NationStates

Vorausen wrote:Number one- Yes I knew white supremacists existed, I've read all about them, and I am most fascinated by the Nazis. I must care about their views at least a little to spend countless hours on their beliefs, history, and the spread of their ideas.

In fact, to learn anything at all, you must care at least somewhat about that particular subject (in this case hate groups).

My point is we shouldn't try to convert white supremacists and hate groups to not hate anymore (hate is a forever issue). It is signed about coexistence between the two groups, no matter how much they hate each other. Perfecting is not my goal, rather it is awareness and a slightly better world.

Vorausen wrote:My point is we shouldn't try to convert white supremacists and hate groups to not hate anymore (hate is a forever issue).

Tsaivao wrote:

Cartheen wrote:
Why would you stoop to their level and do the same thing they have done to you?

I'm not actually trying to fucking kill people, what the hell!?

How am I in any way stooping to that level? There's a huge difference between "I will not tolerate your political viewpoint" and "I will kill you for believing in something different than me."

Vorausen wrote:On my personal quest to learn more about the beautiful world we live on, I have come across so many interesting people, from Communists to Liberal socialists, democratic centrists, nationalists, fascists, and liberals. But a group of people that I have failed to have seen is a white supremacist. That was until today.





So that got me thinking, I am not someone that knows the full ideology and beliefs of white supremacy (I’m more well knowledgeable on the KKK) and I believe we should listen to everybody idea’s no matter how much we hate them or despise them. So the purpose of this thread is to do the following

Discuss issues pertaining to White supremacy and White nationalism

Gain a full and whole idea of what white supremacy is and what it isn't

To bridge the gap between white supremacists and anti-white supremacists

To have civil debates and conservations on the values and tenets of White supremacy (and why or why not you believe it is flawed)



To get things straight I am no white supremacist myself, I am rather a person interested in hearing in what they have to say. I believe everybody regardless of how hateful I think their views may be, must be able to voice their opinion without harsh backlash.

That being said, I know how fast things can get out of hand these days, so make sure to keep it civil, and follow NS rules.

Tsaivao wrote:

Cartheen wrote:
Why would you stoop to their level and do the same thing they have done to you?

I'm not actually trying to fucking kill people, what the hell!?

How am I in any way stooping to that level? There's a huge difference between "I will not tolerate your political viewpoint" and "I will kill you for believing in something different than me."

Saiwania wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Why did you inflict this on us? You do understand kids come on this forum, right? You thought it'd be a bright idea to send up a flare to every far-right poster on the site saying "hey, come post as many racist screeds and innuendos as you want"? Now we're going to have 14-year-olds Googling shit they don't understand, having algorithms push them onto much scarier websites than this one, and going down the right-wing rabbit hole. Nice job.

Everything these days is supposedly for "the sake of the children" and lets just say I'm sick of it. Children shouldn't be online anyways, unless they're using a device that is sufficiently locked down thats owned by their school or whatever. That tends to be the case now. For youths who do get complete online access and get left to their own devices, they inevitably get exposed to stuff they're not supposed to see legally, or do stuff like lie about their age to bypass the age gate various websites have and so on.

Senkaku wrote:...prominent white supremacists in major media organizations who would try to manufacture such nonsense.

Cartheen wrote:

Tsaivao wrote:I'm not actually trying to fucking kill people, what the hell!?

How am I in any way stooping to that level? There's a huge difference between "I will not tolerate your political viewpoint" and "I will kill you for believing in something different than me."

By stoop to their level I mean to suppress speech. Obviously you're not going as far down as killing someone, but you're still lowering freedom of speech nonetheless.

Cartheen wrote:

Tsaivao wrote:I'm not actually trying to fucking kill people, what the hell!?

How am I in any way stooping to that level? There's a huge difference between "I will not tolerate your political viewpoint" and "I will kill you for believing in something different than me."

By stoop to their level I mean to suppress speech. Obviously you're not going as far down as killing someone, but you're still lowering freedom of speech nonetheless.

Vorausen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
Everything these days is supposedly for "the sake of the children" and lets just say I'm sick of it. Children shouldn't be online anyways, unless they're using a device that is sufficiently locked down thats owned by their school or whatever. That tends to be the case now. For youths who do get complete online access and get left to their own devices, they inevitably get exposed to stuff they're not supposed to see legally, or do stuff like lie about their age to bypass the age gate various websites have and so on.

I've known about Nazism and what it stood for since I was 8. We should be teaching our children the dangers of such hateful groups, but not necessarily banning such content. If the child sees that content, that is then the parent's fault for not properly monitoring them. Parents have to take ownership and not blame it on people like me.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Senkaku wrote:No, it means they won't be able to passively radicalize huge numbers of people via the media and their organizational capacity will be massively disrupted.

Well, neither of us really have any evidence, as it is based on a theory, so let’s just agree to disagree, since that’s the only thing we can do.

Cartheen wrote:

Senkaku wrote:
Did this happen with Communists during the Red Scare?

This is quite literally what is currently happening with many online communities at the moment. Most online spaces that call themselves communists cite many communist movements of the 1900s being unfairly silenced as part of their motivation to become communist.

Saiwania wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Why did you inflict this on us? You do understand kids come on this forum, right? You thought it'd be a bright idea to send up a flare to every far-right poster on the site saying "hey, come post as many racist screeds and innuendos as you want"? Now we're going to have 14-year-olds Googling shit they don't understand, having algorithms push them onto much scarier websites than this one, and going down the right-wing rabbit hole. Nice job.

Everything these days is supposedly for "the sake of the children" and lets just say I'm sick of it. Children shouldn't be online anyways, unless they're using a device that is sufficiently locked down thats owned by their school or whatever. That tends to be the case now. For youths who do get complete online access and get left to their own devices, they inevitably get exposed to stuff they're not supposed to see legally, or do stuff like lie about their age to bypass the age gate various websites have and so on.

Vorausen wrote:

Senkaku wrote:This sounds like a reasonable idea, but it isn't borne out in the real world. Sorry. Suppression and censorship are in fact very effective tools, that's why states have used them since antiquity to crush movements they don't like.

"Crush movements they don't like" eh? Sounds way too close to Nazi Germany, Communist China, the USSR, modern-day Russia, North Korea.... apparently, they are shining beacons of freedom right?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Senkaku wrote:This sounds like a reasonable idea, but it isn't borne out in the real world. Sorry. Suppression and censorship are in fact very effective tools, that's why states have used them since antiquity to crush movements they don't like.

Effective, but not good, if we want to distance ourselves from the Nazis, then we shouldn’t act like them.

Tsaivao wrote:

Cartheen wrote:
Yes, and I believe hate speech should be allowed as long as no threat of violence or attempts to organize violence are made.

Hate speech is literally designed to harass people. That's what hate speech is, a form of harassment, which itself is a form of violence. How can ANYONE justify calling someone the n-word and be lie "well, he didn't punch him, so it's okay"!?

Senkaku wrote:

Vorausen wrote:Number one- Yes I knew white supremacists existed, I've read all about them, and I am most fascinated by the Nazis. I must care about their views at least a little to spend countless hours on their beliefs, history, and the spread of their ideas.

Pro tip: the Nazis are not worth spending countless hours on, especially their schizophrenic trash heap of ideology and theory. Find something better to do with your time. I hear pottery is fun.

In fact, to learn anything at all, you must care at least somewhat about that particular subject (in this case hate groups).

I've learned a lot of things without needing to care about Nazism.

My point is we shouldn't try to convert white supremacists and hate groups to not hate anymore (hate is a forever issue). It is signed about coexistence between the two groups, no matter how much they hate each other. Perfecting is not my goal, rather it is awareness and a slightly better world.

You cannot co-exist with people who want to dispossess and murder you. Sorry. I know you want everyone to just get along despite their differences or whatever, but Mom and Dad aren't getting back together.

Nakena wrote:

Vorausen wrote:My point is we shouldn't try to convert white supremacists and hate groups to not hate anymore (hate is a forever issue).

Thats where you are wrong.

Senkaku wrote:

Cartheen wrote:

This is quite literally what is currently happening with many online communities at the moment. Most online spaces that call themselves communists cite many communist movements of the 1900s being unfairly silenced as part of their motivation to become communist.

...that's why you think people become communists?

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:

Senkaku wrote:No, it means they won't be able to passively radicalize huge numbers of people via the media and their organizational capacity will be massively disrupted.

Well, neither of us really have any evidence, as it is based on a theory, so let’s just agree to disagree, since that’s the only thing we can do.

Cartheen wrote:

Tsaivao wrote:Hate speech is literally designed to harass people. That's what hate speech is, a form of harassment, which itself is a form of violence. How can ANYONE justify calling someone the n-word and be lie "well, he didn't punch him, so it's okay"!?

"[group] is inferior" is hate speech but not harassment. Harassment is defined as aggressive pressure or intimidation. Saying you hate a group or insulting them is not harassment. Calling someone repeatedly to tell them to kill themselves, or to insult them, most definitely is.

All racial harassment is hate speech but not all hate speech is harassment.

Western Fardelshufflestein wrote:

Vorausen wrote:

I've known about Nazism and what it stood for since I was 8. We should be teaching our children the dangers of such hateful groups, but not necessarily banning such content. If the child sees that content, that is then the parent's fault for not properly monitoring them. Parents have to take ownership and not blame it on people like me.

If we teach kids that such hatred is inherently evil, they can grow up to understand that hating groups of people for things like religion/race/etc. is never okay.

Vorausen wrote:

Saiwania wrote:
Everything these days is supposedly for "the sake of the children" and lets just say I'm sick of it. Children shouldn't be online anyways, unless they're using a device that is sufficiently locked down thats owned by their school or whatever. That tends to be the case now. For youths who do get complete online access and get left to their own devices, they inevitably get exposed to stuff they're not supposed to see legally, or do stuff like lie about their age to bypass the age gate various websites have and so on.

I've known about Nazism and what it stood for since I was 8. We should be teaching our children the dangers of such hateful groups, but not necessarily banning such content. If the child sees that content, that is then the parent's fault for not properly monitoring them. Parents have to take ownership and not blame it on people like me.

Western Fardelshufflestein wrote:Me, a white person: Wait, "white" is capitalized?

Islamic Holy Sites wrote:

Cartheen wrote:
By stoop to their level I mean to suppress speech. Obviously you're not going as far down as killing someone, but you're still lowering freedom of speech nonetheless.

It depends on what you mean. If you mean stopping people spewing ridiculous lies and hate speech, I'd be happy.

Vorausen wrote:

Nakena wrote:
Thats where you are wrong.

So force them to not be racist and if they don't accept "my help" let's imprison and punish them. Sounds logical

Nakena wrote:

Vorausen wrote:

So force them to not be racist and if they don't accept "my help" let's imprison and punish them. Sounds logical

Lol no.