. Given the option, that group would strip me of various legal rights, and actively endeavors to do this today (and with substantial political power).

 

[Scott C.]

I'm thinking it was meant to convey more of the "God hates [gays]" variety of Christian, if I had to guess.

There's a point at which a very extreme interpretation of Christianity could equate with the other groups listed. Referring to this as "Christian Fundamentalist" is not accurate. (And I don't consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist as I understand the term.)

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There's a point at which a very extreme interpretation of Christianity could equate with the other groups listed. Referring to this as "Christian Fundamentalist" is not accurate. (And I don't consider myself to be a Christian Fundamentalist as I understand the term.)

I completely agree - that term doesn't evoke as extreme a stance as the others listed. I'm not even sure what one would call something like the Westboro Baptists - except by name - which is probably the only fair thing to do anyway.

 

[Revoltingest]

D

Christian Fundamentalist in no way belongs on this list.

Don't sell them short.....they can be as extreme as I.
Being extreme isn't necessarily a bad thing, btw.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Your list of offensive groups is certainly not universal. But, if they can discuss rationally I want them included.

I agree with this thought.
The difficulty with many of the groups listed, and with similar unlisted ones is their inability to "discuss rationally" most subjects related to religion or politics.