Politics discussion: on the alt-right and their relationship to the recent shooting in NZ

jawafour wrote:You're assuming that everyone who considers themselves (or is considered by others) as being a centrist shares exactly the same views, Taf. They don't; just as not all left-leaning people think the same way and just as not all right-leaning people think the same way. There is an infinite scale and people sit at varying places on that scale.

In Rightey's case, my belief is that he was coming in with observations and points of discussion; not in any way indicating that he supports the extreme views.

And, again for clarity and to avoid assumptions being drawn, this does not mean that I think racism or fascism should be accepted in any form.

Well centrism is in itself a viewpoint so I think it's fair to assume that people who subscribe to it share similar opinions on things. Obviously there will be differences in approach but the general views held must align surely? Unlike the left and right you can't really have hard-liners...can you? An extremist moderate?

I would genuinely like to hear your viewpoints, to contrast against someone like rightey (the irony of that username never fades). What were your opinions on, say the influence of personalities such as PDP and Owens? How much responsibility do believe they bear, or don't? What do you say to people like Slayer who believe that ignoring far-right personalities is more dangerous than listening to them?

You say you don't believe racism should be accepted in any form, but does this extend to helping forefront these ideas by debating racists?

EDIT: Ok that last one wasn't asked in good faith, but is one of my main problems with centrism. So, you know, it'd still be interesting to hear whether you believe in deplatforming, or that everyone has a right to a say.

Moggy wrote:Welcome to the studio, on today’s show, does the Earth revolve around the sun?

To discuss this we have Galileo Galilei to argue for the heliocentric model. And for balance we have Dave who we found in Wetherspoons watching flat Earth videos on his phone.

strawberry float me this is the BBC in a nutshell these days. Political neutrality does not mean inviting on every Brexiteer who believes brown people are stealing their jobs...

Tafdolphin wrote:Well centrism is in itself a viewpoint so I think it's fair to assume that people who subscribe to it share similar opinions on things. Obviously there will be differences in approach but the general views held must align surely? Unlike the left and right you can't really have hard-liners...can you? An extremist moderate?..

It's a good point... and I'm not sure if there can be a definitive answer. I suspect that many people hold views / desires from differing parts of the spectrum; they're probably not solely "left or right" until they have to make a binary decision at the voting booth.

As for myself, I'm happy to share some examples. I feel that some state utilities (transport infrastructure, health, policing) should be run by the country rather than through companies and this style of approach is generally regarded as leaning towards the left. I also feel that the country should be strong on law and order, have low tolerance on drug usage and be strong on supporting business, and this style is generally regarded as right-leaning. I have used the phrase "generally regarded" as I'm conscious there are examples and issues which sometimes suggest otherwise.

On this basis, I consider myself to be centrist, moderate or middle, depending on the term people prefer to use. I'm aware that some people may use other terms .

Tafdolphin wrote:...What were your opinions on, say the influence of personalities such as PDP and Owens? How much responsibility do believe they bear, or don't?...

To be honest I don't watch PDP (I have seen a few clips but I'm not keen to watch more) and I'm not familiar with Owens.

Tafdolphin wrote:...What do you say to people like Slayer who believe that ignoring far-right personalities is more dangerous than listening to them? You say you don't believe racism should be accepted in any form, but does this extend to helping forefront these ideas by debating racists?

EDIT: Ok that last one wasn't asked in good faith, but is one of my main problems with centrism. So, you know, it'd still be interesting to hear whether you believe in deplatforming, or that everyone has a right to a say...

This is a tricky question and I want to use my words carefully; not because I'm attempting to appease people but because I am concerned that my words could be misconstrued.

I abhore racism and I wish people did not hold racist views. In my opinion, it is born out of ignorance and unfamiliarity. However, I also feel that in order to make progress, people have to talk in order to gain greater understanding of the factors driving the behaviour. I recognise that this can be virtually impossible in some situations; the views can be so strongly held that there can be an unwillingness to listen, learn or change. I also hold hope that, in some cases, this approach may produce better results.

So, yes, I feel that racism should not be tolerated but I also believe in the potential for change; whilst recognising that some people are just not going to.

jawafour wrote:Karl, it feels like you're presenting the term "centrist" as meaning someone who tolerates and appeases fascists and racists. A centrist is a moderate; that doesn't mean someone solely displays or supports the most extreme behaviours and beliefs of either the left or the right.

Sure. I can respect a moderate who is clear about the opinions they are in-between, and who without hand-wringing argues against extreme opinions.

That doesn't appear to be Rightey's perspective.

I'm amazed people are so afraid of guys like Tommy Robinson. Get him on question time and he will be instantly shown up as thick as two short planks. But because he is kept on the fringes, he is rarely ever directly challenged.

QT was the start of the massive fall of the BNP after Nick Griffin shat his pants live on air. There is nothing to fear from debating these people. It's the easiest possible win you can have.

Who...who are you talking to?

captain red dog wrote:I'm amazed people are so afraid of guys like Tommy Robinson. Get him on question time and he will be instantly shown up as thick as two short planks. But because he is kept on the fringes, he is rarely ever directly challenged.

QT was the start of the massive fall of the BNP after Nick Griffin shat his pants live on air. There is nothing to fear from debating these people. It's the easiest possible win you can have.

lmao m8

Griffin cacked himself on QT because he was a strawberry floating dinosaur who didn't know how to game the media, and because the BNP carry overt racism with them in a way that immediately puts off moderate viewers, while Yaxley-Lennon cloaks his racism and islamophobia behind "asking questions" about child grooming, and incompatible cultural values, that sucker in vulnerable and frightened people who are too naive to pick up the dog whistling, and are desperate for a scapegoat for their problems and fears.

Stephen Yaxley-Lennon and his ilk are desperate for a chance to get on mainstream TV, to legitimise their views as part of the debate. It shifts the whole window of debate their way, and even if it doesn't pull vast numbers of people all the way to the far right, it still gets the "moderates" and "centrists" echoing their talking points, asking others to justify why we shouldn't be listening to their "concerns". The alt-right are media savvy, and to think putting them in front of a TV camera to expose them is actually going to harm them, is not only ill informed, it gives them what they want.

captain red dog wrote:I'm amazed people are so afraid of guys like Tommy Robinson. Get him on question time and he will be instantly shown up as thick as two short planks. But because he is kept on the fringes, he is rarely ever directly challenged.

QT was the start of the massive fall of the BNP after Nick Griffin shat his pants live on air. There is nothing to fear from debating these people. It's the easiest possible win you can have.

Oh my God, that isn't what happened!!! Polls immediately after Nick Griffin's appearance suggest his support went up from ~2% to ~3% of voters! At the next general election in 2010, the BNP achieved a 1.9% vote share, their best ever result! And while the Barking & Dagenham local elections were disastrous for the BNP, they increased their vote share -- the reason they lost seats was due to a swing towards Labour away from UKIP!

Nick Griffin's appearance on QT was net helpful for him and his cause, and is a good case study suggesting we shouldn't have these extremists on TV to debate them! I'm flabbergasted you got this so wrong, did you do any research at all?!

captain red dog wrote:I'm amazed people are so afraid of guys like Tommy Robinson. Get him on question time and he will be instantly shown up as thick as two short planks. But because he is kept on the fringes, he is rarely ever directly challenged.

QT was the start of the massive fall of the BNP after Nick Griffin shat his pants live on air. There is nothing to fear from debating these people. It's the easiest possible win you can have.

2005 General Election: BNP votes - 192,746

2009 Nick Griffin appears on Question Time

2010 General Election: BNP votes - 563,743

The myth that Question Time ended the BNP is bullshit. The rise of UKIP and BNP infighting is what killed them.

Karl wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm amazed people are so afraid of guys like Tommy Robinson. Get him on question time and he will be instantly shown up as thick as two short planks. But because he is kept on the fringes, he is rarely ever directly challenged.

QT was the start of the massive fall of the BNP after Nick Griffin shat his pants live on air. There is nothing to fear from debating these people. It's the easiest possible win you can have.

Oh my God, that isn't what happened!!! Polls immediately after Nick Griffin's appearance suggest his support went up from ~2% to ~3% of voters! At the next general election in 2010, the BNP achieved a 1.9% vote share, their best ever result! And while the Barking & Dagenham local elections were disastrous for the BNP, they increased their vote share -- the reason they lost seats was due to a swing towards Labour away from UKIP!

Nick Griffin's appearance on QT was net helpful for him and his cause, and is a good case study suggesting we shouldn't have these extremists on TV to debate them! I'm flabbergasted you got this so wrong, did you do any research at all?!

I don't often say this, and I don't take its saying lightly but...

.....................................lol no of course he didn't.....................................

Karl wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm amazed people are so afraid of guys like Tommy Robinson. Get him on question time and he will be instantly shown up as thick as two short planks. But because he is kept on the fringes, he is rarely ever directly challenged.

QT was the start of the massive fall of the BNP after Nick Griffin shat his pants live on air. There is nothing to fear from debating these people. It's the easiest possible win you can have.

Oh my God, that isn't what happened!!! Polls immediately after Nick Griffin's appearance suggest his support went up from ~2% to ~3% of voters! At the next general election in 2010, the BNP achieved a 1.9% vote share, their best ever result! And while the Barking & Dagenham local elections were disastrous for the BNP, they increased their vote share -- the reason they lost seats was due to a swing towards Labour away from UKIP!

Nick Griffin's appearance on QT was net helpful for him and his cause, and is a good case study suggesting we shouldn't have these extremists on TV to debate them! I'm flabbergasted you got this so wrong, did you do any research at all?!

Karl wrote:GRcade Translate

Translating from [Centrist] to [English]:

Rightey wrote:I think it's fear mongering and dangerous to say don't listen to these people, because while they're not Nazi's you'll end up watching Nazi stuff later on.

"It doesn't bother me at all that a bunch of creators I love are actually part of a far-right radicalisation network. I think they're cool, so stop telling people not to watch them!"

Rightey wrote:I remember reading an article about this issue that said the web is basically splitting into two parts, the libre web, and the tranquil web. The libre web, which is present in the west, has more free speech but also more extremism, and the surveillance on it is mostly passive. On the other hand the tranquil web, which is being pushed in places like China, and Turkey has far more active surveillance and censorship, but as a result there is less extremism.

"If you tell people not to watch a right-wing academic's videos because he's part of a far-right radicalisation network, you want us to be like China or Turkey! I know this is a non-sequitur, but it plays into a narrative I want to push about leftists being authoritarian, so I wanted to see if I could slip it in!"

Rightey wrote:Personally I see it as a battle between openness (free speech etc.) and inclusion. You can have inclusion at the expense of openness, or openness at the expense of inclusion. I think most people here in the West acknowledge the importance of both, but recently lots of places, both online and in the real world have been pushing for more inclusion of people who were traditionally marginalized. Which leads to less openness, something that our society is founded on, being eroded.

"The principle of freedom is more important to me than anything else! Surely you can't disagree with that? Incidentally, I have watched a bunch of alt-right shitheads talking about freedom, and they say that minority equality takes my white freedoms away! Seems pretty convincing to me."

Rightey wrote:This is a joke right? Are you seriously saying if you don't agree with my left wing politics you have blood on your hands?

"I don't think you understand how this works. I'm an enlightened centrist. I can fail to stand up to fascism all day long, and it doesn't make me complicit! That's just how it works! No matter what they do, I can always say, when I said they had good points I didn't mean that!"

Lol firstly, let me start off by saying I don't know who the hell any of these evil alt-right personalities are. I've watched a few clips of pewdiepie just because I wanted to see who the number 1 person on Youtube was. I just found in he makes an annoying voice a lot of the time so didn't really bother with him. The only thing I know about Perterson is from some parts of a documentary that was aired here on tv, I didn't catch the full thing. From what I remembered one point he addressed was how the government here made it illegal to refer to people by the incorrect pronoun, he said these kinds of laws ultimately weren't helpful, and a better approach is to just talk to people. I have no idea who the others are and I really don't care, I'm not trying to defend any particular person.

Secondly, I have no idea what you consider to be a centrist, personally I don't think one side has all the correct answers to every issue so I want to hear what others have to say. That doesn't equate with me saying I think hate speech or whatever is ok.

I don't go to the oh so evil anonymous forums you mentioned earlier but I've been in plenty of places with some who are actual fascists and whenever they bring up their dumb opinions they always get shot down and picked apart, if anyone ever bothers to acknowledge them at all.

What you seem to consider "inaction against fascism" is me saying I think free speech is important, rather than you know actual fascism. Saying we should try and silence people who are part of some "far-right radicalisation network" ( I wonder what their membership cards look like) while simultaneously saying the left aren't authoritarian doesn't really pan out.

twitter.com/independent/status/1107029989025857536

The media really needs to stop having “balance” like this. It’s strawberry floating ridiculous, especially on a platform like the BBC.

Climate change deniers, racist scum, religious extremists, “thinktanks” who refuse to confirm where their funding comes from and anti-vaxxers all need to strawberry float the strawberry float off.

Prototype wrote:...

Well there is a blast from the past! (tis I, Dalamar/Stormreach of Gamesradar)

Last time I saw you online we were playing Call of Duty 3 laughing at "what is a true gamer?"

Hope you're well, mate?

Sorry folks, carry on. Just surprised to see Proto.

Rightey wrote:

Karl wrote:GRcade Translate

Translating from [Centrist] to [English]:

Rightey wrote:I think it's fear mongering and dangerous to say don't listen to these people, because while they're not Nazi's you'll end up watching Nazi stuff later on.

"It doesn't bother me at all that a bunch of creators I love are actually part of a far-right radicalisation network. I think they're cool, so stop telling people not to watch them!"

Rightey wrote:I remember reading an article about this issue that said the web is basically splitting into two parts, the libre web, and the tranquil web. The libre web, which is present in the west, has more free speech but also more extremism, and the surveillance on it is mostly passive. On the other hand the tranquil web, which is being pushed in places like China, and Turkey has far more active surveillance and censorship, but as a result there is less extremism.

"If you tell people not to watch a right-wing academic's videos because he's part of a far-right radicalisation network, you want us to be like China or Turkey! I know this is a non-sequitur, but it plays into a narrative I want to push about leftists being authoritarian, so I wanted to see if I could slip it in!"

Rightey wrote:Personally I see it as a battle between openness (free speech etc.) and inclusion. You can have inclusion at the expense of openness, or openness at the expense of inclusion. I think most people here in the West acknowledge the importance of both, but recently lots of places, both online and in the real world have been pushing for more inclusion of people who were traditionally marginalized. Which leads to less openness, something that our society is founded on, being eroded.

"The principle of freedom is more important to me than anything else! Surely you can't disagree with that? Incidentally, I have watched a bunch of alt-right shitheads talking about freedom, and they say that minority equality takes my white freedoms away! Seems pretty convincing to me."

Rightey wrote:This is a joke right? Are you seriously saying if you don't agree with my left wing politics you have blood on your hands?

"I don't think you understand how this works. I'm an enlightened centrist. I can fail to stand up to fascism all day long, and it doesn't make me complicit! That's just how it works! No matter what they do, I can always say, when I said they had good points I didn't mean that!"

Lol firstly, let me start off by saying I don't know who the hell any of these evil alt-right personalities are. I've watched a few clips of pewdiepie just because I wanted to see who the number 1 person on Youtube was. I just found in he makes an annoying voice a lot of the time so didn't really bother with him. The only thing I know about Perterson is from some parts of a documentary that was aired here on tv, I didn't catch the full thing. From what I remembered one point he addressed was how the government here made it illegal to refer to people by the incorrect pronoun, he said these kinds of laws ultimately weren't helpful, and a better approach is to just talk to people. I have no idea who the others are and I really don't care, I'm not trying to defend any particular person.

Secondly, I have no idea what you consider to be a centrist, personally I don't think one side has all the correct answers to every issue so I want to hear what others have to say. That doesn't equate with me saying I think hate speech or whatever is ok.

I don't go to the oh so evil anonymous forums you mentioned earlier but I've been in plenty of places with some who are actual fascists and whenever they bring up their dumb opinions they always get shot down and picked apart, if anyone ever bothers to acknowledge them at all.

What you seem to consider "inaction against fascism" is me saying I think free speech is important, rather than you know actual fascism. Saying we should try and silence people who are part of some "far-right radicalisation network" ( I wonder what their membership cards look like) while simultaneously saying the left aren't authoritarian doesn't really pan out.

You probably need to watch some of the more central comment to get an idea how abhorrent their views are. I think I probably come down on the side of free speech in the sense that the government should allow them to free speech but I really think at this point the large social media companies should throw them off their platforms.

The issue is these people don't believe in free speech and they actively want to kill large parts of the population. Giving them too much space could very well end putting them in power.

People are saying that you should be free to say whatever they want as long as they are tolerant of others views.

Moggy wrote:The media really needs to stop having “balance” like this. It’s strawberry floating ridiculous, especially on a platform like the BBC.

Climate change deniers, racist scum, religious extremists, “thinktanks” who refuse to confirm where their funding comes from and anti-vaxxers all need to strawberry float the strawberry float off.

^

Rightey wrote:Lol firstly, let me start off by saying I don't know who the hell any of these evil alt-right personalities are.

So this thread broadly agrees that they are, indeed, "evil alt-right personalities", and you admit that's literally all you know about them, yet you're still arguing for "let's all go listen to what they have to say"?

What do you think that says about you?

Rightey wrote:The only thing I know about Perterson is from some parts of a documentary that was aired here on tv, I didn't catch the full thing. From what I remembered one point he addressed was how the government here made it illegal to refer to people by the incorrect pronoun, he said these kinds of laws ultimately weren't helpful, and a better approach is to just talk to people.

Jordan Peterson is a hateful, transphobic, misogynistic bigot. You should think long and hard about why his rant on pronouns seemed reasonable to you. Is it because you're a transphobe, or because you didn't think critically enough about his baseless hate-mongering?

Rightey wrote:Secondly, I have no idea what you consider to be a centrist, personally I don't think one side has all the correct answers to every issue so I want to hear what others have to say. That doesn't equate with me saying I think hate speech or whatever is ok.

Fascist rhetoric is designed to radicalise. Encouraging people to go and listen to fascists is dangerous. "We should all politely listen to everyone" is exactly how these ideas spread and how discourse in a society becomes extremised.

Rightey wrote:What you seem to consider "inaction against fascism" is me saying I think free speech is important, rather than you know actual fascism. Saying we should try and silence people who are part of some "far-right radicalisation network" ( I wonder what their membership cards look like) while simultaneously saying the left aren't authoritarian doesn't really pan out.

If you genuinely think it's authoritarian for me, an individual, to tell other individuals, "I think you shouldn't watch these videos because they're dangerous", then you're a complete strawberry floating idiot.

Rightey wrote:I don't go to the oh so evil anonymous forums you mentioned earlier but I've been in plenty of places with some who are actual fascists and whenever they bring up their dumb opinions they always get shot down and picked apart, if anyone ever bothers to acknowledge them at all.

Why do you hang out with fascists? Is that where you're getting all these terrible takes?

Rightey wrote:evil alt-right personalities...oh so evil anonymous forums...some "far-right radicalisation network" ( I wonder what their membership cards look like)

Why are you deliberately downplaying the moral repugnance of fascists? You are just parroting alt-right rhetoric here. "Haha, the left thinks this harmless little ol' YouTuber is evil!, just for teensy little things like being overtly racist on dozens of occasions and encouraging his viewers to visit white supremacist channels, how crazy is that!" The left is not hysterical: the left has correctly identified the mechanism by which a contemporary far-right white supremacist movement is coalescing in western society. If you want us to believe you're an oh-so-rational moderate, take your thumb out of your arse, go read into how the alt-right operates, and stop encouraging people to engage with these fascist shitlords.

Gemini73 wrote:

Prototype wrote:...

Well there is a blast from the past! (tis I, Dalamar/Stormreach of Gamesradar)

Last time I saw you online we were playing Call of Duty 3 laughing at "what is a true gamer?"

Hope you're well, mate?

Sorry folks, carry on. Just surprised to see Proto.

Kind words, thanks!

What was your gamer tag? I remember 'stormreach'.

It's been about 12 years

Prototype wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:

Prototype wrote:...

Well there is a blast from the past! (tis I, Dalamar/Stormreach of Gamesradar)

Last time I saw you online we were playing Call of Duty 3 laughing at "what is a true gamer?"

Hope you're well, mate?

Sorry folks, carry on. Just surprised to see Proto.

Kind words, thanks!

What was your gamer tag? I remember 'stormreach'.

It's been about 12 years

Magius.

It has been a while.