Generally the list of proscribed groups has tended to focus on groups thought to have carried out or planning to carry out violent attacks in the UK. This has meant a mixture of NI paramilitary groups, violent Salafists, and neo-Nazis. The attempt to stretch it to a non-violent direct action protest group is new and looks likely to ultimately fail, either by being directly declared unlawful or indirectly by jury nullification.
@Mousethief, I know they come from your neck of the woods but billions of flies eat shit. Does that make them right?
Millions of Americans voted for Trump.
Plenty of British people support Reform.
Starbucks brew tasteless bilge.
Serious ethical concerns have been expressed about Starbucks over its supply-chain practices, labour relations and alleged examples of slavery and trafficking in some of its sources.
Here in Europe there are allegations of tax avoidance.
We have big issues over here with big US tech and other corporations not paying tax.
Which is one of the reasons we react badly when Trump accuses us of being a bunch of freeloaders leeching off US largesse.
@Nick Tamen - I've never heard of KKK activity here but if that article is reliable then yes, they should be on the list of proscribed organisations.
@Arethosemyfeet, if 'direct-action' and 'non-violence' involves criminal damage and hitting police and security guards with sledge-hammers, then I for one would have nothing to do with it. That said, I don't agree with arresting harmless little old ladies for holding up cardboard placards with the name of a particular organisation on them.
As you say, the proscribing of the particular organisation I think we both have in mind is likely to fail for the reasons you have cited.
FWIW in that particular instance I would agree with meting out stiff sentences to those who carry out criminal damage and assault security guards and police officers who were only doing their job - I don't think we can claim 'self-defence' for the perpetrators in the instances in question.
I do have, however, grave reservations about the response and the clamp-down on peaceful protestors supporting that particular group.
As far as debate goes, I believe that one of the purposes of engaging with another person's point of view is to understand why they hold it.
If you believe that someone else's view is harmful, I see two options (at least). One is to counter the view, which involves understanding the view and being prepared to engage with those who hold it. Another is to oppose the view - which (in my understanding) typically involves disengagement, leading to polarisation, which is one of the roads leading to conflict.
I have done both IRL.
Option One turned out too painful. I was trying to engage with and understand them, but they had no wish at all to understand me.
I suggest entering into such a dialogue with expectations of reciprocity dialled down to "negligible".
I now opt for option Two.
Unless I'm defending those who are far away from my situation and difficulties - therefore the words of the person, although painful and horrible, don't affect me personally.
It's not original to observe that engaging is preferable to conflict. It doesn't have to be everyone, but I would hope that some are prepared to do so.
Sorry to hear that, Boogie. I suppose I've become used to having to consciously adjust my expectations and work at dialogue. In practice, it feels anything but abstract.
So, I just picked up this quote from a friend's blog, linked here, and it felt salient to this conversation.
“The walls do not contain the garden. They frame the garden. The walls also frame the people who enjoy the garden, providing them with an opportunity to live deeply into the monastic spirit.”
So, I just picked up this quote from a friend's blog, linked here, and it felt salient to this conversation.
“The walls do not contain the garden. They frame the garden. The walls also frame the people who enjoy the garden, providing them with an opportunity to live deeply into the monastic spirit.”
The walls do not contain the garden, but the garden is contained within the walls.
So, I just picked up this quote from a friend's blog, linked here, and it felt salient to this conversation.
Read the blog. Your friend talked about when the honeymoon would end. I remembered when my honeymoon ended with Mrs. Gramps. It was when she put celery in my tuna fish sandwich. 48 years later, I still can't stand celery in my tuna fish sandwich. She still puts it in from time to time. I have just learned to keep my thoughts to myself and just eat the sandwich as is.
I personally don't think there is a meaningful moral difference between Nazis and supporters of racist nationalist white supremacy and militarised authoritarianism who wear a different hat.
One form makes its headline target Jews, the other Black people and Muslims, often cloaking its antisemitism in 'Philosemitism'.
If we immediately ban Nazis then we should do the same for those who follow a fuhrer targetting people of colour and Muslims.
There is simply zero point in tolerating evidence-free support of cruelty, dehumanisation and death for others. We're not going to get reasoned debate or any great insight into why people do this that cant be got elsewhere, and it's obscene while people are dying because of war crimes committed in the name of this ideology to roll out the welcome mat for those who seek to spread it here.
We may not have Muslims posting here but the least we can do is say at a time when Muslims are dying in large numbers because of racist nationalist authoritarian warmongering that holds their lives cheap, is that we don't feel obligated to provide a platform for that here.
I agree. Open discussion here has always been subject to Commandment 1. There is plenty of scope for jerks on other websites but I don’t see why their jerkish views should be circulated and hosted here. Hosting is hard enough without that.
That’s probably addressed to Louise, DT. But for what it’s worth, in my mind jerkism is an individual thing. Jerks may be influenced by particular political movements but why we exclude them under C1 is because their posting patterns convey jerkish attitudes towards others. Members of other races, gender minorities, etc.
I think Trumpism has reached this point where it is equivalent - it's so rooted in white male Christian supremacy, ongoing war crimes, crimes against human rights and against rule of law that I can't see any legitimate way to advocate for it without breaking C1 one way or another.
And it usually involves justifying everything the leader does so involves a lot of posting propaganda that has no basis in reality because of the erratic nature of the leader. Hence there isnt a useful discussion to be had beyond the leader is always right and here are some outrageous lies/ distortions to prove it. ( And debunking those doesn't lead to any change of view - because allegiance to the leader matters more)
We dont tend to get Putinists etc. but could discuss it if it happened.
Posting approval for other very well known explicitly racist movements because of their racist stances would I think simply break C1 - especially if a poster already had a track record of racist posting which would leave little doubt about what's going on and what their post is about.
Think about what? Having just come on to this thread I am unsure what shipmates are being asked their opinion about. Jerkish behaviour is already a commandment violation and members are already banned for racism.
Banning people belonging to different political groups would be difficult as we don’t wear badges saying what group we belong to. And which groups? If you ban Trumpists are you going to ban Reform too? That would make me, as liberal left winger, very uncomfortable and I would also see it as classist. Possibly because I am one of the few people on this board who are working class, who lives on a council estate and has several siblings who would be banned for supporting Reform under such a ruling. It would make the ship look intolerant and elitist.
The question is really what, if any, modern political affilations are inherently so prejudiced - people professing those affiliations should not be given access to the site.
Currently, that would only apply to self-professed nazis. Some have argued certain political affiliations are no morally different, inherently a c1 violation - and if we we permit this we run into a potential Nazi bar problem.
I am seeking to understand what the ship community thinks about this.
(ETA @Heavenlyannie for example, if someone joins and then says they are member of the KKK is that inherently so racist, that waiting for them to post a racist statement is useful or necessary ? And does this apply to any larger political parties or movements ?)
I'm with Louise here. I used to operate online in international forums from an optimistic and generous assumption that posters might be just naive, ignorant or misinformed, and they should be given time and unrestricted posting privileges, engaged with in debate, tolerated until they revealed themselves openly as bigots or the hate-speech became too relentless to ignore.
The problem is that there are always those on the receiving end of those offensive posts who are being overlooked or silenced or driven away and the effect of allowing offensive posters to carry on unchecked is that it normalises what they are saying, so that they feel they are being funny or winning others over and gaining support for their views.
That’s probably addressed to Louise, DT. But for what it’s worth, in my mind jerkism is an individual thing. Jerks may be influenced by particular political movements but why we exclude them under C1 is because their posting patterns convey jerkish attitudes towards others. Members of other races, gender minorities, etc.
Yes, but if you wait then damage may have already been done. It takes time to see a pattern then to exclude someone under C1 based on their posts - many sail close to the wind.
Think about what? Having just come on to this thread I am unsure what shipmates are being asked their opinion about. Jerkish behaviour is already a commandment violation and members are already banned for racism.
Banning people belonging to different political groups would be difficult as we don’t wear badges saying what group we belong to. And which groups? If you ban Trumpists are you going to ban Reform too? That would make me, as liberal left winger, very uncomfortable and I would also see it as classist. Possibly because I am one of the few people on this board who are working class, who lives on a council estate and has several siblings who would be banned for supporting Reform under such a ruling. It would make the ship look intolerant and elitist.
I may be alone in this but I don't really care very much if Reform supporters think the Ship is intolerant or elitist. I do care about platforming fascists. Working class people supported Hitler and Mussolini too, that doesn't make it classist to oppose them. Arguably it's actually more elitist (and patronising) to suppose that working class people should be exempt from needing to identify and reject fascist politics.
Right-wing politics seems to me to be entirely based on finding someone other than members of the party/group to blame for the woes of the party/group. This leads so directly into C1 violations, that I'm really not clear how that boundary can be policed. The logical conclusion is that declared membership of a right-wing group is itself a C1 violation, because the aspiration of that group is one. I'm not sure I like that, but I think it's true.
My view is that the Ship is essentially a club where members discuss within a broadly left-liberal world view. Others may chip in but should not deviate too much otherwise they will feel unwelcome and will ultimately be planked.
I think this is fine. Why shouldn't left-liberals have a club? I am probably not a left-liberal but I am reasonably happy to enforce the rules as a host (and will in fact often suppress my own opinions even when posting as a Shipmate) because those are the rules of the club.
What slightly confuses things is the idea that this is a space prioritising debate between very different political and social worldviews. This is clearly not the case. I think we tie ourselves into knots trying to make ourselves a place where all views are welcome when actually that is not the aim.
If the current political landscape where the views espoused by right-wing groups weren't entirely in violation of the Equalities Act 2010, that would be possible. And I think it is the aim. Having a ground rule that groups are not to be scapegoated shouldn't, in a sane political landscape, be a radical liberal position.
Trumpism has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths through the DOGE attack on USAID - many of them children and that's before we get to war crimes like murdering fishermen in boats and murders/ deaths caused by ICE and the current war. It is antidemocratic and authoritarian because it wants to continue these crimes and it is a white male supremacist movement which chooses its victims accordingly.
I think we need to see allegiance to it for what it is - support for fascism that glorifies lies and murders - so no different from Nazis.
I think with other racist parties it depends how equated that party is with being racist and whether the supporter is advocating for the racism but somebody who supports Trump and posts support for their local explicitly racist party is clearly crossing that line.
My view is that the Ship is essentially a club where members discuss within a broadly left-liberal world view. Others may chip in but should not deviate too much otherwise they will feel unwelcome and will ultimately be planked.
I think this is fine. Why shouldn't left-liberals have a club? I am probably not a left-liberal but I am reasonably happy to enforce the rules as a host (and will in fact often suppress my own opinions even when posting as a Shipmate) because those are the rules of the club.
What slightly confuses things is the idea that this is a space prioritising debate between very different political and social worldviews. This is clearly not the case. I think we tie ourselves into knots trying to make ourselves a place where all views are welcome when actually that is not the aim.
I appear to have been planked for suggesting Bullfrog's racial slur on white people was racist and that makes me a jerk.
If racism is not allowed on the ship (and I'm all for that) I don't see why racism can't apply to white people too. ( And no I'm not a white male supremasist. For a start, I'm female, contrary to popular opinion, and while ethnically British, grew up in Asia).
I'm touched @KarlLB started the thread. Go you bro.
I returned from planking last night and posted a few things and @Doublethink has said see Styx thread in each case.
Am I reading the correct Styx thread? What do you want me to do? Am I not allowed to talk about One Nation or support some things Trump does? ( I don't support everything he does at all.)
If I am not welcome as per @TurquoiseTastic 's honest post above, that's fine.
But you see I used to be centre left. But many of us, feel the left have lost the plot and gone too far left, so now we are automatically centre right.
I like posting here because I am a Christian (liberal) and there are some very clever people on this board. I tried finding other places to chat about geopolitics ( my current interest) but the other places were ridiculously stupid. You have a very good thing going here.
If anyone knows of a centre right Christian board to talk about geopolitics ( or whatever) that isn't idiotic feel free to point me in the right direction (lol! pun unintended!) and I'll leave you all alone to your comfortable club.
The question is really what, if any, modern political affilations are inherently so prejudiced - people professing those affiliations should not be given access to the site.
Currently, that would only apply to self-professed nazis. Some have argued certain political affiliations are no morally different, inherently a c1 violation - and if we we permit this we run into a potential Nazi bar problem.
I am seeking to understand what the ship community thinks about this.
(ETA @Heavenlyannie for example, if someone joins and then says they are member of the KKK is that inherently so racist, that waiting for them to post a racist statement is useful or necessary ? And does this apply to any larger political parties or movements ?)
My question is this: can you name me a right-wing group whose premise is not founded on exclusion of a particular group being the means to salvation? If not, then this board excludes members of right-groups as currently constituted. It is perfectly possible to conceive of a right-wing set of views that aren't based in that way, but I don't see any in the current political landscapes. Xenophobia seems to be an absolute starting point, and homo- and trans-phobia to be a rallying point for many, especially within our churches.
But you see I used to be centre left. But many of us, feel the left have lost the plot and gone too far left, so now we are automatically centre right.
It's interesting to me how many people say this. Personally I have had the opposite experience. I feel that I used to be centre-right but that the right have become so extreme that I now find scanning The Daily Telegraph - once my favourite newspaper - vaguely sickening. That leaves me on the left by default.
I guess this would square with the idea of political polarization in society. But I don't think the Ship is going to solve this problem. It seems to me that posters are made distressed and angry (on the left) and contemptuous and sneering (on the right) by the encounter with the "other side" - it does more harm than good.
Nowadays the Ship is populated mostly by over-50s hanging out with those who remain of our old "virtual" friends of decades' standing. You can get a lot of genuine thought-provoking chat on non-culture-war topics. You can get some interesting insights (from a particular angle) on hot-button issues. But I don't think one should expect it to be a forum for thrashing out the fiercest disagreements of our age. No-one has the energy to do that or police that. We're all getting old!
I do enjoy the conversations on the Ship, though perhaps mostly those which are more whimsical in Heaven, All Saints and the Circus; and part of the pleasure there comes from not particularly knowing people's backgrounds, just enjoying their posts.
My concern about 'no platforming' certain groups on principle is that the Ship becomes yet another closed echo-chamber, where people only get to hear things which reinforce their existing views. Asking people to leave on the basis of their posts is fine if the posts offend Ship guidelines, but I think I would find banning on principle to be a step to far. That wouldn't really fit in with my concept of a forum reflecting Christian values, and I would need to think whether I felt comfortable remaining on board.
It used to be common to have right wing views which would be about things like low taxes, the power of trade unions, home ownership, privatisation, rule of law etc.
The trouble with saying 'right wing' when we mean scapegoating, murders and attacking human rights and democracy is it can allow people who really support forms of vicious fascism to say they are just 'right wing' as if they are David Cameron or Ruth Davidson Tories or Never Trump republicans.
It's letting people who push scapegoating of innocent groups come and push that scapegoating on here and pop their allegiance on their sleeve and pretend that isnt an act of racism that I think crosses a line.
If someone runs up the Jolly Roger people expect pirating.
If they announce support for Trump and explicit local racists then people may reasonably expect racism and the other isms these groups do.
It can reasonably be seen as signalling intent to, if not break the rules to brink it with them, and for targeted groups to at least expect attempts at harassment/ seeing what racism the poster can get away with.
Frankly my sympathies are with the people on the receiving end of these groups and not those who advertise their support for them.
I think something that's often missed is the extent to which people are exposed to these views in real life - they lead the news and front pages of many newspapers. It's not possible to live in a bubble with rising fascism. It is possible to say they are not welcome here but those targeted by them are.
I am from Ireland and therefore no stranger to the support, overt or tacit, of a range of murderous bastards because they are on Our Side. I've seen close up the temporising, justification, rationalisation and sheer denial that allows people to countenance them and still think of themselves as decent, reasonable citizens.
I feel absolutely no inclination to indulge such delusions here.
I appear to have been planked for suggesting Bullfrog's racial slur on white people was racist and that makes me a jerk.
If racism is not allowed on the ship (and I'm all for that) I don't see why racism can't apply to white people too. ( And no I'm not a white male supremasist. For a start, I'm female, contrary to popular opinion, and while ethnically British, grew up in Asia).
I'm touched @KarlLB started the thread. Go you bro.
I returned from planking last night and posted a few things and @Doublethink has said see Styx thread in each case.
Am I reading the correct Styx thread? What do you want me to do? Am I not allowed to talk about One Nation or support some things Trump does? ( I don't support everything he does at all.)
If I am not welcome as per @TurquoiseTastic 's honest post above, that's fine.
But you see I used to be centre left. But many of us, feel the left have lost the plot and gone too far left, so now we are automatically centre right.
It's unclear whether you're being disingenuous here or actually don't understand what "centre right" actually means. Or indeed "the left".
@Heavenlyannie as a working-class person I find it incredibly patronising and offensive to suggest that supporting Reform is a working-class thing - most of their MPs/councillors are not working-class at all and most of their money comes from the extremely wealthy. Reform is fundamentally a racist organisation that seeks to terrorise the most marginalised people in the UK - I understand not wanting to think the worst of family and friends that support them, but that doesn't make Reform less racist. I personally think that Reform should be categorised as a terrorist organisation, and certainly support for them should be proscribed on the Ship. I think that if you (general you) are on the left your priority should be defending those less able to defend themselves - this means the victims of Reform, not their supporters. I have no sympathy for grown adults who support racist organisations.
@Gamma Gamaliel I think it's in very poor taste to suggest that people who use particular chain restaurants should be sent to prison for doing so and be classed in the same category as the IRA and neo-Nazi groups. I realise that you weren't being entirely serious, but in general proscribed organisations are serious terrorist groups that have murdered and terrorised people - someone eating at McDonalds or going to Starbucks is not equivalent to being guilty of blowing up a mosque or whatever. I do think that this has a classist element to it. In many areas there are only chain places, and many people with additional needs appreciate how reliable a chain is in terms of allergens, food being the same everywhere etc. McDonalds are also often the only place open early til late or 24hr in smaller towns - why should someone be sent to prison for eating at McDonalds for breakfast before work because it's the only place open that early?
I do enjoy the conversations on the Ship, though perhaps mostly those which are more whimsical in Heaven, All Saints and the Circus; and part of the pleasure there comes from not particularly knowing people's backgrounds, just enjoying their posts.
My concern about 'no platforming' certain groups on principle is that the Ship becomes yet another closed echo-chamber, where people only get to hear things which reinforce their existing views. Asking people to leave on the basis of their posts is fine if the posts offend Ship guidelines, but I think I would find banning on principle to be a step to far. That wouldn't really fit in with my concept of a forum reflecting Christian values, and I would need to think whether I felt comfortable remaining on board.
Why do you think that specifically including racism is a Christian value? What about the victims of racism - do they not deserve space away from racism?
Has it not occurred to you that some of us welcome a respite away from racism, homophobia, and other increasingly normalised forms of bigotry? I'm not sure how it can be an echo chamber to exclude people who support those in power. MAGA supporters aren't marginalised. They don't need a safe space, the US government is their safe space.
I don't understand why we would bar certain people BEFORE they ever offend. Especially when that means pre-emptively barring 1/4 to 1/3 of a large nation's population, depending on exactly how one defines a Trump follower.
I don't believe people here are so fragile they can't withstand the presence of people who haven't actually offended yet, and who may never do so.
And the whole concept of a club for left-minded people--heck, of a club at all!
We've come a long, long way from Christian unrest.
My issue with banning people as soon as (for example) they declare support for Donald Trump is this: Trumpism and movements like it feed off a sense of grievance and victimhood. If we ban people immediately we are feeding that sense of victimhood and entrenching them in it.
Racism and all the rest are already against our existing rules.
Well, the Ship is mostly not American - Trump supporters exist elsewhere, but not many. I don't seriously think that we should exclude people before they post unless their name or bio has something offensive - but most sincerely racist people don't think of themselves as racist anyway and aren't going to do that. I think it's enough to come down hard on racism and other bigotry, because frankly people who support MAGA, Reform et al can't help themselves when it comes to being racist online and show themselves up eventually.
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that the Ship should be a club for left-leaning people, just that it should be actively anti-racist - which I know you know probably more than any other Shipmate are not the same thing at all. I know I for one am very glad to have voices like yours here.
@Heavenlyannie as a working-class person I find it incredibly patronising and offensive to suggest that supporting Reform is a working-class thing - most of their MPs/councillors are not working-class at all and most of their money comes from the extremely wealthy. Reform is fundamentally a racist organisation that seeks to terrorise the most marginalised people in the UK - I understand not wanting to think the worst of family and friends that support them, but that doesn't make Reform less racist. I personally think that Reform should be categorised as a terrorist organisation, and certainly support for them should be proscribed on the Ship. I think that if you (general you) are on the left your priority should be defending those less able to defend themselves - this means the victims of Reform, not their supporters. I have no sympathy for grown adults who support racist organisations.
I know of what I speak. I have a sibling who is a fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist man and has been since his teens on the council estate in the 1970s. I experienced that on a daily basis as a teen whilst my best friend was an Indian Muslim. He is well beyond Reform in his sympathies. Yet I also have a brother who is probably Reform (he was also a Brexiter) who is none of these things, he’s not even xenophobic and he adores his Lithuanian son in law and the non-white members of my family.
I was brought up on Marsh Farm, a deprived area which had race riots in the 1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Farm The only famous alumni from my high school is Andrew Tate. Less than a third of the Luton population is white British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_Borough_Council but Reform won a council seat last week and they will win more.
@Heavenlyannie as a working-class person I find it incredibly patronising and offensive to suggest that supporting Reform is a working-class thing - most of their MPs/councillors are not working-class at all and most of their money comes from the extremely wealthy. Reform is fundamentally a racist organisation that seeks to terrorise the most marginalised people in the UK - I understand not wanting to think the worst of family and friends that support them, but that doesn't make Reform less racist. I personally think that Reform should be categorised as a terrorist organisation, and certainly support for them should be proscribed on the Ship. I think that if you (general you) are on the left your priority should be defending those less able to defend themselves - this means the victims of Reform, not their supporters. I have no sympathy for grown adults who support racist organisations.
I know of what I speak. I have a sibling who is a fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist man and has been since his teens on the council estate in the 1970s. I experienced that on a daily basis as a teen whilst my best friend was an Indian Muslim. He is well beyond Reform in his sympathies. Yet I also have a brother who is probably Reform (he was also a Brexiter) who is none of these things, he’s not even xenophobic and he adores his Lithuanian son in law and the non-white members of my family.
I was brought up on Marsh Farm, a deprived area which had race riots in the 1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Farm The only famous alumni from my high school is Andrew Tate. Less than a third of the Luton population is white British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_Borough_Council but Reform won a council seat last week and they will win more.
@Pomona I apologise if I offended you but often use hyperbole for comic effect and yes, that can veer into poor taste at times.
I tend to riff with ironic comments at times and these can backfire.
That said, it sometimes feels like I can't crack a joke or make an ironic comment here - in a post-moderm kind of way or course - without being taken to task in some way.
I'm trying my best to keep things 'straight' and serious.
@WhimsicalChristian - apologies I assumed you were an Aussie bloke. I hope that hasn't offended you.
Comments
And yet they sell billions of cups of coffee. They must be doing something right.
Millions of Americans voted for Trump.
Plenty of British people support Reform.
Starbucks brew tasteless bilge.
Serious ethical concerns have been expressed about Starbucks over its supply-chain practices, labour relations and alleged examples of slavery and trafficking in some of its sources.
Here in Europe there are allegations of tax avoidance.
We have big issues over here with big US tech and other corporations not paying tax.
Which is one of the reasons we react badly when Trump accuses us of being a bunch of freeloaders leeching off US largesse.
@Nick Tamen - I've never heard of KKK activity here but if that article is reliable then yes, they should be on the list of proscribed organisations.
@Arethosemyfeet, if 'direct-action' and 'non-violence' involves criminal damage and hitting police and security guards with sledge-hammers, then I for one would have nothing to do with it. That said, I don't agree with arresting harmless little old ladies for holding up cardboard placards with the name of a particular organisation on them.
As you say, the proscribing of the particular organisation I think we both have in mind is likely to fail for the reasons you have cited.
FWIW in that particular instance I would agree with meting out stiff sentences to those who carry out criminal damage and assault security guards and police officers who were only doing their job - I don't think we can claim 'self-defence' for the perpetrators in the instances in question.
I do have, however, grave reservations about the response and the clamp-down on peaceful protestors supporting that particular group.
Doublethink, Styx Hosting
It's not original to observe that engaging is preferable to conflict. It doesn't have to be everyone, but I would hope that some are prepared to do so.
The the time I went for option one was personal, painful and difficult, I think I'm still recovering.
The walls do not contain the garden, but the garden is contained within the walls.
One form makes its headline target Jews, the other Black people and Muslims, often cloaking its antisemitism in 'Philosemitism'.
If we immediately ban Nazis then we should do the same for those who follow a fuhrer targetting people of colour and Muslims.
There is simply zero point in tolerating evidence-free support of cruelty, dehumanisation and death for others. We're not going to get reasoned debate or any great insight into why people do this that cant be got elsewhere, and it's obscene while people are dying because of war crimes committed in the name of this ideology to roll out the welcome mat for those who seek to spread it here.
We may not have Muslims posting here but the least we can do is say at a time when Muslims are dying in large numbers because of racist nationalist authoritarian warmongering that holds their lives cheap, is that we don't feel obligated to provide a platform for that here.
And it usually involves justifying everything the leader does so involves a lot of posting propaganda that has no basis in reality because of the erratic nature of the leader. Hence there isnt a useful discussion to be had beyond the leader is always right and here are some outrageous lies/ distortions to prove it. ( And debunking those doesn't lead to any change of view - because allegiance to the leader matters more)
We dont tend to get Putinists etc. but could discuss it if it happened.
Posting approval for other very well known explicitly racist movements because of their racist stances would I think simply break C1 - especially if a poster already had a track record of racist posting which would leave little doubt about what's going on and what their post is about.
Banning people belonging to different political groups would be difficult as we don’t wear badges saying what group we belong to. And which groups? If you ban Trumpists are you going to ban Reform too? That would make me, as liberal left winger, very uncomfortable and I would also see it as classist. Possibly because I am one of the few people on this board who are working class, who lives on a council estate and has several siblings who would be banned for supporting Reform under such a ruling. It would make the ship look intolerant and elitist.
Currently, that would only apply to self-professed nazis. Some have argued certain political affiliations are no morally different, inherently a c1 violation - and if we we permit this we run into a potential Nazi bar problem.
I am seeking to understand what the ship community thinks about this.
(ETA @Heavenlyannie for example, if someone joins and then says they are member of the KKK is that inherently so racist, that waiting for them to post a racist statement is useful or necessary ? And does this apply to any larger political parties or movements ?)
The problem is that there are always those on the receiving end of those offensive posts who are being overlooked or silenced or driven away and the effect of allowing offensive posters to carry on unchecked is that it normalises what they are saying, so that they feel they are being funny or winning others over and gaining support for their views.
Yes, but if you wait then damage may have already been done. It takes time to see a pattern then to exclude someone under C1 based on their posts - many sail close to the wind.
I may be alone in this but I don't really care very much if Reform supporters think the Ship is intolerant or elitist. I do care about platforming fascists. Working class people supported Hitler and Mussolini too, that doesn't make it classist to oppose them. Arguably it's actually more elitist (and patronising) to suppose that working class people should be exempt from needing to identify and reject fascist politics.
I think this is fine. Why shouldn't left-liberals have a club? I am probably not a left-liberal but I am reasonably happy to enforce the rules as a host (and will in fact often suppress my own opinions even when posting as a Shipmate) because those are the rules of the club.
What slightly confuses things is the idea that this is a space prioritising debate between very different political and social worldviews. This is clearly not the case. I think we tie ourselves into knots trying to make ourselves a place where all views are welcome when actually that is not the aim.
Oh yes indeed.
I think we need to see allegiance to it for what it is - support for fascism that glorifies lies and murders - so no different from Nazis.
I think with other racist parties it depends how equated that party is with being racist and whether the supporter is advocating for the racism but somebody who supports Trump and posts support for their local explicitly racist party is clearly crossing that line.
Nailed it.
If racism is not allowed on the ship (and I'm all for that) I don't see why racism can't apply to white people too. ( And no I'm not a white male supremasist. For a start, I'm female, contrary to popular opinion, and while ethnically British, grew up in Asia).
I'm touched @KarlLB started the thread. Go you bro.
I returned from planking last night and posted a few things and @Doublethink has said see Styx thread in each case.
Am I reading the correct Styx thread? What do you want me to do? Am I not allowed to talk about One Nation or support some things Trump does? ( I don't support everything he does at all.)
If I am not welcome as per @TurquoiseTastic 's honest post above, that's fine.
But you see I used to be centre left. But many of us, feel the left have lost the plot and gone too far left, so now we are automatically centre right.
I like posting here because I am a Christian (liberal) and there are some very clever people on this board. I tried finding other places to chat about geopolitics ( my current interest) but the other places were ridiculously stupid. You have a very good thing going here.
If anyone knows of a centre right Christian board to talk about geopolitics ( or whatever) that isn't idiotic feel free to point me in the right direction (lol! pun unintended!) and I'll leave you all alone to your comfortable club.
You were suspended because you repeatedly ignored the hosts posts and made multiple commandment breaches in a short period of time.
I have put see Styx on all the main political and national threads. My purpose in doing so is:
Please note this is a question not a conclusion.
It's interesting to me how many people say this. Personally I have had the opposite experience. I feel that I used to be centre-right but that the right have become so extreme that I now find scanning The Daily Telegraph - once my favourite newspaper - vaguely sickening. That leaves me on the left by default.
I guess this would square with the idea of political polarization in society. But I don't think the Ship is going to solve this problem. It seems to me that posters are made distressed and angry (on the left) and contemptuous and sneering (on the right) by the encounter with the "other side" - it does more harm than good.
Nowadays the Ship is populated mostly by over-50s hanging out with those who remain of our old "virtual" friends of decades' standing. You can get a lot of genuine thought-provoking chat on non-culture-war topics. You can get some interesting insights (from a particular angle) on hot-button issues. But I don't think one should expect it to be a forum for thrashing out the fiercest disagreements of our age. No-one has the energy to do that or police that. We're all getting old!
My concern about 'no platforming' certain groups on principle is that the Ship becomes yet another closed echo-chamber, where people only get to hear things which reinforce their existing views. Asking people to leave on the basis of their posts is fine if the posts offend Ship guidelines, but I think I would find banning on principle to be a step to far. That wouldn't really fit in with my concept of a forum reflecting Christian values, and I would need to think whether I felt comfortable remaining on board.
The trouble with saying 'right wing' when we mean scapegoating, murders and attacking human rights and democracy is it can allow people who really support forms of vicious fascism to say they are just 'right wing' as if they are David Cameron or Ruth Davidson Tories or Never Trump republicans.
It's letting people who push scapegoating of innocent groups come and push that scapegoating on here and pop their allegiance on their sleeve and pretend that isnt an act of racism that I think crosses a line.
If someone runs up the Jolly Roger people expect pirating.
If they announce support for Trump and explicit local racists then people may reasonably expect racism and the other isms these groups do.
It can reasonably be seen as signalling intent to, if not break the rules to brink it with them, and for targeted groups to at least expect attempts at harassment/ seeing what racism the poster can get away with.
Frankly my sympathies are with the people on the receiving end of these groups and not those who advertise their support for them.
I think something that's often missed is the extent to which people are exposed to these views in real life - they lead the news and front pages of many newspapers. It's not possible to live in a bubble with rising fascism. It is possible to say they are not welcome here but those targeted by them are.
This.
I feel absolutely no inclination to indulge such delusions here.
It's unclear whether you're being disingenuous here or actually don't understand what "centre right" actually means. Or indeed "the left".
Doublethink, Styx Hosting
@Gamma Gamaliel I think it's in very poor taste to suggest that people who use particular chain restaurants should be sent to prison for doing so and be classed in the same category as the IRA and neo-Nazi groups. I realise that you weren't being entirely serious, but in general proscribed organisations are serious terrorist groups that have murdered and terrorised people - someone eating at McDonalds or going to Starbucks is not equivalent to being guilty of blowing up a mosque or whatever. I do think that this has a classist element to it. In many areas there are only chain places, and many people with additional needs appreciate how reliable a chain is in terms of allergens, food being the same everywhere etc. McDonalds are also often the only place open early til late or 24hr in smaller towns - why should someone be sent to prison for eating at McDonalds for breakfast before work because it's the only place open that early?
Why do you think that specifically including racism is a Christian value? What about the victims of racism - do they not deserve space away from racism?
Has it not occurred to you that some of us welcome a respite away from racism, homophobia, and other increasingly normalised forms of bigotry? I'm not sure how it can be an echo chamber to exclude people who support those in power. MAGA supporters aren't marginalised. They don't need a safe space, the US government is their safe space.
I don't believe people here are so fragile they can't withstand the presence of people who haven't actually offended yet, and who may never do so.
And the whole concept of a club for left-minded people--heck, of a club at all!
We've come a long, long way from Christian unrest.
Racism and all the rest are already against our existing rules.
I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that the Ship should be a club for left-leaning people, just that it should be actively anti-racist - which I know you know probably more than any other Shipmate are not the same thing at all. I know I for one am very glad to have voices like yours here.
I know of what I speak. I have a sibling who is a fascist, racist, homophobic, sexist man and has been since his teens on the council estate in the 1970s. I experienced that on a daily basis as a teen whilst my best friend was an Indian Muslim. He is well beyond Reform in his sympathies. Yet I also have a brother who is probably Reform (he was also a Brexiter) who is none of these things, he’s not even xenophobic and he adores his Lithuanian son in law and the non-white members of my family.
I was brought up on Marsh Farm, a deprived area which had race riots in the 1990s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_Farm The only famous alumni from my high school is Andrew Tate. Less than a third of the Luton population is white British https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luton_Borough_Council but Reform won a council seat last week and they will win more.
Thank you for a sensible response.
I tend to riff with ironic comments at times and these can backfire.
That said, it sometimes feels like I can't crack a joke or make an ironic comment here - in a post-moderm kind of way or course - without being taken to task in some way.
I'm trying my best to keep things 'straight' and serious.
@WhimsicalChristian - apologies I assumed you were an Aussie bloke. I hope that hasn't offended you.