quietfanatic said:
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.
What that meant, was that by looking down upon other people and vilifying them you do NOT come up with decent argument, and your educational system does NOT provide anyone with decent arguments precisely because all it does is say 'It's evil!!!!'.
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.
You're not thinking this through. First you say that you can reason with the mainstream people, which I have been saying constantly, and then you say that the ones you can't reason with are the harcore extremists, and that they use their charisma and quick responses to get more support.
However, this support is gathered from the mainstream, not from more hardcore extremists, and hence what you must do is remove the mainstream support by convincing them that they are wrong, because as you said, they are the ones you can convince.
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.
Yes, they are, but vilification is
stupid. As I've noted before, time and again, this does
not diminish support for them, it only polarizes the conflict because the supporters are insulted, and your supporters are 'more' convinced that the oppositiong is an evil bastard. But it doesn't convince anyone of the rights and wrongs of the other side.
Furthermore, it's a stupid tactic because it doesn't allow YOU to discuss anything that may have something do to with their arguments, which at times is necessary because not all of the points right-extremism makes are invalid or shouldn't be considered. You only block your own roads, and aren't actually doing anything to the detriment of the other side.
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.
You, quietfanatic, are forgetting one really important thing: extremists can never gain any power in a democratic society because they are extremists, as soon as they gain popular support, they gain power, but then they cease to be extremists, as you yourself just noted, if you compare them to the opinion of the rest of the population.
Furthermore, you are blinding yourself from any valid argument anyone who you consider to be an extremist may have, because you are immediately going 'they're extreme! They are evil!' Think about it: right or wrog don't have anything to do with someone's relative position to the majority's opinion. Basically you are arguing that Hitler's opinons were right, because the majority of the Germans agreed with him, and he was thus not an extremist.
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?
You're not listening. I'm arguing that the education in the form of vilification of right-wing extremism cannot work, I'm arguing that political action in the form of vilification vanot work, and I"m arguing that scare tactics don't work. There are a lot of things left to do, and as I've noted throughout this thread constantly, arguing with the mainstream is possible.
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.
I never forget any such thing, Ratty. You, however, are forgetting that these are democratic and so-called advanced countries we're talking about, not a Soviet dictatorship where anyone who disagrees with the government is ruthlessly oppressed. In these societies we are talking about, outlawing a party has no effect, because people just continue to think along the same way, simply because no-one is killed, maimed or otherwise oppressed.
