There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
It seems to me that a lot of this discussion is about politics not equality and diversity. Because if the board really introduced a policy that banned membership of misogynistic and homophobic organisations a whole chunk of the current membership would have to leave, including myself, because of our church membership.
Now, there might be an argument that a lot of people don’t agree with their church’s position on all such issues, which is my own circumstance, but that is exactly the argument I made earlier about political parties.
It seems to me that a lot of this discussion is about politics not equality and diversity. Because if the board really introduced a policy that banned membership of misogynistic and homophobic organisations a whole chunk of the current membership would have to leave, including myself, because of our church membership.
Now, there might be an argument that a lot of people don’t agree with their church’s position on all such issues, which is my own circumstance, but that is exactly the argument I made earlier about political parties.
There is a difference between recently formed movements that make -isms a central plank of what they stand for and older organisations where those -isms are a noticeable but small part of their heritage. Supporting MAGA but rejecting racism is about as credible as buying Playboy for the articles.
So it is okay for older organisations to be misogynistic and homophobic but not new ones? My church organisation is 30 years old, where does it fit in to the hierarchy?
As for a small part, my gay son wouldn’t be allowed to get married in most churches. I don’t think that is a small issue.
Also, as a woman, I don’t think misogyny is just a “small part of their heritage”.
Seriously! I think this backs up my thoughts that this is not really about equality.
@Arethosemyfeet - I presume you are familiar with your Shakespeare?
Julius Caesar Act 3 sc.iii
'I am Cinna the poet. I am Cinna the poet.'
Ah, but he has the same name as Cinna the conspirator.
He must be a dog-whistler.
'Tear him! Tear him!'
Plank them! Plank them!
They've not actually said anything yet nor offended anyone yet but they support a political party or ideology we don't approve of. Don't let them on in the first place.
Full on MAGA or Reform supporters wouldn't hang around very long and even if they did they'd soon be planked for spouting views that contravene the Commandments.
Not allowing them on in the first place would simply reinforce their martyr complex.
Sure, chucking them off after a week or two would do that also but at least they couldn't claim not to have been given a chance to speak in the first place.
Most Reform, Restore or MAGA types would take one look at this place and think, 'Heck! I'm not going to get very far on these boards. I'll either slink out now or chuck in a few stink-bombs ...' which the rest of us would defuse or which the Hosts and Admins would take down.
So it is okay for older organisations to be misogynistic and homophobic but not new ones? My church organisation is 30 years old, where does it fit in to the hierarchy?
As for a small part, my gay son wouldn’t be allowed to get married in most churches. I don’t think that is a small issue.
I didn't mean that they're small issues, only that they're not the main purpose of the organisation, and I think that matters in determining whether we should treat support for a movement as support for particular views. If you're a member of Westborough Baptist Church (for example) it's reasonable to assume you support their views on gay people. That's far less true of the Roman Catholic Church. Antiquity means that people can identify with a movement or organisation from an early age and remain attached to it for identity reasons even when they disagree with it on many fronts. For new movements there is not that 'legacy' affiliation and people have chosen to identify themselves with it.
So where is the line? Should I be banned for belonging to a ‘new movement’ that is only 30 years old and practices male headship and doesn’t agree with gay marriage, albeit one that doesn’t practice hate speech? It is younger than your example.
Sojourner might be right on the ‘some are more equal than others’.
So where is the line? Should I be banned for belonging to a ‘new movement’ that is only 30 years old and practices male headship and doesn’t agree with gay marriage, albeit one that doesn’t practice hate speech? It is younger than your example.
Sojourner might be right on the ‘some are more equal than others’.
Is misogyny and homophobia the main purpose of your church? That's the line I'm suggesting. Where do you think the line should be drawn?
SFA to do with migrants as I see it, but never mind.
Totally agree. But we have a poster claiming the overburdened hospitals and housing crisis are the fault of migrants. And as @sionisais says, migrant-blaming a popular sport in the UK as well.
My POV is that, if you look at who is actually maintaining the amenities and services we take for granted, it is as likely as not to be someone (or the children of someone) who came here from elsewhere.
The idea that society is made up of a homogeneous native population, unfailingly industrious, patriotic etc, being undermined/overwhelmed by feckless hordes with funny names and weird cuisines is total shite. But that appears to be the right-wing view.
Firenze, if you are accusing Whimsical Christian of blaming migrants for the housing and hospital problems in Oz then I think you have it wrong. I read her post and take it that she thinks the country cannot afford more migrants in view of increasingly scarce resources. I happen to disagree but that is neither here nor there.
I do not subscribe to your other views @Firenze about homogenous native populations or that it isn't clear that Australia is a migrant country.
I am a migrant to Australia. Most migrants to Australia are British. Nothing to do with race or xenophobia.
The flip side of the problem is of course, we don't have enough people to do jobs we need doing, so we increase our migrant uptake, but that puts additional pressure on infrastructure.
So it's really a catch 22. I can't see a solution.
SFA to do with migrants as I see it, but never mind.
Totally agree. But we have a poster claiming the overburdened hospitals and housing crisis are the fault of migrants. And as @sionisais says, migrant-blaming a popular sport in the UK as well.
My POV is that, if you look at who is actually maintaining the amenities and services we take for granted, it is as likely as not to be someone (or the children of someone) who came here from elsewhere.
The idea that society is made up of a homogeneous native population, unfailingly industrious, patriotic etc, being undermined/overwhelmed by feckless hordes with funny names and weird cuisines is total shite. But that appears to be the right-wing view.
Firenze, if you are accusing Whimsical Christian of blaming migrants for the housing and hospital problems in Oz then I think you have it wrong. I read her post and take it that she thinks the country cannot afford more migrants in view of increasingly scarce resources. I happen to disagree but that is neither here nor there.
I do not subscribe to your other views @Firenze about homogenous native populations or that it isn't clear that Australia is a migrant country.
I am a migrant to Australia. Most migrants to Australia are British. Nothing to do with race or xenophobia.
The flip side of the problem is of course, we don't have enough people to do jobs we need doing, so we increase our migrant uptake, but that puts additional pressure on infrastructure.
So it's really a catch 22. I can't see a solution.
Building infrastructure seems like a fairly obvious solution. Australia is an enormously wealthy country.
So where is the line? Should I be banned for belonging to a ‘new movement’ that is only 30 years old and practices male headship and doesn’t agree with gay marriage, albeit one that doesn’t practice hate speech? It is younger than your example.
Sojourner might be right on the ‘some are more equal than others’.
Is misogyny and homophobia the main purpose of your church? That's the line I'm suggesting. Where do you think the line should be drawn?
You are the one suggesting new church movements should be treated differently to older ones, even if the latter are homophobic and misogynistic, not me. Despite retaining the patriarchy being a key position in some older churches.
I have already said where I think the line in the forum should be drawn. I don’t think people should be banned from the forum for membership of organisations other than legally proscribed ones and Nazism. This is already the position of the forum. I think people should be suspended or banned in response to their behaviour and the forum already has rules that enable this. I don’t think people should be banned because of what other people think they might believe.
For what is worth, I support Lamb Chopped's position. This discussion has been going on for many days. It appears to me that the majority who have spoken are not in favour of planking people simply based on who they support or membership in a group (proscribed groups by British Government excepted). Have the owners got enough of a flavour of opinion and breadth of the debate?
There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
My view is that all people who class themselves as Nazis are by definition violent. Not everyone called a Nazi (or fascist or neo-Nazi) by others is one.
Marxists are not all violent, that's the difference. You absolutely can infer things about a person who calls themselves a Nazi in a way that you can't about a person who calls themselves a Marxist.
For what is worth, I support Lamb Chopped's position. This discussion has been going on for many days. It appears to me that the majority who have spoken are not in favour of planking people simply based on who they support or membership in a group (proscribed groups by British Government excepted). Have the owners got enough of a flavour of opinion and breadth of the debate?
In South Africa, to identify as a member of any political party isn't an ambiguous statement: it is an immediate indication of where you stand in polarised debates. You are a member of X because you think there is white genocide happening and you see yourself as a victim of reverse racism; you are a member of Y because you are xenophobic and believe foreigners from Zambia or Angola are taking South African jobs; you are a member of Z because you think homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed for moral iniquity. The party currently in power is seen as inept and corrupt and has very little tacit support but the lack of a strong unified opposition means that opposition parties tend to take populist stances to draw in extremist voters.
Back in the days when the ANC under Mbeki was promoting the Duesberg Hypothesis(resulting in over 300 000 deaths, as I understand it), would you say that anyone announcing themselves as an ANC voter should have been a priori considered a supporter of AIDS Denialism?
What you need to understand, @stetson, is that a large percentage of the ANC leadership and membership opposed what Mbeki was doing. The ANC had a history of supporting LGBTQI+ rights through the 1980s, thanks to ANC figures like Albie Sachs and the Revd Frank Chikane. That's what made the difference, a party divided within itself and a history of progressive support for human rights. Mbeki lost a great deal of support by his AIDs denialism and the deaths resulting from his refusal to allow retro-virals into South Africa. It has parallels with the unchecked tyrannical power of certain Western presidencies where many within the party object but the president has the final say.
There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
My view is that all people who class themselves as Nazis are by definition violent. Not everyone called a Nazi (or fascist or neo-Nazi) by others is one.
Marxists are not all violent, that's the difference. You absolutely can infer things about a person who calls themselves a Nazi in a way that you can't about a person who calls themselves a Marxist.
Oh come on Doublethink do you really believe that“ Marxists are not at all violent”?
History is littered with Marxist violence: like any other movement,give ‘em enough power and away they go. Ever heard of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha or the Peruvian Shining Path?
Perhaps you’ve only encountered the milquetoast British Workers’ Revolution Party which I understand has splintered over the years.
There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
My view is that all people who class themselves as Nazis are by definition violent. Not everyone called a Nazi (or fascist or neo-Nazi) by others is one.
Marxists are not all violent, that's the difference. You absolutely can infer things about a person who calls themselves a Nazi in a way that you can't about a person who calls themselves a Marxist.
Oh come on Doublethink do you really believe that“ Marxists are not at all violent”?
History is littered with Marxist violence: like any other movement,give ‘em enough power and away they go. Ever heard of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha or the Peruvian Shining Path?
Perhaps you’ve only encountered the milquetoast British Workers’ Revolution Party which I understand has splintered over the years.
Is that directed at me? If so, then you are wrong. End of story.
There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
My view is that all people who class themselves as Nazis are by definition violent. Not everyone called a Nazi (or fascist or neo-Nazi) by others is one.
Marxists are not all violent, that's the difference. You absolutely can infer things about a person who calls themselves a Nazi in a way that you can't about a person who calls themselves a Marxist.
Oh come on Doublethink do you really believe that“ Marxists are not at all violent”?
History is littered with Marxist violence: like any other movement,give ‘em enough power and away they go. Ever heard of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha or the Peruvian Shining Path?
Perhaps you’ve only encountered the milquetoast British Workers’ Revolution Party which I understand has splintered over the years.
Is that directed at me? If so, then you are wrong. End of story.
There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
My view is that all people who class themselves as Nazis are by definition violent. Not everyone called a Nazi (or fascist or neo-Nazi) by others is one.
Marxists are not all violent, that's the difference. You absolutely can infer things about a person who calls themselves a Nazi in a way that you can't about a person who calls themselves a Marxist.
Oh come on Doublethink do you really believe that“ Marxists are not at all violent”?
History is littered with Marxist violence: like any other movement,give ‘em enough power and away they go. Ever heard of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha or the Peruvian Shining Path?
Perhaps you’ve only encountered the milquetoast British Workers’ Revolution Party which I understand has splintered over the years.
Is that directed at me? If so, then you are wrong. End of story.
I didn’t write anything about Marxists @Sojourner ?
Dear Jesus, apologies to Doublethink. I didn’t think you’d write anything so silly.
Redirected to Basketactotale: if you really think Marxism is non violent then you are deluded.
Back to Doublethink: 20th century history and the consideration thereof is central to this thread. You have asked all of us across the boards to read this and contribute as we see fit.
Grateful that I'm not waking up this morning to reading news of genocide by nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead and dying.
I still dont see a meaningful distinction between Nazis and explicit Trump supporters except that the latter haven't managed to implement large scale genocide yet. 'Yet' being the operative word.
Nazism is essentially a form of warmongering genocidal violent racism that wants state power for those ends which holds normal standards of compassion, truth and decency in contempt.
Trumpism is, well, I'm not sure how it differs apart from currently being more dangerous and targeting Muslims and people of colour more than Jews.
Nazism isnt a historical thing coming under the Admin prohibition as a look at the list of proscribed groups will show. You'll see Nazi groups on that. They currently exist.
If Wullie/ Wilhelmina Smith declares support for Nazism they aren't from a currently large movement whose leader is in power and able to carry out genocide and violent racism on a vast scale but they would be held fully responsible for supporting a genocidal group with no ' But what if they're really here to post about liturgy?' ' 'And what if they just joined the Nazis because they like putting up flags and don't actually know about persecuting Jews and weren't paying attention to that bit?'. They would be shown the door.
If Joe/ Josephine Blow turns up to justify what Trump is doing in Iran/military war crimes against civilians, and his other doings and how they think it is great complete with gratuitous falsehoods they will not take correction for or accept evidence against, they are not held responsible to the same degree.
People seem to not want them to be held to the same standard. OK folk don't want them held to that and I'm not going to do but 'what about the poor wee left-behind Nazis of Scotland?'
But it bothers me that people can come here and pass that stuff off as normal acceptable discourse. I think mainstreaming it and not holding its purveyors to the standards that we do Nazis is a big part of how it's got to this level of being able to make credible threats of genocide and to carry out racist murders. I think it's good even on a tiny scale to normalise rejecting it to the same degree.
If all I can do is bear unpopular witness that to me they amount to the same blood-drenched thing and should be treated the same then OK here is my witness on that point. They’re not meaningfully different in my eyes. They should be treated the same.
Thing is, would even a group like Westboro Baptist claim that it's sole or main aim is to promote misogyny and homophonic?
They'd probably claim that those things are simply a corollary of its understanding of 'what the Bible says.'
I wouldn't agree with them but that's probably what they'd say.
The chances of a Westboro Baptist style fundamentalist happily hanging around on these boards is pretty remote. We don't have many conservative evangelicals around on these boards any more let alone fundamentalists.
Ban people on the basis of what they write not what we might think they might write or what views we assume they hold. We might be right in those assumptions but unless they are jerkishly intimidating others by parading their views in a way that causes distress or offence then surely they shouldn't be planked simply for holding those views.
I think we have all heard your point, Louise, and I think you have made your position abundantly clear. I appreciate your contributions to this discussion. It makes me reflect on which groups in Canada are beyond the pale (other than those proscribed by our Government) including federal and provincial parties.
We might be right in those assumptions but unless they are jerkishly intimidating others by parading their views in a way that causes distress or offence then surely they shouldn't be planked simply for holding those views
Genuine question to @Gamma Gamaliel - does that ' jerkishly' 'parading' cover explicit support for Trump's Iran war/ other war crimes then?
Genocide/ war crimes aren't explicitly mentioned in C1 but are entirely reasonable examples of jerkish behaviour and support for them causes huge distress.
Perhaps part of what's going on here is that some of us just cannot see support for genocidal regimes committing war crimes or threatening to commit them on a huge scale as business as normal?
My gut feel--and my experience as a far leftie U.S. person informs that--is that this ship will be much stronger if we can hear two different points of view as very valid.
I hear some people saying that a place that bans people based on association is scary. I think of all the societies (Quakers, Amish, certain modern Evangelical groups, Mormons) in the U.S. that do shunning. I can definitely see why shunning people based on their connections instead of their deeds could be toxic.
I hear other people saying that they don't like walking next to people who claim dangerous associations*. Just because X hasn't shot someone yet, doesn't mean they won't, and they don't want to be the first victim. And i hear that too. Many people underestimated the power of MAGA to get elected.
And I have a personal leaning, but much more so I think that almost everyone who has posted on this thread is right and reasonable. None of us** want someone to be verbally stabbed or to feel unsafe on the ship. The question is, how do we define shooting. How do we require people to put their metaphorical guns down when they enter the ship? And of course, how much are we willing to put our own weapons down for the sake of our neighbor? Can I keep my pocketknife?
*And it does feel dangerous if someone's MAGA sign means one believes they would murder you, whether or not they really would
Grateful that I'm not waking up this morning to reading news of genocide by nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, dead and dying.
I still dont see a meaningful distinction between Nazis and explicit Trump supporters except that the latter haven't managed to implement large scale genocide yet. 'Yet' being the operative word.
I don't think you ever got back to me on my earlier question, Louise. Do.you also want Reformers banned?
Nazism isnt a historical thing coming under the Admin prohibition as a look at the list of proscribed groups will show. You'll see Nazi groups on that. They currently exist.
Just to point out, but I think that list was simply based on a list of whatever groups had been legally banned by the British government. IOW the mods weren't actually sitting down and analyzing the ideology of every group to see if it violates Ship rules(as the new proposed policy would entail), they just took the government's list as the working one for the Ship.
Yes I know what that list is as it was linked, and that it doesn't at all come from us - we're obliged to have it. I'm mentioning its nazi examples to be clear that they are not just 20th century history - as we were asked by admin not to argue 20th century history. Nazis still exist.
With regard to your second question-
I personally ( as shipmate) draw a distinction between the Ship's 'nuclear block' - proscribed groups - no sign up - and a second category, where something simply falls under C1 which should be enforced.
Category 1 - The horror of Trumpist repeated war crimes, support for/ threats of genocide, starting illegal wars, actual state-backed racist murders and networks of camps, attacks on law and democracy human rights etc. actually occurring on a vast scale is 'nuclear block' territory for me - because it's functionally no different to the Nazis we nuclear block (what they did in power in Nazi Germany is the reason why their modern day successors even without state power still carry that stigma) If we support it one case, my argument is that the other more currently dangerous case - Trumpism - follows. It meets that high threshold.
Category 2 - C1 should be enforced
If Reform got power they might well do the same as Trump and meet the Category 1 threshold but they're currently a relatively powerless opposition party with a few MPs and councillors. People voting for them may not believe they will carry out extreme fascist things - much as American voters were lied to that Trump wouldn't do a lot of things that are now established facts. Reform ( and even more so their more extreme schism 'Restore') are however a racist party and a lot of people do vote for them knowing that and wanting that - so promoting them is something someone can do as a way of promoting or flaunting racism.
This is pretty much @Gamma Gamaliel 's 'jerkishly intimidating others by parading their views in a way that causes distress or offence'
I think that meets C1 - similarly someone gloating about success for One Nation/ the ADF/Rassemblement National/ Fidesz or other similar racist parties combining that with racist posts/ dogwhistling would get into C1 territory for me. I'd regard that as a case that someone is breaking C1.
So Reform 'nuclear block' so far no. 'Jerkishly parading it' with other indications of racism like a lot of dogwhistling or brinkmanship or doing white grievance politics - I'd say that is a breach of C1 and the same for the other far right parties which make racism/ other -isms their big selling point.
I don't think you've answered yet, so I'll ask again. How do you know a new shippie belongs to one of these proscribed groups before they start posting C1 violating posts? No one is arguing that once someone violates C1 they shouldn't be planked, we all agree on that. So what is it exactly you want? No one comes into the ship and for their first post says something like "Hi, I'm a member of (insert hate group here)".
To me, the difference between Nazism and Trumpism lies not in what the movements do but in the question, "Is it still possible for an adult of normal intelligence to mistakenly affiliate themselves on a casual level without realizing the evil they've signed up for?"
In the case of Nazism, no. That history is far too well publicized.
Eventually that will be true of Trumpism as well. But at this point, I'm still meeting ignorant Trump supporters who truly don't realize what they've signed on for, and who can be moved when they discover the truth. I spoke to a room full of these people three months ago. When we left, one of them slipped a donation to immigrant care into my pocket.
These are the people I don't want to blanket ban from the Ship.
In South Africa, to identify as a member of any political party isn't an ambiguous statement: it is an immediate indication of where you stand in polarised debates. You are a member of X because you think there is white genocide happening and you see yourself as a victim of reverse racism; you are a member of Y because you are xenophobic and believe foreigners from Zambia or Angola are taking South African jobs; you are a member of Z because you think homosexuals should be imprisoned or executed for moral iniquity. The party currently in power is seen as inept and corrupt and has very little tacit support but the lack of a strong unified opposition means that opposition parties tend to take populist stances to draw in extremist voters.
Back in the days when the ANC under Mbeki was promoting the Duesberg Hypothesis(resulting in over 300 000 deaths, as I understand it), would you say that anyone announcing themselves as an ANC voter should have been a priori considered a supporter of AIDS Denialism?
What you need to understand, @stetson, is that a large percentage of the ANC leadership and membership opposed what Mbeki was doing. The ANC had a history of supporting LGBTQI+ rights through the 1980s, thanks to ANC figures like Albie Sachs and the Revd Frank Chikane. That's what made the difference, a party divided within itself and a history of progressive support for human rights. Mbeki lost a great deal of support by his AIDs denialism and the deaths resulting from his refusal to allow retro-virals into South Africa. It has parallels with the unchecked tyrannical power of certain Western presidencies where many within the party object but the president has the final say.
I'm sure that's all true. My point, though, was that if we're going to be banning people on the basis of announced membership in political organizations, the moderators are not likely to always have the kind of inside information necessary to determine how central the offending policies are to that party's identity, whether all the members support the policies or if it's just an all-powerful president gone rogue etc.
The ANC had a history of supporting LGBTQI+ rights...
Yeah, I know. My point wasn't that Mbeki was anti-gay(*). The AIDS Denialism was just an example of a party implementing a particularly horrific policy, but with many outsiders likely having insufficient awareness of internal opinion among the membership to know if support for that party should automatically equate to support for the bad policy.
(*) Duesberg attracted a rather motley assortment of followers: fundies who didn't like the promotion of safe sex via AIDS education; LGBTQ activists who thought the orthodox viral theory could be used to restrict sexual activity(see ACT UP San Francisco); right-wing libertarians, ibid; and I gather that Mbeki thought that the orthodox anti-HIV campaigns somehow promoted negative stereotypes about Africans.
I don't think you've answered yet, so I'll ask again. How do you know a new shippie belongs to one of these proscribed groups before they start posting C1 violating posts? No one is arguing that once someone violates C1 they shouldn't be planked, we all agree on that. So what is it exactly you want? No one comes into the ship and for their first post says something like "Hi, I'm a member of (insert hate group here)".
Ask admin because they currently do it for Nazis and the other groups on the blocklist and will be able to tell you how they currently do it.
My point is simply if one group falls into that category, so should the other and I'm happy for admin to do the same in both cases.
Listening to what a Trumpist or Reform or Restore supporter says isn't 'promoting' them.
Agreeing with them, reposting their comments and celebrating them might be.
If a Trump supporter came on here saying, 'It's great that we are bombing Iran. I don’t give a flying fig for international law and I give we kill as many Iranians as possible ...' then yes, I'd see that as jerkish behaviour.
Someone simply stating in all ignorance that they are a Trump supporter may reflect badly on them but in and of itself doesn't represent jerkish behaviour unless they gloat and scoff and act like total jerks in what they post.
They may oppose it for different reasons to Democrats or non-MAGA Republicans but it's not as if any of our US Shipmates - most of whom are very anti-Trump and MAGA - are going to be influenced by them.
If anything they are in a much better position than the rest of us to challenge them.
'Oh, a MAGA supporter has just posted something against the Ship's Commandments. They've convinced me. I've got it wrong. I'll support MAGA from now on.'
No, they'll give them short shrift until the Hosts and Admins deal with them appropriately.
The reality is, MAGA supporters aren't going to last very long here. They'll either be made unwelcome and move on with their prejudices intact or they'll contravene a Commandment sooner or later and be planked.
Some rare exceptions might just hang around long enough to learn something.
It's a risk but there are risks if we start closing the Ship to anyone beyond those on the list of proscribed organisations.
The point of shunning for Quakers and other early American fundamentalist sects was institutional purity, I think. I've been reading a book about the pilgrims and it's the same. They wanted to protect a certain culture, and protecting that culture was a big source of anxiety for the first generation of Mayflower landers (some of my ancestors included.)
Of course, the pilgrims failed at this. Things might have been more peaceful, by some reads, if the founders' wills had been followed instead of rampant land-greed. It's hard to fight land-greed in any situation. Capitalism (or equivalent) must have its way. On the other hand, their community succeeded because from the get-go it was a mixture of religious types and secular types and the two groups were forced to get along by a need for mutual survival. What is our survival here?
Speaking of boats, a question is what is the ship? What is this place? What is the problem with Trumpers, whom I will admit I do find categorically disagreeable?
Is the problem ideological? Are we saying certain arguments are toxic? "Racism" is a vast word and I've been in places where a lot of seemingly benign topics can slide into something akin to racism, or sexism, or some other kind of bigotry.
Is the problem public safety? Do we need the equivalent of gun control? Are certain words deemed automatically threatening to other shipmates, a la ethnic slurs? That can lead to weird trolling arms races as malefactors get increasingly inventive with the slang.
Is this a political statement we make as a body, that we expect a certain covenant amongst ourselves? Are we trying to protect the sanctity of our community from pollution via poisonous ideas or attitudes, lest someday a critical mass of evil, selfish men take over? Are we afraid we may lose an online intellectual war? Or are we losing by some other means?
At the moment I'm inclined to think the 10C's work and if we get a problem of systemic unpleasant behavior coming from a particular quadrant, we need a new commandment to address the behavior. It's more honest that way.
The thing I'm concerned about is that dealing with people who 99% of the time are going to be a bad fit or are simply out to cause trouble saps host and admin time and energy. No-one is required to be here and if fascists turn up and shit all over the boards with I'm-not-touching-you comments that individually fall short of C1 violations then the admins have to deal with what we see right now: a complete lack of clarity about how far is too far. 1 or 2 posters have generated 6 pages of discussion already and every time another one turns up people have to choose between letting their nonsense go unchallenged or gearing up to argue with them, neither of which is particularly good for the Ship.
Essentially what is being asked here is that H&As take the long and laborious route to banning people on the off chance that one might think better of their folly, and making the Ship less pleasant in the process.
The immense inertia of the Ship's Hostly methods tends to favour the less-restrictive path. And it makes a lot of pragmatic and interpersonal sense.
But, I have to say, sitting here in the world today - it feels like a big reason why things are as increasingly dystopian as they are is that we thought "what harm could it do to have the asshole morons have a voice?" And discovered, to the worlds collective horror, that the asshole morons might actually be in the majority - and now they're cooperating/competing at asshole moron goals.
I personally ( as shipmate) draw a distinction between the Ship's 'nuclear block' - proscribed groups - no sign up - and a second category, where something simply falls under C1 which should be enforced.
Category 1 - The horror of Trumpist repeated war crimes, support for/ threats of genocide, starting illegal wars, actual state-backed racist murders and networks of camps, attacks on law and democracy human rights etc. actually occurring on a vast scale is 'nuclear block' territory for me - because it's functionally no different to the Nazis we nuclear block (what they did in power in Nazi Germany is the reason why their modern day successors even without state power still carry that stigma) If we support it one case, my argument is that the other more currently dangerous case - Trumpism - follows. It meets that high threshold.
Category 2 - C1 should be enforced
If Reform got power they might well do the same as Trump and meet the Category 1 threshold but they're currently a relatively powerless opposition party with a few MPs and councillors. People voting for them may not believe they will carry out extreme fascist things - much as American voters were lied to that Trump wouldn't do a lot of things that are now established facts. Reform ( and even more so their more extreme schism 'Restore') are however a racist party and a lot of people do vote for them knowing that and wanting that - so promoting them is something someone can do as a way of promoting or flaunting racism.
This is pretty much @Gamma Gamaliel 's 'jerkishly intimidating others by parading their views in a way that causes distress or offence'
I think that meets C1 - similarly someone gloating about success for One Nation/ the ADF/Rassemblement National/ Fidesz or other similar racist parties combining that with racist posts/ dogwhistling would get into C1 territory for me. I'd regard that as a case that someone is breaking C1.
So Reform 'nuclear block' so far no. 'Jerkishly parading it' with other indications of racism like a lot of dogwhistling or brinkmanship or doing white grievance politics - I'd say that is a breach of C1 and the same for the other far right parties which make racism/ other -isms their big selling point.
Thanks. But you seem to be setting up a caste system for far-right racist parties, with MAGAites at the bottom, subject to instant banning, and Reformers at least a level above, getting the benefit of the doubt upon announcement of support, and banned only when they start "jerkishly parading it".
And if I understand you correctly, you'd also put Fidesz in the kid-gloves category, despite its holding actual power, and hence its supporters not having the excuse of "Well, maybe they just don't understand what the party actually wants to do."
And for the record, Nigel Farage was quoted by The Independent on Sept 4 2025(ie. well into Trump's second term) as saying...
I have drawn amazing inspiration from the Maga movement in [the USA.
Plus a few other nice things about Trump. So, I guess any Reform supporter who shows up could just be shown that quote, and if they still claim to support Reform after seeing it, get instantly banned?
(Long and the short, I'm personally of the opinion that most Reform supporters are as aware as most MAGA supporters are about the nature of their respective parties' policies, and are basically cool with it. Granted, I can't prove that, but I'm not the one advocating an instant-banning policy based on a moral hierarchy of racist parties.)
If they state they are a member of a listed group, or a Nazi [conceivably if they linked to an illegal or obviously affiliated site in their profile though I don’t think anyone has ever done that] - or if they attempt to register with a name such as “Hitlerwasright” or “IloveHezbollah” or a very obvious slur as a ship name.
Comments
There has been plenty of talk about “ fascists/neonazis” etc etc.
Just wondering: how about someone comes on board and starts spouting Marxist/Trotskyite “ death to the aristos/ capitalists/ religious hierarchy ” whatever whatever.
How much leeway will be granted the extreme Left who as you all surely know can be just as nasty as the Right?
I’d be most interested to hear a H/A take on this.
Now, there might be an argument that a lot of people don’t agree with their church’s position on all such issues, which is my own circumstance, but that is exactly the argument I made earlier about political parties.
Something to think about?
There is a difference between recently formed movements that make -isms a central plank of what they stand for and older organisations where those -isms are a noticeable but small part of their heritage. Supporting MAGA but rejecting racism is about as credible as buying Playboy for the articles.
As for a small part, my gay son wouldn’t be allowed to get married in most churches. I don’t think that is a small issue.
Seriously! I think this backs up my thoughts that this is not really about equality.
Julius Caesar Act 3 sc.iii
'I am Cinna the poet. I am Cinna the poet.'
Ah, but he has the same name as Cinna the conspirator.
He must be a dog-whistler.
'Tear him! Tear him!'
Plank them! Plank them!
They've not actually said anything yet nor offended anyone yet but they support a political party or ideology we don't approve of. Don't let them on in the first place.
Full on MAGA or Reform supporters wouldn't hang around very long and even if they did they'd soon be planked for spouting views that contravene the Commandments.
Not allowing them on in the first place would simply reinforce their martyr complex.
Sure, chucking them off after a week or two would do that also but at least they couldn't claim not to have been given a chance to speak in the first place.
Most Reform, Restore or MAGA types would take one look at this place and think, 'Heck! I'm not going to get very far on these boards. I'll either slink out now or chuck in a few stink-bombs ...' which the rest of us would defuse or which the Hosts and Admins would take down.
I didn't mean that they're small issues, only that they're not the main purpose of the organisation, and I think that matters in determining whether we should treat support for a movement as support for particular views. If you're a member of Westborough Baptist Church (for example) it's reasonable to assume you support their views on gay people. That's far less true of the Roman Catholic Church. Antiquity means that people can identify with a movement or organisation from an early age and remain attached to it for identity reasons even when they disagree with it on many fronts. For new movements there is not that 'legacy' affiliation and people have chosen to identify themselves with it.
Sojourner might be right on the ‘some are more equal than others’.
Is misogyny and homophobia the main purpose of your church? That's the line I'm suggesting. Where do you think the line should be drawn?
Yes that's right. Increasingly overburdened infrastructure.
I do not subscribe to your other views @Firenze about homogenous native populations or that it isn't clear that Australia is a migrant country.
I am a migrant to Australia. Most migrants to Australia are British. Nothing to do with race or xenophobia.
The flip side of the problem is of course, we don't have enough people to do jobs we need doing, so we increase our migrant uptake, but that puts additional pressure on infrastructure.
So it's really a catch 22. I can't see a solution.
Building infrastructure seems like a fairly obvious solution. Australia is an enormously wealthy country.
Substantially richer than the UK and I know our infrastructure issues are a political choice. Richer than France, too.
I have already said where I think the line in the forum should be drawn. I don’t think people should be banned from the forum for membership of organisations other than legally proscribed ones and Nazism. This is already the position of the forum. I think people should be suspended or banned in response to their behaviour and the forum already has rules that enable this. I don’t think people should be banned because of what other people think they might believe.
And your point is?
(ETA Coding clarity, DT Styx Hosting)
That Australia can afford to build the infrastructure it needs but has made a political choice not to.
My view is that all people who class themselves as Nazis are by definition violent. Not everyone called a Nazi (or fascist or neo-Nazi) by others is one.
Marxists are not all violent, that's the difference. You absolutely can infer things about a person who calls themselves a Nazi in a way that you can't about a person who calls themselves a Marxist.
We need to hear back from @Alan Cresswell
What you need to understand, @stetson, is that a large percentage of the ANC leadership and membership opposed what Mbeki was doing. The ANC had a history of supporting LGBTQI+ rights through the 1980s, thanks to ANC figures like Albie Sachs and the Revd Frank Chikane. That's what made the difference, a party divided within itself and a history of progressive support for human rights. Mbeki lost a great deal of support by his AIDs denialism and the deaths resulting from his refusal to allow retro-virals into South Africa. It has parallels with the unchecked tyrannical power of certain Western presidencies where many within the party object but the president has the final say.
Oh come on Doublethink do you really believe that“ Marxists are not at all violent”?
History is littered with Marxist violence: like any other movement,give ‘em enough power and away they go. Ever heard of Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha or the Peruvian Shining Path?
Perhaps you’ve only encountered the milquetoast British Workers’ Revolution Party which I understand has splintered over the years.
Is that directed at me? If so, then you are wrong. End of story.
DT, Styx Hosting
Dear Jesus, apologies to Doublethink. I didn’t think you’d write anything so silly.
Redirected to Basketactotale: if you really think Marxism is non violent then you are deluded.
Back to Doublethink: 20th century history and the consideration thereof is central to this thread. You have asked all of us across the boards to read this and contribute as we see fit.
I still dont see a meaningful distinction between Nazis and explicit Trump supporters except that the latter haven't managed to implement large scale genocide yet. 'Yet' being the operative word.
Nazism is essentially a form of warmongering genocidal violent racism that wants state power for those ends which holds normal standards of compassion, truth and decency in contempt.
Trumpism is, well, I'm not sure how it differs apart from currently being more dangerous and targeting Muslims and people of colour more than Jews.
Nazism isnt a historical thing coming under the Admin prohibition as a look at the list of proscribed groups will show. You'll see Nazi groups on that. They currently exist.
If Wullie/ Wilhelmina Smith declares support for Nazism they aren't from a currently large movement whose leader is in power and able to carry out genocide and violent racism on a vast scale but they would be held fully responsible for supporting a genocidal group with no ' But what if they're really here to post about liturgy?' ' 'And what if they just joined the Nazis because they like putting up flags and don't actually know about persecuting Jews and weren't paying attention to that bit?'. They would be shown the door.
If Joe/ Josephine Blow turns up to justify what Trump is doing in Iran/military war crimes against civilians, and his other doings and how they think it is great complete with gratuitous falsehoods they will not take correction for or accept evidence against, they are not held responsible to the same degree.
People seem to not want them to be held to the same standard. OK folk don't want them held to that and I'm not going to do but 'what about the poor wee left-behind Nazis of Scotland?'
But it bothers me that people can come here and pass that stuff off as normal acceptable discourse. I think mainstreaming it and not holding its purveyors to the standards that we do Nazis is a big part of how it's got to this level of being able to make credible threats of genocide and to carry out racist murders. I think it's good even on a tiny scale to normalise rejecting it to the same degree.
If all I can do is bear unpopular witness that to me they amount to the same blood-drenched thing and should be treated the same then OK here is my witness on that point. They’re not meaningfully different in my eyes. They should be treated the same.
They'd probably claim that those things are simply a corollary of its understanding of 'what the Bible says.'
I wouldn't agree with them but that's probably what they'd say.
The chances of a Westboro Baptist style fundamentalist happily hanging around on these boards is pretty remote. We don't have many conservative evangelicals around on these boards any more let alone fundamentalists.
I'm with @Heavenlyannie.
Ban people on the basis of what they write not what we might think they might write or what views we assume they hold. We might be right in those assumptions but unless they are jerkishly intimidating others by parading their views in a way that causes distress or offence then surely they shouldn't be planked simply for holding those views.
Genuine question to @Gamma Gamaliel - does that ' jerkishly' 'parading' cover explicit support for Trump's Iran war/ other war crimes then?
Genocide/ war crimes aren't explicitly mentioned in C1 but are entirely reasonable examples of jerkish behaviour and support for them causes huge distress.
Perhaps part of what's going on here is that some of us just cannot see support for genocidal regimes committing war crimes or threatening to commit them on a huge scale as business as normal?
[ cross post with Caissa - thanks on that!]
I hear some people saying that a place that bans people based on association is scary. I think of all the societies (Quakers, Amish, certain modern Evangelical groups, Mormons) in the U.S. that do shunning. I can definitely see why shunning people based on their connections instead of their deeds could be toxic.
I hear other people saying that they don't like walking next to people who claim dangerous associations*. Just because X hasn't shot someone yet, doesn't mean they won't, and they don't want to be the first victim. And i hear that too. Many people underestimated the power of MAGA to get elected.
And I have a personal leaning, but much more so I think that almost everyone who has posted on this thread is right and reasonable. None of us** want someone to be verbally stabbed or to feel unsafe on the ship. The question is, how do we define shooting. How do we require people to put their metaphorical guns down when they enter the ship? And of course, how much are we willing to put our own weapons down for the sake of our neighbor? Can I keep my pocketknife?
*And it does feel dangerous if someone's MAGA sign means one believes they would murder you, whether or not they really would
**I should hope!
I don't think you ever got back to me on my earlier question, Louise. Do.you also want Reformers banned?
Just to point out, but I think that list was simply based on a list of whatever groups had been legally banned by the British government. IOW the mods weren't actually sitting down and analyzing the ideology of every group to see if it violates Ship rules(as the new proposed policy would entail), they just took the government's list as the working one for the Ship.
Maybe they don't now. They certainly used to. https://www.worldspirituality.org/disowning.html I think that's off topic though, so I will not continue this here.
With regard to your second question-
I personally ( as shipmate) draw a distinction between the Ship's 'nuclear block' - proscribed groups - no sign up - and a second category, where something simply falls under C1 which should be enforced.
Category 1 - The horror of Trumpist repeated war crimes, support for/ threats of genocide, starting illegal wars, actual state-backed racist murders and networks of camps, attacks on law and democracy human rights etc. actually occurring on a vast scale is 'nuclear block' territory for me - because it's functionally no different to the Nazis we nuclear block (what they did in power in Nazi Germany is the reason why their modern day successors even without state power still carry that stigma) If we support it one case, my argument is that the other more currently dangerous case - Trumpism - follows. It meets that high threshold.
Category 2 - C1 should be enforced
If Reform got power they might well do the same as Trump and meet the Category 1 threshold but they're currently a relatively powerless opposition party with a few MPs and councillors. People voting for them may not believe they will carry out extreme fascist things - much as American voters were lied to that Trump wouldn't do a lot of things that are now established facts. Reform ( and even more so their more extreme schism 'Restore') are however a racist party and a lot of people do vote for them knowing that and wanting that - so promoting them is something someone can do as a way of promoting or flaunting racism.
This is pretty much @Gamma Gamaliel 's 'jerkishly intimidating others by parading their views in a way that causes distress or offence'
I think that meets C1 - similarly someone gloating about success for One Nation/ the ADF/Rassemblement National/ Fidesz or other similar racist parties combining that with racist posts/ dogwhistling would get into C1 territory for me. I'd regard that as a case that someone is breaking C1.
So Reform 'nuclear block' so far no. 'Jerkishly parading it' with other indications of racism like a lot of dogwhistling or brinkmanship or doing white grievance politics - I'd say that is a breach of C1 and the same for the other far right parties which make racism/ other -isms their big selling point.
In the case of Nazism, no. That history is far too well publicized.
Eventually that will be true of Trumpism as well. But at this point, I'm still meeting ignorant Trump supporters who truly don't realize what they've signed on for, and who can be moved when they discover the truth. I spoke to a room full of these people three months ago. When we left, one of them slipped a donation to immigrant care into my pocket.
These are the people I don't want to blanket ban from the Ship.
I'm sure that's all true. My point, though, was that if we're going to be banning people on the basis of announced membership in political organizations, the moderators are not likely to always have the kind of inside information necessary to determine how central the offending policies are to that party's identity, whether all the members support the policies or if it's just an all-powerful president gone rogue etc.
Yeah, I know. My point wasn't that Mbeki was anti-gay(*). The AIDS Denialism was just an example of a party implementing a particularly horrific policy, but with many outsiders likely having insufficient awareness of internal opinion among the membership to know if support for that party should automatically equate to support for the bad policy.
(*) Duesberg attracted a rather motley assortment of followers: fundies who didn't like the promotion of safe sex via AIDS education; LGBTQ activists who thought the orthodox viral theory could be used to restrict sexual activity(see ACT UP San Francisco); right-wing libertarians, ibid; and I gather that Mbeki thought that the orthodox anti-HIV campaigns somehow promoted negative stereotypes about Africans.
Ask admin because they currently do it for Nazis and the other groups on the blocklist and will be able to tell you how they currently do it.
My point is simply if one group falls into that category, so should the other and I'm happy for admin to do the same in both cases.
Agreeing with them, reposting their comments and celebrating them might be.
If a Trump supporter came on here saying, 'It's great that we are bombing Iran. I don’t give a flying fig for international law and I give we kill as many Iranians as possible ...' then yes, I'd see that as jerkish behaviour.
Someone simply stating in all ignorance that they are a Trump supporter may reflect badly on them but in and of itself doesn't represent jerkish behaviour unless they gloat and scoff and act like total jerks in what they post.
That's how I see it.
They may oppose it for different reasons to Democrats or non-MAGA Republicans but it's not as if any of our US Shipmates - most of whom are very anti-Trump and MAGA - are going to be influenced by them.
If anything they are in a much better position than the rest of us to challenge them.
'Oh, a MAGA supporter has just posted something against the Ship's Commandments. They've convinced me. I've got it wrong. I'll support MAGA from now on.'
No, they'll give them short shrift until the Hosts and Admins deal with them appropriately.
The reality is, MAGA supporters aren't going to last very long here. They'll either be made unwelcome and move on with their prejudices intact or they'll contravene a Commandment sooner or later and be planked.
Some rare exceptions might just hang around long enough to learn something.
It's a risk but there are risks if we start closing the Ship to anyone beyond those on the list of proscribed organisations.
Anyhow, that's my two-happ'orth.
Of course, the pilgrims failed at this. Things might have been more peaceful, by some reads, if the founders' wills had been followed instead of rampant land-greed. It's hard to fight land-greed in any situation. Capitalism (or equivalent) must have its way. On the other hand, their community succeeded because from the get-go it was a mixture of religious types and secular types and the two groups were forced to get along by a need for mutual survival. What is our survival here?
Speaking of boats, a question is what is the ship? What is this place? What is the problem with Trumpers, whom I will admit I do find categorically disagreeable?
Is the problem ideological? Are we saying certain arguments are toxic? "Racism" is a vast word and I've been in places where a lot of seemingly benign topics can slide into something akin to racism, or sexism, or some other kind of bigotry.
Is the problem public safety? Do we need the equivalent of gun control? Are certain words deemed automatically threatening to other shipmates, a la ethnic slurs? That can lead to weird trolling arms races as malefactors get increasingly inventive with the slang.
Is this a political statement we make as a body, that we expect a certain covenant amongst ourselves? Are we trying to protect the sanctity of our community from pollution via poisonous ideas or attitudes, lest someday a critical mass of evil, selfish men take over? Are we afraid we may lose an online intellectual war? Or are we losing by some other means?
At the moment I'm inclined to think the 10C's work and if we get a problem of systemic unpleasant behavior coming from a particular quadrant, we need a new commandment to address the behavior. It's more honest that way.
So...what exactly are we doing here, we fools?
Essentially what is being asked here is that H&As take the long and laborious route to banning people on the off chance that one might think better of their folly, and making the Ship less pleasant in the process.
The immense inertia of the Ship's Hostly methods tends to favour the less-restrictive path. And it makes a lot of pragmatic and interpersonal sense.
But, I have to say, sitting here in the world today - it feels like a big reason why things are as increasingly dystopian as they are is that we thought "what harm could it do to have the asshole morons have a voice?" And discovered, to the worlds collective horror, that the asshole morons might actually be in the majority - and now they're cooperating/competing at asshole moron goals.
Thanks. But you seem to be setting up a caste system for far-right racist parties, with MAGAites at the bottom, subject to instant banning, and Reformers at least a level above, getting the benefit of the doubt upon announcement of support, and banned only when they start "jerkishly parading it".
And if I understand you correctly, you'd also put Fidesz in the kid-gloves category, despite its holding actual power, and hence its supporters not having the excuse of "Well, maybe they just don't understand what the party actually wants to do."
And for the record, Nigel Farage was quoted by The Independent on Sept 4 2025(ie. well into Trump's second term) as saying...
Plus a few other nice things about Trump. So, I guess any Reform supporter who shows up could just be shown that quote, and if they still claim to support Reform after seeing it, get instantly banned?
(Long and the short, I'm personally of the opinion that most Reform supporters are as aware as most MAGA supporters are about the nature of their respective parties' policies, and are basically cool with it. Granted, I can't prove that, but I'm not the one advocating an instant-banning policy based on a moral hierarchy of racist parties.)
If they state they are a member of a listed group, or a Nazi [conceivably if they linked to an illegal or obviously affiliated site in their profile though I don’t think anyone has ever done that] - or if they attempt to register with a name such as “Hitlerwasright” or “IloveHezbollah” or a very obvious slur as a ship name.