exactly

Reality in an abstract like mainstream is going to look different depending on where you are looking at it and where you are looking at it from. It can have all those things and still de-legitimatize itself because it has those other things too. Leaving the question for political participants "is that what you really want in your main stream?."
Isn't that at least somewhat up to Breitbart to change their ways so as to answer to the objectionable content they have produced?

Are you suggesting that we should also ban links to United States Congressman Steve King's comments? A man who is the duly elected political representative of hundreds of thousands of American citizens?

No, but you're clearly saying that his views are a positive thing to be posted and discussed on this forum. They are despicable. What else is there to discuss? What do we gain by giving these kind of people another platform? Why do you care more about the platform then the content of the views that are seen?



These people are being elevated because we have let them back into the national discourse. We are continuing to elevate them because people like you think they belong. If Richard Spencer gets up to 500k Followers this time next year or a cabinet position are we now linking to his views on black genocide?

So if Daily Stormer gets to 100,000 posters, does it no longer count as a hate site?

One of the reasons I post on forums is to talk with people with whom I disagree. On political forums I'd like to talk with people I disagree with who hold politically relevant viewpoints. The viewpoint espoused by Breitbart is clearly politically relevant, so I'd like to be able to talk with people who hold Breitbart-style views. Banning links to Breitbart will, in my estimation, make it less likely that such people will speak freely here.


I think you are here appealing to a kind of control that doesn't exist in the US. There is no one controlling media such that they can block neo-Nazis or white nationalists more broadly from participating in public American civic life.

As for as I know, P7 doesn't have a rule against linking to a hate site.

OP, the amount of people who hold views of the alt right but won't freely share their opinions because they cannot hyperlink a specific website is precisely zero. You also never answer and only deflect from my questions, which is expected yet disappointing.

Good.

Right. Posters have different goals here. Instead of the moderators picking which of them to favor, we should use poster input, such as I suggested earlier in this thread.

We don't need the nuanced viewpoints of white supremacists and quite frankly, there are already far more than enough of them in this forum to express that opinion.

I disagree, censorship has a chilling effect on political speech - I see no reason to think that wouldn't apply here. Furthermore, I think it selects for the GOP-leaning people who do remain or join who are more guarded and trollish in their posting.

Which question would you like me to answer? I'm trying to avoid off-topic discussions here, but will answer almost any question you wish.

These rules actually help white supremacists in the forum. Chez is giving them helpful suggestions to make their posting less odious.

That's why we have the SMP subforum.

OP, perhaps start at the ones I've already asked! I don't know why you view it as noble or good to welcome white supremacists onto 2p2. Why do you believe this to be a noble goal? Why do you wish to entertain the viewpoints of neo nazis or the KKK? Do you not find you view that these people were "irrelevant" at odds with the chart I posted showing their twitter following growing rapidly?

http://billmoyers.com/story/frightbart/

This is why you have Wil, Mong and several other alt right posters posting that "Europe has gone to hell" despite never having been overseas and this being blatantly false.

I don't. I have a preference for a particular kind of open political forum, but that is not because I think such forums are more noble or morally better. My preference is to welcome Breitbart readers because I would rather argue with people defending ideas with real political influence.

I don't wish to entertain the viewpoints of neo nazis or the KKK.

Not particularly, although I'll grant that they are more relevant than they were previously. Anyway, if you want I'll grant that neo-nazis and the KKK are politically relevant, nothing in my argument hangs on this point.

Conservatives have been claiming that Europe has gone to hell for decades, they didn't start just because of Breitbart.

Thats my take. The PC rules help people develop nuance (if they have it in them) and teach them to veil and couch their views.

In order for this to happen, there would have to be an underlying process where as the views are taken and given more nuance and veiling by interacting with the moderation. How, when, and where is that happening?

Think its kind of happening in the refugee thread. But if you dont think it makes more sophisticated racists and bigots, ok.

Again, I'm not aware how that would work as a process. I do know that prejudice is it's own limit towards the range of prejudiced actions.

Look at it from the classic story perspective. There is only so much sheep's clothing a wolf can wear and not look like an absurd sheep. Nah, the only way out a rusty cage like prejudice is to break free, and run, and leave it behind to be remembered, and let be.

Original position, when your argue with people spouting alt right talking points you're not arguing ideology, you're arguing against (white nationalist) propaganda. You feel this is worthy because now it is somewhat state sponsored. I disagree.

In my perfect 2p2 world it would be allowed but it would be flagged in a similar way to how fb flags fake news now. Just adding a tag that the site is bs at the bottom.

You don't think it's worthy to argue against somewhat state-sponsored white nationalist propaganda? Really?

you must not be the real trolly, because I'm almost positive he's not this dense.

Have you seen a single person who is a Trump supporter, or a purveyor of alt right media change their mind on this site when confronted with facts that show their support/world view to be incorrect? Or do they double down on these thoughts?

You don't beat these ideologies or people through debate. They are not here to engage in factual related discourse. You are not playing an even game. You need to realize this. This isn't a "they show you their white nationalist propaganda" then you show them your scientific research, then they have an epiphany and you have won them over. That has never, ever, ever happened. Instead, you get called a liberal cuck snowflake.

I'm torn. I like OP's view of the situation. Allowing people to state things and then following it with discussion and debate sounds like a good thing. It allows people with critical thinking skills to come to the "correct" conclusions on their own after viewing both sides and coming to their own educated decision.


The problem with this though is that it gives some of these views an audience and allows the purveyors of said views to use dishonest, fallacy-laden debate tactics to keep pushing their agenda. Even if a thread is 10% agenda-pushing-fallacy-posts and 90% posts rationally debunking all of it, the way the current state of things is, it's giving a platform for misinformation and you end up with the less critical-thinking audience members to see it as a divisive 50/50 issue. This is why climate change stuff is going the way it is right now.


So do we really need to allow people to post bullshit that we know is "wrong"?

Sure, there was some Trump voter over in the other Politics forum who changed his mind shortly after the inauguration. More generally, I've seen a lot of obstinate people on 2p2 change their minds over the years, although the examples I'm thinking of are all from the religion forum.

We just have different goals. I'm not trying to defeat an ideology or person here. My political engagement is IRL, not P7. My primary interest here is to learn more about my own and other people's political views and cultures. Telling a major swath of American political culture that they aren't welcome is counterproductive to that goal.