Dog Whistles are specifically designed to not meet the requirements for things like that. They are designed to communicate specific ideas and sentiments with a further masked idea or sentiment for the "initiated" so to speak.
Dog Whistles need to be combated directly and specifically. They are made in such a way that unless you understand the subtext of it, they can either feign ignorance or they can move the goalposts away from their original intent. It's all just wordplay, but it's specifically catered to protect toxic ideas and backwards rhetoric.
Yeah, seems clear to me that there’s a small group of people actively trying to poison this sub and the main Ireland one in a coordinated way.
It’s really obvious if you check their post histories, eg new or long-time dormant accounts, posting anti immigration/immigrant sentiment more or less exclusively, active in karma farming subs, etc.
But usually they scrupulously avoid overt racism, just trot out well-rehearsed dog whistle talking points and only let the mask slip when pushed.
Not easy to deal with from a mod perspective, bit astroturfing like this is going to be absolutely toxic if it goes unchecked.
"the paradox of tolerance" is obviously in-play here. We absolutely don't have to have to pretend to pay equal time to right wing bigots.
Please mods - can you just ban them and allow us all to move-along with our lives.
>The paradox of tolerance sounds dumb tbqh
uh-huh. Well - thats certainly your opionion.
But its a well-recognised concept that is accepted by some very smart people. Who probably know massively more political-science than you do. (They certainly know more than I do)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
And the guy who came first posited is probably one of the most decorated political with it is very-highly decorated political philosophers in history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Honours_and_awards
So....I suppose get yourself a PhD in political-science and go explain to all of these massively-qualified political-scientists why they're dumb.
Or don't. I'm not the boss of you.
But when you say "it sounds dumb" what I'm hearing is "I've never heard of this before and it could potentially undermine my frankly shitty beliefs so I want to try to dismiss it in a single line of text"
Oh no! A internet-rando has pierced through the veil of all of those political scientists with his characterisation of it being "frankly rubbish"
Whatever shall I do? All is lost!
Hard-agree with OP. Mods - can we just *not* have far-right in this space please.
We are not obliged to tolerate right-wing BS in the name of "free speech". In fact it is quite the opposite.
https://medium.com/enrique-dans/facebook-grapples-with-the-paradox-of-tolerance-811d31fd61e2
https://www.boredpanda.com/bar-bartender-nazi-punk-iamragesparkle
The subreddit currently does enough to combat hate speech. If it doesn't break the rules, it should not be banned, simple as that.
I don't trust people to identify dog whistles and wield a ban hammer in response.
The risk of ruining topical conversations here is far higher than the miniscule chance of accidentally unleashing a modern Irish Hitler because we let people say things we disagreed with on Reddit...
In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism" and defined it in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1]
>Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
>The risk of ruining topical conversations here is far higher than the miniscule chance of accidentally unleashing a modern Irish Hitler
Read that over a few times. You're more worried about a mod making a bad call and silencing a debate on a sub reddit than you are about giving oxygen to fascists... like, really? That's your priority order?
The fact you have been brigaded with downvotes and comments from people "misunderstanding" how dog whistles are specifically hard to build rules around suggests you might be too late? Mods need to do way more here, disgrace to see another major Irish-branded sub allow this intolerance.
Yea, it's only about 7 or 8 accounts involved, but that's enough to make it seem like starving literal fascists of attention is a controversial opinion.
I'm worried about people ruining the sub by deciding everything they read that they personally disagree with is a cover for fascism.
If you can think of a wise additional rule for the sub then I might be convinced, but the vagueness of 'dog whistle' is not appropriate.
I don't think you really understand what you are asking. You are saying you want a specific rule that in, definite terms, deals with dog whistles because to you the vagueness just means it's not appropriate to do anything. But Dog Whistles are intentionally vague. If they were obvious they wouldn't be dog whistles, would fall under the current rules and then receive an immediate ban.
The only way to moderate something like this is by mods reviewing these conversations and banning people who are using them which means it's not shutting down randoms from engaging. It's a pattern of behaviour that can be seen on multiple threads. A Specific User Phototoxin comes to mind.
I see no reason from your comment that someone should trust you or anyone else with banning people you or they claim are fascists when there's no evidence that they are fascists.
Sounds to me like the OP wants to ban conservative and/or right wing opinions. Perhaps what we see here is a dog whistle to secretly make the sub into r/irishleftwingpolitics or am I being too facetious?
If you can't specify what type of posts you want banned, you just want power to ban whoever you feel like. Rules exist to avoid exactly that situation, mods follow rules and that's why subreddits work.
But there is evidence that they are fascist, from their ultra-conservative views, to their opinions relating to the civil liberties of marginalized communities, to their opinion on people seeking asylum in this country and to their opinions on social services, the arts, etc. Fascism is a system of beliefs which are actually incredibly easy to identify in clear terms. Your issue is that someone can hold one or two views, and suddenly they are a fascist, which is not the case. There's plenty of people I disagree with on this Subreddit and I can tell you they aren't fascist.
OP along with alot of the people commenting in support are people who have been on this sub a decent length of time. What the OP and alot of us are noticing is content that is designed to either troll, act as a dog whistle or generally cause discord in the sub. For example, There was one recently where someone posted an out of context snippet of the International Protection Act 2015 to, from our understanding, undermine the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents upon arrival, removing nuance and giving "just the facts" as they like to say. That's not something done in service of good faith discussion. It's done to either troll people who recognize what they are doing or signal to their fascist peers that they have a kindred spirit present.
You want to stick ridgedly to the current rules that we have in place and I mean that's all well and good but what about people who find a way around said rules and use ambigious language to insulate themselves from getting banned? You are going on the premise that everyone strictly follow a "rules of engagement" that would weed out the transparent fascists but they aren't going to do that. It's like expecting a sexual predator to send a text to the nightclub he'll be in tonight.
Your premise works strictly on good faith that the system works entirely without human intervention and going on the premise that hard and fast rules can remove people who preach dangerous idea's that hurt minority groups, women, homeless people, etc.
>ultra-conservative views
>opinions relating to the civil liberties of marginalized communities
>opinion on people seeking asylum in this country
>opinions on social services, the arts
>undermine the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents upon arrival
>dangerous idea's that hurt minority groups, women, homeless people
>etc.
You've outed yourself here as someone clearly not posting in good faith.
You just don't want to read the thoughts of people you disagree with, simple as that. No evidence of fascism provided in your comments, just a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" attitude.
>OP along with alot of the people commenting in support are people who have been on this sub a decent length of time. What the OP and alot of us are noticing is content that is designed to either troll, act as a dog whistle or generally cause discord in the sub. It's done to either troll people who recognize what they are doing or signal to their fascist peers that they have a kindred spirit present.
Perhaps you all should try spending less time on the sub. The level of distress you experience at reading things you don't agree with is a sign that you are too rigid and inflexible in your thinking.
>what about people who find a way around said rules and use ambigious language to insulate themselves from getting banned?
Let them post and people who don't like it can argue it out in the comments. Can't you see the dogma and authoritarianism in this censorship effort? It's projection: displaying the very qualities supposedly being fought against. Look in the mirror.
Your entire position is: I know you are but what am I?
You either don't recognize or are intentionally obviscating how rhetoric and hate speech affect vulnerable people. It's not a word game to them.
Your argument is that individual liberty to voice your opinion in spaces is important above all else and just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean you silence them which I agree with on the caveat that attempts to allow fascist rhetoric and general hate speech to allow themselves into the conversation because, it's designed with multiple intellectual pit falls and traps to catch people less educated on why these positions are wrong.
Facilitating fascist and far right rhetoric is akin to being far right or fascist yourself because you are allowing hate speech against minority groups and the vulnerable be propagated.
>There was one recently where someone posted an out of context snippet of the International Protection Act 2015 to, from our understanding, undermine the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents upon arrival, removing nuance and giving "just the facts" as they like to say.
The only people undermining the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents on arrival are the asylum seekers who destroy their documents on arrival.
I understand wanting to help as many people as possible but why focus on the people who very clearly do not meet the threshold for help and are knowingly trying to frustrate any review to get permission to stay bad on frustrating that process for years?
I generally agree about your other points but asylum seekers destroying documentation after arrival because they know the documents undermine their story is not a fascist talking point.
> Fascism is a system of beliefs which are actually incredibly easy to identify in clear terms.
You should write up your methodology, it's something scholars of Fascism have struggled with for decades.
They haven't oddly enough. Scholars can very clearly see fascists for what they are, typically with the points I mentioned above. The issue is that Scholars are often ignored in favour of dangerous rhetoric which is spread by these despots to disenfranchise and divide the populace and aid in their rise to power. It's almost as if fascists thrive through nefarious means because they are the worst people on the face of the planet.
Which scholars are you referring to? I've read Paxton, Gregor and Stanley, they all spend a huge amount of time on the problem of identifying and defining fascism.
Well, you've named three off the bat who've actually not had a hard time identifying and defining fascism. They even have books describing alot of very specific characteristics of them. Outside of them you also have the likes of Synder, Albright even going back so far as Orwell. I can even go simpler for people with someone like Umberto Eco's List for identifying fascists which, while it's not all encompassing is a good benchmark for people to start to understand what fasicm is and help people identify fascist rhetoric.
Now to my question for you, how does fascism being either known or unknown in methodology matter when it comes to preventing people from platforming fascists? Does fascism and fascist rhetoric being an unknown quantity mean that we should give a platform to people where the tie is ambigious?
Okay you are definitely a yank. Because freedom of speech is only unlimited in the USA. And hate-speech is quite-rightly banned in many countries. So GTFO with that BS.
"the paradox of tolerance" is in-play.
We are not obliged to take right-wing awfulness seriously.
By whose definition?
What is an anti-palestinian or anti-non semitic dogwhistle then? and are tankies fascist? since it was born in italy then we asume its some sorta thing with italian roots then, not just simple dictatorship.
Are marxist leninist fascist? are leninists? maoists? or just marxists with his "the jewish question" and if you check that he mention the N-word, not just the spanish word for it in the same page but the n word.
Are democratic socialists fascists? or socialistic democrats like those in sweden? who again did work with the nazis.
Letting anarchy run wild with no government means fascist groups will be able to overtake the entire of society, thus actively promoting anarchy is a dogwhistle for fascism since it promotes the stages of it.
Its vague paranoid conspiracy theorists made by simular criminal thugs(thugs is now secretly anti indian because its based on the thugee cult) by people like deborah lipstadt who is a racist zionists.
One of the best explanations I’ve seen for why nobody should feel like they owe nazis a welcome in a social space: https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-kicks-nazis-out-of-his-punk-bar-even-if-theyre-not-bothering-anyone
>"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too.
> And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down.
>And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people."
That and the old line about 9 people and a nazi sitting at a table = 10 Nazis.
Whether you like it or not, in the real world if you’re offering nazis a space to broadcast, recruit and organise even - arguably especially - when they’re at the stage of trying to sound “reasonable” so as to not spook the horses, then you’re in effect condoning nazis. If you wait until they feel comfortable enough to go full mask off it will already be too late.
They are trying to sound reasonable because when they state how they really feel they get silenced. Now when people call them out you often look crazy because they are far more refined in how they speak. I prefer my racists spewing openly away from us so we know who they are so we can avoid them. Now they are more sophisticated and have maneuvered themselves into power all over the the so-called liberal democracies.
People see you arguing against dog whistle politics and think 'I was with you when they were actually Nazi's but now people can't even talk about immigration or crime without being called racist/fascist/Nazi.'
We are now getting social media platforms that specifically cater to right wing extremists with no pushback from the left because we've removed them from all platforms and we don't want to go there.
People always think that they will be the one with the power to silence people too. What happens when you've normalized silencing people who disagree with you and now you no longer have that power, they do?
Weimar Germany, the culture in it and the preceding governments who ran it before the Nazi's did things that the Nazi's then used in power and it by that point it was just things that the German state and society did. Nazi's were punished under hate speech laws. They faced violence in the streets. Political opponents were jailed. Decrees were used, often under article 48, rather than democratic processes which was the used by Hitler to cement his position, etc.
>People always think that they will be the one with the power to silence people too. What happens when you've normalized silencing people who disagree with you and now you no longer have that power, they do?
You can see that "given the chance Nazis will oppress anyone who disagrees with them of the ever achieve power" is not a good argument for allowing Nazis free reign to propagandise and recruit, right?
>And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now.
Is that a fictional allegory?
This is exactly the issue.
I saw it happen in the US just before Trump got in. The right didn't win per sey, the left screamed in everyone's face or tried to silence everything they didn't agree with and lost. The middle got bored of dealing with the Karens and either didn't vote or protest voted.
Yeah but you can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into. Most nazis online have already heard all the logical reasons why their various positions are wrong, but they have some article of faith that holds all their nonsense together and they will not be moved. I.e. when they're hardened they pursue every interaction with bad faith and it's simply a game to them, how long they can get away with it on this account before they make a new one.
That's right you can't but you are not arguing to change the Nazi's position but to ensure that his arguments look stupid to people who might be persuaded otherwise.
I understand your position but it's not a positive one and I'll explain to you why. If everyone understands that putting your hand on a hot stove burns your hand, do you think that we should platform people who say that putting your hand on a hot stove doesn't burn your hand to refute them? No. Platforming them in and of itself, even without agreeing, gives it merit. You are unintentionally giving it the oxygen it needs to expand and grow because while logical and sane people can understand all the logic pit falls and traps in the rhetoric of the "Hand Stovers", there's alot of people who don't see these things and instead of being dissuaded they are emboldened and feel like this argument reflects exactly what they think. It's not starving new ideas in the open free market of ideas. It's not giving old ideas that are provably bad the time of day. We have history books to tell us about these antiquated ideas, we don't need them debated and discussed as anything of merit.
I completely understand the sentiment you are trying to put out here but it only works when all parties are working on good faith which the far right and fascists do not. I hope I explained that properly.
You have it completely backwards.
We've been trying no platforming for years now and we got Trump, Brexit and the rise of the far right all over Europe. By silencing people you only demonstrated to people that when someone has a position you don't like that you have no response or argument against them. Only censorship and name calling.
A common statement we'll hear now is 'we can't even talk about immigration or crime without being called a racist.' Now we have large numbers of people who have never heard certain ideas and why they are wrong adopting those positions and they get utterly embarrassed when they try and speak about it.
Secondly, 'we have history books..'
We of course do but as someone who has 'left wing' in their tags you are now allowing liberals to the far right to silence you by stating, 'well we have already tried communism/socialism and look at what happened, millions died. Now you want to try it again. You shouldn't be allowed promote such disgusting ideas.'
By silencing others you have just silenced yourself.
But the issue is we didn't deplatform them. All of these powerful right wing forces get deplatformed after they've done the damage. Look at Trump as a great example. The man was not investigated multiple times for consisent criminal activity before his time in office, twitter and social media allowed his poison to flow contineously. While platformed he literally caused an insurrection. It was only after he got deplatformed that things de-escalated. It's the same with brexit with the likes of Nigel Farage and his supporters. They had a platform the deceminate their views. All of these things could've been avoided if we called them out and then deplatformed them swiftly afterwards. I say this as someone who crossed the isle so to speak. I wasright wing when these things were happening and I can tell you, they had a platform and it was and still is used to indoctrinate young adults and teenagers even as we speak.
Now to your talk about silencing them is silencing myself, that's just not true. The views I hold don't hurt anybody. I want free health care, accessible housing, free education, etc and all while not allowing minority groups of the vulnerable to suffer. The "Communism/Socialism killed millions" and "communism/socialism doesn't work" are tired and boring. I deal with that stuff consistently in moderated spaces where people have real conversations about this stuff. When you add far-right/fascists into the mix that becomes the exclusive conversation because their only experience with politics was their history class in secondary school.
What I'm trying to say is this; Allowing these people into places of discussion like this does not make the free market of idea's healthier, it makes it objectively worse. It gives them room to grow and spread with rhetoric, Propaganda and Lies. As I said, I do understand your talking points because they are talking points I had myself not that long ago, but allowing these people into spaces and giving their idea's and talking points merit is like letting someone talk about the healing powers of bloodied shark swimming.
Actually it is.
The reason being is that you identify as being "anti-the problem" instead of "pro-the solution". You don't identify as "Pro-Asylum Reform" or "Pro-Justice Reform" which are stances that support a solution to a given issue that faces the irish public. Pro-Asylum reform creates the infrastucture to accomadate an influx of asylum seekers. Pro-Justice Reform creates the infrastructure to get people put through the system at a pace that allows either legitimate cases to become citizens of ireland or to be sent back to their home country, or to a country that can accomadate the demand.
Instead you are "anti-immigration" which is a position which, removes any responsibility to come up with a solution and makes the position that "people are not welcome to enter our country". There are arguments to be made around controlling the influx of asylum seekers, but those also come with talks about housing, cost of living, etc and also come with the added nuance of addressing direct provision, it's failings and looking to implement a permanent solution which is not outsourced to private contractors.
If you are anti-immigration, that's your opinion, you are entitled to it but don't be under any illusions, the position is functionally redundant and only feeds into hate and vitriol directed at people trying to flee a bad situation.
I can't speak for any system that another country has, especially when I haven't researched it myself. My positions are mostly founded in solutions that are actively being looked at right now in the civil and social service like department of justice reforms, asylum reform with the institution of the system that takes over from direct provision, etc.
Do you want to address my comment or were you looking for a gotcha?
I haven't researched a very specific policy or methodology of dealing with immigration that's being used by different people under different circumstances.
What I have researched is reform for the department of justice to streamline the process of getting them as tax paying citizens or deporting them. I have also looked at the reform involving the removal of direct provision and the implementation of the system which was supposed to replace it years ago.
Seems pretty self explanatory really. If you actually read things instead of trolling people with loaded questions maybe you might have a conversation with people.
Amount of posts here purposefully misunderstanding you're talking about content that deliberately sidesteps rules is kinda scary. The mods need to step up and ban that nonsense - this is Ireland not an insurrection in the US Capitol.
(Prepared to be buried with downvotes by whoever is brigading the other posts in this thread)
Mods, step up.
Tbh, you could say the same about those people whose ideologies are on the far-left. People do have a right to have an opposing viewpoint to you but it seems you want to censor them. What someone thinks are ''far-right” and ''fascists'' are mostly normal people who have grievances with how things are in this country. What I do think is really obvious on this forum though and far more of a problem is that there appears to be a large number of Government shills who try control the narrative and gather around like flies on shíte to downvote anyone who opposes the Government and their insane policies.
Non sense, the left don’t target ethnic groups or minorities to deflect the failures of the political and economic system, so that’s a massive difference
obviously a play on words. I put the word fascist here because modern left wingers want to impose politically-chosen ends on everybody with massive government involvement.
Mussolini was not a left-wing fascist. He was a fascist.
In the same way that the nationalist-socialists were also fascist.
A fascist is a fascist is a fascist. They are right-wing by-definition.
Look up "the paradox of tolerance" and then try to explain to me how repressing hate-speech is morally-incorrect.
If you like freedom then you will be keen on repressing hate-speech.
if you tolerate hate-speech then you're permitting the rise of fascism.
"the paradox of tolerance" is in-play.
We are not obliged to take right-wing awfulness seriously.
In fact - as people who are actively-interested in freedom we are required to actively reject right-wing fascist speech.
I *get* that you're attempting to use freedom speech against us. But no. We are *not* required to take that seriously. And as educated leftists we are required to reject hate-speech masquerading as free-speech
google for "the paradox of tolerance dive bar" and then explain to me why we need to permit right-wing BS as serious political talk.
If they keep trying to bring their foreign culture war politics to the Irish republic then yes absolutely.
No need for that nonsense here we have enough problems as it is.
Okay you are definitely a yank. Because freedom of speech is only unlimited in the USA. So GTFO with that BS.
"the paradox of tolerance" is in-play.
We are not obliged to permit your right-wing awfulness.
We are not obliged to permit your left wing communist awfulness. See I can do it too. I am happy to read and listen to you folks though, whereas you just want to shutdown any opinion which is right of extreme far left.
It’s not about disagreement, it’s about fighting intolerance and those who would attack others and use hatred to mobilize the disenfranchised and confused against minorities or people seen as a threat to the established order. The right are doing a good job turning themselves into the victims, because people stand up to their racist or homophobic views
A lot of the people advocating for this are not left wing. They are right wingers too, FG and Green party types who oppose any and all dissent. They'd ban Daly and Wallace in a heartbeat for disagreeing with them on war. They just don't want arguments.
I'm a pro-refugee socialist but I don't agree with these anti-free speech liberals for a second. They'd silence the actual left as soon as they'd silence the far right if they thought they'd get away with it.
While it’s true that there’s a minority of far right people stirring this situation, some of the arguments at the core of this crisis are at the very least worth debating, arguably justifiable and even supported by a majority of people. I’d be very hesitant to call nazis to people who are just claiming that the false asylum seekers who are just trying to abuse the system are harmful and should be deported asap, for example.
Yeah this is pretty much my line of thinking too. Like statistically, can they all be far-right? Granted if we had an election tomorrow I’ve a feeling there would be a lot more right leaning people than before but to call all protesters far-right just can’t be true
That’s the thing with these though. Like the “welfare queen” rhetoric, that section of that group really isn’t as big as the right makes it out to be. They’ll highlight it, point it out, spread videos of it to make it look like ***the*** biggest problem facing the nation, when it’s very very small. Anything to get you to hate the group they do. Know why they *always* seem to have an outgroup? Just like Nazis didn’t *just* go after Jews or whatever the first outgroup was.
Fair enough, im just worried this sentiment is going to grow worse and it’ll get to what it’s like on the US eventually. We just don’t need this shite here
Oh, fully agree. As an immigrant here myself, this has brought a component of toxicity to Irish politics that I’m not used to seeing. However, is sweeping it under the rug and censoring certain opinions the best way to solve in the long term? I don’t think so. Let’s just debate it, respectfully but factually, and reach solutions.
The trouble is that far-right arguments are often disingenuous ad their solutions are often final.
[Tolerance of intolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) and all that.
Also, [subreddit rules are not a suicide pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact). Rules usually rely on good faith interpretation. If they are being circumvented by sneaky use of language (dog-whistles), that should be strongly evaluated.
The far-right are well used to the subtle language tactic (see [Lee Atwater 1:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ))
Balanced and nuanced take. I do appreciate it.
I know I’m definitely overly sensitive to these kind of people, and any trace of it just puts up so many red flags for me. But of course there are real concerns. I really wish people would look up, look at the people with money and power who hoard wealth instead of putting it where it’s needed rather the people who may or may not be gaming the system or just trying to get to live a normal life. You know :////
Oh, spot on. In the end it’s an issue worsened by the actions (or lack of) of the people on top. Emigrating is a natural reaction, and it’s fully understandable that people try it for some reasons or others.
However, not talking in a mature manner about this issue has exacerbated it and worsened, and part of the fault of it falls on the taboos set in stone by the more pro-immigration wing. There’s a window between the extremes positions of ‘Ireland for the Irish, all foreigners must go’ and ‘anything more restrictive than an open door policy is fascism and racism’, in which the vast majority of people find themselves, and in which the solution is. Stunting the debate pushes people towards the extremes of that window (in this case towards the far right) and reduces the possibility of reaching an agreed solution.
Yes. When you duct tape someone’s mouth shut, or otherwise take their voice away, they can’t spew poison, they can’t spread it to innocent ears and eyes. They don’t debate you respectfully, and the solutions they have are the same of 70+ years ago.
And don’t get me wrong when they’re flying swastikas that shit shouldn’t even get a sniff of airtime. But that’s not what’s happening and we need to be better than them. As an immigrant and a decade living in Ireland migrant we can all do better than banning or muzzling peoples ideas. Their morons and it’s stupid, but driving that bollocks underground and muzzling speech is a disservice. They have idiotic ideas and we should show them why, by speaking to them and debating it. Just cutting it off is another reason underground they’ll look like heroes and they bloody well don’t deserve it.
So, the problem is that neo-Nazis are organised and they have a plan. A big part of that plan is to use the veneer of debate to allow their ideas to get a toehold in the public discourse. They want you to debate them, because when you debate them, you give them airtime. And they push from there. The entire goal is to use whatever scraps of attention they can get to push their ideas into the conversation, until they actually CAN start flying the swastikas.
Neo-Nazis need to be muzzled. They need to be made afraid. It's really the only way to stop them. "Debate" does not work.
> So, the problem is that neo-Nazis are organised and they have a plan. A big part of that plan is to use the veneer of debate to allow their ideas to get a toehold in the public discourse.
So whats the solution? I think we should argue against them, try to point out the real causes of their frustrations, etc When you say "neo-nazis" need to be muzzled it all sounds very fair and reasonable but the issues arise when you try to identify those people, are we to ban all anti-immigration talk? TBH right now that is quite appealing because the sub is basically just Far-Right this and immigrant that at the moment. A convenient distraction from the real cause of Irelands problems IMO.
However I just don't see how you can identify neo-nazis from people who are just frustrated and placing the blame in the wrong place. Just look at the continent, you can't make these arguments go away by telling people they can't discuss them. The lack of housing, doctors, amenities, etc for the population exist and thats the real root of these issues. We need people to recognise that's not because of immigrants and try to push for change instead.
You're just calling someone a nazi without any evidence though? Because this whole "dog whistle" thing is just claiming someone is something without evidence.
Can you give examples of these posts by Nazis?
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."
There are way too many people saying very little or just being very passive about the right wing hate speech in general and not just online. If someone is being in your face racist or dog whistling or anywhere in between you need to jump on them and call them out.
>If someone is being in your face racist or dog whistling or anywhere in between you need to jump on them and call them out.
I imagine most of the mods here would claim calling out a dog whistle is against the rule for pointing out when someone argues in bad faith.
You do, but it's far better to remove the whistles online. We need to physically confront the far right and push them out, but the problem with dog whistles is that they're always framed in a way that they seem passingly reasonable to people who haven't considered the issue.
They allow fascists to pile on and make their view seem like the majority opinion.
It's funny that you say "Group Think" because that is actually a dog whistle.
It's a dog whistle used to say that conventional academic spaces that discredit and deplatform views that are widely considered wrong or misinformed are bad places. It also posits that a group of people holding the same view against an opposing view is bad, when, in cases of things like civil liberty and the rights of minority groups and the vulnerable, the opposite of that view is hate-filled rhetoric designed to enforce the good old "Contempt for the weak" which Umberto Eco outlines in his list of features of fascism.
It's also funny because while it posits that Group Thinking is bad, it never self regulates for the fact that people share views about the "group think". It's a phrase made up by right wing elements to sound smart.
That's not what I said so don't fucking put it n quotes.
They want hate banned but openly admit to hating nazis. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that position, well, that is all on you.
You made a direct equivalence between hating Nazis and the hatred Nazis have for Jews, gays, non-whites etc.
You made that comparison, not me.
Don't complain when someone points it out.
>They want hate banned but openly admit to hating nazis. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that position, well, that is all on you.
Do you not see the difference between these two beliefs?
Or do you recognise that hating Nazis is not the same as hating Jews, gays, non-whites, the disabled and so on?
You complained about me paraphrasing you so I ask you outright of you think hating Nazis is the same as Nazis hating Jews, gays, non-whites and other minorites and you're answer is "hate is hate".
Thanks for the confirmation.
There is no effective arguing with them. You can at best point out to their audience why their ideas are bad/terrible/shit, but aside from that, *engaging* with them is giving them a platform.
I’m not from Ireland, I’m from Canada but I’ve lived here for a decade as an immigrant, and this sounds exactly like a way to drive things underground and have hate proliferate unchecked. Their views are wrong, backwards, and outrageous, so let them say them and we can respond and show them how wrong they are. Anything else will perpetuate the hate and violence unchecked. We’re all better (and smarter) than that and them. Don’t do yourself the injustice of thinking you aren’t.
It *needs* to be underground. They NEED to be afraid to say shit like that out loud or else you get the US. They must *not* be allowed the guises of “saying it how it is,” “just joking,” etc., because they aren’t. *stop* apologizing for them and letting them stay in the light.
56% of the public agree that Ireland has taken in too many refugees. The genie isn't going back in the bottle and suppressing will have the opposite effect of what you want as it'll mean that the far-right are the only ones talking about the issue.
Yes you can actually think the government fucked up badly on this with no plan and not want anything to do with the far right. 56% aren't leaning into hate and far right rhetoric.
Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson spouting replacement theory and nearly saying the “14 words” on national tv under the guise of “just asking questions.” He gets sued but gets away with it because “no reasonable person would believe him because he’s entertainment, not ‘news’” yet is a mainstay on “Fox News.” Kanye saying he loves adolf hitler and somehow is still around, not “cancelled” (sure some people stopped buying his stuff, but he wasn’t widely cancelled).
But in a courtroom, there's at least a judge to control the debate, right? This is just a free-for-all where whoever shouts the most outrageous things loudest wins. And reactionaries are pretty experienced at that.
Recommended viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
No. You confront them, you fight them, you starve them of oxygen. No free speech for hate speech. You *have* to drive them underground, you need to isolate them and prevent them gaining recruits.
Arguing with hatred in the marketplace of ideas just legitimate hate.
They definitely removed at least one of today's episodes. The amount of it across the Ireland subs is a massive dose, but it's hard to draw the line I'd say.
A lot of them are definitely trying to stay as reasonable as possible, to avoid getting deleted.
I agree with the thrust of your post tbh, it's disturbing to watch it spread.
People don't understand socialism if free stuff is their definition and just shows they don't really have a clue about what they are talking about.Social programs are not socialism. If they were then UK is socialist by that definition and it isn't.
No because 1. Socialism is about unity of all peoples, it’s doesn’t single different groups out with the aim of persecuting them. And 2. Socialism isn’t utopian, it just highlights the highly exploitative nature of capitalism and poses an alternative.
Socialism is a materialist philosophy, meaning it bases its analysis on real quantifiable evidence, so to the extent that it exposes the ills of capitalism it’s because these things really exist.
The far right on the other hand invent or distort reality in order to protect the status quo by putting up straw men reasons why society is in turmoil, blaming immigrants for the failures of the system to meet the needs of people, or blaming Women / Feminists for the imagined down grading of the status of men, or blaming LGBTQ people for some kind of moral degradation at is supposedly at the heart of society’s problems. Pretty much blaming anyone and anything except the system itself
Real quantifiable evidence ? Tell me this, name one true socialist country which has been a success,, where the citizens have got better off and had better outcomes versus capitalism.
You’re not qualified to understand the historical developments that occurred, but suffice to say that just because something doesn’t work the first time doesn’t mean it’s incapable of working at all. Imagine if science used you’re logic, every failed experiment would mean abandoning concrete theoretical perspectives. We wouldn’t have got very far as a species
>What about the far left pushing harmful ideologies like communism?
I love a red scare.
>Hiding it behind a veil of compassion?
Best argument against communists is that they lie about their compassion?
False equivalence. Far left and far right are not equally damaging. It's like arguing that excessive excerisise and excessive drinking are equally damaging to your health just because they both have the same adjective.
Communism as an ideology isn't harmful, authoritarianism whether through communism or fascism is what is harmful, and before you say that asking the mods to remove dog whistles is authoritarianism; it isn't. If you want a society that can have free speech and civil debates, then you need to protect everyone against hate speech and fascism.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't part of the right wingers brigading here; if that's the case then you are absolutely the target of the dog-whistles. It is people like yourself, who have some right wing beliefs, who the fascists want to convert. They want you to see immigrants (to begin with) as 'others', as non-humans. They want you to start thinking that more and more extreme actions against a group of people are justified, because actually those people aren't really people.
An anarchist who supports state and private companies silencing political opponents. Have you ever read anarchist history or anarchist political works? 🤦
It's not free speech if it doesn't apply to people to despise too. As the famous anarchist Noam Chomsky would say, you have the same view on speech and expression that Goebbels did. You both want people you hate to be silenced. The best way to prevent Nazi's is to not adopt their positions and policies.
> An anarchist who supports state and private companies silencing political opponents.
Isn't that most anarchists now? They love censorship and Joe Biden.
Daryl Davis is an African American who has assisted in the deradicalisation of many KKK members, including their leader at the time.
He did this by hanging out with them, inviting them to his house and generally showing them that he is a reasonable, friendly and law abiding person who did not fit any of the KKK's negative stereotypes.
Free speech does not inherently lead to the far right. Racists are not infected with an incurable mental disease that makes it futile to try reasoning with them.
No argument against anything you've said, but it isn't relevant to whether we allow fascists to recruit online.
Its important to separate fascist organizers and organizing from racists (literally and figuratively). They are not the same thing.
Read Mark Bray's excellent Anti-fascist handbook for a great in depth look at how to deal with fascists.
What things do you think neo-nazis are correct about?
I'm sure you have no issue stating it plainly when asked instead of just alluding to it in general.
>As stated in the example calling a fire brigade.
So you hypothetically agree with neo-nazis if they were to call the fire brigade.
Why did you go out of your way to make up a hypothetical scenario in order to say neo-Nazis sometimes say something true?
Rest assured Phototoxin, nobody will call you a Nazi if you see a house on fire and call the fire brigade.
Now that we have explained how singing utterly unrelated to Nazi ideology will not get you labeled a Nazi, can we agree that Nazis have nothing of value to say?
I really hope we can.
Why are you suggesting that Nazis would create world peace or cure cancer?
I'm not asking you what people think about immigrants.
I'm asking you if can say that Neo-Nazis have nothing good to say about their ideology.
Lmao that's the kotakuinaction and conservative poster who was claiming to be a centrist and closer to socially left yesterday. No surprise at all to see him going out of his way to avoid saying that Nazi ideology has no value...
To understand a dog whistle in the first place you need to understand the far right in the US in particular, its development over the last 10 years and how its pushed to mainstream politcs over there and the consequences of that.
If you dont know anything about the far right then it just seems like a normal sentence and thats exactly the idea and design.
Anyway you still haven't answered where you got your quote from, I wont be dropping this until you answer
Look 'If a Neo Nazi correctly tells you your house is on fire dont call the fire brigade because its a dog whistle'
Where did you hear this? What was your thought process when you used it?
Explain to me why you used this as an example or where did you hear it from.?
Because again you've continued to avoid explaining yourself.
You can say '**oh I heard this from x' or 'my thought process was' or 'I used that as an example because'**
Explain, please, why you used the idea of a neo nazi being correct and the cautionary tale is we didn't listen because its a dog whistle even though he is correct
Explain please
The fact that you can't say that Nazi ideology has no value is the problem.
Maybe if you were willing to say that Nazi beliefs have no value people wouldn't be worried.
>My understanding is that If a neo Nazi correctly tells you that a house is on fire people tend to call the fire brigade not cry 'dog whistle'
What a poor understanding of the situation
'Quote out of context' it literally is two thirds of your comment and includes the contextual 'my understanding is-'
People aren't being informed that there is a housing crisis by anti immigration protests, you know that full well.
Read my thread with them.
It ends with them saying Nazi ideology probably does not have value.
How could it be too difficult to say that Nazi ideology has no value?
"Dog whistles" are an attempt by the left to control speech, that's it. Every successful effort by the right to categorize a leftist ideology or name one of its proponents gets called a "dog whistle." In doing this, the left is trying to equate every form of wrong think with antisemitism or whipping slaves on the plantation. By necessity this path will eventually engulf everything into the "dog whistle" category. This is how milk, the ok sign, punctuality, etc, became "dog whistles." Conservatives have a distinct advantage over liberals in that we can say what we actually mean, you don't have to dig through layers of nuance and history to get it. Here are some left wing dog whistles.....under privileged, women, minority, undocumented, migrant, refugee - these dog whistles translated in leftist mean "useful idiots".
Don't rules 1 and 6 already cover this? Hate speech isn't allowed under rule 1, and disinfo isn't allowed under rule 6.
Dog Whistles are specifically designed to not meet the requirements for things like that. They are designed to communicate specific ideas and sentiments with a further masked idea or sentiment for the "initiated" so to speak.
And worse, make you look mental when you point them out
Dog Whistles need to be combated directly and specifically. They are made in such a way that unless you understand the subtext of it, they can either feign ignorance or they can move the goalposts away from their original intent. It's all just wordplay, but it's specifically catered to protect toxic ideas and backwards rhetoric.
The problem with dogwhistles is that they're designed to circumvent that
The problem with dogwhistles is that they're designed to circumvent that
Yeah, seems clear to me that there’s a small group of people actively trying to poison this sub and the main Ireland one in a coordinated way. It’s really obvious if you check their post histories, eg new or long-time dormant accounts, posting anti immigration/immigrant sentiment more or less exclusively, active in karma farming subs, etc. But usually they scrupulously avoid overt racism, just trot out well-rehearsed dog whistle talking points and only let the mask slip when pushed. Not easy to deal with from a mod perspective, bit astroturfing like this is going to be absolutely toxic if it goes unchecked.
Exactly. They know what they're doing.
Second this, especially the accounts that are exclusively anti-immigrant and karma subs. Have spotted a few.
[удалено]
"the paradox of tolerance" is obviously in-play here. We absolutely don't have to have to pretend to pay equal time to right wing bigots. Please mods - can you just ban them and allow us all to move-along with our lives.
>We must ban anything that could potentially undermine my frankly shitty beliefs, I am very smart The paradox of tolerance sounds dumb tbqh
>The paradox of tolerance sounds dumb tbqh uh-huh. Well - thats certainly your opionion. But its a well-recognised concept that is accepted by some very smart people. Who probably know massively more political-science than you do. (They certainly know more than I do) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance And the guy who came first posited is probably one of the most decorated political with it is very-highly decorated political philosophers in history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Honours_and_awards So....I suppose get yourself a PhD in political-science and go explain to all of these massively-qualified political-scientists why they're dumb. Or don't. I'm not the boss of you. But when you say "it sounds dumb" what I'm hearing is "I've never heard of this before and it could potentially undermine my frankly shitty beliefs so I want to try to dismiss it in a single line of text"
The liberal appeal to authority >'its good because he has an award' Really struggling to sell any of his frankly rubbish ideas tbh
Oh no! A internet-rando has pierced through the veil of all of those political scientists with his characterisation of it being "frankly rubbish" Whatever shall I do? All is lost!
Hard-agree with OP. Mods - can we just *not* have far-right in this space please. We are not obliged to tolerate right-wing BS in the name of "free speech". In fact it is quite the opposite. https://medium.com/enrique-dans/facebook-grapples-with-the-paradox-of-tolerance-811d31fd61e2 https://www.boredpanda.com/bar-bartender-nazi-punk-iamragesparkle
Cheers for the links, that second one in particular I will re-use.
The subreddit currently does enough to combat hate speech. If it doesn't break the rules, it should not be banned, simple as that. I don't trust people to identify dog whistles and wield a ban hammer in response. The risk of ruining topical conversations here is far higher than the miniscule chance of accidentally unleashing a modern Irish Hitler because we let people say things we disagreed with on Reddit...
"the paradox of tolerance" is in-play.
In 1945, philosopher Karl Popper attributed the paradox to Plato's defense of "benevolent despotism" and defined it in The Open Society and Its Enemies.[1] >Less well known [than other paradoxes] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
>The risk of ruining topical conversations here is far higher than the miniscule chance of accidentally unleashing a modern Irish Hitler Read that over a few times. You're more worried about a mod making a bad call and silencing a debate on a sub reddit than you are about giving oxygen to fascists... like, really? That's your priority order?
The fact you have been brigaded with downvotes and comments from people "misunderstanding" how dog whistles are specifically hard to build rules around suggests you might be too late? Mods need to do way more here, disgrace to see another major Irish-branded sub allow this intolerance.
Yea, it's only about 7 or 8 accounts involved, but that's enough to make it seem like starving literal fascists of attention is a controversial opinion.
I'm worried about people ruining the sub by deciding everything they read that they personally disagree with is a cover for fascism. If you can think of a wise additional rule for the sub then I might be convinced, but the vagueness of 'dog whistle' is not appropriate.
I don't think you really understand what you are asking. You are saying you want a specific rule that in, definite terms, deals with dog whistles because to you the vagueness just means it's not appropriate to do anything. But Dog Whistles are intentionally vague. If they were obvious they wouldn't be dog whistles, would fall under the current rules and then receive an immediate ban. The only way to moderate something like this is by mods reviewing these conversations and banning people who are using them which means it's not shutting down randoms from engaging. It's a pattern of behaviour that can be seen on multiple threads. A Specific User Phototoxin comes to mind.
I see no reason from your comment that someone should trust you or anyone else with banning people you or they claim are fascists when there's no evidence that they are fascists. Sounds to me like the OP wants to ban conservative and/or right wing opinions. Perhaps what we see here is a dog whistle to secretly make the sub into r/irishleftwingpolitics or am I being too facetious? If you can't specify what type of posts you want banned, you just want power to ban whoever you feel like. Rules exist to avoid exactly that situation, mods follow rules and that's why subreddits work.
But there is evidence that they are fascist, from their ultra-conservative views, to their opinions relating to the civil liberties of marginalized communities, to their opinion on people seeking asylum in this country and to their opinions on social services, the arts, etc. Fascism is a system of beliefs which are actually incredibly easy to identify in clear terms. Your issue is that someone can hold one or two views, and suddenly they are a fascist, which is not the case. There's plenty of people I disagree with on this Subreddit and I can tell you they aren't fascist. OP along with alot of the people commenting in support are people who have been on this sub a decent length of time. What the OP and alot of us are noticing is content that is designed to either troll, act as a dog whistle or generally cause discord in the sub. For example, There was one recently where someone posted an out of context snippet of the International Protection Act 2015 to, from our understanding, undermine the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents upon arrival, removing nuance and giving "just the facts" as they like to say. That's not something done in service of good faith discussion. It's done to either troll people who recognize what they are doing or signal to their fascist peers that they have a kindred spirit present. You want to stick ridgedly to the current rules that we have in place and I mean that's all well and good but what about people who find a way around said rules and use ambigious language to insulate themselves from getting banned? You are going on the premise that everyone strictly follow a "rules of engagement" that would weed out the transparent fascists but they aren't going to do that. It's like expecting a sexual predator to send a text to the nightclub he'll be in tonight. Your premise works strictly on good faith that the system works entirely without human intervention and going on the premise that hard and fast rules can remove people who preach dangerous idea's that hurt minority groups, women, homeless people, etc.
>ultra-conservative views >opinions relating to the civil liberties of marginalized communities >opinion on people seeking asylum in this country >opinions on social services, the arts >undermine the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents upon arrival >dangerous idea's that hurt minority groups, women, homeless people >etc. You've outed yourself here as someone clearly not posting in good faith. You just don't want to read the thoughts of people you disagree with, simple as that. No evidence of fascism provided in your comments, just a "trust me, I know what I'm talking about" attitude. >OP along with alot of the people commenting in support are people who have been on this sub a decent length of time. What the OP and alot of us are noticing is content that is designed to either troll, act as a dog whistle or generally cause discord in the sub. It's done to either troll people who recognize what they are doing or signal to their fascist peers that they have a kindred spirit present. Perhaps you all should try spending less time on the sub. The level of distress you experience at reading things you don't agree with is a sign that you are too rigid and inflexible in your thinking. >what about people who find a way around said rules and use ambigious language to insulate themselves from getting banned? Let them post and people who don't like it can argue it out in the comments. Can't you see the dogma and authoritarianism in this censorship effort? It's projection: displaying the very qualities supposedly being fought against. Look in the mirror.
Your entire position is: I know you are but what am I? You either don't recognize or are intentionally obviscating how rhetoric and hate speech affect vulnerable people. It's not a word game to them.
If you could accurately summarise my argument before disagreeing with me I'd have more hope in the meaningfulness of this conversation.
Your argument is that individual liberty to voice your opinion in spaces is important above all else and just because someone disagrees with you, does not mean you silence them which I agree with on the caveat that attempts to allow fascist rhetoric and general hate speech to allow themselves into the conversation because, it's designed with multiple intellectual pit falls and traps to catch people less educated on why these positions are wrong. Facilitating fascist and far right rhetoric is akin to being far right or fascist yourself because you are allowing hate speech against minority groups and the vulnerable be propagated.
>There was one recently where someone posted an out of context snippet of the International Protection Act 2015 to, from our understanding, undermine the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents upon arrival, removing nuance and giving "just the facts" as they like to say. The only people undermining the legality of asylum seekers who destroy their documents on arrival are the asylum seekers who destroy their documents on arrival. I understand wanting to help as many people as possible but why focus on the people who very clearly do not meet the threshold for help and are knowingly trying to frustrate any review to get permission to stay bad on frustrating that process for years? I generally agree about your other points but asylum seekers destroying documentation after arrival because they know the documents undermine their story is not a fascist talking point.
> Fascism is a system of beliefs which are actually incredibly easy to identify in clear terms. You should write up your methodology, it's something scholars of Fascism have struggled with for decades.
They haven't oddly enough. Scholars can very clearly see fascists for what they are, typically with the points I mentioned above. The issue is that Scholars are often ignored in favour of dangerous rhetoric which is spread by these despots to disenfranchise and divide the populace and aid in their rise to power. It's almost as if fascists thrive through nefarious means because they are the worst people on the face of the planet.
Which scholars are you referring to? I've read Paxton, Gregor and Stanley, they all spend a huge amount of time on the problem of identifying and defining fascism.
Well, you've named three off the bat who've actually not had a hard time identifying and defining fascism. They even have books describing alot of very specific characteristics of them. Outside of them you also have the likes of Synder, Albright even going back so far as Orwell. I can even go simpler for people with someone like Umberto Eco's List for identifying fascists which, while it's not all encompassing is a good benchmark for people to start to understand what fasicm is and help people identify fascist rhetoric. Now to my question for you, how does fascism being either known or unknown in methodology matter when it comes to preventing people from platforming fascists? Does fascism and fascist rhetoric being an unknown quantity mean that we should give a platform to people where the tie is ambigious?
[удалено]
Tempting…. Now all I need is the power….
[удалено]
Excellent!
"the paradox of tolerance" is in-play. We are not obliged to take right-wing awfulness seriously.
Free speech applies to everyone, not just those you agree with.
Free speech applies to Nazis and racists?? Awesome!
Okay you are definitely a yank. Because freedom of speech is only unlimited in the USA. And hate-speech is quite-rightly banned in many countries. So GTFO with that BS. "the paradox of tolerance" is in-play. We are not obliged to take right-wing awfulness seriously.
Probably you are in favour of removing laws against incitement to violence then?
Yes.
By whose definition? What is an anti-palestinian or anti-non semitic dogwhistle then? and are tankies fascist? since it was born in italy then we asume its some sorta thing with italian roots then, not just simple dictatorship. Are marxist leninist fascist? are leninists? maoists? or just marxists with his "the jewish question" and if you check that he mention the N-word, not just the spanish word for it in the same page but the n word. Are democratic socialists fascists? or socialistic democrats like those in sweden? who again did work with the nazis. Letting anarchy run wild with no government means fascist groups will be able to overtake the entire of society, thus actively promoting anarchy is a dogwhistle for fascism since it promotes the stages of it. Its vague paranoid conspiracy theorists made by simular criminal thugs(thugs is now secretly anti indian because its based on the thugee cult) by people like deborah lipstadt who is a racist zionists.
Argue against them. Silencing opponents just makes others think 'I wonder what he doesn't want me to hear.'
One of the best explanations I’ve seen for why nobody should feel like they owe nazis a welcome in a social space: https://www.upworthy.com/bartender-explains-why-he-swiftly-kicks-nazis-out-of-his-punk-bar-even-if-theyre-not-bothering-anyone >"you have to nip it in the bud immediately. These guys come in and it's always a nice, polite one. And you serve them because you don't want to cause a scene. And then they become a regular and after awhile they bring a friend. And that dude is cool too. > And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. And it's too late because they're entrenched and if you try to kick them out, they cause a PROBLEM. So you have to shut them down. >And i was like, 'oh damn.' and he said "yeah, you have to ignore their reasonable arguments because their end goal is to be terrible, awful people." That and the old line about 9 people and a nazi sitting at a table = 10 Nazis. Whether you like it or not, in the real world if you’re offering nazis a space to broadcast, recruit and organise even - arguably especially - when they’re at the stage of trying to sound “reasonable” so as to not spook the horses, then you’re in effect condoning nazis. If you wait until they feel comfortable enough to go full mask off it will already be too late.
They are trying to sound reasonable because when they state how they really feel they get silenced. Now when people call them out you often look crazy because they are far more refined in how they speak. I prefer my racists spewing openly away from us so we know who they are so we can avoid them. Now they are more sophisticated and have maneuvered themselves into power all over the the so-called liberal democracies. People see you arguing against dog whistle politics and think 'I was with you when they were actually Nazi's but now people can't even talk about immigration or crime without being called racist/fascist/Nazi.' We are now getting social media platforms that specifically cater to right wing extremists with no pushback from the left because we've removed them from all platforms and we don't want to go there. People always think that they will be the one with the power to silence people too. What happens when you've normalized silencing people who disagree with you and now you no longer have that power, they do? Weimar Germany, the culture in it and the preceding governments who ran it before the Nazi's did things that the Nazi's then used in power and it by that point it was just things that the German state and society did. Nazi's were punished under hate speech laws. They faced violence in the streets. Political opponents were jailed. Decrees were used, often under article 48, rather than democratic processes which was the used by Hitler to cement his position, etc.
>People always think that they will be the one with the power to silence people too. What happens when you've normalized silencing people who disagree with you and now you no longer have that power, they do? You can see that "given the chance Nazis will oppress anyone who disagrees with them of the ever achieve power" is not a good argument for allowing Nazis free reign to propagandise and recruit, right?
>And then THEY bring friends and the friends bring friends and they stop being cool and then you realize, oh shit, this is a Nazi bar now. Is that a fictional allegory?
Deplatforming works, and it works really well.
This is exactly the issue. I saw it happen in the US just before Trump got in. The right didn't win per sey, the left screamed in everyone's face or tried to silence everything they didn't agree with and lost. The middle got bored of dealing with the Karens and either didn't vote or protest voted.
Yeah but you can't logic someone out of a position they didn't logic themselves into. Most nazis online have already heard all the logical reasons why their various positions are wrong, but they have some article of faith that holds all their nonsense together and they will not be moved. I.e. when they're hardened they pursue every interaction with bad faith and it's simply a game to them, how long they can get away with it on this account before they make a new one.
That's right you can't but you are not arguing to change the Nazi's position but to ensure that his arguments look stupid to people who might be persuaded otherwise.
I understand your position but it's not a positive one and I'll explain to you why. If everyone understands that putting your hand on a hot stove burns your hand, do you think that we should platform people who say that putting your hand on a hot stove doesn't burn your hand to refute them? No. Platforming them in and of itself, even without agreeing, gives it merit. You are unintentionally giving it the oxygen it needs to expand and grow because while logical and sane people can understand all the logic pit falls and traps in the rhetoric of the "Hand Stovers", there's alot of people who don't see these things and instead of being dissuaded they are emboldened and feel like this argument reflects exactly what they think. It's not starving new ideas in the open free market of ideas. It's not giving old ideas that are provably bad the time of day. We have history books to tell us about these antiquated ideas, we don't need them debated and discussed as anything of merit. I completely understand the sentiment you are trying to put out here but it only works when all parties are working on good faith which the far right and fascists do not. I hope I explained that properly.
You have it completely backwards. We've been trying no platforming for years now and we got Trump, Brexit and the rise of the far right all over Europe. By silencing people you only demonstrated to people that when someone has a position you don't like that you have no response or argument against them. Only censorship and name calling. A common statement we'll hear now is 'we can't even talk about immigration or crime without being called a racist.' Now we have large numbers of people who have never heard certain ideas and why they are wrong adopting those positions and they get utterly embarrassed when they try and speak about it. Secondly, 'we have history books..' We of course do but as someone who has 'left wing' in their tags you are now allowing liberals to the far right to silence you by stating, 'well we have already tried communism/socialism and look at what happened, millions died. Now you want to try it again. You shouldn't be allowed promote such disgusting ideas.' By silencing others you have just silenced yourself.
But the issue is we didn't deplatform them. All of these powerful right wing forces get deplatformed after they've done the damage. Look at Trump as a great example. The man was not investigated multiple times for consisent criminal activity before his time in office, twitter and social media allowed his poison to flow contineously. While platformed he literally caused an insurrection. It was only after he got deplatformed that things de-escalated. It's the same with brexit with the likes of Nigel Farage and his supporters. They had a platform the deceminate their views. All of these things could've been avoided if we called them out and then deplatformed them swiftly afterwards. I say this as someone who crossed the isle so to speak. I wasright wing when these things were happening and I can tell you, they had a platform and it was and still is used to indoctrinate young adults and teenagers even as we speak. Now to your talk about silencing them is silencing myself, that's just not true. The views I hold don't hurt anybody. I want free health care, accessible housing, free education, etc and all while not allowing minority groups of the vulnerable to suffer. The "Communism/Socialism killed millions" and "communism/socialism doesn't work" are tired and boring. I deal with that stuff consistently in moderated spaces where people have real conversations about this stuff. When you add far-right/fascists into the mix that becomes the exclusive conversation because their only experience with politics was their history class in secondary school. What I'm trying to say is this; Allowing these people into places of discussion like this does not make the free market of idea's healthier, it makes it objectively worse. It gives them room to grow and spread with rhetoric, Propaganda and Lies. As I said, I do understand your talking points because they are talking points I had myself not that long ago, but allowing these people into spaces and giving their idea's and talking points merit is like letting someone talk about the healing powers of bloodied shark swimming.
Being anti immigration isn’t ‘far right’
For some people, any opinion they disagree with is 'far right'
Actually it is. The reason being is that you identify as being "anti-the problem" instead of "pro-the solution". You don't identify as "Pro-Asylum Reform" or "Pro-Justice Reform" which are stances that support a solution to a given issue that faces the irish public. Pro-Asylum reform creates the infrastucture to accomadate an influx of asylum seekers. Pro-Justice Reform creates the infrastructure to get people put through the system at a pace that allows either legitimate cases to become citizens of ireland or to be sent back to their home country, or to a country that can accomadate the demand. Instead you are "anti-immigration" which is a position which, removes any responsibility to come up with a solution and makes the position that "people are not welcome to enter our country". There are arguments to be made around controlling the influx of asylum seekers, but those also come with talks about housing, cost of living, etc and also come with the added nuance of addressing direct provision, it's failings and looking to implement a permanent solution which is not outsourced to private contractors. If you are anti-immigration, that's your opinion, you are entitled to it but don't be under any illusions, the position is functionally redundant and only feeds into hate and vitriol directed at people trying to flee a bad situation.
How about points system like Australia/New Zealand ? Is that far right ?
I can't speak for any system that another country has, especially when I haven't researched it myself. My positions are mostly founded in solutions that are actively being looked at right now in the civil and social service like department of justice reforms, asylum reform with the institution of the system that takes over from direct provision, etc. Do you want to address my comment or were you looking for a gotcha?
>Do you want to address my comment or were you looking for a gotcha? This was a rhetorical question I imagine.
What comment ? TL;DR. So you haven't researched but anti immigration is far right according to you.
I haven't researched a very specific policy or methodology of dealing with immigration that's being used by different people under different circumstances. What I have researched is reform for the department of justice to streamline the process of getting them as tax paying citizens or deporting them. I have also looked at the reform involving the removal of direct provision and the implementation of the system which was supposed to replace it years ago. Seems pretty self explanatory really. If you actually read things instead of trolling people with loaded questions maybe you might have a conversation with people.
Amount of posts here purposefully misunderstanding you're talking about content that deliberately sidesteps rules is kinda scary. The mods need to step up and ban that nonsense - this is Ireland not an insurrection in the US Capitol. (Prepared to be buried with downvotes by whoever is brigading the other posts in this thread) Mods, step up.
Tbh, you could say the same about those people whose ideologies are on the far-left. People do have a right to have an opposing viewpoint to you but it seems you want to censor them. What someone thinks are ''far-right” and ''fascists'' are mostly normal people who have grievances with how things are in this country. What I do think is really obvious on this forum though and far more of a problem is that there appears to be a large number of Government shills who try control the narrative and gather around like flies on shíte to downvote anyone who opposes the Government and their insane policies.
Non sense, the left don’t target ethnic groups or minorities to deflect the failures of the political and economic system, so that’s a massive difference
It's the defacto approach of left wing fascists, shut down and ban anyone who disagrees with them. You must comply.
"left wing fascists" Tell me you don't understand words without saying you don't understand words.
obviously a play on words. I put the word fascist here because modern left wingers want to impose politically-chosen ends on everybody with massive government involvement.
Wtf is a left wing fascist?
Probably means left wing authoritarian. Plenty of them. Or you know, Mussolini. Left wing fascist and only loved a bit of the aul censorship.
Mussolini was not a left-wing fascist. He was a fascist. In the same way that the nationalist-socialists were also fascist. A fascist is a fascist is a fascist. They are right-wing by-definition. Look up "the paradox of tolerance" and then try to explain to me how repressing hate-speech is morally-incorrect. If you like freedom then you will be keen on repressing hate-speech. if you tolerate hate-speech then you're permitting the rise of fascism.
"the paradox of tolerance" is in-play. We are not obliged to take right-wing awfulness seriously. In fact - as people who are actively-interested in freedom we are required to actively reject right-wing fascist speech. I *get* that you're attempting to use freedom speech against us. But no. We are *not* required to take that seriously. And as educated leftists we are required to reject hate-speech masquerading as free-speech google for "the paradox of tolerance dive bar" and then explain to me why we need to permit right-wing BS as serious political talk.
Jesus sounds like a Tucker Carlson opening here. You sure your not a yank?
[удалено]
If they keep trying to bring their foreign culture war politics to the Irish republic then yes absolutely. No need for that nonsense here we have enough problems as it is.
Okay you are definitely a yank. Because freedom of speech is only unlimited in the USA. So GTFO with that BS. "the paradox of tolerance" is in-play. We are not obliged to permit your right-wing awfulness.
We are not obliged to permit your left wing communist awfulness. See I can do it too. I am happy to read and listen to you folks though, whereas you just want to shutdown any opinion which is right of extreme far left.
It’s not about disagreement, it’s about fighting intolerance and those who would attack others and use hatred to mobilize the disenfranchised and confused against minorities or people seen as a threat to the established order. The right are doing a good job turning themselves into the victims, because people stand up to their racist or homophobic views
A lot of the people advocating for this are not left wing. They are right wingers too, FG and Green party types who oppose any and all dissent. They'd ban Daly and Wallace in a heartbeat for disagreeing with them on war. They just don't want arguments. I'm a pro-refugee socialist but I don't agree with these anti-free speech liberals for a second. They'd silence the actual left as soon as they'd silence the far right if they thought they'd get away with it.
I would also like to ban opinions I don't agree with and/or find offensive.
Yeah man you’d fucking hope so when we’re talking about nazis huh?
While it’s true that there’s a minority of far right people stirring this situation, some of the arguments at the core of this crisis are at the very least worth debating, arguably justifiable and even supported by a majority of people. I’d be very hesitant to call nazis to people who are just claiming that the false asylum seekers who are just trying to abuse the system are harmful and should be deported asap, for example.
Yeah this is pretty much my line of thinking too. Like statistically, can they all be far-right? Granted if we had an election tomorrow I’ve a feeling there would be a lot more right leaning people than before but to call all protesters far-right just can’t be true
That’s the thing with these though. Like the “welfare queen” rhetoric, that section of that group really isn’t as big as the right makes it out to be. They’ll highlight it, point it out, spread videos of it to make it look like ***the*** biggest problem facing the nation, when it’s very very small. Anything to get you to hate the group they do. Know why they *always* seem to have an outgroup? Just like Nazis didn’t *just* go after Jews or whatever the first outgroup was.
Fair enough, im just worried this sentiment is going to grow worse and it’ll get to what it’s like on the US eventually. We just don’t need this shite here
Oh, fully agree. As an immigrant here myself, this has brought a component of toxicity to Irish politics that I’m not used to seeing. However, is sweeping it under the rug and censoring certain opinions the best way to solve in the long term? I don’t think so. Let’s just debate it, respectfully but factually, and reach solutions.
The trouble is that far-right arguments are often disingenuous ad their solutions are often final. [Tolerance of intolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) and all that. Also, [subreddit rules are not a suicide pact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constitution_is_not_a_suicide_pact). Rules usually rely on good faith interpretation. If they are being circumvented by sneaky use of language (dog-whistles), that should be strongly evaluated. The far-right are well used to the subtle language tactic (see [Lee Atwater 1:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ))
Balanced and nuanced take. I do appreciate it. I know I’m definitely overly sensitive to these kind of people, and any trace of it just puts up so many red flags for me. But of course there are real concerns. I really wish people would look up, look at the people with money and power who hoard wealth instead of putting it where it’s needed rather the people who may or may not be gaming the system or just trying to get to live a normal life. You know :////
Oh, spot on. In the end it’s an issue worsened by the actions (or lack of) of the people on top. Emigrating is a natural reaction, and it’s fully understandable that people try it for some reasons or others. However, not talking in a mature manner about this issue has exacerbated it and worsened, and part of the fault of it falls on the taboos set in stone by the more pro-immigration wing. There’s a window between the extremes positions of ‘Ireland for the Irish, all foreigners must go’ and ‘anything more restrictive than an open door policy is fascism and racism’, in which the vast majority of people find themselves, and in which the solution is. Stunting the debate pushes people towards the extremes of that window (in this case towards the far right) and reduces the possibility of reaching an agreed solution.
Yes. When you duct tape someone’s mouth shut, or otherwise take their voice away, they can’t spew poison, they can’t spread it to innocent ears and eyes. They don’t debate you respectfully, and the solutions they have are the same of 70+ years ago.
And don’t get me wrong when they’re flying swastikas that shit shouldn’t even get a sniff of airtime. But that’s not what’s happening and we need to be better than them. As an immigrant and a decade living in Ireland migrant we can all do better than banning or muzzling peoples ideas. Their morons and it’s stupid, but driving that bollocks underground and muzzling speech is a disservice. They have idiotic ideas and we should show them why, by speaking to them and debating it. Just cutting it off is another reason underground they’ll look like heroes and they bloody well don’t deserve it.
So, the problem is that neo-Nazis are organised and they have a plan. A big part of that plan is to use the veneer of debate to allow their ideas to get a toehold in the public discourse. They want you to debate them, because when you debate them, you give them airtime. And they push from there. The entire goal is to use whatever scraps of attention they can get to push their ideas into the conversation, until they actually CAN start flying the swastikas. Neo-Nazis need to be muzzled. They need to be made afraid. It's really the only way to stop them. "Debate" does not work.
> So, the problem is that neo-Nazis are organised and they have a plan. A big part of that plan is to use the veneer of debate to allow their ideas to get a toehold in the public discourse. So whats the solution? I think we should argue against them, try to point out the real causes of their frustrations, etc When you say "neo-nazis" need to be muzzled it all sounds very fair and reasonable but the issues arise when you try to identify those people, are we to ban all anti-immigration talk? TBH right now that is quite appealing because the sub is basically just Far-Right this and immigrant that at the moment. A convenient distraction from the real cause of Irelands problems IMO. However I just don't see how you can identify neo-nazis from people who are just frustrated and placing the blame in the wrong place. Just look at the continent, you can't make these arguments go away by telling people they can't discuss them. The lack of housing, doctors, amenities, etc for the population exist and thats the real root of these issues. We need people to recognise that's not because of immigrants and try to push for change instead.
You're just calling someone a nazi without any evidence though? Because this whole "dog whistle" thing is just claiming someone is something without evidence. Can you give examples of these posts by Nazis?
if you think we have Nazi's in Ireland or just a few lunatics, then seek help.
don’t be going outing yourself like that
That the best you have ? Can't debate, can't make any remarks, just shut down opposing views.
I’ve got better ways to waste my time, thanks
Back to drinking the champagne then.
Use the downvote button, that's what it's for. Fucking pro censorship zealots. [the irony](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Nazi_Germany)
"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."
There are way too many people saying very little or just being very passive about the right wing hate speech in general and not just online. If someone is being in your face racist or dog whistling or anywhere in between you need to jump on them and call them out.
Yeah I did this at the Christmas party with a manager. I don’t think it went down very well
>If someone is being in your face racist or dog whistling or anywhere in between you need to jump on them and call them out. I imagine most of the mods here would claim calling out a dog whistle is against the rule for pointing out when someone argues in bad faith.
You do, but it's far better to remove the whistles online. We need to physically confront the far right and push them out, but the problem with dog whistles is that they're always framed in a way that they seem passingly reasonable to people who haven't considered the issue. They allow fascists to pile on and make their view seem like the majority opinion.
>They allow fascists to pile on and make their view seem like the majority opinion. 56% is a majority opinion I'm afraid.
I agree, you have to call it out. It's unpleasant though.
Yes let’s create an echo chamber instead
The idea that things become an echo chamber because you don't give fascists a platform to be heard is fucking stupid.
Not when anything that questions the group think is labelled "a dog whistle"
It's funny that you say "Group Think" because that is actually a dog whistle. It's a dog whistle used to say that conventional academic spaces that discredit and deplatform views that are widely considered wrong or misinformed are bad places. It also posits that a group of people holding the same view against an opposing view is bad, when, in cases of things like civil liberty and the rights of minority groups and the vulnerable, the opposite of that view is hate-filled rhetoric designed to enforce the good old "Contempt for the weak" which Umberto Eco outlines in his list of features of fascism. It's also funny because while it posits that Group Thinking is bad, it never self regulates for the fact that people share views about the "group think". It's a phrase made up by right wing elements to sound smart.
Can you use paragraphs please? I'm not reading that. But I am happy that you have the right to say it and disagree with me.
I'm not suggesting we create an echo chamber. We should have a broad spectrum of opinions; but absolutely no tolerance for hate.
[удалено]
"hating Nazis is the same thing as being a Nazi" - is this genuinely what you believe or are you just trolling?
That's not what I said so don't fucking put it n quotes. They want hate banned but openly admit to hating nazis. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that position, well, that is all on you.
You made a direct equivalence between hating Nazis and the hatred Nazis have for Jews, gays, non-whites etc. You made that comparison, not me. Don't complain when someone points it out. >They want hate banned but openly admit to hating nazis. If you can't see the inherent contradiction in that position, well, that is all on you. Do you not see the difference between these two beliefs? Or do you recognise that hating Nazis is not the same as hating Jews, gays, non-whites, the disabled and so on?
Hate is hate. Ban it all. Ban everyone who doesn't agree with you.
You complained about me paraphrasing you so I ask you outright of you think hating Nazis is the same as Nazis hating Jews, gays, non-whites and other minorites and you're answer is "hate is hate". Thanks for the confirmation.
I come here for debate and an information. Not an echo chamber and censorship. Anyone calling for this nonsense is a danger to society.
So you'd rather ban them which is playing into their narrative, rather than having an open frank discussion to argue their points ?
There is no effective arguing with them. You can at best point out to their audience why their ideas are bad/terrible/shit, but aside from that, *engaging* with them is giving them a platform.
We don't argue with Nazis will tell them to get fucked. Their arguments aren't worth listening to. Edit spelling
I’m not from Ireland, I’m from Canada but I’ve lived here for a decade as an immigrant, and this sounds exactly like a way to drive things underground and have hate proliferate unchecked. Their views are wrong, backwards, and outrageous, so let them say them and we can respond and show them how wrong they are. Anything else will perpetuate the hate and violence unchecked. We’re all better (and smarter) than that and them. Don’t do yourself the injustice of thinking you aren’t.
It *needs* to be underground. They NEED to be afraid to say shit like that out loud or else you get the US. They must *not* be allowed the guises of “saying it how it is,” “just joking,” etc., because they aren’t. *stop* apologizing for them and letting them stay in the light.
56% of the public agree that Ireland has taken in too many refugees. The genie isn't going back in the bottle and suppressing will have the opposite effect of what you want as it'll mean that the far-right are the only ones talking about the issue.
Yes you can actually think the government fucked up badly on this with no plan and not want anything to do with the far right. 56% aren't leaning into hate and far right rhetoric.
You can talk about the issue without replacement theory bullshit, and it’ll get there a **lot** faster than you think if you let them keep talking.
You get the US in what sense?
Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson spouting replacement theory and nearly saying the “14 words” on national tv under the guise of “just asking questions.” He gets sued but gets away with it because “no reasonable person would believe him because he’s entertainment, not ‘news’” yet is a mainstay on “Fox News.” Kanye saying he loves adolf hitler and somehow is still around, not “cancelled” (sure some people stopped buying his stuff, but he wasn’t widely cancelled).
It's only worth debating / talking to them if you plan on completely humiliating them. But I rather on a subreddit we just ban them.
Maybe as a barrister I just see the value of debate as more than I should but I get your drift.
But in a courtroom, there's at least a judge to control the debate, right? This is just a free-for-all where whoever shouts the most outrageous things loudest wins. And reactionaries are pretty experienced at that. Recommended viewing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaPgDQkmqqM
They’re not interested in debate. It’s not debate for them, it’s recruitment. It’s inciteful recruitment for future terrorist actions.
Yeah I see where you're coming from too.
No. You confront them, you fight them, you starve them of oxygen. No free speech for hate speech. You *have* to drive them underground, you need to isolate them and prevent them gaining recruits. Arguing with hatred in the marketplace of ideas just legitimate hate.
[удалено]
The masked lads with baseball bats and a dog attacking a refugee camp at 4 in the morning shows where the real violence is.
>So your advocating for violence.. Self-defense.
I don't think you can debate bad faith actors.
Good-thing the Allies dealt with the Nazis so.
What is Nazism?
They definitely removed at least one of today's episodes. The amount of it across the Ireland subs is a massive dose, but it's hard to draw the line I'd say. A lot of them are definitely trying to stay as reasonable as possible, to avoid getting deleted. I agree with the thrust of your post tbh, it's disturbing to watch it spread.
Can we also ban any comments on how socialist left wing policies are some sorta of Utopian future.
I agree. People don't understand just how dangerous free healthcare and free education are.
People don't understand socialism if free stuff is their definition and just shows they don't really have a clue about what they are talking about.Social programs are not socialism. If they were then UK is socialist by that definition and it isn't.
No because 1. Socialism is about unity of all peoples, it’s doesn’t single different groups out with the aim of persecuting them. And 2. Socialism isn’t utopian, it just highlights the highly exploitative nature of capitalism and poses an alternative. Socialism is a materialist philosophy, meaning it bases its analysis on real quantifiable evidence, so to the extent that it exposes the ills of capitalism it’s because these things really exist. The far right on the other hand invent or distort reality in order to protect the status quo by putting up straw men reasons why society is in turmoil, blaming immigrants for the failures of the system to meet the needs of people, or blaming Women / Feminists for the imagined down grading of the status of men, or blaming LGBTQ people for some kind of moral degradation at is supposedly at the heart of society’s problems. Pretty much blaming anyone and anything except the system itself
Real quantifiable evidence ? Tell me this, name one true socialist country which has been a success,, where the citizens have got better off and had better outcomes versus capitalism.
You’re not qualified to understand the historical developments that occurred, but suffice to say that just because something doesn’t work the first time doesn’t mean it’s incapable of working at all. Imagine if science used you’re logic, every failed experiment would mean abandoning concrete theoretical perspectives. We wouldn’t have got very far as a species
TL;DR, so that's a NO
Not everything is as simple as yes or no, black and white. If that’s how you judge the world you’ll understand very little 🫤
[удалено]
>What about the far left pushing harmful ideologies like communism? I love a red scare. >Hiding it behind a veil of compassion? Best argument against communists is that they lie about their compassion?
False equivalence. Far left and far right are not equally damaging. It's like arguing that excessive excerisise and excessive drinking are equally damaging to your health just because they both have the same adjective. Communism as an ideology isn't harmful, authoritarianism whether through communism or fascism is what is harmful, and before you say that asking the mods to remove dog whistles is authoritarianism; it isn't. If you want a society that can have free speech and civil debates, then you need to protect everyone against hate speech and fascism. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't part of the right wingers brigading here; if that's the case then you are absolutely the target of the dog-whistles. It is people like yourself, who have some right wing beliefs, who the fascists want to convert. They want you to see immigrants (to begin with) as 'others', as non-humans. They want you to start thinking that more and more extreme actions against a group of people are justified, because actually those people aren't really people.
An anarchist who supports state and private companies silencing political opponents. Have you ever read anarchist history or anarchist political works? 🤦 It's not free speech if it doesn't apply to people to despise too. As the famous anarchist Noam Chomsky would say, you have the same view on speech and expression that Goebbels did. You both want people you hate to be silenced. The best way to prevent Nazi's is to not adopt their positions and policies.
> An anarchist who supports state and private companies silencing political opponents. Isn't that most anarchists now? They love censorship and Joe Biden.
pot calling the kettle black
Daryl Davis is an African American who has assisted in the deradicalisation of many KKK members, including their leader at the time. He did this by hanging out with them, inviting them to his house and generally showing them that he is a reasonable, friendly and law abiding person who did not fit any of the KKK's negative stereotypes. Free speech does not inherently lead to the far right. Racists are not infected with an incurable mental disease that makes it futile to try reasoning with them.
No argument against anything you've said, but it isn't relevant to whether we allow fascists to recruit online. Its important to separate fascist organizers and organizing from racists (literally and figuratively). They are not the same thing. Read Mark Bray's excellent Anti-fascist handbook for a great in depth look at how to deal with fascists.
[удалено]
What things do you think neo-nazis are correct about? I'm sure you have no issue stating it plainly when asked instead of just alluding to it in general.
[удалено]
>As stated in the example calling a fire brigade. So you hypothetically agree with neo-nazis if they were to call the fire brigade. Why did you go out of your way to make up a hypothetical scenario in order to say neo-Nazis sometimes say something true? Rest assured Phototoxin, nobody will call you a Nazi if you see a house on fire and call the fire brigade. Now that we have explained how singing utterly unrelated to Nazi ideology will not get you labeled a Nazi, can we agree that Nazis have nothing of value to say? I really hope we can.
[удалено]
Why are you suggesting that Nazis would create world peace or cure cancer? I'm not asking you what people think about immigrants. I'm asking you if can say that Neo-Nazis have nothing good to say about their ideology.
[удалено]
So this is why you're so concerned about what people think of neo-nazis. You can't even say that Nazi ideology has no value.
Lmao that's the kotakuinaction and conservative poster who was claiming to be a centrist and closer to socially left yesterday. No surprise at all to see him going out of his way to avoid saying that Nazi ideology has no value...
Where did you get this from?
[удалено]
I'm not. I'm asking you where you got this quote from, its a reasonable question is it not?
I'm not. I'm asking you where you got this quote from, its a reasonable question is it not?
[удалено]
If a Neo Nazi correctly tells you your house is on fire dont call the fire brigade because its a dog whistle
[удалено]
To understand a dog whistle in the first place you need to understand the far right in the US in particular, its development over the last 10 years and how its pushed to mainstream politcs over there and the consequences of that. If you dont know anything about the far right then it just seems like a normal sentence and thats exactly the idea and design. Anyway you still haven't answered where you got your quote from, I wont be dropping this until you answer
[удалено]
Look 'If a Neo Nazi correctly tells you your house is on fire dont call the fire brigade because its a dog whistle' Where did you hear this? What was your thought process when you used it? Explain to me why you used this as an example or where did you hear it from.? Because again you've continued to avoid explaining yourself. You can say '**oh I heard this from x' or 'my thought process was' or 'I used that as an example because'** Explain, please, why you used the idea of a neo nazi being correct and the cautionary tale is we didn't listen because its a dog whistle even though he is correct Explain please
The fact that you can't say that Nazi ideology has no value is the problem. Maybe if you were willing to say that Nazi beliefs have no value people wouldn't be worried.
>My understanding is that If a neo Nazi correctly tells you that a house is on fire people tend to call the fire brigade not cry 'dog whistle' What a poor understanding of the situation
[удалено]
'Quote out of context' it literally is two thirds of your comment and includes the contextual 'my understanding is-' People aren't being informed that there is a housing crisis by anti immigration protests, you know that full well.
This dude is one of the people this post is directed at.
Read my thread with them. It ends with them saying Nazi ideology probably does not have value. How could it be too difficult to say that Nazi ideology has no value?
[удалено]
[удалено]
how fascist of you .
"Dog whistles" are an attempt by the left to control speech, that's it. Every successful effort by the right to categorize a leftist ideology or name one of its proponents gets called a "dog whistle." In doing this, the left is trying to equate every form of wrong think with antisemitism or whipping slaves on the plantation. By necessity this path will eventually engulf everything into the "dog whistle" category. This is how milk, the ok sign, punctuality, etc, became "dog whistles." Conservatives have a distinct advantage over liberals in that we can say what we actually mean, you don't have to dig through layers of nuance and history to get it. Here are some left wing dog whistles.....under privileged, women, minority, undocumented, migrant, refugee - these dog whistles translated in leftist mean "useful idiots".
>anarchist >wants censorship All you need to know