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

Tineash wrote:This thread has turned into a strawberry floating farce

I've noticed the tail end of these threads often turn a bit Reddit-y. It's a shame.

Karl wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Venezuela.

Why is the current political state of Venezuela relevant here? Like, what do you actually mean by this?

In a effort to usher in some kind of socialist utopia, Venezuela has become a terrible place stricken by poverty and the like with a government that is rotten to the core. I dread to think what kind of country we'd be living in if aggressive, far left mouthpieces like Owen Jones, for example, ever got the upper hand. Lots of talk about not giving tossers like Tommy Robinson a platform to spout his bilge, and I agree, but we're content for the Owen Joneses of the world to have a platform. There seems to be this train of thought that only one extreme exists and that is the right. I don't agree, is all.

I feel like what I said here is relevant:

Me, dammit wrote:Right wing politics was never supposed to be about any of this(and there are plenty of historic examples of left wing problems to go with those of the right wing), so it's not even a question of the left trying to censor the right. It's a question of not normalising radicalism. Would the BBC allow a convicted Islamic hate preacher to appear on Question Time - in the audience or on the panel? If not, then why is it ok for someone who has expressed anti-Islamic, racist, misogynist or homophobic views to do likewise? And if we wouldn't be happy with them espousing their views outside the local shopping centre, why is it alright for them to do it on Twitter or Facebook?

It's not about what political wing you sit on, for Christ's sake! If this is the road we're gonna go down then Tineash is right, the thread is a farce. The conversation we should be having is about how we move away from or stop the spread of normalisation of radical thought on the internet, how a guy like this was allowed to slip through the cracks and kill FIFTY PEOPLE, and how we can make sure this stops happening every few damn months. It's a disgrace.

Corazon de Leon wrote:I feel like what I said here is relevant:

Me, dammit wrote:Right wing politics was never supposed to be about any of this(and there are plenty of historic examples of left wing problems to go with those of the right wing)

You should read more histories of conservative thought. Conservatism had long been dedicated to the preservation & restoration of existing hierarchies, racial hierarchies among them.

Gemini73 wrote:I dread to think what kind of country we'd be living in if aggressive, far left mouthpieces like Owen Jones, for example, ever got the upper hand. Lots of talk about not giving tossers like Tommy Robinson a platform to spout his bilge, and I agree, but we're content for the Owen Joneses of the world to have a platform. There seems to be this train of thought that only one extreme exists and that is the right. I don't agree, is all.

Well, Owen Jones is a Labour-supporting journalist that writes books about what working-class equality should look like in the 21st century. I don't think he is some kind of equivalent to Tommy Robinson, who is a convicted thug, former leader of the neo-Nazi "English Defence League" and member of the UK branch of the German neo-Nazi group "Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the Occident".

In fact I don't think I've ever heard Owen Jones say anything hateful at all. Are you thinking of someone else, or is there an incident you'd like to point out that I've missed?

Gemini73 wrote:. Lots of talk about not giving tossers like Tommy Robinson a platform to spout his bilge, and I agree, but we're content for the Owen Joneses of the world to have a platform. There seems to be this train of thought that only one extreme exists and that is the right. I don't agree, is all.

Oh lord I missed this. I'm not going to ask the obvious question - what on earth is the equivalence between white nationalism and Owen-bloody-Jones - because then we will have gone full Reddit (you never go full Reddit). Debate me on my dumbass beliefs! How about no.

Lock the thread and salt the earth.

Corazon de Leon wrote:I feel like what I said here is relevant:

Me, dammit wrote:Right wing politics was never supposed to be about any of this(and there are plenty of historic examples of left wing problems to go with those of the right wing), so it's not even a question of the left trying to censor the right. It's a question of not normalising radicalism. Would the BBC allow a convicted Islamic hate preacher to appear on Question Time - in the audience or on the panel? If not, then why is it ok for someone who has expressed anti-Islamic, racist, misogynist or homophobic views to do likewise? And if we wouldn't be happy with them espousing their views outside the local shopping centre, why is it alright for them to do it on Twitter or Facebook?

It's not about what political wing you sit on, for Christ's sake! If this is the road we're gonna go down then Tineash is right, the thread is a farce. The conversation we should be having is about how we move away from or stop the spread of normalisation of radical thought on the internet, how a guy like this was allowed to slip through the cracks and kill FIFTY PEOPLE, and how we can make sure this stops happening every few damn months. It's a disgrace.

Well, you're a doctor of political history, so you clearly outrank me on this. Here are my no-doubt limited thoughts. Of course we shouldn't reject allies against fascism from anywhere in the political spectrum, and of course we shouldn't accept radicalisation if/when it does occur on the left (tankies are scum). But I think the end-goal of pointing out that, today in the west, it's the right that has a problem with radicalisation - that the terrorists we get are fascists, and are not tankies - is to try to underscore the importance of centrists and right-leaners rejecting that rhetoric unequivocally. They often don't at the moment! We've just seen it. It's never "We all hate Tommy Robinson", it's "We hate Tommy Robinson just as much as we hate, uh, Owen Jones!". That doesn't cut it, and it betrays a deep misunderstanding of the seriousness and rapid pace of the fascist movement that they are unwittingly nebulating.

EDIT: This wasn't intended to be combative BTW. Just interested to discuss with you.

Tineash wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:I feel like what I said here is relevant:

Me, dammit wrote:Right wing politics was never supposed to be about any of this(and there are plenty of historic examples of left wing problems to go with those of the right wing)

You should read more histories of conservative thought. Conservatism had long been dedicated to the preservation & restoration of existing hierarchies, racial hierarchies among them.

I’ve read plenty of histories of conservative thought, I’m making a career out of it. I’m currently researching the rise of grassroots political conservatism in the US after the 1960s. Many conservatives have taken this stance, just as many “liberals” have also taken this stance. There’s no accounting for the rotten people at the core of conservative politics, particularly at the moment, but the actual core of the philosophy - at least in the states - is small government, low taxes, minimum interference. Everything else has been tacked on since, though I would agree that currently the right wing is pretty rotten.

I’m also more or less agreeing with your stance on the matter so don’t really know why you’re firing at me now. I just don’t think there’s any point in starting a fight over ideological differences in this thread, was the point I was trying to make. Getting bogged down in the minutiae of it misses the point of the problem.

I'm locking this.

Tineash wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:. Lots of talk about not giving tossers like Tommy Robinson a platform to spout his bilge, and I agree, but we're content for the Owen Joneses of the world to have a platform. There seems to be this train of thought that only one extreme exists and that is the right. I don't agree, is all.

Oh lord I missed this. I'm not going to ask the obvious question - what on earth is the equivalence between white nationalism and Owen-bloody-Jones - because then we will have gone full Reddit (you never go full Reddit). Debate me on my dumbass beliefs! How about no.

Lock the thread and salt the earth.

Completely agree with this, by the way.

Karl wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:I feel like what I said here is relevant:

Me, dammit wrote:Right wing politics was never supposed to be about any of this(and there are plenty of historic examples of left wing problems to go with those of the right wing), so it's not even a question of the left trying to censor the right. It's a question of not normalising radicalism. Would the BBC allow a convicted Islamic hate preacher to appear on Question Time - in the audience or on the panel? If not, then why is it ok for someone who has expressed anti-Islamic, racist, misogynist or homophobic views to do likewise? And if we wouldn't be happy with them espousing their views outside the local shopping centre, why is it alright for them to do it on Twitter or Facebook?

It's not about what political wing you sit on, for Christ's sake! If this is the road we're gonna go down then Tineash is right, the thread is a farce. The conversation we should be having is about how we move away from or stop the spread of normalisation of radical thought on the internet, how a guy like this was allowed to slip through the cracks and kill FIFTY PEOPLE, and how we can make sure this stops happening every few damn months. It's a disgrace.

Well, you're a doctor of political history, so you clearly outrank me on this. Here are my no-doubt limited thoughts. Of course we shouldn't reject allies against fascism from anywhere in the political spectrum, and of course we shouldn't accept radicalisation if/when it does occur on the left (tankies are scum). But I think the end-goal of pointing out that, today in the west, it's the right that has a problem with radicalisation - that the terrorists we get are fascists, and are not tankies - is to try to underscore the importance of centrists and right-leaners rejecting that rhetoric unequivocally. They often don't at the moment! We've just seen it. It's never "We all hate Tommy Robinson", it's "We hate Tommy Robinson just as much as we hate, uh, Owen Jones!". That doesn't cut it, and it betrays a deep misunderstanding of the seriousness and rapid pace of the fascist movement that they are unwittingly nebulating.

EDIT: This wasn't intended to be combative BTW. Just interested to discuss with you.

I don’t disagree with you, in fact of all the people in the thread my own personal thoughts and opinions probably sit closest to yours. I’m certainly misrepresenting myself, but can’t really respond in too much depth as I’m on my phone so will get back to you properly ASAP.

Corazon de Leon wrote:I don’t disagree with you, in fact of all the people in the thread my own personal thoughts and opinions probably sit closest to yours. I’m certainly misrepresenting myself, but can’t really respond in too much depth as I’m on my phone so will get back to you properly ASAP.

No rush dude! I don't think this thread is getting locked any time soon. (I keep reporting it but it doesn't seem to be working. )

Cuttooth wrote:

jawafour wrote: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.

Education is absolutely key and I believe many who hold white supremacist views or are sympathetic to those views can be brought back from that extremist viewpoint, particularly when events like far-right terror attacks show exactly where that hatred leads. However that education shouldn't be in the form of total balance or seeking a compromise between advocating the oppression of minorities and advocating for their human rights and an equal place in society. Racism has to be confronted to be defeated. Take a minute to read this article on how anti-fascist teachers in Crete helped drive Golden Dawn from the island by confronting those ideologies in the classroom. They also celebrated multiculturalism generally and forced far-right sympathising pupils to recognise how the ideology they were falling into personally affects their friends and peers. I'm certain a similar curriculum in British schools would soon be called out in the press and online presence as being "left wing indoctrination" or something similar, and it would be important to ask why it would be called out as that.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018 ... olden-dawn

I appreciate the considered response, Cuttooth, and I'm in agreement with it. I'm not certain of the gist you're driving at in terms of how it relates to my post, though. Some folk appeared to be suggesting that one should not hold conversations with people who hold racist / offensive views, and I responded by saying that I felt communication was a tool in trying to change their views. I guess we're both just in agreement that attempting to challenge and change viewpoints through discussion is a road worth exploring?

Karl wrote:

Tineash wrote:This thread has turned into a strawberry floating farce

I've noticed the tail end of these threads often turn a bit Reddit-y. It's a shame.

Pesonally I don't understand what aspects have made some folk feel that this discussion has been farcical and I'm not sure what the "Reddit-y" aspect means. Things have got heated at times but people appear to be free to share their views and receive responses. In my opinion, from what I have read so far, no-once is agreeing or sympathising with opinions of the extreme right nor condoning the horrific actions by a clear racist.

Karl wrote:

Corazon de Leon wrote:I don’t disagree with you, in fact of all the people in the thread my own personal thoughts and opinions probably sit closest to yours. I’m certainly misrepresenting myself, but can’t really respond in too much depth as I’m on my phone so will get back to you properly ASAP.

No rush dude! I don't think this thread is getting locked any time soon. (I keep reporting it but it doesn't seem to be working. )

Fair play!

For full disclosure - I would absolutely describe myself as a left wing liberal, and I hope that my larger post on the last page made it clear that I’m for the censorship of what we are terming far right political extremism - these wankers have no place on our television screens OR our computer screens. I hope I’ve made that clear previously, but if not I hope it’s very clear now and my future posts in here can be read with this in mind.

Anyway, I’m in the pub for the football. More when I’m home.

jawafour wrote:I appreciate the considered response, Cuttooth, and I'm in agreement with it. I'm not certain of the gist you're driving at in terms of how it relates to my post, though. Some folk appeared to be suggesting that one should not hold conversations with people who hold racist / offensive views, and I responded by saying that I felt communication was a tool in trying to change their views. I guess we're both just in agreement that attempting to challenge and change viewpoints through discussion is a road worth exploring?

Dialogue and education is absolutely the best tool to improve views on a subject, society wide, but it's also vital to acknowledge that not everyone engaging in that dialogue is doing so in good faith. There's a reason schools don't (or definitely shouldn't) invite homophobes into classrooms to provide balance when teaching sex education, for instance.

Another pertinent example is the anti vax community. Anti vax people phrase their argument as a legitimate desire to have their concerns heard, and question why the medical community is so closed off to criticism. Of course, their arguments are not legitimate, and the figureheads of the cause know this. They aren't interested in finding out the truth, but maintaining the illusion that there's still an argument to be had. There is no link between vaccines and autism, but they'll continue to bleat about how they "just want to have a conversation", even though the scientific community already had, and concluded, that conversation years ago. The longer appearance of a balanced debate is maintained, though, the more people the movement can pick up.

The alt-right are not out for an honest discussion. They're not in this to find solutions to legitimate problems. They're out to keep their xenophobic agenda part of the discussion, because the longer it hangs around on the sidelines, the more legitimate it seems. Giving these people a platform, making them part of legitimate discussion, only serves to normalise extreme views even further.

You can only engage with and educate those who are open to having their ideas challenged. Yaxley-Lennon is not one of those people.

What’s with all this talk of locking the thread? This discussion is more vital than ever and I thought it was going very well, perhaps exposing ill-thought beliefs for the better.

I’ve seen so much vitriol and even well-meaning ignorance online surrounding this - let GRCade continue being a beacon of information.

Corazon de Leon wrote:I hope that my larger post on the last page made it clear that I’m for the censorship of what we are terming far right political extremism - these wankers have no place on our television screens OR our computer screens. I hope I’ve made that clear previously, but if not I hope it’s very clear now and my future posts in here can be read with this in mind.

I'm sure most people would agree with banning real extremism that seeks to murder and kill, the sort that this Australian killer was caught up in, but who determines what is extremist? ResetEra is banning people for saying they don't think PewDiePie was the reason for this shooting! One can legitimately say that he's said racist words and made racist jokes but to then group attack anyone or ban anyone who doesn't hold one's own, non-universal, opinion that he is the cause of the terrorist attack is wrong and it's also shutting down a proper conversation about white extremism in society, instead you have a bunch of people there patting each other on the back whilst stopping any sort of mature discourse because they refuse to allow opinions different from there own: "yeah, strawberry float pewdiepie.... Get strawberry floated, Pewdiepie, you enabling piece of garbage... yeah strawberry floating right you piece of gooseberry fool... Do not even pretend to be surprised you shitstain."

Also, as his identity is already public does anybody know why Brenton Tarrant's face is blurred in TV footage when he made his court appearance?

Venom wrote:Also, as his identity is already public does anybody know why Brenton Tarrant's face is blurred in TV footage when he made his court appearance?

twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1107330712255021057

Think that's literally on the border of Heathrow.

@Taf So he doesn't become a poster boy?

EDIT:
It's to preserve his 'fair trial rights.'
Which is a bit silly because NZ has a similar court system to England & Wales and showing the face of a suspect is not thought to impact the ability to receive a fair trial.


https://nypost.com/2019/03/15/judge-ord ... in-photos/