• 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!

Twitter suspends alt-right accounts

illykitty

RF's pet cat
I never suggested doing nothing. You fight with open refutation.

I was going to say something like that. Discussions and challenging ideas is better than censorship. There's so many people that turn around and realise slowly, with time, how bad and inaccurate their old ideas were because people offered to talk to them. You do need to be good at it though, insulting people usually results in them shutting down, for example. Speaking with conviction but in a respectful manner can turn people around.

I'm not good at it, I get too emotional because it really annoys me when people have horrible views, but I've seen enough examples of this being successful to support the idea of dialogue instead of censorship.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I was going to say something like that. Discussions and challenging ideas is better than censorship. There's so many people that turn around and realise slowly, with time, how bad and inaccurate their old ideas were because people offered to talk to them. You do need to be good at it though, insulting people usually results in them shutting down, for example. Speaking with conviction but in a respectful manner can turn people around.

I'm not good at it, I get too emotional because it really annoys me when people have horrible views, but I've seen enough examples of this being successful to support the idea of dialogue instead of censorship.
I could not agree more with paragraph one, but draw short in respect to turning peoples thinking around. My own theory is that your ideas must be somewhat similar for the "buy in clause" to come into play. The art is in finding the common ground to make the ideas more palatable to your prospective person. I find that the best way to do this is to talk to, rather than at, people. I try to temper my words into their own thinking patterns. It is very far from being an exact science and you have to be able to inject some humor into your dialogue. I've found if peoples heads are bobbing and they are chuckling they are more open to new ideas.

Censoring ideas of others tends to backfire. Self-censorship is heartily encouraged however or to curb ones enthusiasm, as it were.
 

AnnaCzereda

Active Member
Just recently, the Polish nationalists complained about having their pages and accounts removed from Facebook. It seems that Facebook and Twitter are platforms for liberal and leftist propaganda. Conservative views are not allowed. Still it isn't a problem to set up another account after being banned and, especially on Facebook and Twitter, it is relatively easy. I have buddies on Facebook who come and go all the time. It's like tilting at windmills really. The whole concept of hate speech is nonsense, just an excuse to get politically incorrect people silenced.
 

Lighthouse

Well-Known Member
I could not agree more with paragraph one, but draw short in respect to turning peoples thinking around. My own theory is that your ideas must be somewhat similar for the "buy in clause" to come into play. The art is in finding the common ground to make the ideas more palatable to your prospective person. I find that the best way to do this is to talk to, rather than at, people. I try to temper my words into their own thinking patterns. It is very far from being an exact science and you have to be able to inject some humor into your dialogue. I've found if peoples heads are bobbing and they are chuckling they are more open to new ideas.

Censoring ideas of others tends to backfire. Self-censorship is heartily encouraged however or to curb ones enthusiasm, as it were.

This is brilliant. The biggest challenge is getting some to lighten up, laugh a little, take no offense. Getting those hardened, closed mental walls to come tumbling down.

The more this art is mastered in humans, the more peaceable progress society will make.
 

illykitty

RF's pet cat
I could not agree more with paragraph one, but draw short in respect to turning peoples thinking around. My own theory is that your ideas must be somewhat similar for the "buy in clause" to come into play. The art is in finding the common ground to make the ideas more palatable to your prospective person. I find that the best way to do this is to talk to, rather than at, people. I try to temper my words into their own thinking patterns. It is very far from being an exact science and you have to be able to inject some humor into your dialogue. I've found if peoples heads are bobbing and they are chuckling they are more open to new ideas.

Censoring ideas of others tends to backfire. Self-censorship is heartily encouraged however or to curb ones enthusiasm, as it were.

That's more of less what I had in mind, typing while having someone's life story in mind but I feel short of saying what that person did, which is what you just described. My brain is tired today. Thanks for adding useful information to my messy post.
 

Lighthouse

Well-Known Member
And then we could sell people timeshares on the oceanfront with a beautiful view of the bridge. Give me half and we have a deal.

The good news is, I'd have to imagine you both wouldn't be selective on who you sell your timeshares to... whether alt righties or alt lefties.
 

निताइ dasa

Nitai's servant's servant
Really interesting discourse going on here, and for the most part I agree.Of course Twitter has a right to censor certain viewpoints, but its not going to be taken well and will be criticized by a large portion of the community at large (especially those who support freedom of speech strongly). IMO, beliefs no matter how bad we think they are should be tolerated and refuted through logical refutation. If you can't do that, then just ignore the viewpoint and move on.

Another really interesting phenomenon I've noticed, especially online is that many of these so called "alt-righters" are nothing more then adolescent (usually college age kids) trolls who seek to provoke and get a reaction from the left. They don't really understand the implication of the views they are advocating and simply spew racist/sexist/offensive comments in order to get a violent reaction which in turn broadcasts their views to a wider audience. Quoting from the infamous article itself:

"They [many of the young alt righter trolls] have no real problem with race-mixing, homosexuality, or even diverse societies: it’s just fun to watch the mayhem and outrage that erupts when those secular shibboleths are openly mocked. These younger mischief-makers instinctively understand who the authoritarians are and why and how to poke fun at them."

When their views are censored, they then play a victim accusing the censoring party of violating their free speech (which, we must admit, doesn't bode well for any party). It also exposes to people at times how bigoted the censoring party can be. That why, I think, for the sake of maturity the opposing party should either give reasonable or logical refutation to the views, or laugh it away understanding it to be a divisive post simply meaning to troll and start an argument. I am actually of the opinion that when you laugh or ridicule a seemingly hateful opinion it invalidates it much more then yelling "racists/bigot etc" (which seems to give the opinion an aura of authenticity). Censoring that opinion, seems to be worse. What do you guys think?


ps. I'm trying to actually find the hateful tweet by spencer in question, but the link simply takes me to another news websites with no reference to the tweet. Does anyone know where I can read the exact tweet by spencer? While I have no problem believing Spencer is a white nationalist, I still need to verify the tweet itself, cause I can't really trust the news these days.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
It does?
Where I live, we heathens are all running dogs of capitalism.
We say....let our fellow man help himself.
If he wants something, then work for it.
No share'n with slackers.

You have to read the Communists' playbook.

Karl Marx Communist Manifesto: "When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”"

Karl Marx Private Property and Communism
"This material, immediately perceptible private property is the material perceptible expression of estranged human life. Its movement – production and consumption – is the perceptible revelation of the movement of all production until now, i.e., the realisation or the reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence. Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, of man’s inner life, but economic estrangement is that of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects. It is evident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends on whether the true recognised life of the people manifests itself more in consciousness or in the external world – is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

Vladimir Lenin discusses war on religion The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

Same with Josef Stalin
http://hollowverse.com/joseph-stalin/
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You have to read the Communists' playbook.

Karl Marx Communist Manifesto: "When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”"

Karl Marx Private Property and Communism
"This material, immediately perceptible private property is the material perceptible expression of estranged human life. Its movement – production and consumption – is the perceptible revelation of the movement of all production until now, i.e., the realisation or the reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence. Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, of man’s inner life, but economic estrangement is that of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects. It is evident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends on whether the true recognised life of the people manifests itself more in consciousness or in the external world – is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

Vladimir Lenin discusses war on religion The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

Same with Josef Stalin
http://hollowverse.com/joseph-stalin/
Marx & Lenin have written things.
But this doesn't mean they're true.
They told us how great & inevitable communism is.
How'd that prediction work out?
Poorly.
Those guys are jerks.
No, that's unfair to jerks.
They're evil fascists.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
You have to read the Communists' playbook.

Karl Marx Communist Manifesto: "When the ancient world was in its last throes, the ancient religions were overcome by Christianity. When Christian ideas succumbed in the 18th century to rationalist ideas, feudal society fought its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie. The ideas of religious liberty and freedom of conscience merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.

“Undoubtedly,” it will be said, “religious, moral, philosophical, and juridical ideas have been modified in the course of historical development. But religion, morality, philosophy, political science, and law, constantly survived this change.”

“There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”"

Karl Marx Private Property and Communism
"This material, immediately perceptible private property is the material perceptible expression of estranged human life. Its movement – production and consumption – is the perceptible revelation of the movement of all production until now, i.e., the realisation or the reality of man. Religion, family, state, law, morality, science, art, etc., are only particular modes of production, and fall under its general law. The positive transcendence of private property as the appropriation of human life, is therefore the positive transcendence of all estrangement – that is to say, the return of man from religion, family, state, etc., to his human, i.e., social, existence. Religious estrangement as such occurs only in the realm of consciousness, of man’s inner life, but economic estrangement is that of real life; its transcendence therefore embraces both aspects. It is evident that the initial stage of the movement amongst the various peoples depends on whether the true recognised life of the people manifests itself more in consciousness or in the external world – is more ideal or real. Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."

Vladimir Lenin discusses war on religion The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm

Same with Josef Stalin
http://hollowverse.com/joseph-stalin/

Just because bananas are yellow, doesn't make everything yellow a banana.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
It does?
Where I live, we heathens are all running dogs of capitalism.
We say....let our fellow man help himself.
If he wants something, then work for it.
No share'n with slackers.
If Alice lives in Wonderland then you are a communist because you're an atheist. Ah me, the things I learn on the internet.
 
Top