3 ms·

> I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists No, you have only missed them. The solution is exactly free speech an

> I have seen zero proposed solutions or ways of combating the rise of white supremacists No, you have only missed them. The solution is exactly free speech and more of it. These days people are often suppressed when they voice a concern that touches certain topics, i.e. immigration, religion and particularly Islam, anti-semitism, rapid changes of demographics and many more. Media oppression and flat out censorship do not make a stop to the opinions they try to suppress. They just drive them away, to hidden forums, to non-mainstream platforms, to dark web. So instead of shunning white supremacists from media - tolerate them on and challenge them with arguments, explain how they are wrong, educate them, ridicule their nonsense; but never censor them.

fzeroracer 8y ago
No, they're not often 'suppressed'. Again, nowadays it is far easier to access white supremacist material than possibly any other time. It's one search, one twitter account, one youtube recommendation away. These are people not operating on hidden forums at all, they're out in the open espousing these views. I keep seeing people repeat this view, but I see none of it. You're attempting to divert away from my point in that you don't propose an actual solution at all. You propose nothing except maintaining the status quo. Arguing against a white supremacist gives legitimacy to their views, because they don't argue on the same level as you or I. They knowingly make illogical arguments that you simply cannot refute and they don't care even if you try.
- brailsafe 8y ago
  I feel like the best way to counter apparently illegitimate arguments is by bettering the argument for your stance, whatever it may be. If you can't argue your stance, how can it be defended legitimately?
buttcoinslol 8y ago
Ask Neville Chamberlin how appeasement turned out. You will never have a debate in good faith with a white supremacist, as it's an inherently irrational position. Don't waste your breath on them.
NavyNuke 8y ago
> white supremacists People conflate white supremacists with white in-group preference...in-group preference is not bad, believing you're group is better than others may be bad or it may not be, it really depends...the point is a of white people who simply want to live around other white people who share their culture are inaccurately disparaged...
thousandautumns 8y ago
> So instead of shunning white supremacists from media - tolerate them on and challenge them with arguments, explain how they are wrong, educate them, ridicule their nonsense; but never censor them. This takes the mistaken position that social media is a good tool for discussion and debate, and we have plenty of evidence to the contrary at this point. This is also the same thought process that leads to ideologies like climate change-denialism, evolution-denialism, anti-vaxxing, etc. to be given oxygen when they shouldn't. It assumes that by shining the light on these topics, the debate should result in people rejecting them, but in reality it simply gives them more credibility. We live in a post truth era, where people don't use the internet to debate and agree on what is write and wrong and rethink our opinions, but to form bubbles with people who agree with what we want to believe, which we leave occasionally to scream at each other, and then retreat to in order to insulate ourselves from reality. The people who are driven to non-mainstream forums such as 8chan that comprise the scum of the internet are already fairly radical in their thinking. That's why they seek out those sites. But non-radical thinkers may be susceptible to radicalization by giving a platform on a mainstream site like Twitter or Youtube to idealogies like white supremacy, militant Islam, or violent misogyny.

fzeroracer 8y ago

No, they're not often 'suppressed'. Again, nowadays it is far easier to access white supremacist material than possibly any other time. It's one search, one twitter account, one youtube recommendation away. These are people not operating on hidden forums at all, they're out in the open espousing these views. I keep seeing people repeat this view, but I see none of it. You're attempting to divert away from my point in that you don't propose an actual solution at all. You propose nothing except maintaining the status quo. Arguing against a white supremacist gives legitimacy to their views, because they don't argue on the same level as you or I. They knowingly make illogical arguments that you simply cannot refute and they don't care even if you try.

brailsafe 8y ago
I feel like the best way to counter apparently illegitimate arguments is by bettering the argument for your stance, whatever it may be. If you can't argue your stance, how can it be defended legitimately?

buttcoinslol 8y ago

Ask Neville Chamberlin how appeasement turned out. You will never have a debate in good faith with a white supremacist, as it's an inherently irrational position. Don't waste your breath on them.

NavyNuke 8y ago

> white supremacists People conflate white supremacists with white in-group preference...in-group preference is not bad, believing you're group is better than others may be bad or it may not be, it really depends...the point is a of white people who simply want to live around other white people who share their culture are inaccurately disparaged...

thousandautumns 8y ago

> So instead of shunning white supremacists from media - tolerate them on and challenge them with arguments, explain how they are wrong, educate them, ridicule their nonsense; but never censor them. This takes the mistaken position that social media is a good tool for discussion and debate, and we have plenty of evidence to the contrary at this point. This is also the same thought process that leads to ideologies like climate change-denialism, evolution-denialism, anti-vaxxing, etc. to be given oxygen when they shouldn't. It assumes that by shining the light on these topics, the debate should result in people rejecting them, but in reality it simply gives them more credibility. We live in a post truth era, where people don't use the internet to debate and agree on what is write and wrong and rethink our opinions, but to form bubbles with people who agree with what we want to believe, which we leave occasionally to scream at each other, and then retreat to in order to insulate ourselves from reality. The people who are driven to non-mainstream forums such as 8chan that comprise the scum of the internet are already fairly radical in their thinking. That's why they seek out those sites. But non-radical thinkers may be susceptible to radicalization by giving a platform on a mainstream site like Twitter or Youtube to idealogies like white supremacy, militant Islam, or violent misogyny.