Extremist rhetoric on Trump threads

RDM_83 again

KyussBeeshop wrote: »

When the Anarcho-Capitalist knows that the policies they advocate, will not lead to a well-functioning/self-regulating political/economic/social system, but continue to advocate those policies anyway.

If the Anarcho-Capitalist policies work as advertised: Great, you've got a capitalist utopia.

If the Anarcho-Capitalist policies fail as predicted: You've got the perfect conditions for a takeover of the state, through whittling away the power of the state, and letting power concentrate in the hands of a small number of private groups - who can eventually takeover the state and, if they want, install a Fascist government.

But a capitalist utopia isn't a core goal of Fascism, like I know Fascism is a mixed ideology that had few core principles but this really isn't one of them at all particularly if the anarchy part is emphasized as that would allow for a fractured society with great personal freedoms.
Fascism is about clientism is really far from anarcho-capitalism.
This means if Bannon succeeds in his goals he reaches an end point he doesn't want (if he is actually a Fascist)

KyussBeeshop

Well, I won't go into it further as it's off topic, but just clarify that in my post Anarcho-Capitalism is just a means to an end, not the desired end itself.

RayM

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Are comments where posters hope that Donal Trump is killed/dies soon really acceptable?

Memnoch wrote: »

Nope. I would agree that this should be classified as unacceptable and extremist rhetoric. And the poster should be sanctioned accordingly.

Hope you reported that post! If so, you'll be thoroughly satisfied to hear that the poster (me!) was given a two-day ban from After Hours for joking, in a joke thread, about nicknaming him "The Late Donald Trump". I couldn't be bothered taking it to Dispute Resolution because I don't currently think After Hours is worth the hassle of engaging in a lengthy pedantic discussion about whether or not I was joking in that joke thread. Of course I wasn't joking. I never joke about anything. And I hope that anyone who found the aforementioned post upsetting will accept my sincere apologies. I hope that, with the passage of time, the pain eases. I am truly sorry.

JRant

demfad wrote: »

I believe that Bannon is an anarcho capitalist and Trump a Kleptocrat.
Bannon is also an accelerationist. As Bannon himself admires Alexandr Dugin who roughly bases his makey-up/fool the youngsters ideology on Italian Fascism then people using the description of fascism is OK.
I haven't worked out why Bannon is trying to pull the Establishment down so fast: Either it is because he believes a complete destruction of State is necessary to achive his goals or he fears the upcoming investigations into Putin/Trump.

Your argument against fascism seems to be that people need only identify an argument as fascist in order to have it vilified. If this was a result of an unfair press that fascism had i would be inclined to agree.
But the demonising, othering and de-humanising of 'other' people, has in the last century caused the mass murder and 'experimentation' of 100s of millions of human beings by regimes based only on their appearance or religion or nationality or gender or age. Facism/Nazism is so toxic that the alt-right only salute when they think the cameras are off. How can this be normalised?

So sometimes you rightly win the argument by proving someone to be a devil worshipper, sometimes you rightly win it by proving they are fascist/nazis (alt-right, anarcho capitalisst etc.) It cannot be normalised.

If the fascists have an issue with this blame their forefathers who exterminated and killed men, women and children in their 100s of millions just for being different.

Supporters of these scum better grow thicker skin.

You see it's a problem when you feel the need to win an argument, especially online. It just leads to point scoring and one up man ship, which is a sure fire method to end any chance of a reasonable discourse.

Mentioning fascist killing millions of people simply ignores the fact that idealogues from all backgrounds including; facists, socialists, maoists etc have killed many many millions of people between them. Trying to "win" an argument by stating this is IMO intellectually dishonest and doesn't lead to anything even remotely resembling a reasonable conversation.

Lovely Bloke

The thing about that is that people of the left love to break out the aul No True Scotsman when presented with that.

It's absolutely infuriating.

InTheTrees

JRant wrote: »

Mentioning fascist killing millions of people simply ignores the fact that idealogues from all backgrounds including; facists, socialists, maoists etc have killed many many millions of people between them. Trying to "win" an argument by stating this is IMO intellectually dishonest and doesn't lead to anything even remotely resembling a reasonable conversation.

I think the point was trying to explain people's impulsive revulsion of fascism.

Its not denying other ideologies also have bloody histories.

JRant

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think the point was trying to explain people's impulsive revulsion of fascism.

Its not denying other ideologies also have bloody histories.

Oh I realise that but using rhetoric like that only stifles debate. We all know of the previous horrors visited upon humans in the name of one extremist ideology or another.

Take Trump for example, one could say he has right leaning ideals and argue from that stand, pointing out policy decisions etc. That allows people to discuss the issues.

Now if someone says Trump is a fascist, fascists killed millions of people. Where is the room for discussion there? By framing it in such a way it makes it seem that if you argue for Trump on any single issue you're supporting the death of millions of people.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Robineen

Christy42 wrote: »

What is wrong with speculating if he will be assinated or not. It is a distinct possibility given presidents tend to draw assignation attempts and he has pissed off more people than most of them.

Indeed. I've seen assassination speculation about pretty much American president in my living memory. They are always at risk.

Robineen

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Most people seem to have acknowledged on this thread that boards.ie seems to have a majority left-wing contingent.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then why in your OP did you just focus on inflammatory posts against Trump?

Whilst there is a lot of that on the site right now, there is no shortage of inflammatory posting from the other viewpoint.

Inflammatory posting should be unacceptable no matter the viewpoint, no?

Permabear wrote: »

Boards 2007: If you disagree with me, I will attempt to persuade you that my points are valid and my perspective legitimate.

Boards 2017: If you disagree with me, you're a racist fascist white supremacist Nazi.

Such a glib post.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha

For what it's worth, I intend to try to keep a closer lookout for the same in the Politics forum so that criticism of Trump and other public figures is a little more constructive than "Narcissist" or "Fascist".

JRant

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

For what it's worth, I intend to try to keep a closer lookout for the same in the Politics forum so that criticism of Trump and other public figures is a little more constructive than "Narcissist" or "Fascist".

Fair dues Anc. also to K-9 and the rest of the mod team.

Mark Hamill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Any actual examples of this?

demfad

JRant wrote: »

Mentioning fascist killing millions of people simply ignores the fact that idealogues from all backgrounds including; facists, socialists, maoists etc have killed many many millions of people between them.

Yes, and for anyone supporting these ideologies (not socislism, youre fibbing there) and especially for those reading it is fair to point out these facts. It is a fair observation that people will tend to favour an outlook that doesnt involve mass murder. You shouldn't have a problem with that.

Trying to "win" an argument by stating this is IMO intellectually dishonest and doesn't lead to anything even remotely resembling a reasonable conversation.

As I've said it is perfectly reasonable to point out that Fascist, authoritarian nationalist etc. states have invariably led to murder and death of people not conforming to the idea of 'the people', and opposition media.
Nothing dishonest there, intellectually or otherwise.

LuckyLloyd

Increasingly people go onto the Internet to talk at each other rather than with each other. That allied to the ability to curate your social media to align with your already held views of the world is the death of progressive discussion. The rational voice weighing up the nuances and complexities of an issue is generally unwanted. Because we're not looking to learn nor are we open to being convinced of the merits of the other side of the argument. I commend the mod teams for trying, but I fear they are doomed to lose this battle. I feel like the era of closed accounts and more transient identities on here only serves to make the battle much more difficult.

Agree or disagree with Permabear (and I would disagree with his political views), he's stood behind the same account on here for approaching a decade, and doesn't try and squirm away from what he's posted in the past. That's certainly a basic starting point imo.

ancapailldorcha

JRant wrote: »

Fair dues Anc. also to K-9 and the rest of the mod team.

Very much appreciated.

demfad

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Increasingly people go onto the Internet to talk at each other rather than with each other. That allied to the ability to curate your social media to align with your already held views of the world is the death of progressive discussion. The rational voice weighing up the nuances and complexities of an issue is generally unwanted. Because we're not looking to learn nor are we open to being convinced of the merits of the other side of the argument. I commend the mod teams for trying, but I fear they are doomed to lose this battle. I feel like the era of closed accounts and more transient identities on here only serves to make the battle much more difficult.

Agree or disagree with Permabear (and I would disagree with his political views), he's stood behind the same account on here for approaching a decade, and doesn't try and squirm away from what he's posted in the past. That's certainly a basic starting point imo.

I think the media has changed. After the recession investigative journalism was hit hard and compounded by print medias insecurity about the new digital world.
With post-truth and alternative truth occupying the levels of debate where people are opinion forming then media must dive deeper for truth to remain relevant.
The power of persuasion and reasoned argument takes a hit in a world of disinformation making people even less likley to be persuaded by arguments backed by information which may or may not be true.
Media cant afford to get their facts wrong any more and remaion relevant. There is a gap in the market again for research and fact based reporting. You will see live fact checking on Current affairs shows to stop people telling the post-truth the alternative truth and nothing like the truth.

How does this fit in with politics on boards.ie?
Either leave as is and watch all the fora drift towards confused disinformed shouting matches.
Or else increase the requirements for what constitutes substantiation and apply stricter standards.
A soccer forum style pre-vetting of people who want to post might ironically save work.
My 2 cents.

Hank Scorpio

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I agree with this strongly, I've been personally labeled as a member of the alt right several times, and only just yesterday called a bigot. I reported all the posts and nothing ever happened. Sick of it really. I've a long history on boards with a good record and it's not fair at all, especially when people are insinuating I'm a racist merely for not agreeing with them. These are dangerous accusations when post history reveals things such as personal information.

Boards wasn't like this at all a few years ago, I've contemplated closing my account several times over the last few weeks.

Nody

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I agree with this strongly, I've been personally labeled as a member of the alt right several times, and only just yesterday called a bigot. I reported all the posts and nothing ever happened. Sick of it really. I've a long history on boards with a good record and it's not fair at all, especially when people are insinuating I'm a racist merely for not agreeing with them. These are dangerous accusations when post history reveals things such as personal information.

Boards wasn't like this at all a few years ago, I've contemplated closing my account several times over the last few weeks.

But we also have lies repeated over and over again driving that. How many times was the "Obama stopped Iraq refugees for six months" brought up with no proof since it did not happen? How many times have we had the "Sweden has 50 no go zones due to immigration" been repeated which has also been proven wrong over and over again? How about the latest claim that the alleged facebook rape were immigrants (no, they were born in Sweden making them Swedes by birthright no matter their parents nationality or skin colour).

I think what's needed is a much stricter requirements on actually quoting sources in the posts to back up the claims in said posts. That in turn will force people to stop repeating hear say all the bloody time which in turn should not only raise the quality of posts but also force people to take a step back (because you can't just call out something in response but have to actually back it up which gives you time to formulate the post better). Then let the less lenient posting going on now move into the Cafe instead (sorry guys!) where it would have a more suitable home.

Hank Scorpio

Are you using bad arguments or falsehoods as a means to excuse personal attacks on boards? Because that's a very dangerous road to go down and it sounds like you are doing exactly that. From my experience it has little to do with that, and it has been to do with different opinions on subjects like immigration. Either way, there's always been misinformation on message boards since the dawn of time. Call an argument or falsehood stupid and unproven if you wish, but DO NOT personally insult the poster with slurs like racist which are incredibly insulting and hurtful.

Nody

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are you using bad arguments or falsehoods as a means to excuse personal attacks on boards? Because that's a very dangerous road to go down and it sounds like you are doing exactly that. From my experience it has little to do with that, and it has been to do with different opinions on subjects like immigration. Either way, there's always been misinformation on message boards since the dawn of time. Call an argument or falsehood stupid and unproven if you wish, but DO NOT personally insult the poster with slurs like racist which are incredibly insulting and hurtful.

No my point is the number of false claims, which are repeated over and over again without any back up quotation, drives a hostile nature of debate. If you already have proven something false and have it thrown back as an counter argument by the Nth user you're not going to calmly reply again but you'll start to lower the standard to their level instead. That in turns the debate into monologues as both sides stops ignoring the basic requirements and move on to simply repeating their point because why hold yourself to a higher standard when your opponent simply tries to shout you down. By requiring proper sourcing rather than Facebook post you slow down the debate and give people more time to formulate their posts rather than throw in a one liner; in doing so you also drive arguing to the facts of the source material itself rather than the user who posts it as a fact.

Hank Scorpio

Nody wrote: »

No my point is the number of false claims, which are repeated over and over again without any back up quotation, drives a hostile nature of debate. If you already have proven something false and have it thrown back as an counter argument by the Nth user you're not going to calmly reply again but you'll start to lower the standard to their level instead. That in turns the debate into monologues as both sides stops ignoring the basic requirements and move on to simply repeating their point because why hold yourself to a higher standard when your opponent simply tries to shout you down. By requiring proper sourcing rather than Facebook post you slow down the debate and give people more time to formulate their posts rather than throw in a one liner; in doing so you also drive arguing to the facts of the source material itself rather than the user who posts it as a fact.

I respectfully disagree, that's not what's been going on at all. Things were for the most part jovial right up until he won the election and then it changed. In my recent case I was labeled a bigot because I expressed the view mass immigration from certain regions causes social problems.

ancapailldorcha

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, that's not what's been going on at all. Things were for the most part jovial right up until he won the election and then it changed. In my recent case I was labeled a bigot because I expressed the view mass immigration from certain regions causes social problems.

I've asked your for evidence of this before and you never cited an instance of being labelled a racist.

Hank Scorpio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've asked your for evidence of this before and you never cited an instance of being labelled a racist.

I've reported all the posts.

I'll message you with the links.

JRant

demfad wrote: »

Yes, and for anyone supporting these ideologies (not socislism, youre fibbing there) and especially for those reading it is fair to point out these facts. It is a fair observation that people will tend to favour an outlook that doesnt involve mass murder. You shouldn't have a problem with that.




As I've said it is perfectly reasonable to point out that Fascist, authoritarian nationalist etc. states have invariably led to murder and death of people not conforming to the idea of 'the people', and opposition media.
Nothing dishonest there, intellectually or otherwise.

I'm sorry but you've completely missed the point I was making. As a stand alone statement it is correct but when it turns into "Trump is a fascist, fascist killed millions of people" it completely kills any discussion.

By the way if you think extremist versions of socialism haven't killed many millions of people than I would beg to differ.

B_Wayne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would say that there have been instances of users who are racist/fascists. As much as there have been instances of homophobes and sexists.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

To use some examples, if a person is espousing the Rothschild conspiracy, would you classify that as espousing as an anti-semetic conspiracy? Would you consider it to be unfair labeling if I pointed out it was an anti-semetic conspiracy?

Because plenty of stuff similar to it has shown up on discussions on Donald Trump. Whatever about calling a user a racist or an anti-semite, if Donald Trump says something racist, do you have a problem if users point out instances of blatant racism?

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Are you using bad arguments or falsehoods as a means to excuse personal attacks on boards? Because that's a very dangerous road to go down and it sounds like you are doing exactly that. From my experience it has little to do with that, and it has been to do with different opinions on subjects like immigration. Either way, there's always been misinformation on message boards since the dawn of time. Call an argument or falsehood stupid and unproven if you wish, but DO NOT personally insult the poster with slurs like racist which are incredibly insulting and hurtful.

Problem is when the rhetoric descends to literal outright racist stereotypes, urban legends. That does reflect on an individual. If a person is going to make outlandish claims without backing them up or by using extraordinarily dodgy sources that veer into conspiracy. Then yeah, I don't honestly believe that racism shouldn't be called out in instances as clear as that. And there have been many. If a person is insulted by that, I can't feel much sympathy...

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I respectfully disagree, that's not what's been going on at all. Things were for the most part jovial right up until he won the election and then it changed. In my recent case I was labeled a bigot because I expressed the view mass immigration from certain regions causes social problems.

I would strongly suspect that the change in attitude can be attributed the general increase in international tensions in the last few weeks. Literally boards reflecting how much of the world feels. Many even have family members that are inordinately affected by his policies btw. So tensions are running high and we're really not in the territory of ordinary politics any more.

Hank Scorpio

B_Wayne wrote: »

Problem is when the rhetoric descends to literal outright racist stereotypes, urban legends. That does reflect on an individual. If a person is going to make outlandish claims without backing them up or by using extraordinarily dodgy sources that veer into conspiracy. Then yeah, I don't honestly believe that racism shouldn't be called out in instances as clear as that. And there have been many. If a person is insulted by that, I can't feel much sympathy...

I don't know if you're attacking me here but I'll take it that you are, my thing since the election began has been trying to shed light on the Wikileak releases. I rarely ever post on immigration issues, probably 20 or less posts of my entire posting history refers to it. I've tried to not report on anything silly like the pedo garbage, but more on the pay to play schemes, the DNC and Bernie, the media collusion, corruption and so on. It's been met with constant bashlash, accusations of trolling, Wikileaks is fake and so on.

I've paid attention to the Trump megathreads at least in AH and know all the posters by now. I don't think anything will convince me that there's isn't a running theme of intolerance towards those who having any inking of support for Trump. Barely anyone left posting in those threads offers any sort of fairness, I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio is 20:1 in terms of posters.

I can say clearly many regular posters who I've private messaged back and fourth with over the months quit posting in those threads because of how toxic they became over time, I try not to post anymore either. Even with irrefutable evidence certain posters will never accept things or concede points that are pro Trump and they continue to get away with it.

I guess it's just time to realize that as far as Trump discussions go boards is off the menu for me. I get people have opposing points of view and are worried about his appointment and are right to be, what I don't understand is when you point something that isn't directly bashing Trump or fueling the agenda 10 people jump out of the woodwork and claim you are deflecting and derailing the thread, then follow that up with question after question. It's absolute mental insanity.

Well I said my piece, won't be replying/posting in this thread again. FWIW I never had a problem with you or your posting style.

Thanks for making the thread OP - You're one of the good guys.

B_Wayne

I'm genuinely not attacking you..... I am referring to the fact that posters have done the above plenty.

Hank Scorpio

B_Wayne wrote: »

I'm genuinely not attacking you.....

I apologize and knew you probably weren't, wanted to give my POV.

Like I said I think you're a good poster.

Sorry again - I'm out.