Why are far-right political views so predominant on DW?

[L.N.]

george soros? until now I have only a vague knowledge of his name and it isn't from here can you show examples and explain them?

Please see OP.

If by "scolded by the admin team" you mean sanctions are brought against members who disagree? then non-sense. if you mean people who happen to be mods and admin engage in topics then please show examples of them scolding.

The fact that it hasn't happened to you personally doesn't mean it does not happen. There are ample examples (as chownah can attest). You will find some in the Right Speech topics noted above.

[L.N.]

L.n.,
Where are buddhists who hold far right political views and who believe in engaged buddhism supposed to go to express/discuss their views?
chownah

Why can't people with views on the far right or far left discuss here without calling into question the character of anyone who disagrees? Some of the discussion here is just baffling in its hostility and unfriendliness.

This is another matter entirely. The topic is about the predominance of far right political views and it seems that you are now talking about quality of discussion....two entirely different things and it is wrong to conflate them. Not all far right politicos engage in perverted discussion.

Not really. Please see comment above re the sense that those on the left and those on the right sometimes feel they are from different cultures. This is reflected here and is on-topic to this discussion.

It does seem that in the usa the far right engages in questionable discussion techniques and I could explain why but it would just raise a howl by many here and not accomplish anything. If you look at the segment of the population that the far right shock jocks appeal to and think about what human characteristics might be in play on both the presenters and the audience it might become clear.....knowing a bit about the history of far right politics in the usa at the grass roots level helps too.

I agree.

[L.N.]

What do you think the goal of this thread is?

Apart from, as I said, inviting more political argument and contention? For you to continue to cause drama and .

No.

[L.N.]

William F. Buckley — 'Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views"



What yells out at the US public . . . is the incandescent hypocrisy of so many people who, in the name of free speech, persecute its practitioners if their opinions are conservative.

This is labeling and an attempt to smear liberals and, by implication, those who speak about this issue. I thought this is the type of comment which Rule 2 prohibits.

[L.N.]

Why are far-right political views so predominant on DW?

L.N. I think you maybe confusing the views of the majority of the participants with those of the Admin/Mod team, but therein lies your answer.

Some people perceive _anyone_ in some position of power as authoritarian/right-wing.

Good point.

[DNS]

I see lots of political-contentious topics being created by a user by the name of L.N.

False. I have created topics regarding Right Speech in the Sila section.

Saying it is "false" doesn't make it false. You have created numerous meta-discussions, contentious topics, political topics. You say you want to discuss the Dhamma, but it is actually you who is creating all of these "quality of discussions" threads.

One of the characteristics of creating a stereotype is that of not noticing (either consciously or sub-consciously) things (such as views) that agree with yours while noticing those that are opposed to you in greater detail and consideration. Or put another way; ignoring those cases which don't fit your preconceived view and only noticing those cases that fit your view, thereby, creating the stereotype.

Right, we should avoid this. How is this comment of yours on topic?

Of course it is on topic. You made a claim that DW is being dominated by right-wingers and you are obviously creating a stereotype, ignoring cases which don't fit your preconceived view. I notice you didn't comment on the polls I showed which demonstrate the majority of DW members are left-wing and yes, they are recent polls.

What do you think the goal of this thread is?

Apart from, as I said, inviting more political argument and contention? For you to continue to cause drama and .

Yes, exactly the point of these threads is to cause more drama; some people feed off drama and conflict.

[Phena]

Why are far-right political views so predominant on DW?

L.N. I think you maybe confusing the views of the majority of the participants with those of the Admin/Mod team, but therein lies your answer.

Some people perceive _anyone_ in some position of power as authoritarian/right-wing.

Yes, _some_ people do.

[Pseudobabble]

...

Hi L.N.

For the sake of clarity, could you please tell me your definitions of:

• Conservative
• Right Wing
• Far Right
• Alt-Right
• Liberal
• Left Wing
• Far Left
• 'CTRL-Left'/'Alt-left'*

*This is a relatively new term without the currency of 'Alt-Right'. I would say that examples of the 'Alt-Left' would be (contemporary) Antifa or Militant Tendency, but I imagine I could be debated on this.

If you could do it without giving any references as well, that would be good - I want to understand the distinctions you are operating with.

[cjmacie]

Just a little over a year ago a poll was made for DW members' choices for POTUS. That thread was closed just a little over 6 months ago. (So it's a fairly recent thread and poll.)

47% chose Hillary Clinton
17% chose Jill Stein

So that's 64% of DW members choosing a left wing or left of center candidate (by U.S. standards)

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=27053

Perhaps a more "silent majority" around here?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Perhaps a more "silent majority" around here?

Well they certainly don't keep silent when they're doing the majority of the complaining!



I find that whilst those on either side will be largely unimpressed by arguments made by the other side, there's only one side who seems adamant that this forum could and indeed should, prevent the other from being given the same liberties of speech that they themselves receive. That partiality doesn't sit very well with me. After all, whatever happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? It seems a long lost liberal virtue, and I find the concomitant loss of tolerance and dwindling commitment to free speech to be a shame.

Frankly, I think the reason some people find this forum's deliberately even-handed treatment so confronting, is that they've become accustomed to surrounding themselves (either through their choice of media, or social circles) with views that align so closely to their own, that when they are exposed to a broader range of views outside of that echo chamber, they find it "problematic". Chances are they've also bought into their side's decades long propaganda, which insists that those who disagree with them could only do so because they're uncaring, greedy, mean, self-centred, corrupt, morally inferior, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, evil, ignorant, uneducated and so on. Unsurprisingly then, to those who have bought into the uncharitably negative stereotypes propagated by their own side (stereotypes which are not at all aligned with what the Buddha taught) encountering Buddhists who are from the other side of politics, could well be rather triggering and frightening. (Projection and doom mongering goes a long way, it seems... and I'm still waiting to hear what views expressed by non-leftist members are really as terrifying as we're led to believe they are, by our local serial complainants.)

Maybe it's good that those self-styled echo chambers are falling apart, even if the cognitive dissonance involved in that dissolution is harder for some to deal with than others. Maybe a true exhange of ideas might become possible once resistance for resistance's sake falls back out of vogue.

Metta,
Paul.

[DNS]

Perhaps a more "silent majority" around here?

I don't know, not necessarily, for example I see members supporting Bernie Sanders (esp during the election year), Jill Stein, that global warming is real, supporting gay marriage, supporting pro-choice for women regarding abortions, speaking out against Myanmar's treatment of Rohingya, etc.

[Cittasanto]

george soros? until now I have only a vague knowledge of his name and it isn't from here can you show examples and explain them?

Please see OP.

examples in threads with explanation?

If by "scolded by the admin team" you mean sanctions are brought against members who disagree? then non-sense. if you mean people who happen to be mods and admin engage in topics then please show examples of them scolding.

The fact that it hasn't happened to you personally doesn't mean it does not happen. There are ample examples (as chownah can attest). You will find some in the Right Speech topics noted above.

Again I asked for examples of scolding.

[Cittasanto]

It does seem that in the usa the far right engages in questionable discussion techniques and I could explain why but it would just raise a howl by many here and not accomplish anything. If you look at the segment of the population that the far right shock jocks appeal to and think about what human characteristics might be in play on both the presenters and the audience it might become clear.....knowing a bit about the history of far right politics in the usa at the grass roots level helps too.

I agree.

I didn't write that

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Cittasanto,

Are you suggesting it's.... "fake news"?



Metta,
Paul.

[Cittasanto]

Greetings Cittasanto,

Are you suggesting it's.... "fake news"?



Metta,
Paul.

Yes it is a falsely attributed quote.