House of Commoners

Not that I was ever a massively frequent poster on the HoC, but I drastically reduced my presence there a while back. Everything devolves into the same ad hominem attacks and I think there are a couple of people who are real wind-up merchants. 

The arguments all go the same way. There's no point. Am I going to change anyone's mind? No. Are they going to change mine? I'd like to hope I have that capacity when I'm wrong, but I've not ever been presented with any satisfactory counterpoints really.

Tbf in terms of toxicity, I think as Leuth says, ban q_a and most vitriol goes away.

Anyway, nothing wrong with heated disagrements but when it gets personal it is different and you can see why the HoC has been closed and it will degenerate immediately to what it was without a means of dealing with the culprits. Sad but true.

Those complaining about the views expressed are missing the point. It is when it gets personal you have a problem. Some wish to make everything personal. Then others bite back, I do too sometimes.

MrWalker said:

Too much at the bottom of that pyramid in the HOC.

Maslow is turning in his grave 

kentaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

It was what I imagine the dark web is like. Some of the comments on there were outrageous. If it comes back certain posters who just go on their to provoke need to be banned.

considering one person was literally lifting conspiracy theories off there, you're not far wrong.

This is a relatively minor point, but if you're referencing QA, he wasn't lifting things off the dark web. His opinions came straight from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Fox News, Newsmax, OANN, and the like, which are all a combination of, and mixed in with, things Trump says himself. I doubt he's even a Chan users, though plenty of things he consumes start there and diffuse out into other platforms.

I wouldn't call his views "mainstream," but I would once again reiterate that they are far more common than I think many here realize. And a lot of those views are closely aligned with, if not directly spouted by, GOP leadership. One need only look at responses to the news of investigations into the dissemination of Nuclear Secrets in the past couple of weeks to see that. 

Obviously, it's not good. And he's more "online" than many. But he's not a particularly drastic outlier, at least not in my country. 

SDAddick said:

kentaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

It was what I imagine the dark web is like. Some of the comments on there were outrageous. If it comes back certain posters who just go on their to provoke need to be banned.

considering one person was literally lifting conspiracy theories off there, you're not far wrong.

This is a relatively minor point, but if you're referencing QA, he wasn't lifting things off the dark web. His opinions came straight from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Fox News, Newsmax, OANN, and the like, which are all a combination of, and mixed in with, things Trump says himself. I doubt he's even a Chan users, though plenty of things he consumes start there and diffuse out into other platforms.

I wouldn't call his views "mainstream," but I would once again reiterate that they are far more common than I think many here realize. And a lot of those views are closely aligned with, if not directly spouted by, GOP leadership. One need only look at responses to the news of investigations into the dissemination of Nuclear Secrets in the past couple of weeks to see that. 

Obviously, it's not good. And he's more "online" than many. But he's not a particularly drastic outlier, at least not in my country. 

This post is a good example of why the HoC was a very good place to discover new and interesting views.  I'd love to hear more about how these types of views are proliferating, @SDAddick, but I am not sure where the right place for that would be. 

I gave up on the US thread months ago. I had similar views to many of the people on that thread and those with whom I disagreed were either absent, silent or utterly divorced from facts and reality so there wasn't really much to debate. Shame to see everything shut down though. 

Chizz said:

SDAddick said:

kentaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

It was what I imagine the dark web is like. Some of the comments on there were outrageous. If it comes back certain posters who just go on their to provoke need to be banned.

considering one person was literally lifting conspiracy theories off there, you're not far wrong.

This is a relatively minor point, but if you're referencing QA, he wasn't lifting things off the dark web. His opinions came straight from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Fox News, Newsmax, OANN, and the like, which are all a combination of, and mixed in with, things Trump says himself. I doubt he's even a Chan users, though plenty of things he consumes start there and diffuse out into other platforms.

I wouldn't call his views "mainstream," but I would once again reiterate that they are far more common than I think many here realize. And a lot of those views are closely aligned with, if not directly spouted by, GOP leadership. One need only look at responses to the news of investigations into the dissemination of Nuclear Secrets in the past couple of weeks to see that. 

Obviously, it's not good. And he's more "online" than many. But he's not a particularly drastic outlier, at least not in my country. 

This post is a good example of why the HoC was a very good place to discover new and interesting views.  I'd love to hear more about how these types of views are proliferating, @SDAddick, but I am not sure where the right place for that would be. 

Over the last five years or so, the QAnon Anonymous podcast has done a really good job of tracing and documenting right wing online extremism with a particular focus on QAnon, but also with a lot of explanation of how that permeates out into the broader online world, and the broader political and social world. They stand out to me both because they're so thorough, but also because I think they do a good job of mixing humor at the ridiculousness that the world is run by a Satanic pedophile canabal cabal, while also conveying the weight of the fact that while Q views may not be mainstream, a lot of the things that led people to Q are incredibly common, if not foundational, in our politics and society.

The Fever Dreams podcast, and the writing of Will Sommer (the podcast's host) of the Daily Beast, do similar things, though they tend to be a little more "play-by-play" of what is going on, and a lot less macro and systemically analytical. 

The Knowledge Fight podcast does something similar with Alex Jones. Jones is in the news this week, but his views, and he himself as a personality, feel like something of a relic of a bygone era. And to some extent he is, he got his start 30 years ago with Waco and Ruby Ridge conspiracies, the kind of stuff that influenced the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. And he's been around and evolved ever since. And while his views don't have a particular adherence outside of his most ardent followers, the way he conveys the world has had an impact--namely that there is a "Them" who are all-powerful and the most evil you can imagine, and They are out to destroy You. That's an oversimplification and not something that's necessarily unique to him, but I think there's something in how he does it that has lingered beyond Alex Jones the personality and Alex Jones' views.

Sorry, a little bit of a tangent there. I'm trying to think of other resources. I don't know of anyone who has written a "macro" level book about how online right wing movements, influenced by offline right wing politicians, create...what we have today. A lot of the analysis and critiques of this are done through the lens of QAnon, both because it is the most online political and social movement, but also because it did not happen in a vacuum, and because a lot of the underlying...stuff, for lack of a better term, was there before, and will be there after.

I'll think about it and see if I can come up with anything else. I'm sure there is more out there that I don't know about. And things I'm not thinking of right now (it's not yet 5am here). I'll also poke around and see if I can find any QAnon Anonymous episodes that outline the evolution of far right wing online extremism into political spaces (and again, vice versa).

I don't know if I've answered the question or made things even more confusing. I feel like that's part of the SDAddick charm. 

SDAddick said:

Chizz said:

SDAddick said:

kentaddick said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

It was what I imagine the dark web is like. Some of the comments on there were outrageous. If it comes back certain posters who just go on their to provoke need to be banned.

considering one person was literally lifting conspiracy theories off there, you're not far wrong.

This is a relatively minor point, but if you're referencing QA, he wasn't lifting things off the dark web. His opinions came straight from Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Fox News, Newsmax, OANN, and the like, which are all a combination of, and mixed in with, things Trump says himself. I doubt he's even a Chan users, though plenty of things he consumes start there and diffuse out into other platforms.

I wouldn't call his views "mainstream," but I would once again reiterate that they are far more common than I think many here realize. And a lot of those views are closely aligned with, if not directly spouted by, GOP leadership. One need only look at responses to the news of investigations into the dissemination of Nuclear Secrets in the past couple of weeks to see that. 

Obviously, it's not good. And he's more "online" than many. But he's not a particularly drastic outlier, at least not in my country. 

This post is a good example of why the HoC was a very good place to discover new and interesting views.  I'd love to hear more about how these types of views are proliferating, @SDAddick, but I am not sure where the right place for that would be. 

Over the last five years or so, the QAnon Anonymous podcast has done a really good job of tracing and documenting right wing online extremism with a particular focus on QAnon, but also with a lot of explanation of how that permeates out into the broader online world, and the broader political and social world. They stand out to me both because they're so thorough, but also because I think they do a good job of mixing humor at the ridiculousness that the world is run by a Satanic pedophile canabal cabal, while also conveying the weight of the fact that while Q views may not be mainstream, a lot of the things that led people to Q are incredibly common, if not foundational, in our politics and society.

The Fever Dreams podcast, and the writing of Will Sommer (the podcast's host) of the Daily Beast, do similar things, though they tend to be a little more "play-by-play" of what is going on, and a lot less macro and systemically analytical. 

The Knowledge Fight podcast does something similar with Alex Jones. Jones is in the news this week, but his views, and he himself as a personality, feel like something of a relic of a bygone era. And to some extent he is, he got his start 30 years ago with Waco and Ruby Ridge conspiracies, the kind of stuff that influenced the Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. And he's been around and evolved ever since. And while his views don't have a particular adherence outside of his most ardent followers, the way he conveys the world has had an impact--namely that there is a "Them" who are all-powerful and the most evil you can imagine, and They are out to destroy You. That's an oversimplification and not something that's necessarily unique to him, but I think there's something in how he does it that has lingered beyond Alex Jones the personality and Alex Jones' views.

Sorry, a little bit of a tangent there. I'm trying to think of other resources. I don't know of anyone who has written a "macro" level book about how online right wing movements, influenced by offline right wing politicians, create...what we have today. A lot of the analysis and critiques of this are done through the lens of QAnon, both because it is the most online political and social movement, but also because it did not happen in a vacuum, and because a lot of the underlying...stuff, for lack of a better term, was there before, and will be there after.

I'll think about it and see if I can come up with anything else. I'm sure there is more out there that I don't know about. And things I'm not thinking of right now (it's not yet 5am here). I'll also poke around and see if I can find any QAnon Anonymous episodes that outline the evolution of far right wing online extremism into political spaces (and again, vice versa).

I don't know if I've answered the question or made things even more confusing. I feel like that's part of the SDAddick charm. 

Both! 

I appreciate it.  I just wish there was a return to where this insightful, interesting stuff could be shared by interested parties, without inflaming the prejudices of some posters. 

Gordon Bennett

LenGlover said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Chunes said:

kentaddick said:

AddicksAddict said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine. 

So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?

this is exactly what a lot of people want. A big part of the problem is people think being called a racist is worse than actual racism - because racism doesn't affect them, being called a racist does. 

blackpool72 said:

The racist card gets overplayed. 
One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist. 
Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do. 
But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist. 

and some actively try to ignore where it does. What would you want - a space where racism is called out, or a space where it isn't? 

Blackpool's got it spot on. You've accused me of antisemitism 3-4 times and I'm Jewish.

How mental is that? You can point fingers at QA and rightfully so, but he's not the only guilty party for that section being closed.

I'm not a regular on there at all but from what I have seen QA is one of a minority of posters that might be perceived as 'right wing' whereas the majority on there are 'left' in various extremes. Is that why QA has been singled out? It is a well known left wing tactic to smear right wing opinions as 'racist' whether they are or not.

I am a regular and from what I’ve seen there is a (very small) minority of right wing conspiracists, albeit harmless in the scheme of things.  And then there are those living in the real world (some right of centre and some left).

ShootersHillGuru said:

kentaddick said:

BR7_addick said:

LenGlover said:

Friend Or Defoe said:

Chunes said:

kentaddick said:

AddicksAddict said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

Probably the best solution is if it is brought back is to have a zero tolerance, not to heated discussions but personal insults and people being called racists etc... Then the people who fall foul should be banned for life and it will pretty soon all work fine. 

So don’t ban the racists but ban the people who call them out for being racist?

this is exactly what a lot of people want. A big part of the problem is people think being called a racist is worse than actual racism - because racism doesn't affect them, being called a racist does. 

blackpool72 said:

The racist card gets overplayed. 
One poster went so far as to say everyone who voted Brexit is a racist. 
Call out racism whenever it appears that's the right thing to do. 
But some on here try and look for it where it doesn't exist. 

and some actively try to ignore where it does. What would you want - a space where racism is called out, or a space where it isn't? 

Blackpool's got it spot on. You've accused me of antisemitism 3-4 times and I'm Jewish.

How mental is that? You can point fingers at QA and rightfully so, but he's not the only guilty party for that section being closed.

I'm not a regular on there at all but from what I have seen QA is one of a minority of posters that might be perceived as 'right wing' whereas the majority on there are 'left' in various extremes. Is that why QA has been singled out? It is a well known left wing tactic to smear right wing opinions as 'racist' whether they are or not.

I am a regular and from what I’ve seen there is a (very small) minority of right wing conspiracists, albeit harmless in the scheme of things.  And then there are those living in the real world (some right of centre and some left).

strong disagree. Far Right wing domestic terrorism is on the rise, this is incredibly serious - unfortunately the mod's response to this was "oh well if you see any terrorism plans let us know x" which, to be honest, just about sums up their attitude to the place imo and contributed to the toxic culture.

Just wow.

The QAnon stuff isn't harmless and led to the capitol building attack. I wouldn't be surprise if there were other incidents.

Take this shit somewhere else. Oh…