Should we ‘no platform’ far-right speakers? When Oxford University Student Union invited Steve Bannon, a former Donald Trump adviser accused of advocating far-right views, there was a predictable storm of protest. Some argued he should be denied the oxygen of publicity, others that his views should be challenged in public.
Bannon himself has rejected the term “white nationalist”. However, he also once boasted that Breitbart News, which he co-founded, was “the platform for the alt-right”, an online movement infamous for its strong far-right and white nationalist associations.
What do our readers think? We had a comment from Ana-Mari arguing that far-right politicians should be debated and argued with. Is she right? Or does debating with the far-right legitimises their ideas?
Against Debating with the Far-Right
Joe Mulhall, Senior Researcher, Hope Not Hate
For Debating with the Far-Right
Timothy Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies, Oxford University
Unfortunately, I think she’s wrong on this one… At the very least, there are some debates that by having the debate you legitimise an illegitimate question. For example, should we debate holocaust deniers?
[…] There is also the issue of legitimising the characters, depending on where these debates happen. Quite often they’ll happen in academic institutions, and we’ll have far-right figures being invited to academic institutions to advance the politics of division, hatred, often racism, in an institution which lends them a weight of legitimacy…
The final point is that these debates are based on a misunderstanding that the truth will always win out in a debate, and part of the issue is that you can have a very proficient far-right debater advancing the fact that the holocaust didn’t happen, and they would ‘beat’ someone who is nevertheless telling the truth. It’s based on the false notion of this marketplace of ideas that, when scrutinised, often doesn’t stand up.
I think there are limits, Ana-Mari. I think, at some point – for example, when people are advocating violence – the law needs to get involved. But within the limits of the law, I think you couldn’t be more right.
A mistake we liberal pro-Europeans have made over the last thirty years is to try to ignore the people who are now nationalists, populists getting 20-30% of the vote. You have to engage with and refute their dangerous arguments, rather than simply trying to ignore them and pretend they’re not there. As the Americans say: ‘Sunlight is the best disinfectant’.
Does debating with the far-right legitimise their ideas? Or is sunlight the best disinfectant? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!
If the EU leadership and their marketeers trust in genuine & unrestricted democracy- such question would not become a EU/DE “question”!
Similarly, the opposite would hold true as well- namely:
Does debating with the rabid federalists legitimize their ideas?
Let’s check: who of the two “celebrities” can be considered the more dubious or a “danger to EU/world peace”?
EU’s Mr Juncker (“The EU peace God”): ……..doesn’t need any introduction- does he?
* In 2013 it was revealed that Luxembourg’s intelligence service was involved in several kinds of abuses, including bribery. They were also accused of spying on several political figures unauthorized.
* In 2019 he regretted not to have interfered in the Brexit referendum. (Meddling seems to be in his blood & mind)
Has debating & genuine criticism already become a “crime” against the EU concept/treaties- or is it a matter of:
The truth hurts & need to be suppressed in Euro-land?
Alfredo
Does debatting whit the far-left legitimize their ideas??
Volen
Not debating them, just strengthens their conviction and makes them harder to deradicalize, same goes for far left :)
extremes are as a whole a bad idea cause they lead to an imbalance that usually corrects itself with a violent swing in the other direction
example late american capitalism
Joe
The Irving Lipstadt Case probably did far more to damage the cause of Holocaust deniers than censoring and imprisoning them ever did.
Enric
Debating is always constructive.
Matt
Does having an over controlling fascist state like the EU make any of their decisions right?
Maria
Debate with far- right, the same way you are debating with the far- left. Be free.
Olivier
Ofof course not. This is a normal democratic process. If these parties exist it means they are legal and democratic
Wim
The idea of Left and Right are just an extension of the Marxist class system, the media call everyone who is slightly more moderate than Lenin “far right”. They do it so they can openly discriminate against people they define as “the other”. Anyone who shows the slightest bit of concern, that the culture they grew up in , is changing into something unrecognisable and right before their eyes is branded as “far right”.
Marc
Legitmise ideas like London and Paris etc fast becoming Mulism majorities? That’s what citizens voted for, right?
Antonio
Here an example of a debate with Bannon: “bureaucrats of bruxxelles are bad” “sovereignty back!1!1!”….
That’s all!
Ivo
Antonio De Simone is an american snake and servant of trump,want to divide europe so America can rule over 27 small countries.At least Now we can make a fist against those american tradewars.
Antonio
I know that well
Gabriella
What is far right? I do not see any in western civilizations anymore. Anarchist (whisch are far-left, extreme liberals) are there, but the right has vanished.
Ivo
fidez,orban?brexit party ,farage,alternatieven,le pen ,vox,salvini.Only orban has enough support,if he hates the eu he can go.We don,t want traitors in europe.If he wants borders he can get euborders like those naïve Brits.
Венцислав
That is a bit of an odd question for a debating page…
John
Actually it’s exactly the opposite…
Bernard
Their ideas are already legitimate. They don’t need to debate anyone to be ‘legitimised’.
Lubor
he read too much 1984
Bernard
In fact, the concept of ‘illegal ideas’ seems to be identical to the ‘thoughtcrimes’ of ‘1984’.
Pedro
most of their “ideas” are illegal so no, they’re not legitimised
Bernard
Can you mention some of these allegedly ‘illegal’ ideas, if that concept even exists?
Кирил
yes you idiots
EU Reform- Proactive
Sorry Kiril- why “name” calling? “Your” comment wouldn’t deserve a reply-
but: sycophancy will not earn you any brownie points with the EU either!
“Never listen to destructive criticism – it’s only meant to silence you.”
Tom
No, banning them does (to the ones who might be persuaded away). If you debate and destroy their arguments with undeniable facts then those who waver can be brought away. Banning just gives them power to argue that people are afraid that they are right
Kevin
Problem with public debates with populists is that it takes more time to explain than to lie.
Sly
That’s why you most populists show their points where they won’t be questioned (at a rally or some other environment where they won’t have people asking them pointed questions).
Tom
You keep it simple e.g. 350m a week to the EU
Britain gets a 5bn rebate which never goes to the EU so that sum is about 90-100m too high
You don’t need fancy arguments, just repeat “what about the rebate?” until they have to admit the figure is a lie
Simple things work, hence why Trump picked easy slogans like “build the wall”.
Lul
“If you debate and destroy their arguments with undeniable facts” is not something people supporting the far right are interested in in the first place. The only thing you need to counter that as a far right populist is to pull out “alternative facts” from your butt and you not only get applauded from your own crowd who never gave a sh** about the “undeniable facts”, but you even have a chance to get new followers.
Tom
I said very clearly that I was talking about people who were wavering on political leanings, I made that very clear. Not converting anyone in an echo chamber of far right populism
Aaron
things that have never worked in history
Pryo
Banning it sure worked in history, if only someone put Hitler in prison he’d change his ways and surely wouldn’t seize power later. Oh, wait, that’s exactly what happened. Didn’t work against communists in Russia either.
Aaron
Banning it has worked in places, it was never banned in Germany until after the war
Fifth
Hitler was given a very lenient sentence by very sympathetic judges. He was given just 5 years and served just 9 months. For an armed putsch against the state in which people died, were kidnapped, etc.
If he was properly sentenced, it’s very very possible that Germany would have sailed through the great depression without the Nazis coming to power.
Tron
Censorship will do a poor job in a world where you can create an online platform with just a few clicks and keyboard presses.
Peter
“destroy their arguments with undeniable facts”
The problem is that they have they own reality and their own facts. We live in a post-factual era where people like Trump win elections in the greatest democracy where nobody can “destroy their arguments with undeniable facts” anymore.
Tom
Yes, hence the point I made, you don’t target anyone in an echo chamber on the left or right, you show people who aren’t sure why the other side is wrong and lying to them, create the seeds of doubt by showing they’re liars
Tron
Debating them means there is a higher than 0 chance some will be convinced their beliefs are extremist. Not debating them just legitimises the fact that “the big media” tries to hide the truth from the masses, in order to force their agenda (whatever that is). It’s not like they can’t simply go on 4chan, or other websites, and continue their radicalisation process. What will you do, then? Ban these communities?
Point is, the more you isolate people of certain beliefs, the more they will start believing them. They won’t start considering that the people who shun them are right, they will believe ever more fervently the ones that share their beliefs and struggles are the only ones possessing the truth. That’s how you create school shooters, incel terrorists and proponents of racist “science.
Respectfully giving them answers (even when is not reciprocal) will invalidate the idea that the only people giving them respect are people with the same ideas and principles and make some of them at least consider the fact that they are wrong.
Also, opposition to the direction the status quo is going is very usefull. It’s called conservatism and, however hated it is today, it makes sure that society doesn’t change faster than the people living in it can, something that can prove to be a disaster. I am not saying that a “racist, bigoted, white supremacist” is a an example of good conservatism, I am just trying to say that it’s completely normal to see ideas that oppose diversity and equality and that not only can we learn from them (in order to understand how to correctly reach the end goal of a better society) we should not censor them, because they are a natural consequence of change. And, when you censor certain opinions that oppose progress, you can also start censoring valid points. You just normalised lack of freedom of speech, when and where are you going to stop?
Cole
The main issue I see that causes support for the far-right is the outright denial that the problems they talk about even exist in the first place.
Lets take immigration as the big obvious one.
The far right seize onto the idea that there are too many immigrants and they’re both taking jobs from hard working locals while at the same time others are abusing the benefits system or begging on the streets.
When the far right get shouted at that there is no problem with immigration and they are just being racist BUT ordinary people look at it and can see the immigrant population increasing and the pressures on local services (by no means all, or even mostly caused by immigrants) and see the number of eastern European beggars on the streets then they become more open to the other messages from the far right.
In short, the far right is strengthened not when when the centre fails to solve the problems, but when they fail to acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place.
People aren’t as stupid as they are treated by some, even if they do want simple answers to complex problems.
Grace
The far-right could ask the same question when they’re in power : “Does debating with the moderates legitimise their ideas ?”
Then they can answer positively and ban the moderates.
catherine benning
Does debating with the far-right legitimise their ideas?
On the contrary, I feel debating with the far left, or, even reading that insincere and inaccurate propaganda, legitimises the idea they can abuse human nature in all its forms. That is, if they simply hang in there, one minute longer.
Listening or accepting obvious proven illiterate manipulation, being sold as accurate, by odd and confused idealists, encourages the indoctrinated to believe the unbelievable. Similar to cult members when they stand with glazed eyes, clearly starving bodies, and trying, so ardently, to draw you into their fantasy world.
But, just as with twisted historical facts, it all outs in the end and then returns to the sanity of our natural world.
Eldridge Bounds
The way the debates are structured today, they are a total farce.
Franck
Everybody or nobody.
Craig
The question assumes their ideas aren’t already legitimate and or that you the questioner are the arbiter of what is legitimate. Bit pompous.
George
Does debating with utra-felt legitimise their ideas of open borders?
Христо
Ultra-left and open borders? Like during the Cold War when people in communist ultra-left countries couldn’t leave the country or foreigners couldn’t enter?
Karel
Far left and left consider any opposing opinion as right or extreme right. A discussion is therefore problematic with the left as a whole.
Gabor
May be we should stop putting people in to categories like right or left? May be it is time to base debates on common sense instead of a religious support of a political dogma?
Dawid
Define “far right”
Alice
No, because it presupposes that the ideas of both sides are equal in value.
Damiano
What about the far left?
Micheál
They’re no looking to debate. Read up on the ‘its Wednesdays theory’.
Anonymous
This is ridiculous. Stating that a political view cannot be debated is totalitarian. Any political view no matter how radical must be debated. They must be exposed and confronted with arguments. Just trying to hide them like they don’t exist is a coward approach and also makes them more enigmatic and attractive for people precisely because they are being censored. What are you afraid of? If what they defend is so terrible then expose them. The same goes for far left by the way, which is as totalitarian as the far right but for some reason seems to have more legitimacy. And apart from that, categorizing someone as far left or far right and cancelling them is nonesense. There might be things to agree and things to disagree with anyone whatever their views and debating them enriches society. Enough with this cancel culture BS
Andrea
does debating with communist legitimise their ideas?
Max
How do we treat ISIS? We all did our damnedest to block all of their social media presence. And we prosecuted their sympathizers and recruiters where possible right?
Why would we treat THESE extremists any differently?
Jason
If you don’t let people express their opinions they will eliminate you by other means, unless you do it first. Then you are become the far R or L anyway.
Dionis
All the world (well most of it) outside of the so called western countries is ruled by what we in Europe would call far right governments and world views. Shall we isolate from the rest of the world? Just remember many western lands desperately need immigrants, then it would cost a lot to trade and production.
The far right and left within Europe are a different thing, but in some ways not easy to differentiate from the ones out of Europe.
Julia
Eh no, there’s no debating with fascists
Alfredo
It goes to the far left as well.
Franz
Taking up their rhetoric and their angle within the debate does for sure.
Bernard
Does debating with the far-left legitimise their ideas?
Miguel
The problem is not the far right, its the far left. Fascism belong to the far left. For they reject the other side of the story yet want to implement a system that only they rule. Look whats happening to all the countries who altered the regime to socialist.
Not only that, Nazism is also disguised as far right but is actually far left. Look at the false news media, its controlled by the left to express their narrative. They dont make news anymore they fabricate it. The proof is that they even use the same words like the text was handed to them..
João
Does debating with the far-left legitimise their ideas?
David
Better to hear extreme opinions, rather than having them whisper in the shadows. Regardless of their views, they would not be able to hide and avoid being held to account. On top of that, if you want to defeat something, you need to know how they think.
Христо
Do you debate if the Tooth Fairy exists? No? That’s what I thought as well. Far-right is irrational. Rational people don’t debate with irrational people. Simple as that. Plus, the far-right is not interested in debate. They just want to destroy everyone who is not far-right How can we debate with people who want to destroy us? Bannon is a criminal who tried to create a far-right network in Europe thus endangering our continental security. He criticize liberalism but enjoys all pleasures of our classical liberal civilisation.
Note: There is nothing wrong about being right-wing. But the far-right is evil and far-right politicians don’t even try to hide it.
Oliver
but if far right is evil, then what are far left?
Христо
Far-left is irrational as well. But nobody talks about the far-left. The topic is about the far-right. If the admins of the page ask a question about the far-left, we will discuss them and their flaws as well. Justifying the evil actions of the far-right by pointing the far-left is a classical example of strawman. Two evil don’t make one good.
Oliver
oh no, im not far right nor justifying them. Im more of a centrist my self.
Rodrigo
When you use the word “far” or “extreme” (It doesn’t matter if it’s left or right) It means that this kind of people won’t change their minds no matter what facts you bring to the table. So a debate is something completely useless… It’s a complete waste of time
Elisavet
You’re right, but it also happens that they may be “smart” enough to give arguments or ask questions that can easily trick young people who are not far-right nor far-left yet. And in this case, it would be good to answer those arguments, for the sake of those who may be confused/tricked.
Rodrigo
true!
Michael
You cannot afford to ignore anyone. The luxury of ignoring an uncomfortable topic is institutional, but it lasts only so long as the institution is unaffected. Eventually beliefs can multiply and take over the institutions, and by then it may be too late to avoid a catastrophe.
The big mistake made by US institutions before Trump was elected was that they did not really take trends on social media seriously. It was clear on American social media that Trump was winning the argument, and many Democratic voters were demobilized, but they treated social media as a joke and simply ignored it when many people began to ‘argue’ that Hillary Clinton was unelectable because a meme had convinced them that she tortured children in a pizza shop. It was beneath them to reply to such allegations, and surely most people were too intelligent to fall for it. Well, guess what? Most people are not.
If enough people are convinced that the world is flat, or, more likely, that whether or not it is flat it is simply more *convenient* for them socially to believe that it is (a propagation mechanism of religion), then eventually the institutions *will* reflect their beliefs. No matter how tedious it is to treat absurd or infantile arguments seriously and rebut them, someone has to do it, or else you will cede to demagogues an uncontested monopoly over the “truth”. “Nobody is arguing with me because they cannot, because there is no argument.”
Remember that in a public forum you are not really trying to convince the person with whom you are arguing. Probably, they will not be convinced. Instead, the argument is a show whereby you are both trying to convince the people watching you, people you will more likely than not never hear from. On social media, for any given argument, that may be thousands or tens of thousands of people. Like the butterfly effect, an obscure, anonymous argument on social media may have a powerful ripple effect in society. That is a new reality and we must quickly adapt.
Fact checking is a must, and should probably be regulated, as social media is now news media.
F Ponce
The far rigth it is not interested in debate. Just it is a political expression of violence.
Natasha
to be honest, we see far more violence from the far left these days.
F Ponce
yes… Far left like Kyle Rottenhouse! OMG!
Stefanos
Given the audience which in average is non educated, has no principles, changes views all the time, believes in nothing, yes you should exclude them.
And then think, how you have managed to create such an audience where the basic principle of having a voice, any voice, cannot be heard.
Pedro
In democracy, we always debate, except fascism. That, we kick in the head.
Yannick
we are tolerant except with intolerance
Olivier
Is democracy not considering all opinions… What means debate legitimate opinions? Opinions are legitimate because people vote for them. In France the real right got 35%at président elections.. Is that not legitimate. The fascists are those who want to keep out opinions they Don t share… Why don t you ask the same questions about communist party or extreme left party…. I remind you that national socialism was backed by socialists… Should we exclude all socialist parties?
Geoffrey
The thing is that, usually, media tend to ask them the question they love to talk about: immigration, security. They never try to pull them out of their comfort zone, where they seem stupid and completely useless with uneffective proposals.
Olivier
you should update your opinion. Real right parties can answer much better to a lot of questions.. And traditional parties adopt many of their solutions like patriot economy.. Consume and produce local… These thematic were considered 5 years before as unrealistic…
Miguel
Europe has been debating with communists and has been ruled by socialists for decades. What are you so affraid of? Right wing parties only want to end corruption, stop unchecked immigration, have their contries traditions and culture respected and that competence should be used to select leadership. Basically the way every society should work and function
Getoar
My issue with debating with the far right is that, for them, debating is something useful just for their own interests, not actually practicing democracy.
The question we need to ask is: when the far right was in power, was there room for any type of debate? I think it’s a pretty easy answer.
Mike
cherry picking your own thoughts and subjecting it into debate are not actualky practicing democracy either.
How about: the question YOU need to ask is: when the far LEFT was in power, was there any room for any type of debate?
Thats a pretty easy answer there ….
Subjecting the word FAR to anything. Any idea. Anyone. Leaves no room for anything.
Getoar
I just followed the topic at hand. Also, as far as I can see nowhere in the world there is the threat of far-left movement seizing power.
So, what are we really talking about here?
Mike
Getoar i am flipping your argument to let you see how your view really looks like…
As far as political movement, i am not sure why you dont see all the protests around. If those are not the left and far left attempts to undermine democracy and the rules if laws, i dont know what are
Getoar
which protests are you exactly talking about? bcs if it’s those that I think, they have nothing to do with the far left.
If anything, the attempt is to bring the benefits of democracy to everyone and not just a certain part of the population. But I guess this is more difficult to understand for some people.
Sergio
ou commies always use the same dull arguments. Are you gonna tell me the far left and the communists believe in democracy? Please. There is a list of communist ie far left dictatorships around the world today (Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, China…) and many countries where they are strong in governments and parliaments (Italy, Spain, Greece etc). Now tell me please a country with a fascist / far right government)
Getoar
hahaha nice opening, it really made me giggle. I’m going to explain you what’s what, just read carefully so you can understand.
You mentioned dictatorships: well, surprisingly enough (for you maybe) there is nothing that resembles the contemporary left in those dictatorships. Like, really nothing. China is a market economy, with a “communist” brand (and really just that, as everything else is ruled in a pretty fascist fashion). North Korea and Venezuela are substantially autarchies, isolated from the world and calling themselves communist because otherwise they would lose any legitimacy left from the old guard in the ruling class. Finally, Vietnam and Cuba are two places in which what was a communist dictatorship evolved into a more democratic and market-oriented country. So yeah, not perfect but definitely not an oppressive dictatorship.
Then you out them side to side with democratically elected governments in which centre-left parties (you know what those are, right?) are in the ruling coalition. Comparing the Italian, Greek, Spanish centre-left parties with the ruling parties in the afore-mentioned dictatorships is, not only stupid, but also malicious, because you basically try to say that all the left is the same, which is not, like not all the right is the same.
Now, I really hope you understood some of the things I wrote so you can avoid going around spreading nonsense like you did.
Sergio
You are as arrogant as you are ignorant. Your ridiculous arguments are older than your ideas. Claiming that all of the examples of socialist countries are not valid because they are not “real socialism”. Of course they’re not, cuz socialism is a utopia. But they are far left dictatorships based on socialism and pushing towards it. I’m sure you’ll say North Korea isn’t really socialist but Trump’ America is fascist right?
And buy the way, I’m not taking about the center left parties, like the PSOE in Spain, but about their coalition partners like Podemos which is communist and is in the government, or like Syriza in Greece which was in power for 4 years and was communist.
Getoar
I might be ignorant, but at least I don’t go around spreading nonsense.
First off, I never mentioned Trump’s America. Luckily it’s still a democratic country. Do I think he is a fascist? Absolutely not, he is just an egomaniac hungry for power. Do I think many of his supporters are fascists and white supracists? Absolutely yes.
Did you really say that Podemos, a populist movement, is communist?? That Syriza is communist when at its best is just a centre-left party? Come on, if you are going to troll make it at least credible.
Getoar
I see your point, but I am talking about the movement. Is the whole movement communist? I doubt it, has it establishes communist policies? Doubt again.
Sergio
well he is the leader of the movement so of course it’s a communist movement. Have there been internal disagreements? Of course. In fact there have been splits precisely because there was a more moderate faction which opposed Pablo Iglesias’ more radical stance, which ended up being expelled and forming a new movement called “Más Pais”. Now that may be a more moderate party, but not podemos. Obviously he doesn’t have the majority of the parliament so he can’t turn Spain into a communist country but he pushes for it everyday and controls several ministries. It’s not something that happens overnight, it’s a process. And they’re working non that process
Paulo
Does debating with far-left legitimate their ideas? Does debating with the government legitimate their ideas? Does debating with your momma legitimate her ideas?
Rick
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Freedom of expression, or freedom of speech, is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. … This right is enshrined in article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Arnout
people don’t have the right to hate speech.
You also try it out by threathening to do a terrorist attack.
Rick
Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”. So, what’s your point?
Yannick
it is good to revert to the charter (or the UN universal declaration of Human rights). But picking on one right without mentioning the others is a problem. There is little to debate with the far right because they flout with so many other rights: article 1 on human dignity, article 6 on security, article 20 on equality before the law, and article 21 about non-discrimination. The point about hate speech is correct. Freedom of opinion does not allow you to encourage hatred.
Rick
I don’t encourage hate speech. I don’t encourage any other unlawful activity. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. Additionally, in some countries, including the United States, much of what falls under the category of “hate speech” is constitutionally protected. In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
Talking educates. Engaging civilly conversations with others with very different political views I encourage. Dismissing those of different political views as deplorable is wrong, although not unlawful, but still wrong in my book.
Peter
And it needs saying! Oh my God, where has progressive wokism taken us,
Peter
Debating Europe — but only with people who agree with us.
That is where we are now.
Peter
By what right does progressive wokism “legitimise” other people’s ideas?
Jason
Does debating with the Left legitimise their ideas?
Christos
If we don’t or if we completely ignore them or forbid them to express their views, it doesn’t mean we stop them from believing from what they believe or discussing them. Nowadays we have the internet and behind an avatar anyone can express their views either far right or else, extremist. We must to an extent counterpart their views with information or the young will fall for their views.
Nesta
I can’t think of anything more boring than debating with the soppy lefties!
David
who can’t logic anything in the first place
David
YES YOU MORONS, THAT’S THE POINT OF DEBATE! To have 2 opposite views arguing, you idiots! I know that you don’t want to bring them to the table because if you do and people hear them they win and leftists lose . The state of Europe now is to only debate those who agree with them, you freaking morons, that’s not debating, that’s sitting in an echo chamber, like the ones that you created in your nice cozy safe space universities aka leftist indoctrination camps .
By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
108 comments Post a commentcomment
See the violence of some far rights can be:
https://youtu.be/2f3kur1DGeA
No.
If the EU leadership and their marketeers trust in genuine & unrestricted democracy- such question would not become a EU/DE “question”!
Similarly, the opposite would hold true as well- namely:
Does debating with the rabid federalists legitimize their ideas?
Let’s check: who of the two “celebrities” can be considered the more dubious or a “danger to EU/world peace”?
EU’s Mr Juncker (“The EU peace God”): ……..doesn’t need any introduction- does he?
* In 2013 it was revealed that Luxembourg’s intelligence service was involved in several kinds of abuses, including bribery. They were also accused of spying on several political figures unauthorized.
* In 2019 he regretted not to have interfered in the Brexit referendum. (Meddling seems to be in his blood & mind)
* Remember his “weird authoritarian” 2019 interview: “………these stupid Nationalists who are in love with their country…..”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al37eFXdeO8
Mr. Bannon:…………… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Bannon
Having a checkered career- in 2018 he declared his intention to become “the infrastructure for the global populist movement.”
A Mr. Bannon’s 2018 interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pold15c8H70
Has debating & genuine criticism already become a “crime” against the EU concept/treaties- or is it a matter of:
The truth hurts & need to be suppressed in Euro-land?
Does debatting whit the far-left legitimize their ideas??
Not debating them, just strengthens their conviction and makes them harder to deradicalize, same goes for far left :)
extremes are as a whole a bad idea cause they lead to an imbalance that usually corrects itself with a violent swing in the other direction
example late american capitalism
The Irving Lipstadt Case probably did far more to damage the cause of Holocaust deniers than censoring and imprisoning them ever did.
Debating is always constructive.
Does having an over controlling fascist state like the EU make any of their decisions right?
Debate with far- right, the same way you are debating with the far- left. Be free.
Ofof course not. This is a normal democratic process. If these parties exist it means they are legal and democratic
The idea of Left and Right are just an extension of the Marxist class system, the media call everyone who is slightly more moderate than Lenin “far right”. They do it so they can openly discriminate against people they define as “the other”. Anyone who shows the slightest bit of concern, that the culture they grew up in , is changing into something unrecognisable and right before their eyes is branded as “far right”.
Legitmise ideas like London and Paris etc fast becoming Mulism majorities? That’s what citizens voted for, right?
Here an example of a debate with Bannon: “bureaucrats of bruxxelles are bad” “sovereignty back!1!1!”….
That’s all!
Antonio De Simone is an american snake and servant of trump,want to divide europe so America can rule over 27 small countries.At least Now we can make a fist against those american tradewars.
I know that well
What is far right? I do not see any in western civilizations anymore. Anarchist (whisch are far-left, extreme liberals) are there, but the right has vanished.
fidez,orban?brexit party ,farage,alternatieven,le pen ,vox,salvini.Only orban has enough support,if he hates the eu he can go.We don,t want traitors in europe.If he wants borders he can get euborders like those naïve Brits.
That is a bit of an odd question for a debating page…
Actually it’s exactly the opposite…
Their ideas are already legitimate. They don’t need to debate anyone to be ‘legitimised’.
he read too much 1984
In fact, the concept of ‘illegal ideas’ seems to be identical to the ‘thoughtcrimes’ of ‘1984’.
most of their “ideas” are illegal so no, they’re not legitimised
Can you mention some of these allegedly ‘illegal’ ideas, if that concept even exists?
yes you idiots
Sorry Kiril- why “name” calling? “Your” comment wouldn’t deserve a reply-
but: sycophancy will not earn you any brownie points with the EU either!
“Never listen to destructive criticism – it’s only meant to silence you.”
No, banning them does (to the ones who might be persuaded away). If you debate and destroy their arguments with undeniable facts then those who waver can be brought away. Banning just gives them power to argue that people are afraid that they are right
Problem with public debates with populists is that it takes more time to explain than to lie.
That’s why you most populists show their points where they won’t be questioned (at a rally or some other environment where they won’t have people asking them pointed questions).
You keep it simple e.g. 350m a week to the EU
Britain gets a 5bn rebate which never goes to the EU so that sum is about 90-100m too high
You don’t need fancy arguments, just repeat “what about the rebate?” until they have to admit the figure is a lie
Simple things work, hence why Trump picked easy slogans like “build the wall”.
“If you debate and destroy their arguments with undeniable facts” is not something people supporting the far right are interested in in the first place. The only thing you need to counter that as a far right populist is to pull out “alternative facts” from your butt and you not only get applauded from your own crowd who never gave a sh** about the “undeniable facts”, but you even have a chance to get new followers.
I said very clearly that I was talking about people who were wavering on political leanings, I made that very clear. Not converting anyone in an echo chamber of far right populism
things that have never worked in history
Banning it sure worked in history, if only someone put Hitler in prison he’d change his ways and surely wouldn’t seize power later. Oh, wait, that’s exactly what happened. Didn’t work against communists in Russia either.
Banning it has worked in places, it was never banned in Germany until after the war
Hitler was given a very lenient sentence by very sympathetic judges. He was given just 5 years and served just 9 months. For an armed putsch against the state in which people died, were kidnapped, etc.
If he was properly sentenced, it’s very very possible that Germany would have sailed through the great depression without the Nazis coming to power.
Censorship will do a poor job in a world where you can create an online platform with just a few clicks and keyboard presses.
“destroy their arguments with undeniable facts”
The problem is that they have they own reality and their own facts. We live in a post-factual era where people like Trump win elections in the greatest democracy where nobody can “destroy their arguments with undeniable facts” anymore.
Yes, hence the point I made, you don’t target anyone in an echo chamber on the left or right, you show people who aren’t sure why the other side is wrong and lying to them, create the seeds of doubt by showing they’re liars
Debating them means there is a higher than 0 chance some will be convinced their beliefs are extremist. Not debating them just legitimises the fact that “the big media” tries to hide the truth from the masses, in order to force their agenda (whatever that is). It’s not like they can’t simply go on 4chan, or other websites, and continue their radicalisation process. What will you do, then? Ban these communities?
Point is, the more you isolate people of certain beliefs, the more they will start believing them. They won’t start considering that the people who shun them are right, they will believe ever more fervently the ones that share their beliefs and struggles are the only ones possessing the truth. That’s how you create school shooters, incel terrorists and proponents of racist “science.
Respectfully giving them answers (even when is not reciprocal) will invalidate the idea that the only people giving them respect are people with the same ideas and principles and make some of them at least consider the fact that they are wrong.
Also, opposition to the direction the status quo is going is very usefull. It’s called conservatism and, however hated it is today, it makes sure that society doesn’t change faster than the people living in it can, something that can prove to be a disaster. I am not saying that a “racist, bigoted, white supremacist” is a an example of good conservatism, I am just trying to say that it’s completely normal to see ideas that oppose diversity and equality and that not only can we learn from them (in order to understand how to correctly reach the end goal of a better society) we should not censor them, because they are a natural consequence of change. And, when you censor certain opinions that oppose progress, you can also start censoring valid points. You just normalised lack of freedom of speech, when and where are you going to stop?
The main issue I see that causes support for the far-right is the outright denial that the problems they talk about even exist in the first place.
Lets take immigration as the big obvious one.
The far right seize onto the idea that there are too many immigrants and they’re both taking jobs from hard working locals while at the same time others are abusing the benefits system or begging on the streets.
When the far right get shouted at that there is no problem with immigration and they are just being racist BUT ordinary people look at it and can see the immigrant population increasing and the pressures on local services (by no means all, or even mostly caused by immigrants) and see the number of eastern European beggars on the streets then they become more open to the other messages from the far right.
In short, the far right is strengthened not when when the centre fails to solve the problems, but when they fail to acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place.
People aren’t as stupid as they are treated by some, even if they do want simple answers to complex problems.
The far-right could ask the same question when they’re in power : “Does debating with the moderates legitimise their ideas ?”
Then they can answer positively and ban the moderates.
Does debating with the far-right legitimise their ideas?
On the contrary, I feel debating with the far left, or, even reading that insincere and inaccurate propaganda, legitimises the idea they can abuse human nature in all its forms. That is, if they simply hang in there, one minute longer.
Listening or accepting obvious proven illiterate manipulation, being sold as accurate, by odd and confused idealists, encourages the indoctrinated to believe the unbelievable. Similar to cult members when they stand with glazed eyes, clearly starving bodies, and trying, so ardently, to draw you into their fantasy world.
But, just as with twisted historical facts, it all outs in the end and then returns to the sanity of our natural world.
The way the debates are structured today, they are a total farce.
Everybody or nobody.
The question assumes their ideas aren’t already legitimate and or that you the questioner are the arbiter of what is legitimate. Bit pompous.
Does debating with utra-felt legitimise their ideas of open borders?
Ultra-left and open borders? Like during the Cold War when people in communist ultra-left countries couldn’t leave the country or foreigners couldn’t enter?
Far left and left consider any opposing opinion as right or extreme right. A discussion is therefore problematic with the left as a whole.
May be we should stop putting people in to categories like right or left? May be it is time to base debates on common sense instead of a religious support of a political dogma?
Define “far right”
No, because it presupposes that the ideas of both sides are equal in value.
What about the far left?
They’re no looking to debate. Read up on the ‘its Wednesdays theory’.
This is ridiculous. Stating that a political view cannot be debated is totalitarian. Any political view no matter how radical must be debated. They must be exposed and confronted with arguments. Just trying to hide them like they don’t exist is a coward approach and also makes them more enigmatic and attractive for people precisely because they are being censored. What are you afraid of? If what they defend is so terrible then expose them. The same goes for far left by the way, which is as totalitarian as the far right but for some reason seems to have more legitimacy. And apart from that, categorizing someone as far left or far right and cancelling them is nonesense. There might be things to agree and things to disagree with anyone whatever their views and debating them enriches society. Enough with this cancel culture BS
does debating with communist legitimise their ideas?
How do we treat ISIS? We all did our damnedest to block all of their social media presence. And we prosecuted their sympathizers and recruiters where possible right?
Why would we treat THESE extremists any differently?
If you don’t let people express their opinions they will eliminate you by other means, unless you do it first. Then you are become the far R or L anyway.
All the world (well most of it) outside of the so called western countries is ruled by what we in Europe would call far right governments and world views. Shall we isolate from the rest of the world? Just remember many western lands desperately need immigrants, then it would cost a lot to trade and production.
The far right and left within Europe are a different thing, but in some ways not easy to differentiate from the ones out of Europe.
Eh no, there’s no debating with fascists
It goes to the far left as well.
Taking up their rhetoric and their angle within the debate does for sure.
Does debating with the far-left legitimise their ideas?
The problem is not the far right, its the far left. Fascism belong to the far left. For they reject the other side of the story yet want to implement a system that only they rule. Look whats happening to all the countries who altered the regime to socialist.
Not only that, Nazism is also disguised as far right but is actually far left. Look at the false news media, its controlled by the left to express their narrative. They dont make news anymore they fabricate it. The proof is that they even use the same words like the text was handed to them..
Does debating with the far-left legitimise their ideas?
Better to hear extreme opinions, rather than having them whisper in the shadows. Regardless of their views, they would not be able to hide and avoid being held to account. On top of that, if you want to defeat something, you need to know how they think.
Do you debate if the Tooth Fairy exists? No? That’s what I thought as well. Far-right is irrational. Rational people don’t debate with irrational people. Simple as that. Plus, the far-right is not interested in debate. They just want to destroy everyone who is not far-right How can we debate with people who want to destroy us? Bannon is a criminal who tried to create a far-right network in Europe thus endangering our continental security. He criticize liberalism but enjoys all pleasures of our classical liberal civilisation.
Note: There is nothing wrong about being right-wing. But the far-right is evil and far-right politicians don’t even try to hide it.
but if far right is evil, then what are far left?
Far-left is irrational as well. But nobody talks about the far-left. The topic is about the far-right. If the admins of the page ask a question about the far-left, we will discuss them and their flaws as well. Justifying the evil actions of the far-right by pointing the far-left is a classical example of strawman. Two evil don’t make one good.
oh no, im not far right nor justifying them. Im more of a centrist my self.
When you use the word “far” or “extreme” (It doesn’t matter if it’s left or right) It means that this kind of people won’t change their minds no matter what facts you bring to the table. So a debate is something completely useless… It’s a complete waste of time
You’re right, but it also happens that they may be “smart” enough to give arguments or ask questions that can easily trick young people who are not far-right nor far-left yet. And in this case, it would be good to answer those arguments, for the sake of those who may be confused/tricked.
true!
You cannot afford to ignore anyone. The luxury of ignoring an uncomfortable topic is institutional, but it lasts only so long as the institution is unaffected. Eventually beliefs can multiply and take over the institutions, and by then it may be too late to avoid a catastrophe.
The big mistake made by US institutions before Trump was elected was that they did not really take trends on social media seriously. It was clear on American social media that Trump was winning the argument, and many Democratic voters were demobilized, but they treated social media as a joke and simply ignored it when many people began to ‘argue’ that Hillary Clinton was unelectable because a meme had convinced them that she tortured children in a pizza shop. It was beneath them to reply to such allegations, and surely most people were too intelligent to fall for it. Well, guess what? Most people are not.
If enough people are convinced that the world is flat, or, more likely, that whether or not it is flat it is simply more *convenient* for them socially to believe that it is (a propagation mechanism of religion), then eventually the institutions *will* reflect their beliefs. No matter how tedious it is to treat absurd or infantile arguments seriously and rebut them, someone has to do it, or else you will cede to demagogues an uncontested monopoly over the “truth”. “Nobody is arguing with me because they cannot, because there is no argument.”
Remember that in a public forum you are not really trying to convince the person with whom you are arguing. Probably, they will not be convinced. Instead, the argument is a show whereby you are both trying to convince the people watching you, people you will more likely than not never hear from. On social media, for any given argument, that may be thousands or tens of thousands of people. Like the butterfly effect, an obscure, anonymous argument on social media may have a powerful ripple effect in society. That is a new reality and we must quickly adapt.
Fact checking is a must, and should probably be regulated, as social media is now news media.
The far rigth it is not interested in debate. Just it is a political expression of violence.
to be honest, we see far more violence from the far left these days.
yes… Far left like Kyle Rottenhouse! OMG!
Given the audience which in average is non educated, has no principles, changes views all the time, believes in nothing, yes you should exclude them.
And then think, how you have managed to create such an audience where the basic principle of having a voice, any voice, cannot be heard.
In democracy, we always debate, except fascism. That, we kick in the head.
we are tolerant except with intolerance
Is democracy not considering all opinions… What means debate legitimate opinions? Opinions are legitimate because people vote for them. In France the real right got 35%at président elections.. Is that not legitimate. The fascists are those who want to keep out opinions they Don t share… Why don t you ask the same questions about communist party or extreme left party…. I remind you that national socialism was backed by socialists… Should we exclude all socialist parties?
The thing is that, usually, media tend to ask them the question they love to talk about: immigration, security. They never try to pull them out of their comfort zone, where they seem stupid and completely useless with uneffective proposals.
you should update your opinion. Real right parties can answer much better to a lot of questions.. And traditional parties adopt many of their solutions like patriot economy.. Consume and produce local… These thematic were considered 5 years before as unrealistic…
Europe has been debating with communists and has been ruled by socialists for decades. What are you so affraid of? Right wing parties only want to end corruption, stop unchecked immigration, have their contries traditions and culture respected and that competence should be used to select leadership. Basically the way every society should work and function
My issue with debating with the far right is that, for them, debating is something useful just for their own interests, not actually practicing democracy.
The question we need to ask is: when the far right was in power, was there room for any type of debate? I think it’s a pretty easy answer.
cherry picking your own thoughts and subjecting it into debate are not actualky practicing democracy either.
How about: the question YOU need to ask is: when the far LEFT was in power, was there any room for any type of debate?
Thats a pretty easy answer there ….
Subjecting the word FAR to anything. Any idea. Anyone. Leaves no room for anything.
I just followed the topic at hand. Also, as far as I can see nowhere in the world there is the threat of far-left movement seizing power.
So, what are we really talking about here?
Getoar i am flipping your argument to let you see how your view really looks like…
As far as political movement, i am not sure why you dont see all the protests around. If those are not the left and far left attempts to undermine democracy and the rules if laws, i dont know what are
which protests are you exactly talking about? bcs if it’s those that I think, they have nothing to do with the far left.
If anything, the attempt is to bring the benefits of democracy to everyone and not just a certain part of the population. But I guess this is more difficult to understand for some people.
ou commies always use the same dull arguments. Are you gonna tell me the far left and the communists believe in democracy? Please. There is a list of communist ie far left dictatorships around the world today (Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, China…) and many countries where they are strong in governments and parliaments (Italy, Spain, Greece etc). Now tell me please a country with a fascist / far right government)
hahaha nice opening, it really made me giggle. I’m going to explain you what’s what, just read carefully so you can understand.
You mentioned dictatorships: well, surprisingly enough (for you maybe) there is nothing that resembles the contemporary left in those dictatorships. Like, really nothing. China is a market economy, with a “communist” brand (and really just that, as everything else is ruled in a pretty fascist fashion). North Korea and Venezuela are substantially autarchies, isolated from the world and calling themselves communist because otherwise they would lose any legitimacy left from the old guard in the ruling class. Finally, Vietnam and Cuba are two places in which what was a communist dictatorship evolved into a more democratic and market-oriented country. So yeah, not perfect but definitely not an oppressive dictatorship.
Then you out them side to side with democratically elected governments in which centre-left parties (you know what those are, right?) are in the ruling coalition. Comparing the Italian, Greek, Spanish centre-left parties with the ruling parties in the afore-mentioned dictatorships is, not only stupid, but also malicious, because you basically try to say that all the left is the same, which is not, like not all the right is the same.
Now, I really hope you understood some of the things I wrote so you can avoid going around spreading nonsense like you did.
You are as arrogant as you are ignorant. Your ridiculous arguments are older than your ideas. Claiming that all of the examples of socialist countries are not valid because they are not “real socialism”. Of course they’re not, cuz socialism is a utopia. But they are far left dictatorships based on socialism and pushing towards it. I’m sure you’ll say North Korea isn’t really socialist but Trump’ America is fascist right?
And buy the way, I’m not taking about the center left parties, like the PSOE in Spain, but about their coalition partners like Podemos which is communist and is in the government, or like Syriza in Greece which was in power for 4 years and was communist.
I might be ignorant, but at least I don’t go around spreading nonsense.
First off, I never mentioned Trump’s America. Luckily it’s still a democratic country. Do I think he is a fascist? Absolutely not, he is just an egomaniac hungry for power. Do I think many of his supporters are fascists and white supracists? Absolutely yes.
Did you really say that Podemos, a populist movement, is communist?? That Syriza is communist when at its best is just a centre-left party? Come on, if you are going to troll make it at least credible.
I see your point, but I am talking about the movement. Is the whole movement communist? I doubt it, has it establishes communist policies? Doubt again.
well he is the leader of the movement so of course it’s a communist movement. Have there been internal disagreements? Of course. In fact there have been splits precisely because there was a more moderate faction which opposed Pablo Iglesias’ more radical stance, which ended up being expelled and forming a new movement called “Más Pais”. Now that may be a more moderate party, but not podemos. Obviously he doesn’t have the majority of the parliament so he can’t turn Spain into a communist country but he pushes for it everyday and controls several ministries. It’s not something that happens overnight, it’s a process. And they’re working non that process
Does debating with far-left legitimate their ideas? Does debating with the government legitimate their ideas? Does debating with your momma legitimate her ideas?
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Freedom of expression, or freedom of speech, is the political right to communicate one’s opinions and ideas
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. … This right is enshrined in article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
people don’t have the right to hate speech.
You also try it out by threathening to do a terrorist attack.
Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation”. So, what’s your point?
it is good to revert to the charter (or the UN universal declaration of Human rights). But picking on one right without mentioning the others is a problem. There is little to debate with the far right because they flout with so many other rights: article 1 on human dignity, article 6 on security, article 20 on equality before the law, and article 21 about non-discrimination. The point about hate speech is correct. Freedom of opinion does not allow you to encourage hatred.
I don’t encourage hate speech. I don’t encourage any other unlawful activity. There has been much debate over freedom of speech, hate speech and hate speech legislation. The laws of some countries describe hate speech as speech, gestures, conduct, writing, or displays that incite violence or prejudicial actions against a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group, or which disparage or intimidate a group or individuals on the basis of their membership in the group. The law may identify a group based on certain characteristics. In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term. Additionally, in some countries, including the United States, much of what falls under the category of “hate speech” is constitutionally protected. In other countries, a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law, or both.
Talking educates. Engaging civilly conversations with others with very different political views I encourage. Dismissing those of different political views as deplorable is wrong, although not unlawful, but still wrong in my book.
And it needs saying! Oh my God, where has progressive wokism taken us,
Debating Europe — but only with people who agree with us.
That is where we are now.
By what right does progressive wokism “legitimise” other people’s ideas?
Does debating with the Left legitimise their ideas?
If we don’t or if we completely ignore them or forbid them to express their views, it doesn’t mean we stop them from believing from what they believe or discussing them. Nowadays we have the internet and behind an avatar anyone can express their views either far right or else, extremist. We must to an extent counterpart their views with information or the young will fall for their views.
I can’t think of anything more boring than debating with the soppy lefties!
who can’t logic anything in the first place
YES YOU MORONS, THAT’S THE POINT OF DEBATE! To have 2 opposite views arguing, you idiots! I know that you don’t want to bring them to the table because if you do and people hear them they win and leftists lose . The state of Europe now is to only debate those who agree with them, you freaking morons, that’s not debating, that’s sitting in an echo chamber, like the ones that you created in your nice cozy safe space universities aka leftist indoctrination camps .