Am I supposed to question myself here? Supposed to assume I'm wrong? Your line of thinking is very dangerous and not safe, it enables very bad people by making good people assume they are terrible people themselves.
White nationalists present some interesting problems, problems that are real and valid. Their lens is wrong (this problem exists, therefore I will interpret the problem in a way that I am superior and others are inferior).
Your doubt should come from that understanding.
I said, "If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from..." meaning, you should "seek first to understand", also known as Habit #5 from Franklin Covey.
> Your line of thinking is very dangerous and not safe, it enables very bad people by making good people assume they are terrible people themselves.
It is always healthy to examine why one is convicted about certain beliefs. Is it rooted in fact, or fear of the unknown? Since you brought up White Nationalism, this is one of my favorite success stories from a man that sought to understand the very people that hated him: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
Daryl Davis has done great things just by listening.
Consider the fact that you are a byproduct of the endless programming and propaganda behind the War on Terror. If you have no doubts on that subject, YOU are wrong.
You can critique the way we acquire information and use that to cast doubt on conclusions. But you definitely can not use those criticisms to add validity to any conclusions either. So I don't see how this world view does anybody any good.
At some point, you see nazis, you say "those are bad", and you just know you're right about it. In that sense, morals are a true compass when faced with endless doubt that can creep in if you want to be maximally scientific about things.
No pressing need to point out the obvious criticisms. Fry was already roundly criticized up and down for saying it. But it has become my favorite quote about the way people talk about ideologies.
In this case, I would say that the nuance lies not in whether it is good or bad, but in understanding the constellation of factors that would lead someone to hold the objectionable viewpoint. Reducing the issue down to the question of whether it's good or bad is itself the simplistic mentality that Fry was very explicitly criticizing.
There are plenty of reasons why one would be nazi. One is fear, other ressentment yet other that you was raised that way by parents. And yet others grown to be cruel, aggresive and sadistic and nazism makes them feel like it is good thing.
However, being clear on whether it is good or bad or even dangerous and what is cost of they get their way is practically speaking super important. Understanding that is more important then understanding poor them and having emphaty toward them. Otherwise they will use you emphaty to convert you to their case, bit by bit. It is not simplistic, it is values that you need to keep in mind lest you lose the lm.
> However, being clear on whether it is good or bad or even dangerous and what is cost of they get their way is practically speaking super important.
Yes, it's important. It's important that children learn this, or sort it out by very early adulthood. That is what is meant by infantile. In my opinion, this is not a serious problem for the vast majority of civil folk. I do not understand the value in grown adults belaboring it. It's baby food. Eat grownup food.
Actually, grown ups have bigger problem keeping this straigt. Grown ups made originally nazism happen after all. Grown ups dont want to insult nazi because of career or just trying to look nice and rational. Then again, young German soldiers were more cruel then old ones I read in historical accounts.
I don't know what you mean by eating grown up food here. There were quite a few unapologetic grown ups in history who were quite inflexible in their values.
Maybe it is another attempt to shame that has nothing to do with what actual grown ups do, for better or worst.
Can you expand on that? It sounds like it may contain a very interesting perspective, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
It doesn't matter what ideology you're battling for or against. It's the genre of ideological flamewar itself that's damaging here, and therefore unwelcome, and therefore will get you banned if you keep doing it.
By "the users", do you mean four or so hyperpartisan ideological zealots who exploit your rules to get their rush of moral supremacy by downvoting instead of commenting to refute the points?
Because downvoting is technically political activity and your rules totally allow that all day long.