Discussion: is Carleas secretly a white supremacist a nazi?

I mean, there is a poster who literally labeled himself a Nazi. It’s not an epithet in this case, we’re talking about literal self-identified Nazi.

I would say this is symptomatic of anti-SJW discourse. You’re not wrong in pointing out the flaws of the left, you’re just doing the same damn thing. A man explaining anything becomes “mansplaining”, even when it’s appropriate and respectful in context; and calling a literal self-identified Nazi a “Nazi” becomes trigger snowflake etc. etc. Both are the same weak pattern of thought.

Do better, Aegean.

First, ILP is not a platform. I agree that CNN should not have Richard Spencer on to talk about white supremacy, because it gives the impression that explicit white supremacy is a bigger force that it is, and lends Spencer more respectability than he deserves. But ILP is an internet backwater, white supremacy is about as big a force as three teenagers on an internet backwater message board. I flatter myself that ILP is more respectable than that, but not so respectable that anyone is raising their profile by posting here.

Second, there have to be places where people can talk about bad ideas. For one thing, people do sometimes change their mind in response to reason. But more importantly, society needs to make explicit the reasons why bad ideas are wrong. If we can’t discuss them, if no one can defend them, then we won’t discover the rebuttals, and our noble beliefs will be fragile and vulnerable to simple questioning. The discussion isn’t only about convincing the other people in the discussion, it’s about crystallizing our own ideas, which, once explicit, can be shared like antibodies.

And if ILP can’t be a place like that, then no where can.

Jews, as in people who follow Judaism as an ideology? What about where they disagree, e.g. pro-Palestine Jews? still Jewish? Are there e.g. people of Italian ancestry who are Jews by dint of their adherence to an ideology? Madonna – Jewish? (This is an ironically post-modern take on what it means to be “Jewish”. I’m sure you also think that Black is an ideology and Rachel Dolezal is a convert.)

But, what are you relying on to say that American is “dominated by Jews”. Do you have a reliable survey of ideology? Or are you just using Jewish as a race when it’s convenient, and as an ideology when you get called a racist. Motte-and-bailey?

But even racially, what numbers are you relying on? Looks like we have 10 Jewish senators… 10 % is pretty dominant… Let’s count up the non-Hispanic whites in Senate, and see how they compare – Wiki says 91-9, but let’s call it 81 because it looks like they’re counting Jews as white. So, whites are at least 8x more dominant. Same in business: numbers I’m finding are like 70% of CEOs are white, even if that’s similarly including 10% Jews, we’re still talking 6x dominance.

Why do you believe the things you believe, Aegean?

It seems my recent presence here has caused some controversy.

I can hear the forum zionists kvetching here, it’s like soothing music to my ears.

They can’t debate or argue where all they can do is to demand censorship and silencing of others. A magnificent display. =D>

I applaud Carleas’s rational insights and opinions on free-speech.

This may very be the last free-speech designated online philosophy forum and given how old this place is that makes it very unique or special. My respect for you Carleas has only increased despite our more obvious ideological and philosophical disagreements.

Can’t believe how anyone can be this naïve…but since this may get me in trouble…I’ll let Zero-Sum explain it, with his more vulgar style.

You see nothing…no evidence of dominance anywhere?
Then, I will certainly not point it out.
Jews are not a race. So critiquing them is not “racist”. I am not a racists if I critique Islam, or Christianity or Marxism…or Buddhism.
Semites are tribes belonging to a race…and I never commented on Semites whether they were Muslim, Christian, Jewish…or atheists.

That Jews control a majority and lion share of United States wealth is an uncontested fact yet is never discussed publicly.

A conversation for another time.

Call it a soapbox or stage or whatever you like. You’re providing it.

Google bots are scraping it.

I don’t agree with that. CNN is in a position to present various ideas and to provide an extensive context and fact check. They ought to do it.

OTOH, you don’t provide context nor do you validate any claims.

You are an individual running this forum. You can shut it down and you can boot off anyone that you want. Or you can provide them with a soapbox. It’s your decision.

Sure. The posts can be full of bad ideas. But once you make the decision to let them talk, you need to police them so that the posts don’t descend into insult and mockery. Which they do regularly. (Like those posts with a caricature of “eternal jew” superimposed on photographs of real people.)

A “report button” doesn’t cut it. Active moderation is required.

Of course you do. He lets you run around like a spoiled kid in a candy store.

Not entirely true, I was recently temporarily banned.

Have any arguments against me? Didn’t think so.

A ban which you mocked as a minor inconvenience.

Here again, I think you are using multiple definitions of the word “Jew”, which ever suits your present need. You claim that you mean an ideology, but I don’t believe you don’t have numbers for ideology, you have numbers for ancestry. I also don’t think Zero Sum is using the term in the way you mean it, because he’s overtly and happily racist.

Let’s call it “an internet backwater that isn’t even the top Google result for its own name.” Let’s not exaggerate what’s going on here: ILP gives the ideas barely more exposure than writing in a journal. Literally standing on a soapbox in the park would reach more people.

That’s surprising. What is your goal? CNN hosting Richard Spencer almost certainly does more harm than me hosting Zero_Sum, even if CNN does fact-checking and talking head rebuttals, and I let whoever feels like wading through ZS’s dreck respond. It almost certainly does much more harm. The best fact checking, the best rebuttals, is only going to be 99% effective, and 1% of CNN’s viewership is orders of magnitude larger than 100% of ILP’s audience.

So what’s the basis for the idea that ILP is wrong to give three racist teenagers a platform to share their ideas with ~50 other people looking to argue, while CNN would be right to give white supremacist Mr. Rogers an audience of millions?

Hey, if people don’t like my opinions, beliefs, or values I welcome an open debate.

You pick the spot and subject where I’ll hop on board.

Or, are you and others just going to complain calling for my immediate censorship where we need to call a wambulance?

Unlike the rest of you anti-free-speech advocates I always welcome debate, discussion, and conversation. My door and windows are always open being completely transparent to all.

To have consistent free speech which treats everyone fairly. Not a free speech which I turn off when it displeases me.

If it turns out that when presented with context and an honest presentation of the facts, the people want to believe that stuff … then so be it. The people express the path that they want to follow.

The size of the audience is irrelevant.

“Free speech for me, not for thee.” - Phyllo.

What a crock of shit. I just said the complete opposite of that.

You did? That’s great, you have nothing left to complain about then.

So then it has nothing to do with platform, right? Audience 0 versus audience 1 million, the difference is whether the audience is “presented with context and an honest presentation of the facts” alongside the bad ideas.

I’m not sure what this means for ILP. I’m no better placed than anyone else to provide context and facts in response to bad ideas here, and any user can provide whatever context they see as appropriate. Is the claim that, so long as I am unwilling to guarantee that context and facts will accompany certain bad ideas, I should ban those ideas?

(Also, to clarify, purely insulting and incendiary racism is prohibited, and I will ban users I see doing it.)

Of course what makes threads of this sort particularly prone to controversy is that proposing a discussion [or even a debate] about what a member here secretly is can lead to all sorts of…mischief?

One might begin a thread called “is Zero_Sum secretly a homosexual pedophile?” or one called “is Peter Kropotkin secretly a member of the Trump administration?” or “is iambiguous secretly Satyr?”

Merely to raise it as a possibility is to suggest there are at least two sides.

That’s why any number of blacks might reject a discussion/debate of whether whites are of superior intelligence, or gays of whether homosexuality is a sick, unnatural perversion.

You drive away people who want to have a discussion when you are insulting.

Your rudeness needs to be kept in check.

You’re really stuck on that word ‘platform’.

Right.

You’re limited to policing rudeness.

And even that doesn’t happen here.

And you see it only if someone presses the “report button”?

What does “incendiary racism” mean exactly?

These days, the same people who reject those discussions also claim to be in favor of free speech.