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

[DooDoot]

Are you kidding? People you disagree with are "censoring" or "policing" or (as retrofuturist may prefer) engaging in "meta-discussion." However, none of this applies to repeated attempts to shut down the speech by people who disagree with you. Double standard.

I don't know what you are talking about here. When I discern Retrofuturist getting grumpy & totalitarian, I take the hint & move on. Retrofuturist is the moderator of this forum & if he judges enough is enough it is best to respect that. In Buddhism, we develop right view towards our benefactors; such as Retrofuturist.

It appears to me that, regardless of the makeup of the Membership, the forum itself is guided very strongly by the political views of the Team.

This sounds like non-sense to me; given the large diversity of views here. Due to this non-sense, time to go.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings L.N.,

Are you George Soros? If not, what business do you have focusing on George Soros (and others) instead of on yourself?

Interesting. So we cannot critique the actions of anyone, because we are not them? Strange. Doubly strange, because what you imply DooDoot has no business to do, is precisely what you take it upon yourself to do, in relation to anyone on this forum who disagrees with you, your positions or your over-complicated and uncharitable speech codes.

How do you resolve your double standard, regarding what you believe you and your fellow leftists should be able to do, in contrast to what others elsewhere on the political spectrum should be prevented from doing?

Metta,
Paul.

[binocular]

How do you resolve your double standard, regarding what you believe you and your fellow leftists should be able to do, in contrast to what others elsewhere on the political spectrum should be prevented from doing?

By taking the throne, obviously.

[DNS]

I moved the political compass posts and posts relating to where the Dhamma fits in politics to the political compass thread here:
viewtopic.php?f=54&t=25405

For behavioral analysis and meta-discussion, continue here, if you must.

[L.N.]

Interesting. So we cannot critique the actions of anyone, because we are not them? Strange. Doubly strange, because what you imply DooDoot has no business to do, is precisely what you take it upon yourself to do, in relation to anyone on this forum who disagrees with you, your positions or your over-complicated and uncharitable speech codes.

I have not done any such thing. Your continuing efforts to twist words and smear are just sad at this point.

DooDoot's comments appear to be judging whether someone else, or someone's politics, is Buddhist or not. I have never engaged in this type of speculation.

How do you resolve your double standard, regarding what you believe you and your fellow leftists should be able to do, in contrast to what others elsewhere on the political spectrum should be prevented from doing?

I don't identify as a leftist any more than you identify as alt-right. Why is it ok for you to ban me for merely using the term "alt-right" in connection with your comments (e.g. your seeming "obsession" with the George Soros conspiracy theories, using one of your favorite words), but it is ok for you to label me?

As to your point, I have not displayed a double standard, because I have not proposed rules to follow. Rather, I have tried to have a discussion. Such discussion has been polluted with negative comments which, now that I understand the dynamics of the DW Team, appear to be politically motivated.

You might wish to pretend for a moment that you have respect for me, pretend for a moment that I am sincere in trying to have a dialogue rather than set rules, and give serious thought to whether there is anything positive which you can contribute. So far, most of what you have contributed is trash talk.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Doubly strange, because what you imply DooDoot has no business to do, is precisely what you take it upon yourself to do, in relation to anyone on this forum who disagrees with you, your positions or your over-complicated and uncharitable speech codes.

I have not done any such thing.

Oh, really?

Right Speech: Getting Personal
Right Speech: Virtue Signalling
Right Speech: Insenstitive Speech
Right Speech: The Person in the Ball

Your continuing efforts to twist words and smear are just sad at this point.

No twisting required. The above four links, in addition to this topic itself, are more than adequate substantiation of the point being made. So sorry, no offence, but it's true.

I don't identify as a leftist any more than you identify as alt-right. Why is it ok for you to ban me for merely using the term "alt-right" in connection with your comments (e.g. your seeming "obsession" with the George Soros conspiracy theories, using one of your favorite words), but it is ok for you to label me?

If you're not of the left, then that's fine. I don't mind, and I don't much care. "Leftist" isn't a morally loaded term, just as "Rightist" isn't - although "leftist" probably rolls off the tongue a bit better. Alt-right is different though, because it's a term which has evolved in its meaning, such that is synonymous with actual white supremacy. As such, it is racist... and unlike calling someone "short" or "fat" (names which you would call "name calling"), calling someone a racist is impugning someone's moral character. It's an allegation, and unless it's a substantiated one, it's a violation of the Terms of Service. Contrast, with "leftist", "centrist", "rightist", "libertarian" or "authoritarian" which do not contain embedded moral aspersions, and indicate only where on the political compass one sits.

So far, most of what you have contributed is trash talk.

No, I'm not trash talking. I'm trying to have a civilized, reasoned conversation, and will do so with anyone here who proves to have the capability of doing so. Naively, I'll even try to do so with those who aren't capable... though eventually I'll stop that.

Metta,
Paul.

[L.N.]

Right Speech: Getting Personal
Right Speech: Virtue Signalling
Right Speech: Insenstitive Speech
Right Speech: The Person in the Ball

Your continuing efforts to twist words and smear are just sad at this point.

No twisting required. The above four links, in addition to this topic itself, are more than adequate substantiation of the point being made. So sorry, no offence, but it's true.

Did you actually read the OPs in each of the Topics linked above? They were set up for the purpose of Dhamma discussion. You apparently took each of them the wrong way.

I don't identify as a leftist any more than you identify as alt-right. Why is it ok for you to ban me for merely using the term "alt-right" in connection with your comments (e.g. your seeming "obsession" with the George Soros conspiracy theories, using one of your favorite words), but it is ok for you to label me?

If you're not of the left, then that's fine. I don't mind, and I don't much care. "Leftist" isn't a morally loaded term, just as "Rightist" isn't - although "leftist" probably rolls off the tongue a bit better. Alt-right is different though, because it's a term which has evolved in its meaning, such that is synonymous with actual white supremacy. As such, it is racist... and unlike calling someone "short" or "fat" (names which you would call "name calling"), calling someone a racist is impugning someone's moral character. It's an allegation, and unless it's a substantiated one, it's a violation of the Terms of Service. Contrast, with "leftist", "centrist", "rightist", "libertarian" or "authoritarian" which do not contain embedded moral aspersions, and indicate only where on the political compass one sits.

Fair enough. While I did not intend the term "alt-right" to mean what you have stated, you will notice that I respected your wishes and stopped using the term. Still, a lot of your comments go a bit farther than just "right." The George Soros conspiracy stuff is just ridiculous.

So far, most of what you have contributed is trash talk.

No, I'm not trash talking. I'm trying to have a civilized, reasoned conversation, and will do so with anyone here who proves to have the capability of doing so. Naively, I'll even try to do so with those who aren't capable... though eventually I'll stop that.

Well, if you scroll through the "Right Speech: Getting Personal" thread, you will find instance after instance where you did not engage in civilized, reasoned conversation. Face it, you sometimes call people names. You sometimes try to hit below the belt. This is what you do. I am not trying to regulate you or tell you to stop. As stated, it is your forum, you can and will do what you want.

It would be nice if we could have a topic about Right Speech without you reading some leftist agenda into it.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings L.N.,

Fair enough. While I did not intend the term "alt-right" to mean what you have stated, you will notice that I respected your wishes and stopped using the term. Still, a lot of your comments go a bit farther than just "right." The George Soros conspiracy stuff is just ridiculous.

Now that you've created a George Soros topic, let's keep that discussion there. Last time I checked, the sum of evidence in favour of your position was zero, and that opposed to it was stacking up with every post made...

So far, most of what you have contributed is trash talk.

Well, if you scroll through the "Right Speech: Getting Personal" thread, you will find instance after instance where you did not engage in civilized, reasoned conversation. Face it, you sometimes call people names. You sometimes try to hit below the belt...

Or, alternatively, that is how you've conditioned yourself to interpret my words, through the lens of your personal, idiosyncratic and pedantic speech codes, which I neither share, nor agree with. Goofaholix gave you two really good posts in this topic - if applied, they will be invaluable.

Metta,
Paul.

[L.N.]

Now that you've created a George Soros topic, let's keep that discussion there. Last time I checked, the sum of evidence in favour of your position was zero, and that opposed to it was stacking up with every post made...

Evidence that George Soros is the evil mastermind of a leftist conspiracy? I don't think so.

So far, most of what you have contributed is trash talk.

Well, if you scroll through the "Right Speech: Getting Personal" thread, you will find instance after instance where you did not engage in civilized, reasoned conversation. Face it, you sometimes call people names. You sometimes try to hit below the belt...

Or, alternatively, that is how you've conditioned yourself to interpret my words, through the lens of your personal speech codes. Goofaholix gave you two really good posts in this topic - if applied, they will be invaluable.

Yes, and you will notice that I have listened to them and responded respectfully. Which is less than I can say for your responses to my comments. You continue to twist my OPs into what you term "your personal speech codes." This is just how you've conditioned yourself to interpret my words. If you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I have never proposed "speech codes." Somehow, you have it all twisted around and you and others apparently think I'm a raving leftist out to regulate your speech. Not true.

I think you would benefit by trying to remove the political lens from the way you read other people's posts. Your political biases are inappropriately on display in many Dhamma discussions. But again, it is up to you to do what you want. I'm not trying to set rules.

Too bad we can't just discuss in a friendly, mutually respectful way without your continued recriminations.

[Pseudobabble]

Enough now, please.. The bad vibes are getting quite strong.