[D] Is NS a safe space for leftists?

[Gandoor]

Nazism (as represented by the Swastika), as an ideology, requires you to believe in racial supremacy and genocide. Communism (as represented by the hammer and sickle), as an ideology, does not. Being a Nazi (or, in the modern age, neo-Nazi) literally requires you to believe that Hitler and Nazi Germany were 100% in the right and did nothing wrong (because, again, genocide and enslavement of "inferior races" is the core of Nazi ideology). That's why the Swastika is banned.

Communism doesn't have that same issue, hence why there are so many Communists who dislike the USSR/PRC/whoever and decry them as "not real communism" or whatever. Because there's plenty of wiggle room within communist ideology to argue that the things communist regimes have done are wrong from a communist perspective. Communism is a pretty diverse ideological label.

That's the short answer.

True. Nazism is a philosophy which touts genocide, eugenics, and overall horrid ideals. Communism is an economic philosophy that doesn't advocate for anything as depraved as Nazism. Many critics of communism, however, confuse the moral indecencies and downright depravity of regimes which supposedly practice communism as a reflection of the economic philosophy.

Yeah the whole argument people seem to have here about 'WHY DON'T YOU BAN COMMIE SYMBOLS TOO COMMIES DO MURDEROUS THINGS TOO' seems to forget that these states that espouse communism in some form are doing this shit because they're dictatorships, it has nothing to do with the economic ideology they claim to follow.

Like China could be governed by the Chinese Capitalist Party and their motto could literally be 'We love Capitalism and Business So Much!' and I guarantee they'd still be doing all the horrific shit they're doing to the Uyghurs because they'd still be a dictatorship.

[Byzconia]

Nazism (as represented by the Swastika), as an ideology, requires you to believe in racial supremacy and genocide. Communism (as represented by the hammer and sickle), as an ideology, does not. Being a Nazi (or, in the modern age, neo-Nazi) literally requires you to believe that Hitler and Nazi Germany were 100% in the right and did nothing wrong (because, again, genocide and enslavement of "inferior races" is the core of Nazi ideology). That's why the Swastika is banned.

Communism doesn't have that same issue, hence why there are so many Communists who dislike the USSR/PRC/whoever and decry them as "not real communism" or whatever. Because there's plenty of wiggle room within communist ideology to argue that the things communist regimes have done are wrong from a communist perspective. Communism is a pretty diverse ideological label.

That's the short answer.

True. Nazism is a philosophy which touts genocide, eugenics, and overall horrid ideals. Communism is an economic philosophy that doesn't advocate for anything as depraved as Nazism. Many critics of communism, however, confuse the moral indecencies and downright depravity of regimes which supposedly practice communism as a reflection of the economic philosophy.

True, but it's also understandable why. The Communist Bloc is the main reference point for Communism for people who aren't political junkies who actively read about as much information as they can find on the subject. Given that, it was pretty inevitable that people would inextricably link the ideology to the regimes

[Saiwania]

Nazism (as represented by the Swastika), as an ideology, requires you to believe in racial supremacy and genocide. Being a Nazi (or, in the modern age, neo-Nazi) literally requires you to believe that Hitler and Nazi Germany were 100% in the right and did nothing wrong (because, again, genocide and enslavement of "inferior races" is the core of Nazi ideology). That's why the Swastika is banned.

It doesn't though. Neo-Nazism doesn't need to be an exact one to one copy for the original Nazi platform of 1925 or the ideology that Hitler espoused, so far as I can tell. The whole point of neo-Nazism is to make tweaks/changes to it to make it a better fit for today's politics whilst still keeping its fundamentals of one people, one empire, one leader.

I'd compare it to pulling planks out of the garbage and doing enough polishing/restoration work to craft it into a viable product again.

[Daves Computer]

Nazism (as represented by the Swastika), as an ideology, requires you to believe in racial supremacy and genocide. Being a Nazi (or, in the modern age, neo-Nazi) literally requires you to believe that Hitler and Nazi Germany were 100% in the right and did nothing wrong (because, again, genocide and enslavement of "inferior races" is the core of Nazi ideology). That's why the Swastika is banned.

It doesn't though. Neo-Nazism doesn't need to be an exact one to one copy for the original Nazi platform of 1925 or the ideology that Hitler espoused, so far as I can tell. The whole point of neo-Nazism is to make tweaks/changes to it to make it a better fit for today's politics whilst still keeping its fundamentals of one people, one empire, one leader.

I'd compare it to pulling planks out of the garbage and doing enough polishing/restoration work to craft it into a viable product again.

To me, Neonazism is like taking all those planks of traditional Nazism from the dumpster and giving them a fresh coat of paint. The planks, or ideals, of Nazism are all still there. Those values such as the "superior race," eugenics, racism and "Jews will not replace us!" chants, and depraved thoughts of how some people, based on their identity, are undeserving of personhood and life - they're all still there. Except the rhetoric Neo Nazis employ is adapted to today's society and sometimes cleverly veiled behind flawed yet eloquently presented reasoning.

[Saiwania]

To me, Neonazism is like taking all those planks of traditional Nazism from the dumpster and giving them a fresh coat of paint. The planks, or ideals, of Nazism are all still there. Those values such as the "superior race," eugenics, racism and "Jews will not replace us!" chants, and depraved thoughts of how some people, based on their identity, are undeserving of personhood and life - they're all still there. Except the rhetoric Neo Nazis employ is adapted to today's society and sometimes cleverly veiled behind flawed yet eloquently presented reasoning.

Yes, I'd agree with this assessment in that neo-Nazism is only good as whoever is doing it. It can be formulated as an attempt to make a Fourth Reich and not repeat all or most of the mistakes which can be avoided that the Third Reich did, or it can be formulated as a direct continuation with minimal changes to the platform. Golden Dawn for example, seemingly had little interest in anything other than being a Greek version of the Nazi Party and ignored any post WW2 developments in terms of doing more to not be quite as violent or threatening.

[Arcturus Novus]

If this were a safe space for leftists, moderation wouldn't allow Nazis. But here we are.

[Daves Computer]

To me, Neonazism is like taking all those planks of traditional Nazism from the dumpster and giving them a fresh coat of paint. The planks, or ideals, of Nazism are all still there. Those values such as the "superior race," eugenics, racism and "Jews will not replace us!" chants, and depraved thoughts of how some people, based on their identity, are undeserving of personhood and life - they're all still there. Except the rhetoric Neo Nazis employ is adapted to today's society and sometimes cleverly veiled behind flawed yet eloquently presented reasoning.

Yes, I'd agree with this assessment in that neo-Nazism is only good as whoever is doing it. It can be formulated as an attempt to make a Fourth Reich and not repeat all or most of the mistakes which can be avoided that the Third Reich did, or it can be formulated as a direct continuation with minimal changes to the platform. Golden Dawn for example, seemingly had little interest in anything other than being a Greek version of the Nazi Party and ignored any post WW2 developments in terms of doing more to not be quite as violent or threatening.

Yeah. So essentially, the neo nazi platform can be mutable but at its core, it still espouses the same sort of venom and depravity as traditional nazism. Prejudice and calls for violence against groups, eugenics, division, and this fabled belief of a supreme race.

*snip*
An interesting situation where polar opposites meet. Say hello to each other.

Not sure what point you're trying to make haha. We still have neo nazis on the site. Their beliefs, of course, are veiled behind flowery rhetoric or often left to be explored in offsite forums, but they're still there. Even when their nazi ideals are laid bare in certain situations.

[The Free Joy State]

NS isn't a safe space for any one set of values. There are players of very open far-right tendencies who make their points while still having long-lasting nations, and players with highly conservative beliefs with whom it is possible to hold a respectful debate. Similarly, there are players on the left who have been DEAT''d.

I have not noticed any moderation bias based on values. Only action based on how people engage (or don't) with the rules.

[Shazbotdom]

If this were a safe space for leftists, moderation wouldn't allow Nazis. But here we are.

Except Nazism isn't a leftist ideology. Contrary to popular opinion. But that's a discussion for NSG, not here.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think this is worth mentioning

There are blatant 50 cent soldiers here and it’s pretty clear who they are whenever a thread relating to China is posted and freshly created accounts come in to the CCP's defense

A newly created alt of mine was one of them. I told you at the time there was ONE suspicious new account on the page: you ignored me because I was a new account.

Well I took offense at that. Implying I post to make "50 cents" from a dictatorial regime is a personal attack. Particularly since all I did to "come to the CCP's defense" was to criticize them too mildly for your taste.

But I didn't report it because vaguely attacking "most of the people here" usually isn't considered by Mods to be a personal attack.

Rules are pretty strict nowadays. I advise against calling any particular poster a "blatant 50 cent soldier" if you don't want more Warnings.

[Lord Dominator]

If this were a safe space for leftists, moderation wouldn't allow Nazis. But here we are.

Except Nazism isn't a leftist ideology. Contrary to popular opinion. But that's a discussion for NSG, not here.

I think the point was that if the mods kowtoweds solely to leftist thought, nazis would be banned for being very far to the right

[The Reformed American Republic]

Not sure what point you're trying to make haha. We still have neo nazis on the site. Their beliefs, of course, are veiled behind flowery rhetoric or often left to be explored in offsite forums, but they're still there. Even when their nazi ideals are laid bare in certain situations.

It was a badly made point to show that this forum is no one's "safe space."

[Fahran]

NS Moderation does tend to favor and uphold socially progressive paradigms and perspectives on the whole. This is largely a reflection of the attitudes and Overton Window of internet-savvy persons under the age of forty. As a group, we're more likely to be affirming of the gender identities of transpeople, we're more likely to be accepting of same-sex relationships, we're more likely to be accepting of racial, ethnic, and religious groups that are dissimilar to us, etc. Some of that is built into our rules, and I actually would like to build some other common social values into the rules as well - at least around the issue that is currently under a moratorium. Additionally, as you stated, NS tends to be dominated by left-wing posters, though this is far less true now than it was when I joined the site. This leads to a higher frequency of right-wing trolling, flaming, and flamebaiting being reported, which in turn often leads to right-wingers self-destructing or rage-posting in a way that ensures future moderation of their behavior.

That said, beyond these implicit biases, the Moderation team makes a gallant effort of enforcing the rules equally and fairly. That's why people who write "ACAB" or who refer to Mitt Romney by the adorable moniker of "Mittens" get mod-smacked and why white nationalists can last on the site if they carefully adhere to the rules and state their opinions in a polite and somewhat watered-down way. For instance, while you can't outright say "black people are dumb" or "Jews run the world (I wish)", you can begin threads about IQ and racial disparities or Jewish privilege and power so long as you don't outright troll anyone. And both pretty much accomplish the same goal as being openly racist would. Please, please, please, don't start these threads. Because I'm not in the mood.

While I think Farn was a bit over-zealous on interpreting the remark about Rittenhouse's self-defense as advocating death, the language in it was more than a little baity, despite it basically recycling comments that both Gallo and I had made in previous threads. I'd have called it borderline - but I'm not a mod. Farn, on another day, might have called it borderline even. People are people after all. With regard to a lot of the others, they were far more overt about being COVID-19 misinformation or trolling/flamebaiting. I have argued, in the past, that more classical Islamic paradigms are not compatible with conventional conceptualizations of liberal democracy - because that's not built into the major madhhabs or even into the prevailing narrative about how society should be structured in much of the Dar as-Salaam. I haven't gotten warned or banned yet. Largely because I was talking about religions and philosophies rather than people.

As has been stated semi-often, a lot rests not on what you're saying but on how you're saying it. I believe more conscientious reporting of left-wing posters by right-wing posters FOR ACTUAL RULES VIOLATIONS along with more careful consideration of how right-wingers compose posts would dramatically improve perceived imperfections and unfairness in how moderation functions. Even beyond that, conversations and debates are far, far more friendly when you don't set out to antagonize the person across the table or lose your temper halfway through. And I have no idea why kindness and charity aren't more common on NSG given that most of us are in the same few age groups and have very similar hobbies. Just be nice to the Stalin fanboy, even if he probably eats buggers and has a tankie playlist on Spotify. Be nice to the eco-fash girl, even if she fantasizes about Linkola calling her "my little polar bear" and has some racist beliefs about the Swedes.

[Arkhane]

Honestly, the site is more left leaning than right leaning. But it's not due to some bias on the site's part, rather on demographics. Most conservative and rightwing people I know have no time or interest to surf and look up sites like this. They're usually more concentrated on Facebook or Youtube where they make their ideologies and opinions more vocal.

Does this mean the mods and admins here are more partial to leftists? Probably, more or less if you squint hard enough and actively look for it.

Does this make NS a leftwing safe space/echo chamber? Definitely not. A lot of the posts and things said here will be taken down if it were posted in Buzzfeed.

[Fahran]

Does this make NS a leftwing safe space/echo chamber? Definitely not. A lot of the posts and things said here will be taken down if it were posted in Buzzfeed.

That's because Buzzfeed, much like Red Lobster, is a den of sin and iniquity.

A well-made point though.

[The Archregimancy]

This is largely a reflection of the attitudes and Overton Window of internet-savvy persons under the age of forty.

Some of us are over 50, he types primly.

[Devionsa]

Embarrassing thread, Glorious Honk Honk.

[New Visayan Islands]

Embarrassing thread, Glorious Honk Honk.

Take a *** warning for flaming. ***

[Ankras]

Nationstates mechanically is designed explicitly biased to libertarian ideals and the bias on the forums is pretty manageable if real and dependent on a per-moderator basis.

Nationstates isn't really biased towards the left. Rather it is biased towards a, in my opinion nonsensical, pseudo-academic front of "civility" that explicitly prevents leftists from generalizing Fascists hence the post you quoted. If I wanted to point out the ties of the protesters your particularly praising to Islamists burning churches in Syria and American far-right organizations as the Proud Boys I would have to choose my language far more carefully than you do when you criticize the left.

I sincerely think the bias your complaining about has a lot more to do with the larger amount of right-wingers and centrists on this platform.

[Spode Humbled Minions]

condoning self-defense

There is a difference between condoning self-defense and talking about how cool it is that people you don't like got shot

calling for illegal immigrants to be decisively rounded up and deported by law enforcement

There is a difference between calling for illegal immigrants to be deported, and spreading misinformation about a public health crisis

calling Arab/Islamic culture's compatibility with liberal, democratic values into question

There is a difference between calling a culture's compatibility with ideas/values into question, and declaring an ethnic group to be incapable of ideas/values

Insulting the King of Thailand and expressing political dissent in the strongest of terms is also considered "trolling".

There is a difference between mocking countries' restrictions on freedom of speech and violating the rules of the forums

---

Like, I guess if someone conflated these things, they might think the website is clamping down on their freedom of speech to protect the feelings of the sensitive librols. Thankfully, it would take some incredibly tortured logic to reach that conclusion.

Sarcastically referring to Islam as a "religion of peace" is trolling too because god only knows why.

It turns out that having six years of that phrase primarily being used to troll in terror attack threads lowers the amount of leeway that people will get. Quite strange if you ask me.

[Daves Computer]

Nationstates mechanically is designed explicitly biased to libertarian ideals and the bias on the forums is pretty manageable if real and dependent on a per-moderator basis.

Nationstates isn't really biased towards the left. Rather it is biased towards a, in my opinion nonsensical, pseudo-academic front of "civility" that explicitly prevents leftists from generalizing Fascists hence the post you quoted. If I wanted to point out the ties of the protesters your particularly praising to Islamists burning churches in Syria and American far-right organizations as the Proud Boys I would have to choose my language far more carefully than you do when you criticize the left.

I sincerely think the bias your complaining about has a lot more to do with the larger amount of right-wingers and centrists on this platform.

I agree. In many cases, it isn't the ideals you express on the forums that gets you in trouble with moderation but rather how you express these ideals. Even with a "civil" front or rationale, homophobia, racism, and other forms of intolerance are acceptable on the forums and are not uncommon to encounter.

[Ethel mermania]

This is largely a reflection of the attitudes and Overton Window of internet-savvy persons under the age of forty.

Some of us are over 50, he types primly.

But you are in academia, you don't count with us old people.

Or

You are just trying to make up for leading the nazis to the freaking arc of the Covenant.


As to the topic, the site skews left as the age group and tech savyness in general skew left.

As to safe space? With one exception of one issue The ideas of the left can be challenged so I don't see this as a safe space for the range of ideas.

As to identity and self identification the site is a safe space ( one can't challenge someone elses gender or sexual identification here), but i am basically ok with that exception.

[The New California Republic]

Some of us are over 50, he types primly.

But you are in academia, you don't count with us old people.

True. Can confirm that us academics have a Peter Pan-esque thing going on.

[Ethel mermania]

But you are in academia, you don't count with us old people.

True. Can confirm that us academics have a Peter Pan-esque thing going on.

You're an academic type?

[The New California Republic]

True. Can confirm that us academics have a Peter Pan-esque thing going on.

You're an academic type?

Yes.

But back to the thread topic: the OP doesn't seem to have chipped in to the thread for quite a while. Should we consider this issue resolved?