"OK to be a nationalist" thread.

Post Reply New Topic

Wrong! I have monitored several sites ( as have other mods ) in the past to keep a track of things especially after we get an influx of trolls.

I monitored the Sociopath website for months waiting for them to plan an attach again. Good news is the Sociopath forum is no longer running , bad news is they have probably integrated themselves somewhere else.

I sure hope we don't have any members from Syria, Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan. Cause despite how the media paints it, the people of those countries don't want liberty carpet bombing or us supporting organ eating Jihadists to remove their leader. Not that we have the right to anyway. And oddly enough the war crimes you are supporting would have had our leader criminals hung at Nuremberg.

I'm sure you can't generalize regarding the citizens of those countries. Individuals can't be associated with the government of their particular country. How do you know there aren't people on the autism spectrum in those countries who are apolitical and just want some support?

Do you think the people in Libya wanted to go from living in one of the most prosperous countries in Africa to having slave markets in the capital city? I know a lot about the Syrian war and i can assure you they don't want to be ruled by Western backed Jihadists that put them in cages and shot their children in front of them. It was great to see the people of Allepo celebrating Christmas after the Syrian army had liberated the city from our Jihadists.
It's hard to be apolitical in those countries when one of your family members is likely to have been blown up by us.

I find it hard to believe that a website would randomly target wrongplanet to attack us. Unless there is a a banned member that goes to a forum and tries to get members there to come here and create accounts to troll here and post spam and things for revenge. I find that more believable than the first one.

Also, I see little consideration for autism.

Perhaps those "banned views" come from an ASD obsessive, single-focused idea, and the member just needs a reminder that ASD people are said to be "preoccupied on the tree, not the forest".

You've changed the subject from "what is the difference between thoughts and actions?" to "what is the difference between good and bad?".

Speaking as a moderator, I'm less willing to dive into some of the nuts and bolts of the morality. Our role isn't to impose our personal morality, it is to enforce the forum rules. Speaking as a person, I would be inclined to agree with you about the morality of all forms of nationalism, but WrongPlanet's rules do not comment on it.

Given that Alex is absent, I see the attraction of a Talmudic-style interpretation of the rules for new circumstances. I think, for example, it is entirely appropriate for us to view the prohibition on homophobia on also covering specific hatred against lesbians, bisexuals, transgender people, and so forth - homophobia in the broad rather than the narrow sense of the word. But I'm nervous about using the same rules against racism to, say, prohibit saying that your country should come first. We do clamp down on xenophobic content (as a deliberately ridiculous hypothetical, imagine someone saying that Canadians are all terrorists) but that's very close to racism in a way that nationalism... isn't quite.

I'll give you that the line is sometimes blurry, and that it can be difficult to see how the rules fit a situation, and that judgement calls do require an element of subjectivity. There is never going to be a perfect way of doing it. We take quite a conservative approach, very light-touch, preferring expression and literalism over safety and broad interpretation. We may well have drawn the line in the wrong place but we're doing the best we can.

Not sure quite where to begin with this post.

Firstly, "sticks and stones may break my bones" isn't an expression that died out 40 years ago, it was certainly a common mantra when I was growing up.

You clearly believe that words can have an impact, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered trying to persuade me. More to the point, I don't think anyone wants WrongPlanet to become like every forum that doesn't have rules prohibiting this sort of content. Unmoderated zones are frankly pretty horrible places to be, pretty quickly getting swamped with racist propaganda, misogyny, and general hatred from the dregs of humanity. Words shape our society. That's why people continue to quote MLK and why Hitler's speeches are seen as relevant historical artefacts.

Finally, society when you were growing up was much less prosperous, depending on the age was no safer or less safe (violent crime went up through the 60s and 70s before shooting up in the 80s and has fallen since) and even, if you can imagine it, arguably less politically stable. Remember the three-day week? Or Callaghan's need to make a pact with first one, and then three parties in order to stay in power? Two General Elections in a year? Regardless, none of these things seem remotely connected to whether or not it is considered acceptable to call for non-whites to "go back home".

You don't see it, but it is absolutely there.

Nonetheless, it is not an excuse. If an autistic person is continually posting racially inflammatory material, after having it explained repeatedly that it is not allowed, then the rest of the community should not be expected to tolerate either the racism itself or a flagrant act of rule breaking - particularly as autistic people tend to have strong moral codes.

We make considerable allowances, but I think saying that people cannot take any responsibility for their actions is deeply patronising.

I've been saying maybe for the last ten years is if autism makes you be racist and say other homophobic things, maybe it's because you are that person and autism just makes you show who you are because of your lack of social filter. Most people can filter their thoughts so they don't express things that would make them look bad so we never know who they are.

In my view this would be a better place if we were allowed to challenge people's views rather than shut them up and then shut people up from talking about them. Which is line and verse out of Orwell's Animal Farm. Just screaming racist at people doesn't work.

In this case, he was challenged, and just proceeded to scream insults at people and play the victim.

Just like other markets, the marketplace of ideas only works with sensible regulation.

The only thing I had any problem with in the thread was saying opposition to multiculturalism is forbidden. Since it's about culture, unless the culture itself was racist, then presumably anyone could become a part of the culture, so it wouldn't be racial discrimination it would be cultural. Discrimination based on beliefs and behaviour. These are things that a person can change and we can debate, unlike a person's race. Multiculturalism is fine by me as long as the cultures are compatible. Islam is really the only one I know of that in certain forms is not compatible with Western culture and exists in Western countries. Though I suppose you could also include something like the Mafia which certainly has it's own distinct culture. Criminal organisations have their own cultures that are not compatible with that of the nation they reside in.

Something that would have interested me but I was too late to ask was his saying that he believes at minimum 70% of a country should be of the host race. Now does this mean he thinks this should be something that's enforced, or merely that he thinks it's beneficial to a country to be that way and he'd only seek to persuade people to move to an appropriate country rather than force them? If so, I don't see anything wrong with that. People would be free to do as they pleased. We never got to find out why he felt that way.

It's his own fault what happened though. He asked the question and Walrus answered, and then he reacted very badly.

On multiculturalism - certainly a view like the one Drake has just expressed would, in isolation, be fine to discuss. But as TallyMan's PPR guidelines say, if a user makes a lot of posts "around" a topic then we might consider whether they are trying to push an agenda. I intended that as something which had helped to illustrate that the OP wasn't merely a civic nationalist, but one with a darker belief system. It might not have been the best idea for me to put it in those terms though.

I don't think there should be a 'free for all' on this site, and would have no quarrel with removing posts that use insulting language against minorities, or against anyone else for that matter, or that advocate violence against people. I haven't yet read the views of Actaeon, but from what has been said on this thread, it would seem to me that you were right to intervene and censor parts of his posts.

However, your casual use of phrases like 'homophobia' 'sexism' and the like appears to imply that these are straightforward terms, the definitions of which are obvious. I don't think they are. If you take the 'same-sex marriage' argument, it was a widely held mainstream view maybe 15 or 20 years ago that marriage should be between a male and a female. Maybe half a decade ago, such a view may have been characterized as 'socially conservative'. Today you will find many, perhaps most, 'progressives' arguing that this opinion is 'homophobic'. By the application of basic logic, if it's a 'homophobic' opinion (in our country at least) then by definition under UK law it's 'hate speech'. And hate speech is illegal, so people expressing what were less than a generation ago mainstream, unobjectionable views could be prosecuted and maybe even imprisoned for expressing them. As I've said in a previous post, we may not be there yet, but just give it another 5 years or so (did you read Angela Rayner's recent remarks about Esther McVey a couple of weeks ago, by the way?). Do you see where I'm going with this? If not, I'm wasting my time, but hey ho, I tried...

In your final paragraph, I think you're letting your Lib-Dem 'Orange Book' affiliations show rather obviously. I grew up in the seventies, and it was a time when people could buy their own house for around 2.5 times their income, even in many parts of London (where it's now over 10x income). You could also travel on publicly owned buses and trains for a fraction of what you'll now pay to the privatized rip-off merchants. A stabbing in a major UK city was still a rarity, not a weekly or even daily occurrence.

I'm seriously disappointed that you didn't use more clichés about the 'dark days of the 1970s'. Saying 'cap in hand to the IMF' is pretty much obligatory these days, as is 'you couldn't bury the dead' (yes you could), but at least you managed to mention the three day week (a much exaggerated phenomenon, which was over almost as soon as it started). Come on Walrus, get your act together....

Last edited by DeepHour on 17 Aug 2019, 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Then surely give him a cooling of period?

He was a victim. For reasons i have already explained, but i understand the rules here.