Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Right-wing Extremism

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2009 5:19:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
First, a doctor who performs late-term abortions is shot and killed in a church. Then, a white-supremicist and Holocaust denier enters the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and murders a guard, with intent to murder more had he been given the chance.

It is clear that above all, right-wing extremism is increasing in the United States, especially after the election of a left-leaning African American with a different perspective on foreign policy than his predecessor. What can Americans do about this?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2009 6:04:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Don't be silly. If right wing extremism were increasing this wouldn't be necessary. Right-wing extremist satisfaction is decreasing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2009 8:36:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
We need to elect a Republican president, of course.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2009 11:53:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/10/2009 6:04:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Don't be silly. If right wing extremism were increasing this wouldn't be necessary. Right-wing extremist satisfaction is decreasing.

"Satisfaction" yes, but only because they're ramping up their activities. I didn't say anything about whether they're more popular.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2009 11:54:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/10/2009 8:36:54 PM, mongoose wrote:
We need to elect a Republican president, of course.

Because they worked out so well the last time, right?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2009 6:05:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/11/2009 11:53:34 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/10/2009 6:04:51 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Don't be silly. If right wing extremism were increasing this wouldn't be necessary. Right-wing extremist satisfaction is decreasing.

"Satisfaction" yes, but only because they're ramping up their activities. I didn't say anything about whether they're more popular.

Extremism is the viewpoint. Terrorism is the activity. In order to say extremism was on the rise, one would have to say they were more popular.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2009 12:13:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/11/2009 6:05:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Extremism is the viewpoint. Terrorism is the activity. In order to say extremism was on the rise, one would have to say they were more popular.

Extremist attacks* are on the rise.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 4:34:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/12/2009 12:13:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
Extremist attacks* are on the rise.

True. There are many forms of extremist attacks occurring world-wide every day. What can we do to stop them? In my opinion, the U.S. needs stiffer punishments. Why can't we have public whippings any more?
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 4:46:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/17/2009 4:34:01 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
At 6/12/2009 12:13:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
Extremist attacks* are on the rise.

True. There are many forms of extremist attacks occurring world-wide every day. What can we do to stop them? In my opinion, the U.S. needs stiffer punishments. Why can't we have public whippings any more?

Joke, right?

Stiffer punishments isn't going to do much unless you target them strategically. "Public whippings" or something along those lines will only harden the resolve of those trying to set up these attacks. They're not the average citizen, you know - they don't care what you do to them, and nothing is going to deter them.

The solution is that you put in preventive measures to make sure these people don't keep recruiting anyone, as well as better police protection, oversight and etc. Stiffer punishments is for when someone actually shows pure intent to commit the crime - and God forbid, actually commit the crime - and to keep them away from society and make sure they don't network with any of their brethren.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 7:23:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/10/2009 5:19:40 PM, Volkov wrote:
First, a doctor who performs late-term abortions is shot and killed in a church. Then, a white-supremicist and Holocaust denier enters the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. and murders a guard, with intent to murder more had he been given the chance.

It is clear that above all, right-wing extremism is increasing in the United States, especially after the election of a left-leaning African American with a different perspective on foreign policy than his predecessor. What can Americans do about this?

There is very little Americans can do. These people grow up in homes where they are preached constant hate. Then they befriend people with the same beliefs. And after that, there is nothing you can do. There is always going to be lunatics in societies, and it is almost impossible to stop them.

The schools also play a part. (Although the man who killed the guy at the Holocaust museum was like 88.) If the schools don't teach history correctly and fairly, the lunatics will continue to believe whatever. I think schools nowadays are doing more to teach appreciation of other cultures and what-not, so that may help curb the radicalism a bit...

Sad situation really...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 7:41:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If the schools don't teach history correctly and fairly, the lunatics will continue to believe whatever. I think schools nowadays are doing more to teach appreciation of other cultures and what-not, so that may help curb the radicalism a bit...
It's precisely the "Teaching appreciation of other cultures and what-not" that seems to be the main rival influence to "Teaching history correctly and fairly" these days, leading history to become an exercise in political correctness that it's easy to justify dismissing, leaving these people with less of an alternative to the views of history that help support the lunatics. And "Teaching appreciation of other cultures and what-not" is otherwise known as propaganda (Propaganda that often unconsciously evokes much the same imagery as one would imagine of fascist pedagogy), breeding legitimate resentment that can be utilized by the lunatics for recruitment.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 9:00:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/17/2009 7:41:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If the schools don't teach history correctly and fairly, the lunatics will continue to believe whatever. I think schools nowadays are doing more to teach appreciation of other cultures and what-not, so that may help curb the radicalism a bit...
It's precisely the "Teaching appreciation of other cultures and what-not" that seems to be the main rival influence to "Teaching history correctly and fairly" these days, leading history to become an exercise in political correctness that it's easy to justify dismissing, leaving these people with less of an alternative to the views of history that help support the lunatics. And "Teaching appreciation of other cultures and what-not" is otherwise known as propaganda (Propaganda that often unconsciously evokes much the same imagery as one would imagine of fascist pedagogy), breeding legitimate resentment that can be utilized by the lunatics for recruitment.

I think the lunatics would breed resentment, legit or not, even if multiculturalism wasn't a mainstay of public education. The alternative doesn't seem any better either; cocoon kids within their own social group and tell them all the good things, all the history about their culture/race, and they'll somehow think "oh hey, that black kid is different but not bad!" It didn't work before, I don't see how it will work now.

Or we can go the route I assume you would teach, individualism and no collectivism. It could work if humans were meant to only work alone and had no need to be within a collective social group. Our evolution sadly dictates us to be a very social species, and a very territorial to outsiders as well. Even if you teach every student to focus on only individual aspects, they will eventually find some way to criticize another group and lead to racism and discrimination based on their belonging to that group. You can't get around it R_R, sorry.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2009 10:24:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/17/2009 9:00:55 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/17/2009 7:41:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If the schools don't teach history correctly and fairly, the lunatics will continue to believe whatever. I think schools nowadays are doing more to teach appreciation of other cultures and what-not, so that may help curb the radicalism a bit...
It's precisely the "Teaching appreciation of other cultures and what-not" that seems to be the main rival influence to "Teaching history correctly and fairly" these days, leading history to become an exercise in political correctness that it's easy to justify dismissing, leaving these people with less of an alternative to the views of history that help support the lunatics. And "Teaching appreciation of other cultures and what-not" is otherwise known as propaganda (Propaganda that often unconsciously evokes much the same imagery as one would imagine of fascist pedagogy), breeding legitimate resentment that can be utilized by the lunatics for recruitment.

I think the lunatics would breed resentment, legit or not, even if multiculturalism wasn't a mainstay of public education. The alternative doesn't seem any better either; cocoon kids within their own social group and tell them all the good things, all the history about their culture/race, and they'll somehow think "oh hey, that black kid is different but not bad!" It didn't work before, I don't see how it will work now.
That isn't the alternative. The alternative is open discussion, with the teachers, the school, etc, doing their best not to take a position in the discussions. Some teachers do that now, the good ones anyway, it seems to be mostly the administrators and a few teachers set on ruining things, the former by propaganda assemblies, the latter by biased lesson plans or just plain endorsements.

The lunatics always find means for exploiting some resentment or other, that's no reason for handing more to them.

Or we can go the route I assume you would teach, individualism and no collectivism.
I would NEVER utilize a public school for that variety of propaganda, whether i approve of it or not, it would corrupt the message by teaching that the agenda approves of public schools. Heck, even a private school I wouldn't support doing that, though it would have a right to (on someone else's dime, not mine). Schools are a place for people to learn how to think, not what to think. The Atlas Society, the Cato Institute, commercials, books, perhaps a supplemental distance college course, those are appropriate institutions for convincing people to be individualists-- not the classroom.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 5:49:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Just an observation...

it tends to be right-wingers that oppose gun control and it tends to be right-wingers that use guns to commit hate crimes.

Perhaps people who vote for right-wing parties should automatically be disqualified from keeping firearms?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 7:31:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You realize, Eggleston, that that would lead to essentially the entire right wing, not just the loony fringe, revolting.

And a few Blue Dogs, and libertarians, joining in.

Including me.

Heck, the right wing would expand rather massively lol.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 11:30:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
R_R is right, though you have to wonder how big the right-wing can get. It would be an interesting few weeks.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 12:56:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/17/2009 4:46:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
Joke, right?

Of course. For real though, some form of publicly humiliating punishment would be highly effective in my opinion.

Stiffer punishments isn't going to do much unless you target them strategically.

What do you mean by that?

"Public whippings" or something along those lines will only harden the resolve of those trying to set up these attacks.They're not the average citizen, you know - they don't care what you do to them, and nothing is going to deter them.

A public spanking would be quite humiliating. These people are still human; they would feel the phycological effects. Also, the punishment would let everyone know that guy is a weirdo.

The solution is that you put in preventive measures to make sure these people don't keep recruiting anyone, as well as better police protection, oversight and etc.

How would you prevent them from recruiting anyone without violating the First Amendment freedom of speech? Even if what they believe is wrong, they can still believe it, and get others to believe it as well.

Stiffer punishments is for when someone actually shows pure intent to commit the crime - and God forbid, actually commit the crime

There it is. No organized right-wing attacks have ever been recorded (at least in all the research I have done). Every time it has been a single fanatic acting of his own free will.

- and to keep them away from society and make sure they don't network with any of their brethren.

Keep them away from society? That sounds an awful lot like a restriction of freedom. So long as they have committed no crime, you cannot do that.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 1:01:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 11:30:58 AM, Volkov wrote:
R_R is right, though you have to wonder how big the right-wing can get. It would be an interesting few weeks.

It would be very interesting to see the government be overthrown.

Banning guns was a factor in the first American Revolution, was it not? Before then, it was just a few hacks...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 1:12:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 12:56:42 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
Of course. For real though, some form of publicly humiliating punishment would be highly effective in my opinion.

They don't care about humiliation.

What do you mean by that?

What I mean is that stiffer punishment across the board won't work. When dealing with criminals, you need to have different laws and different ways to deal with different criminals. For example, instead of punishing an addict with jail, you send them to mandatory rehab. Instead of just sentencing dealers, you sentence them to jail time but have a competent job-training program to re-introduce them into the work force, in an effort to keep them away from dealing again.

A public spanking would be quite humiliating. These people are still human; they would feel the phycological effects. Also, the punishment would let everyone know that guy is a weirdo.

As I said, they won't care. If their entire goal is to bring down a government or take out abortion doctors, a "spanking" isn't going to deter them. As for letting everyone know that this guy is a weirdo - I think they already got the idea for the Holocaust museum shooter when he professed his belief in Nazi ideals. Besides, you can't legally physically abuse a criminal.

How would you prevent them from recruiting anyone without violating the First Amendment freedom of speech? Even if what they believe is wrong, they can still believe it, and get others to believe it as well.

You defend free speech, but don't defend calls to violence as these people often call for. There is a reason why police don't stop Nazi parades in cities - it is their right to free speech. But if they, or even protesters, start inciting violence against groups the police will become involved then. So it isn't so much about degrading free speech, as it is convincing people not to use violence when wishing to make a difference.

As well, make sure that there is a standard level of education about other cultures, races and societies across the country. Introduce knowledge early and it will prevent ignorance later. For those that are already too late to be reached, let groups in opposition to these right-wing extremists have their voices heard, have as much media attention as Nazi marches. Because it is always an interesting news story when they march, but you rarely see coverage of anti-racism marches.

Keep them away from society? That sounds an awful lot like a restriction of freedom. So long as they have committed no crime, you cannot do that.

Obviously? I said, "if they have committed the crime or shown clear intent to commit the crime", which the latter is a crime in and of itself (conspiracy to commit murder, etc.).
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 5:24:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 1:12:33 PM, Volkov wrote:
They don't care about humiliation.

They are still human. They can still be humiliated. It's a part of human nature.

What I mean is that stiffer punishment across the board won't work. When dealing with criminals, you need to have different laws and different ways to deal with different criminals.

Ah, I see. True, but you can't punish a particular group of criminals more severely than you would normal criminals. Crime is crime, no matter the reason for the crime.

As I said, they won't care. If their entire goal is to bring down a government or take out abortion doctors, a "spanking" isn't going to deter them.

It might not deter the whole group, but I think it would be devastating to the individual. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Also, I believe you are overreacting a bit as to the mindset of these people. Remember, they have as of yet not so much as threatened anyone, let alone openly attacked anyone. (Again, I speak of organized attack, not a single person acting on their own.)

As for letting everyone know that this guy is a weirdo - I think they already got the idea for the Holocaust museum shooter when he professed his belief in Nazi ideals.

Pardon my ignorance, but to what are you referring?

Besides, you can't legally physically abuse a criminal.

Pity. :p

You defend free speech, but don't defend calls to violence as these people often call for.

What calls to violence? Could you cite a source on that one? Thanks.

...let groups in opposition to these right-wing extremists have their voices heard, have as much media attention as Nazi marches.

How would you do that, without having the government influence the media?

Obviously? I said, "if they have committed the crime or shown clear intent to commit the crime", which the latter is a crime in and of itself (conspiracy to commit murder, etc.).

I understand, but you said "Stiffer punishments is for when someone actually shows pure intent to commit the crime - and God forbid, actually commit the crime - and to keep them away from society and make sure they don't network with any of their brethren."

You can understand, then, how I misunderstood?
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 5:33:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 5:24:26 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
It might not deter the whole group, but I think it would be devastating to the individual. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

What do I need evidence for? I think its literally self-evident that if someone is so determined to do something, a spanking isn't going to stop them. Hell, when I was a kid, if I wanted something but I got spanked, it didn't stop me.

Punishment, humiliation - is it over? Right, back to what I was doing.

Also, I believe you are overreacting a bit as to the mindset of these people. Remember, they have as of yet not so much as threatened anyone, let alone openly attacked anyone. (Again, I speak of organized attack, not a single person acting on their own.)

If they haven't threatened or attacked, then there is no issue, is there.

Pardon my ignorance, but to what are you referring?

The man who shot up the Holocaust Museum just recently - he was a known felon and supporter of Nazi ideology, etc. Look up James von Brunn.

What calls to violence? Could you cite a source on that one? Thanks.

I'm not citing anything specific, I am saying if they do incite violence. This is no specific situation I am talking about.

How would you do that, without having the government influence the media?

Who said government influence? I certainly didn't. Though if this is one way to combat such ruthless ideologies, I probably wouldn't mind it to a certain extent.

How about the viewers of these news shows writing in and inviting reporters to the anti-racism events? How about some coverage of community involvement to support anti-racism protests? If the government has to say, "hey why don't you cover this while you also cover that," then so be it.

You can understand, then, how I misunderstood?

Of course, no problem.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2009 6:59:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/18/2009 5:33:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
What do I need evidence for? I think its literally self-evident that if someone is so determined to do something, a spanking isn't going to stop them.

Man, this is funny. I can't believe we're seriously talking about public spankings as punishments. Anyway, I meant the public humiliation would be worse than the punishment itself.

If they haven't threatened or attacked, then there is no issue, is there.

Precisely my point.

The man who shot up the Holocaust Museum just recently - he was a known felon and supporter of Nazi ideology, etc. Look up James von Brunn.

Thank you.

I'm not citing anything specific, I am saying if they do incite violence. This is no specific situation I am talking about.

You made a fairly serious claim that these right-wing extremists 'often' make calls to violence. I was just asking if you had a source.

Who said government influence? I certainly didn't.

I wasn't saying you did. Logically though, the only way you could do what you are proposing is to have the government influence the media. So I concluded that was what you meant.

Though if this is one way to combat such ruthless ideologies, I probably wouldn't mind it to a certain extent.

Ooh. Be very, very careful about that. If the government gets involved in the media in any way, it could get ugly fast. Steer away from that course entirely; it isn't worth this issue.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln