Cutting People Off From Society For Their Politics

[Holy Tedalonia]

Fascists should all be in jail. Advocating for genocide or other crimes against humanity should be an imprisonable offence. If we can't get them in jail, we should cut them off from as many platforms as possible, refuse to serve them in businesses, etc.

(If you don't support crimes against humanity, none of this applies to you. This also doesn't apply to extreme economic policies such as communism or laissez-faire capitalism. This applies solely to atrocities such as genocide, forced religious conversions, ethnic cleansing, and torture.)

Supporting (inhumane) beliefs =/= jail time

Converting a person to more moderate beliefs would be a better alternative than socially isolating them.

[Page]

Fascists should all be in jail. Advocating for genocide or other crimes against humanity should be an imprisonable offence. If we can't get them in jail, we should cut them off from as many platforms as possible, refuse to serve them in businesses, etc.

(If you don't support crimes against humanity, none of this applies to you. This also doesn't apply to extreme economic policies such as communism or laissez-faire capitalism. This applies solely to atrocities such as genocide, forced religious conversions, ethnic cleansing, and torture.)

I hate fascists and am for ostracizing them, but not for the state having the power to imprison people based on their political ideology.

Remember that if you give this power to a government, in the future, another kind of government will have the same power and might use it against you instead.

[Petrolheadia]

And some can. So what?

I used to be a social democrat, rabidly anti-gun and anti-US-car, now I am a pro-gun libertarian who supports the US car side in debates.

So there's no point wasting time and money rehabilitating those who clearly cannot.

And instead wasting the lives of those who can?

[MERIZoC]

zionists

[Sovaal]

Fascists should all be in jail. Advocating for genocide or other crimes against humanity should be an imprisonable offence. If we can't get them in jail, we should cut them off from as many platforms as possible, refuse to serve them in businesses, etc.

(If you don't support crimes against humanity, none of this applies to you. This also doesn't apply to extreme economic policies such as communism or laissez-faire capitalism. This applies solely to atrocities such as genocide, forced religious conversions, ethnic cleansing, and torture.)

I hate fascists and am for ostracizing them, but not for the state having the power to imprison people based on their political ideology.

Remember that if you give this power to a government, in the future, another kind of government will have the same power and might use it against you instead.

Then how the hell are you going to ostracize fascists?

[Northeast American Federation]

I hate fascists and am for ostracizing them, but not for the state having the power to imprison people based on their political ideology.

Remember that if you give this power to a government, in the future, another kind of government will have the same power and might use it against you instead.

Then how the hell are you going to ostracize fascists?

Presumably by making sure they get fired from their jobs, cutting them off from finances and other resources, and generally not allowing them to participate in society. This is a great way to get them to unify and form breakaway fascist organizations and societies, and as such I would consider it to be counterproductive.

[Second Empire of America]

Fascists should all be in jail. Advocating for genocide or other crimes against humanity should be an imprisonable offence. If we can't get them in jail, we should cut them off from as many platforms as possible, refuse to serve them in businesses, etc.

(If you don't support crimes against humanity, none of this applies to you. This also doesn't apply to extreme economic policies such as communism or laissez-faire capitalism. This applies solely to atrocities such as genocide, forced religious conversions, ethnic cleansing, and torture.)

I hate fascists and am for ostracizing them, but not for the state having the power to imprison people based on their political ideology.

Remember that if you give this power to a government, in the future, another kind of government will have the same power and might use it against you instead.

It's worked well in modern-day Germany without becoming a slippery slope. I think we should copy their example.

[Uxupox]

I hate fascists and am for ostracizing them, but not for the state having the power to imprison people based on their political ideology.

Remember that if you give this power to a government, in the future, another kind of government will have the same power and might use it against you instead.

It's worked well in modern-day Germany without becoming a slippery slope. I think we should copy their example.

you can literally get arrested in Germany for going out with a camera.

[Northeast American Federation]

It's worked well in modern-day Germany without becoming a slippery slope. I think we should copy their example.

you can literally get arrested in Germany for going out with a camera.

Yeah but that isn't considered fascism so it's okay.

[Crylante]

Generally I find that, unless said person is a literal Nazi, I don't have problems with people's actual political views when socialising with them, more how they go about them - despite my staunch left-wing beliefs I have good friendships with people who possess more conservative political views in reality (I live in a more right-wing, at least economically, area of the UK so many people I socialise with tend to be slightly right-leaning), yet I have made attempts to cut out people from both the right and the left for what I perceive to be overly vitriolic behaviour.

[Mother Lilith]

I don't think it is possible to without being a hypocrite and by cutting people off from society you enable certain belief systems such as communists, fascists and terfs.

[Vince Vaughn]

[quote="Second Empire of America";p="34775907"]Fascists should all be in jail. Advocating for genocide or other crimes against humanity should be an imprisonable offence. If we can't get them in jail, we should cut them off from as many platforms as possible, refuse to serve them in businesses, etc./quote]

Glad you support the Muslim ban.

[Distruzio]

When their political persuasion causes them to act violently.

[Ghost Land]

I'd only cut someone off for political reasons if they were literally a "Hitler/Stalin did nothing wrong" type, part of that "incel" thing, or a member of an extremist group (left or right, doesn't matter), or if we disagreed and he/she refuses to shut up about it, constantly making excuses to shove his/her political views into every situation.

By the way, is it true that in Germany, the Holocaust is just not talked about because there are laws against it?

Views I consider worthy of ostracization:

- Being a Nazi
- Being a flat earther
- Being a young earth creationist
- Supporting an "ethnostate" (which means you support mass murder)
- Supporting conversion therapy being done to LGBTQ minors
- Incel and redpill ideology
- Supporting theocracy

Basically this, with one exception being that I'm relatively indifferent about the whole conversion therapy thing.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

I hate fascists and am for ostracizing them, but not for the state having the power to imprison people based on their political ideology.

Remember that if you give this power to a government, in the future, another kind of government will have the same power and might use it against you instead.

It's worked well in modern-day Germany without becoming a slippery slope. I think we should copy their example.

Considering the fact that satirical posts online are being censored as "hate speech", I would say Germany fell down at least a bit on that slippery slope.

[Chan Island]

Generally extremely patient and open-minded with people, including their politics. I've gotten along very well with some right wackos in the past. However, I do draw a line: people who support genocide or murder, even if generally quite nice about it, are people I can't be friends with. It speaks to a level of sociopathy and a view of the human race that I think bleeds into them being a bad person overall. I just don't see how literal Nazis, for example, who support killing of all of the jews are going to be in any way pleasant for any consistent period in their other interactions both with me and the people around them.

So yes, I think it sometimes is valid to cut people off because of their politics. But the crucial part is to find out for yourself. Have those conversations with people, discuss the evidence, see where everyone stands. I do that all the time... but then again I talk about politics and the news a lot generally so maybe it's no surprise I advocate doing so.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Shouldn't happen.

Shoot down there ideas in debate. Do not shun people who have different ideas then you.

[Ostroeuropa]

It's not productive to ostracize people compared to trying to deradicalize them and there are organizations that are successful in this. It may be productive to attempt to leave them few options but to engage with these organizations.

The current trend of firing people for views or expelling them and so on is toxic and breeds resentment, is often overused and at the slightest provocation, inconsistently applied, and done more out of fear of a witch hunt and media circus than out of a desire to actually better society. It would be better to compel employees to attend these kind of things or resign.

A football club here in the UK has recently decided to pay for trips to holocaust museums for members who were found to be fascistic and anti-semitic as well as set up talks with survivors for them. That seems more productive. It may not work in all cases, but it will work in more cases than ostracization will.

The view of prejudice as something that spreads through being spoken and can be curtailled through silencing methods and chilling discussion is one that has seen a rise in the number of hate crimes, an escalating KKK membership, Brexit, Trump, and so on.

Prejudice is not something you can destroy through authoritarian censorship methods, witch hunts, and shit the progressives have been trying. The amount of shit I hear from people on a daily basis is pretty good evidence of that, they merely learn to voice it in coded ways that prevent discussion except among themselves. Prejudice is the result of ignorance and bias, it can be destroyed through education and discussion. Not censorship.

It is the authoritarian tendency that has led to our current problems, it stems from a progressive left who are hostile to certain ideas being voices because they don't know how to respond to them legitimately, like anti-misandry, anti-feminism, and opposing anti-white racism. To preserve those prejudices which many are opposed to admitting exist due to such a thing disproving their worldviews validity, they attempt to impose ignorance of them by turning to tools of censorship and ostracization, the tools of prejudice, instead of community building, discussion, and tolerance. This is because they have no actual argument beyond conflating, misrepresenting, and so on, and feel deeply uncomfortable with the ideas being expressed because it challenges everything they know, but are not able to defeat them soundly, and so prove the old adage that the ogre does as ogres can.

The Ogre does what ogres can,
Deeds quite impossible for Man,
But one prize is beyond his reach:
The Ogre cannot master Speech.
About a subjugated plain,
Among the desperate and slain,
The Ogre stalks with hands on hips,
While drivel gushes from his lips.

To justify their usage of these tools they conflate anti-misandry with misogyny, anti-feminism with hating women, and opposing anti-white racism with white supremacy, and then argue these things should be censored based on a view of prejudice as "Bad memes" rather than a default setting that can only be overcome through discussion, inclusion, and open interaction between groups that their behavior is actively discouraging by causing people to be afraid to discuss these things. They have to discourage it because such discussion inevitably involves dealing with misandry, anti-white racism and so on, and they are ideologically opposed to acknowledging these things.

It is the mindset that believes you can make people not be racist through imposing segregation and separating them from minorities. This is, ofcourse, ridiculous.

Their incompetence has led to a rise in racism, in sexism, and in prejudice in general over the last couple of years, an escalation in hate crimes and membership in hate organizations, as they poison interactions between our communities in their attempts to defend their prejudices and attempt to ensure ignorance of mens issues, anti-white racism and so on, prevails.

If this method worked, why have we not seen it work? Why has hate crime increased? Why has membership of hate groups increased? Etc.

It's because you are stifling discussion and fostering ignorance. That's what causes prejudice.

The punitive view on prejudice being espoused here is also one that goes against rehabilitative methods which we know to be more effective at altering societies behavior. It goes against them because it comes from a place that is itself hateful of others and doesn't actually care about anything other than making them suffer for daring to point out things that demonstrate your worldview makes no sense.

Furthermore it is an auto-conservative position, as the tools of ostracization and so on will always lie in the hands of those with power over institutions and the media. This may be why this particular tendency has appealed to those with power and why they spread it, it's easy for them to believe something that is so beneficial to them personally.

If you think societal racism and sexism is caused by people saying mean things, and not by institutions and power being used in stupid ways, you're wrong. By normalizing this, you are absolving the people responsible and handing them the power to blame others and define the terms of the discussion while pretending this is progress. It is an inversion of the old class-race thing of the rich picking your pocket and blaming the minority.

It is the rich fucking over the minority and berating the white guy.

Do you think we need more witch hunts, or an end to the drug war? How about higher taxes and investment in schools?
No, you're right, let's legitimize stupid bullshit instead. It's entirely valid to spend countless hours of the media chasing up mean words from dumbfuck mgcee instead of asking why flint hasn't got clean water yet, that's what people who care about the lives of black people should be doing.

This discussion you want? This norm?

Isn't productive, is destructive, and isn't worth having. The norm you're seeking harms the cause you say you care about. You are giving the people responsible an out, a way of pretending to be productive. I think you're doing that because of hostility to certain prejudices being discussed. You can change my mind by actually addressing that concern if you want.

[Indo-Malaysia]

It's wrong no matter the ideology.

With all ideolgies, especially the more extreme ones, ostracising then means you allow them to fester unnopposed by debate or criticism. Views are thus unlikely to change or reform, and instead you end up with diehard hardliners who you see in the news for donning a set of klan robes.

[Costa Fierro]

lol

Not surprised I get a one word response. I do like the hypocrisy shining through in your stance regarding what to do with Nazis. Especially about "bringing them back into the light". That was hilarious.

[Liriena]

Nazis, religious fundamentalists, Bolsonaro voters, Trumpists, Pinochet/Videla bootswallowers... yeah, I'm fine with cutting those off.

Define "Trumpist". Is it anyone who voted for Trump?

No. Anyone who actively, fanatically supports him now.

People vote for shitty people for all manner of reasons, and not all of them are morally reprehensible reasons.

[Liriena]

lol

Not surprised I get a one word response. I do like the hypocrisy shining through in your stance regarding what to do with Nazis. Especially about "bringing them back into the light". That was hilarious.

State your actual argument, please.

[Liriena]

Calling the genocidal fantasies of extremists "wrongthink" is the epitome of bastardizing Orwell's ideas to serve some lame ass liberal idealism.

Support for genocide IS a form of action on its own. Words aren't just abstract bullshit. Words have material consequences. This is something that liberalism never understood, and we keep paying the price for it every time y'all go all pearl-clutching at the mere idea of not giving extremist discourse the benefit of the doubt in the name of some stupid fantasy of everything getting sorted out in the agora through mere debate.

While you try to pointlessly debate extremists and giving them a legitimacy that they do not deserve just because they have opinions, they are recruiting, they are inciting, they are intimidating and they are gaslighting.

So, in summary, hell yeah, we should be cutting the fuckers off for wrongthink. We should be amputating their putrid, malignant discourse from society until they either die off or the sheer shame brings them back into the light.

You mean like posts like this should be prohibited from proper discourse? Folks espousing anti free speech views should be suppressed? I agree.

I'm not espousing "anti free speech views". I'm espousing pro-consequences views. Speech has material consequences for others, and it's only fair that it should have material consequences for the speaker as well. I don't support legal retaliations as a general rule of thumb, but rather social ones.

The nazi dumbshits who marched in Charlottesville? Losing their jobs and friends is the least they deserve.

[Liriena]

civil discourse.

"Civil discourse" is a pointless hegemonic ritual of modern politics that has never done anybody any real good.

[Costa Fierro]

Not surprised I get a one word response. I do like the hypocrisy shining through in your stance regarding what to do with Nazis. Especially about "bringing them back into the light". That was hilarious.

State your actual argument, please.

I did. Please read it.

"Civil discourse" is a pointless hegemonic ritual of modern politics that has never done anybody any real good.

As opposed to wanton political violence? That always ended well.