We should allow Fascists on this sub-forumn

[L.A.P.]

I think we should allow Fascists and National Socialists on this forum because I just think they would be a lot of fun and make things a bit more interesting. Libertarians, Conservatives, and Capitalists are really boring to argue with, I want to have fun with some deranged Neo-Fascist or the even more bat shit crazy National Anarchists.

[Weezer]

I first thought your post would be a cool idea, but then I remembered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwatch

How about no? They come to this forum from time to time anyway.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

A first site impression implies that it would be fun as hell to exploit their stupidity. But a second site impression would reveal that by letting fascists and national socialists come on here, we would be putting several, if not all members, in serious danger.

[L.A.P.]

It just goes to show that radical left-wingers are completely reasonable people who just are individuals who think for themselves and radical right-wingers are bat shit fucking insane mentally ill bigots. Of course most of you already know this but I'm speaking more indirectly to those moderates who believe that both extremes are bad and there should be a happy medium.

[#FF0000]

The servers are hosted in Germany. We legally can't.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Wow... Something tells me that you are anything but a leftist. And secondly, most National Socialists, especially, refuse to listen to the other sides. Fuck, have you not been paying attention to the shit that is going on in Russia right now or do you not know how Hitler treated communists, anarchists and other leftist groups in NAZI Germany? M'God... these people are insane and are relentless. I have yet to meet a neo-nazi or klansmen who didn't threaten my life after an argument...

[Revolution starts with U]

I know guys, read the ToS before you accept it lol.
I think I read that in the tos..
but now I'm thinking it was in another thread about embedding pics with nazi images in them

[anticap]

I'm not saying that I'm for it, but how would this put anyone in danger?


The servers are hosted in Germany. We legally can't.

According to whois (http://whois.domaintools.com/174.143.151.131), this site (http://174.143.151.131/) lives in San Antonio, Texas, USA.

[AK]

I would be in favour of allowing fascists in OI for a good debate. Problem is, when fascists make speeches or when fascists talk to anyone at all, really, they never do so simply to enjoy debate and make constructive arguments. Oh no. They do it to spew out their racist, nationalist, capitalist, anti-Semitic, sexist rhetoric and bullshit.

[Nuvem]

^ What AK said, plus it's just bad PR. Just wait till Fox News decides to blow the lid off of Revleft and starts demonizing our forum on Beck's show and they start quotemining. They'll find some neo-Nazi posting in OI about racial purity and about state absolutism. They'll show the post on TV, not bothering to mention it's in OI. Then they'll zip the shot up to the headline and web address.

"SEE?! COMMUNISTS AND NAZIS COLLABORATE! FASCISM AND COMMUNISM ARE THE SAME THING, AMERICA!"

Besides, there's no point in debating with those people. It's like trying to debate an angry, angry brick wall.

[Nolan]

(Some) Capitalists try to make logical arguments and know what they're talking about. I can respect that. Fascists are raving lunatics with an axe to grind with anyone who isn't white, I.E., trolls by default on this forum. Also, Nuvem summed up pretty neatly how the FOX propaganda machine would work, however unlikely that is.

[Jazzhands]

Besides, there's no point in debating with those people. It's like trying to debate an angry, angry brick wall.

A lot of East Germans actually have tried that. Look where they ended up.

Anyway, watch American History X if you want a lesson in how fascists debate. Their most eloquent talking point is the curbstomp.

This is the worst fucking idea I have ever heard.

[Lt. Ferret]

theyre basically the racist version of most of revleft so it would be entertaining to see both sides hit a brick wall against each other.

[mykittyhasaboner]

theyre basically the racist version of most of revleft so it would be entertaining to see both sides hit a brick wall against each other.

I wouldn't mind it if you were to hit a brick wall. Hard.

[Lt. Ferret]

i wouldn't mind it if you were curbstomped by edward norton for breaking into his crappy truck while he was fucking the chick from waterboy.

[#FF0000]

theyre basically the racist version of most of revleft so it would be entertaining to see both sides hit a brick wall against each other.

Yeah I mean I guess we're both message boards so there's that in common?

But yeah no I really don't care and really don't want to bother with fascists.

[Lt. Ferret]

also if were talking traditional fascism, mussolini wasnt much of a racist and protected the jews until hitler had him by the balls at the end.

national socialism and racism and national anarchism are different and much more racist.

[Revolution starts with U]

Here's the flaw in your argument Lt. (salute ;)). This is a "revolutionary leftist" site. It is a learning hub for people wanting to learn about leftist literature and theory from a revolutionary perspective. You cannot post in the main forums because it is not a place to debate the theory, it is for getting a better understanding of it, as it is.
That's why there's an OI forum that you are allowed to post in and debate the theory to your hearts content, barring openly fascist/national socialist advocacy (for legal reasons).
So your implied claim that this is a closed-minded forum is falacious.

[#FF0000]

also if were talking traditional fascism, mussolini wasnt much of a racist and protected the jews until hitler had him by the balls at the end.

national socialism and racism and national anarchism are different and much more racist.

Yeah we know.

[Agnapostate]

How extensive is the category of "fascists"? Does it include all white nationalists, for example? Not all of that group are foaming-at-the-mouth screamers, if that's what you're implying. Some can debate better than others, and plenty would be better debaters than some posters on this forum, frankly. I think the lack of exposure to them severely weakens that aspect of progressive argument, since too many people are not conditioned to know how to defeat them in logical debate.

[#FF0000]

How extensive is the category of "fascists"? Does it include all white nationalists, for example? Not all of that group are foaming-at-the-mouth screamers, if that's what you're implying. Some can debate better than others, and plenty would be better debaters than some posters on this forum, frankly. I think the lack of exposure to them severely weakens that aspect of progressive argument, since too many people are not conditioned to know how to defeat them in logical debate.

"Race is a social construct"

Pretty much it.

[Nolan]

But Best Mod, there are genetic differences between races! It's proven by science fool!


This may be a sarcastic post.

[#FF0000]

THE FOREHEAD. JUST LOOK AT THE FOREHEAD. HNHG


i invented silver text

[Agnapostate]

"Race is a social construct"

Pretty much it.

As with any heterodox tendency of ideological thought, as with the people here on this forum, many of this number are well-trained to answer cliched criticisms.

[#FF0000]

well I mean this is a fact that completely demolishes anything a racist has to say.

[Agnapostate]

well I mean this is a fact that completely demolishes anything a racist has to say.

They'd reply to it, though. And frankly, I think "race" can function as a categorizing mechanism for groups that are more genetically related than others:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/9_Cluster_Tree.png

But the standard objection remains: Where would the line be drawn?

[synthesis]

graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza (The Cavalli-Sforza from the graph)


According to an article published in The Economist, the work of Cavalli-Sforza "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between human races, and indeed, the idea that 'race' has any useful biological meaning at all"

Also, in 1977 he had said:

"The differences that exist between the major racial groups are such that races could be called subspecies if we adopted for man a criterion suggested by Mayr (1963) for systematic zoology."

But then in 1994 (the year he published that graph):

"The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin."

So it seems fairly obvious that graph doesn't mean what you think it does.

[Agnapostate]

Um, I know that Cavalli-Sforza said that. I've posted that particular comment of his to white supremacists many times, so it's not exactly new information to me. :rolleyes:

However, if a "race" is defined as a group of people with closer genetic relationships due to a more recent common ancestor, "races" could exist in that sense.

[synthesis]

OK, but you said:


I think "race" can function as a categorizing mechanism for groups that are more genetically related than others

So if the graph in question "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between the races," then how would that lead you to think that such a "categorizing mechanism" would be useful in any way?

[AK]

Here's the flaw in your argument Lt. (salute ;)).
Don't address Ferret as Lieutenant, rather, address them as "bastard" or "class traitor" - assuming they come from a working class background.

[Agnapostate]

So if the graph in question "challenges the assumption that there are significant genetic differences between the races," then how would that lead you to think that such a "categorizing mechanism" would be useful in any way?

When did I say that the genetic differences were "significant"? I said that if they were sufficient to determine that different groups of people were more closely related because of their more recent descent from common ancestors, they could potentially be categorized as a "race."

[Nuvem]

Massive deviation from the original topic begins.....



Now.

[Rainsborough]

There are those who adopt a nationalistic but leftist position. Yet by refusing them access to this site, they are forced to cohabit with reactionaries and supremacists who it would seem they have nothing in common. How can we debate with them when as soon as they put forward an argument we oppose, they are named as fascists and banned?

[Nuvem]

I don't think you understand. There's no point in debating with nationalists or fascists.

At all. Ever.

Edit: Except with rocks.

[Dimentio]

There are two kinds of fascists in terms of intelligence. The first model is the usual bonehead racist, who could be quite violent and dangerous. The second variation is those black-dressed hyper-intellectual "philosopher" fascists who are into "identitarianism" and read Guillaume Faye, Julius Evola and Savitri Devi. They are generally physically less dangerous, but beware that they are in communication with their army of boneheads.

[hatzel]

...I didn't know violent and dangerous people could punch people through an internet forum, so I don't see how this is important in banning them...

I'll also point out that there are plenty of bonehead commies, anarchists etc., but we sure let them on here :thumbup1: I think the only difference is that our boneheads are often clad in black, whilst their intellectuals are the ones in black. Proof that we're complete opposites!

[Jazzratt]

No. We shouldn't. If you really want to have this discussion (again) post it in the member's forum.

The fuck is wrong with you people?

[Sasha]

According to whois (http://whois.domaintools.com/174.143.151.131), this site (http://174.143.151.131/) lives in San Antonio, Texas, USA.


the "no fascists" rule was based on two reasons.

1. this was an germany hosted site, germany has insanly tight anti fascist/nationalsocialist propaganda laws. Even an group of anti-fascists got prosecuted for selling t-shirts with an crossed out swastika on it on the basis that its illegal to display swastika's.
While since recently the servers moved to the US that doesnt change much since Malte is still the owner, still is the one with the highest acces levels and since he is an german citizen the german law still sees this site as german and under its juristiction.

2. the no-platform policy; an established anti-fascist policy that states that giving an platform to or allowing fascists to take one legitemises their ideas and makes you complicit in their drive to reqruit. Since their ultimate goal is to take humanliberties away there is no way why freedom of speech concepts should aplie to those who use it to abolish it for everybody else.
note that this is not meant as an request for state-censorship but for community based principled action.