Right-Wing Extremism

IMissLark said:
Why.

I don't understand why cultures that promote freedom and equal oppurtunities feel the need to attach a disclaimer proclaiming "valid as long as you look, think, talk, and act like us".

Is it so offensive that people aren't exactly like you, or I? Is the world going to degenerate into senselessness because people speak different languages and have different customs?
Click to expand...

Cultural practices and values systems of immigrants which are radically different to those of their fellow citizens can cause terrible problems and disrupt everyday life. The more different the cultures, the higher will be the risk of problems emerging. It is nice to belong to a group that basically shares your opinions, but this cannot be achieved if you emigrate. People must adapt so that they are more similar to those that they live with, becoming part of a new national identity, not an outpost of the old world. If people can empathise and understand where other's are coming from society will be a lot more harmonious.

Just try going to another totally different country and transporting a community from there to where you live. They do not change their lifestyle, beliefs or educational standard. It might be curious to have neighbors who, for example, represent a world view from the Middle Ages, but I do not think you would like it for long. When problems start to occur on your very doorstep, you might understand why 'difference' is not always a good thing. Relationships with the community will be strained and there will be a mess.

The reason that we still actually have freedom and equality in Australia is because it is valued by the people who live here. Those who want to live here need to share that belief as well as others. There are many different cultural elements within Australia's multicultural melting-pot, but within a few generations, people basically think like Australians. Whether they are black, white, asian or from any other race, they become normal citizens who fit in seamlessly with their neighbors. This is helped by the fact that we have low immigration compared to European countries and largely have middle-class people and few refugees, who are quickly integrated. Consequently, we have one of the best lifestyles in the world.

Sander said:
Quietfanatic even recommends doing that very thing, while I explicitly noted that that hasn't really worked: the ones supporting right-wing extremism will only be strengthened in their belief that no-one sees them as having any decent arguments. This is all bullshit.
Click to expand...

You seem very optimistic Sander, saying that we miss your point about distracting people with Nazism and that you really can negotiate with these extremists. You cannot reason with them because their arguments are bullshit and they will never change their minds. It will do them good to know that everyone thinks they are nut jobs, but it probably won't knock sense into them. All you can do is isolate them from respectable political parties and prevent them from gaining any support from the educated moderates. These voters will not need to go to the extreme right because they are adequately represented by the 'relatively' extreme elements in the other conservative parties. That is the way of democracy. As I said before you can obviously reason with the more moderate elements on the far right because you can make progress with them, however there are always those few extremists that will never be happy. The vital thing is to keep the moderates in control by keeping people educated and well informed.

I have tried to argue with fundamentalists/extremists but it is always futile. Usually they are just stupid but sometimes not. I think you might need a little reminder of this frustrating arguing that you will understand well. Get CCR at his most stubborn but make him a hundred times worse. To make it more realistic, cut out 90% of his general knowledge and you have a hard core, right-wing extremist. You cannot reason with that.

True, it is all relative, but I am speaking generally and assuming that people draw the line according to common sense.
 
The same can be said both ways. Besides, the terms "left" and "right" are really outdated. Go too far either way and you have a bad situation. Saying some Right Wing Extremist is hard to talk with is only looking at one side. "Left Wing" extremists are just as hard to accept other points of view. The lesson? Extremists, no matter their view, do not take kindly to differing views.
 
Exactly. All extremism/fundamentalism is equally dangerous and illogical. You just have to marginalise them and make sure that people are careful when dealing with them.
 
I've seen a remarkable amount of sense displayed in this thread for a political thread, not counting some crap in the middle. I've got to hand it to Commissar Lauren and Quietfanatic; you've got it nailed. Extremists are blind to their own extremism; only the OTHER fellow is a dangerous radical in the extremist's eyes.
 
No. These people are idiots - plain and simple. Their convictions are completely wrong, their arguments are moronic and manner in which they express them disgusts me. How can you rationally discuss something with someone who represents an ideology that is in its basis irrational and backward? I refuse to approach these people on equal footing, because I know I am not equal to them. Should they win power, I will do everything I can within democratic boundaries to confront them. If it doesn't work, I will move out of the country - simple as that. I don't give a flying fuck about how much public support they have - I have seen many times that 50% of a country's population can be painfully stupid and wrong, and it is my democratic right to refuse to acknowledge them and their primitive ideas. Neither would I shed a tear if the government decided to "confront" the right-wing nutjobs with riot batons and tear gas - since their parents obviously failed to raise and educate them properly, it's up to the authorities to beat those bullshit views out of them. Preferably as violently as possible.
Click to expand...
Ratty, must I exclaim again that this doesn't work? Outlawing them won't change any views, and beating the shit out of them won't either. Nor will exlaiming 'It's Hitler!'. As I've also pointed out in my first post, something you people also ALL missed, was that most of the supporters aren't the hardcore idiots you say they are: they're disgruntled citizens who don't see any othe decent option. Reasoning with them really does work, provided you approach them on an equal footing respecting their opiinons, because if you don't, they go nuts with rage. Yet you're suggesting the exact opposite, as is quietfanatic still.

Look, quietfanatic, you're just plain wrong: you're talking about the hardcore convinced of their own ight extremists, not about the mainstreamers. You probably don't realise that I'm talking about a LOT of people, not just a marginal group.
 
I never said Extremists/Fundies were always dangerous. Just look at the Amish, they are about as unthreatening as any fundimental group I can think of. Also different groups within christianity and many Eastern religions take a path of non violence. This does not threaten anyone, although they are undeniable extreme in their belief system.

As for what Sander is saying, many people associate one group as being extreme, even when many of the members are not. That is a problem I've seen everywhere. Often times the loudest members (who get the most recognition) are actually in the minority of their group. Its always been this way though, because the moderates, by definition, do not make as much noise and do not tend to go to the extreme actions others do. He is right that people need to stop just assuming whoever you are talking to is a fundimental/extremist/whatever term you want to use. That does no one any favors and only alienates whoever you are talking to.
 
[Nerdy reference]
Extremists are blind to their own extremism; only the OTHER fellow is a dangerous radical in the extremist's eyes.
Click to expand...
Says a creature who wishes to enslave the whole galaxy.
[/Nerdy reference]
:wink:
 
Sander said:
Look, quietfanatic, you're just plain wrong: you're talking about the hardcore convinced of their own ight extremists, not about the mainstreamers. You probably don't realise that I'm talking about a LOT of people, not just a marginal group.
Click to expand...

I do realise that and have addressed that already. With the moderates there is little problem.

I said:
These voters will not need to go to the extreme right because they are adequately represented by the 'relatively' extreme elements in the other conservative parties. That is the way of democracy. As I said before you can obviously reason with the more moderate elements on the far right because you can make progress with them, however there are always those few extremists that will never be happy. The vital thing is to keep the moderates in control by keeping people educated and well informed.
Click to expand...

I think that my three pronged strategy of education, isolation and vilification to control extremism in politics is credible. It appears that you are the one who is starting to get distracted by the vilification tactic, which should only be used as a last resort for the hard core people in any case. The responsibility lies with voters first to keep extremism in check, which is best achieved through quality education. Then with the moderate politicians, who need to take in and support the 'relatively' extreme members while they sabotage the hard core element's support. This needs to be done in parliament, in caucus/cabinet/branch meetings. In fact at every level of government. The comparisons to Nazism and other such regimes comes last, only if it is warranted and will hold no water at all if their is no truth in it anyway. They cannot whine when what is said about them is true.

I put such emphasis on the hard core extremists because they are the most dangerous. They are successful because they are totally sure of their beliefs, ruthless and unwilling to think things through. This makes them appear strong and righteous, but they are wrong. Their strengths are what can cause terrible suffering and the abuse of human rights. They are defined as hard core on the basis of their opinions by the majority of politicians and members of the general population. There is no other way to draw the line, as it is all relative. But you must keep these people out of positions of power and influence where they could do great harm to society.

It is vitally important that moderates are watchful of possible extremists and not apathetic, because we have the numbers now, but if you let extremists gather too much ignorant, grass-roots support, you will have great difficulty stopping them. We need to get everyone educated.

And to get Sander out of his optimistic mood, here is a reminder of 1% reasonable 'debate'.
 
I think that my three pronged strategy of education, isolation and vilification to control extremism in politics is credible.
Click to expand...

I don't see how. The thing that people should keep in mind, is that extremists wouldn't get where they are if they had nothing but bad ideas. The proposals that this fella is making to solve the "Islam Problem" aren't necessarily bad ideas, but the wrong ones, depending on your point of view.

Education, Isolation, and Vilification can only end extremism if everybody is inclined to think the same way.
 
I don't know the details about what is happening in Europe, but it seems like a very bad idea to base decisions solely on ethnicity. Security is more of a difficult question by I suggest that the majority of the representative body makes decisions about what is appropriate policy. It isn't about having everyone in agreement, just a majority that will discourage the extremist politicians from going too far. It is a method of control which will work with the majority, not a way to totally end extremism. That is impossible.
 
If an increadible security risk is being posed by Muslims, then control of Muslim immigration, or even deportation of Muslims, would solve said security risk.

Its a solution. I'm not saying that it should be done, but its a feasible idea that gets people on board.
 
The law should be written in a more generic manner tho. Racist laws aren't exactly a good idea.

The exact procedure would have to be very well-thought too. Kicking out citizens for political reasons doesn't exactly make sense.
 
Must I say yet again that your strategy does not work? It's been 'tried' before, and it did not work. How hard is that to understand? Education does not mean anything if you look down upon the other side's argument in that education, because that means that when decent arguments are encountered they are much less likely to have any decent response to it.
Vilification doesn't work because all it means is that you are vilifying the other side, and not listening to anything they're saying and that will NEVER convince ANYONE, al it does is make people that already agree with you go 'you're right.'

And your emphasis on the hardcore extremists is silly, because they are extremely marginal. They won't change their views easily, or at all, and they are a very small part of the population. Yet the mainstream is much more important because they have a much greater influence.

And your bashing of all extremists is annoying. Not all extremists are dangerous, nor wrong. Look a the issues themselves, instead of the political nomer people get.
And so is your 'we must deny them all power' line. No, we mustn't. That's completely counter to any form of democratic thought, because the people should decide who comes to power, not the people in power. And denying people power does not at all make their views dissappear.
 
Sander said:
Education does not mean anything if you look down upon the other side's argument in that education, because that means that when decent arguments are encountered they are much less likely to have any decent response to it.
Click to expand...

What on Earth does that mean? If you are well educated, you will be able to support your arguments with evidence. Members of the general population will also be able to see when statements are foolish. I believe this course of action will favour moderation as opposed to radicalisation. If you know what you are saying is BS, you will be less willing to say it again.

And your emphasis on the hardcore extremists is silly, because they are extremely marginal.
Click to expand...

As I have said several times before, of course you can get into a dialogue with the more mainstream extremists, because they are more moderate and willing to compromise. They are valuable members of democracy because they stimulate debate and represent a significant group in society. Most importantly, they do little harm.

The hard core of extremists on the other hand are another story. You cannot negotiate with them because they do not listen. They are successful because their strong-man, quick-fix responses enable them to ruthlessly undermine their more moderate opposition. They can use their personality as a battering ram to dominate party decisions and therefore take control of the party. Most extremists punch well above their weight. If they do gain control of government they will be very dangerous. There would be less negotiating and thinking things through and more totally arbitrary policy decisions which are unjust, unrepresentative of the population and incredibly stupid.

Vilification is the last resort to combat extremism, and is only used if they do not listen to reason and continue to gain more popular support (no doubt mainly from the working class). Futile negotiation with them can not be 'friendly' indefinitely. You must play dirty and not let the extremists appear to be respectable candidates. Don't worry though, they will mostly likely use the dirty tactics long before you do. Scare tactics do work in Australia, and probably work elsewhere as well. Appearances are just as important as policy, like it or not.

No, we mustn't. That's completely counter to any form of democratic thought, because the people should decide who comes to power, not the people in power. And denying people power does not at all make their views dissappear.
Click to expand...

I am totally against radical extremism in politics because it enables stubborn, dangerous people to have an impact on my life and interfere with my rights, as well as others. The way they think (or don't think) is dangerous, as can be shown by their extreme views (which are relative to the general population), which define them as the hard core extremists. They may not do something dangerous straight away, but their leadership is a ticking time bomb, as it is likely that when a difficult problem emerges they will handle it atrociously. It is democratic to oppose them politically because the moderate politicians have the power to do so and are supposed to be representative of the people anyway. Remember that it a relative process. I do not want to have extremists gaining power when it is not what the people of a moderate Western democracy would want.

Maybe I am mistaken about your optimism and that you are really being very pessimistic. You argue that education cannot work, political action cannot work and scare tactics cannot work. What do you suggest we do to control right-wing extremism then? Have them all shot?
 
Sander said:
Ratty, must I exclaim again that this doesn't work? Outlawing them won't change any views, and beating the shit out of them won't either. Nor will exlaiming 'It's Hitler!'. As I've also pointed out in my first post, something you people also ALL missed, was that most of the supporters aren't the hardcore idiots you say they are: they're disgruntled citizens who don't see any othe decent option. Reasoning with them really does work, provided you approach them on an equal footing respecting their opiinons, because if you don't, they go nuts with rage. Yet you're suggesting the exact opposite, as is quietfanatic still.
Click to expand...
Oh, it does work. In 1971 many thousands of Croats protested on the streets because they didn't like how Croatian language was spoken. When Tito sent the militia troops to crack down on them hard, for the next 20 years Croatia was so peaceful, so obedient, so intoxicated with socialist spirit that it was almost pathetic. Even in 1991, as Serbian tanks prepared to ravage the country, Croats still whined placably about preserving the federation and upholding peace and socialist ideals. Contrary to what you westerners want to believe, violence and oppression DO work. Or at the very least, they buy time until other courses of action become viable.
 
So you'd rather combat extremism with extremism?

TOTALLY WORKS MATE NO MORE EXTREMISM HERE DUDE. =)=)=)=)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top