I hope he finds somewhere where he is appropriately understood. — Baden

I think he just did.

I'd have put all this in the banning thread if it had been open already, worth moving ...?

I'd have put all this in the banning thread if it had been open already, worth moving ...? — unenlightened

Dunno, but I did it anyway. :up:

Banned Noah33 for refusing to disavow Hitler/Naziism etc. — Baden

I have no objection to this decision, but still feel that a logical case for Nazism can be made. As I see it, the value in such a discussion could be to shine a light on how assumptions taken to be an obvious given by the group consensus can often be not as obvious as they first appear. I just find such an analysis interesting, but am not demanding the mods feel likewise. Sorry, that's all for now, gotta go, my jackboots need polishing again.

Analysing how Naziism took hold and was so persuasive is quite a lot different from believing it to be correct. So some causal/cultural/socioeconomic account of the rise of Naziism is fine, but defending a racist, genocidal worldview is not.

We've not yet banned someone for comments made in the bannings thread. If we do, at least it'll be tidy to have everything in one convenient place for viewing.

Something made me think to say this.

Banned @aserwin for low quality.

@Marcus de Brun was banned (a few days ago now, I forgot to note it here) for posting a whole series of pompous rants about 'censorship' of his posts, despite deletions of those posts for their poor quality. It was basically attempts at forum drama that have little to nothing to do with philosophy, repeatedly. In between all this there was just a generally low-quality thread on the 'devil' (deleted by another mod), all of which added up to a decision to ban him.

Im curious about the guy who got banned for racist views. The quote provided indicates he was talking about black people being less intelligent than white people, was this in reference to The Bell Curve, or other research into race and IQ? Or was the person making a more standard racist categorisation about black people being little more than animals or their lower intelligence stems from their natural inferiority to whites or whatever garbage?

Pompous rants aren't allowed on a philosophy forum? :smile:

If you're talking about gurugeorge, , he was advancing a white ethnostate and the inferiority of blacks. Like anyone who knows how bad this looks, he used a slimy catalogue of euphemisms to make the point. He was warned repeatedly to stop expressing racist views on the forum and ask to denounce Naziism personally; he did neither. Surely the bar should be set higher than that.

I see. Thanks, i was just curious, Im new and am still feeling the place out. Im open to any idea really, but not obnoxious, pointless grandstanding and propaganda. Seen those types before, as we all have. Good riddance.

Ok, I'm guessing no objections forthcoming re arsewine's banning, so closing this.

Banned william123 for being a spammer caught by the spam filter.

Banned @Jeremiah for disruptive troll-like behaviour.

So some causal/cultural/socioeconomic account of the rise of Naziism is fine, but defending a racist, genocidal worldview is not. — fdrake

I'm totally agreeable that someone has to make the call of where the boundaries are, and that the mods are assigned agents for that task. So, I'm not arguing against such a policy on the forum. I hope that's clear.

Speaking purely philosophically, it seems somewhat questionable that, as philosophers, we should accept the utter wrongness of Nazism as a matter of faith without making any attempt to see all sides of the question. I'm less interested in Naziism specifically than I am in the fact that assumptions we take to be obviously true are not always so. That's what interests me about Naziism, it is almost universally assumed to be wrong, bad etc, which tends to raise philosophical suspicions.

As example, key opponents of the Nazis such as the Americans, British, and Russians all built their own empires using methods that really differed little from the Nazis. In America we were still lynching blacks as the Nazis came to power, and an oppressive Jim Crow regime was being enforced by the government in part of the country. We'd only just finished exterminating many millions of native peoples a generation or so before the Nazis came to power.

And yet the WWII allies are assumed to be the good guys, and the Nazis are assigned the black hat. Such widely shared beliefs seem ripe for philosophical challenge, a process quite different than the selling of Nazism.

Speaking purely philosophically, it seems somewhat questionable that, as philosophers, we should accept the utter wrongness of Nazism as a matter of faith without making any attempt to see all sides of the question. I'm less interested in Naziism specifically than I am in the fact that assumptions we take to be obviously true are not always so. That's what interests me about Naziism, it is almost universally assumed to be wrong, bad etc, which tends to raise philosophical suspicions. — Jake

I believe we operate from the position that we've already seen through white nationalism and judge it accordingly. There's no scientific backing to the superiority of whites (genetics reveals that all race differences are purely social artefacts), any differences in intellectual capability have almost all of their variance controlled for by societal mediators, ethnic replacement is just stupid - only people who aren't in their right minds would equate immigration of non-whites to genocide of whites, the idea that Jewish leftists control everything is ridiculous on both fronts never mind together... And so on. This applies as much to Jim Crow and the klans as it does to the Nazis and the contemporary populist right.

Based on my personal interactions I would gently advise against making too much of the decision of banning this member.
Peace

So much the worse for philosophy and philosophers if we have to entertain that shit out a shallow sense of intellectual 'openess'. Millions didn't die in gas chambers and pits to be made yet more discursive fodder because of need to get one's intellectual rocks off every now and then. 'Philosophically suspicious'? Not a single fuck given.

Not a single fuck given for poor Jeremiah, either, it seems. Perhaps we're all too busy reading a book and getting smart.

It's a shame he couldn't reign in his asshole flamer tendencies. I imagine the mods together have deleted at least 50 of his posts recently.

Speaking purely philosophically, it seems somewhat questionable that, as philosophers, we should accept the utter wrongness of Nazism as a matter of faith without making any attempt to see all sides of the question. — Jake

Nothing is preventing you from creating a topic that explores all sides of Nazism. Maybe you’re afraid of being stigmatized? A true philosopher is fearless! :strong:

The Nazis had many a good book burning, btw, so I can see the appeal for you.

Not a single fuck given — unenlightened

I tried to in a veiled attempt to keep the waters calm. :flower:
I have endured the wrath of a ticked off Jeremiah in a FB quote. I just wish him peace where ever he lands. And for the love of Tiff, let it not be on FB. :pray:

I believe we operate from the position that we've already seen through white nationalism and judge it accordingly. — fdrake

Um, except that, apologies, this is not true.

As example, here in America those of us of European heritage are still sitting on the stolen property our ancestors ripped from the native peoples with ruthless force, and there's no talk of giving any of it back. We're also still benefiting from the centuries of free labor our ancestors stole from blacks, and there's little to no talk of reparations.

Both American Indians and American blacks still suffer from the crimes of the past right now today (both populations are poorer than whites) and we whites could fix that right now today simply by giving them money which would raise them economically to the same level enjoyed by whites. But we decline to do so, we choose to keep the stolen property instead, thus making ourselves party to the crime.

Have we really seen through white nationalism if we still enjoy the fruits of it without apology or redress?

Again, I'm not interested in selling Nazism, nor am I defending any banned posters. Nor am I attempting to get banned. :smile:

I'm interested in exploring those things which the group consensus assumes without questioning to be true. It's called "philosophy". I sense the mods are not ready to do this kind of philosophy, so I'm testing the waters to see how far I can explore without becoming a subject of this thread.

By we I meant the mods. I'm unsure why you think talking about the effects of racist politics is anything like supporting white nationalism. Regardless, if anyone's a racist they'll be banned.

Jeremiah requested he be banned a few months ago on the basis of not being able to control himself. I didn't accede then because I thought he could. As it turned out, I was wrong.

Jeremiah requested he be banned a few months ago on the basis of not being able to control himself. — Baden

Does this tell something philosophical of our times?

By we I meant the mods. I'm unsure why you think talking about the effects of racist politics is anything like supporting white nationalism. Regardless, if anyone's a racist they'll be banned. — fdrake

Why are American Indians and blacks less wealthy than white Americans?

1) Our ancestors ruthlessly stole from Indians and blacks for centuries and today we whites decline to return the stolen property.

2) Indians and blacks are inherently inferior and thus can't successfully compete in the marketplace.

If we decline answer #2 as we should then we are stuck with answer #1, which means we share some traits with Nazis, and thus perhaps shouldn't avoid talking about them.

You're allowed to mention the Nazis. You're not allowed to laud them or to be one. Hope the distinction is clear now.

Banned @eodnhoj7 for being persistently/insistently incomprehensible.

Banned @Inis for repeatedly reposting a PM I sent him into the Brexit discussion. General mendaciousness and time-wasting also.