Why aren’t you banning the far-right agitators?

[GoldMedallist]

Deleting their posts but allowing them to keep inciting racial hatred under the same accounts is making the site unusable. Why should we keep reporting them if you’re not going to do anything meaningful about it?

I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here with the one or two posters who seem intent on gaslighting (yeah, you can use that against me, because you have nothing else in your argument)

I replied to ThisOldThang with what I felt was a considered and balanced reply after he asked me if I thought Brexit, Reform, etc were all were Far Right. He didn't reply. I note that he was also called out while commenting on a recent thread about Single Parents (let's face it, we are talking about Women here, and he really wasn't welcome as a man who is not a single parent)

I also note that he's been very vocal on many threads about benefits in general and constantly uses the phrase 'feckless' when referring to those without savings.

I have no problem calling this out. Advanced Search is there for a reason. I don't agree with his views, and I see a pattern. I feel that he is bordering on the very right wing agitators that we are calling out.

What pisses me off the most, however, is the fact that we (women, mostly) on Mumsnet are getting called out as having Zero Tolerance to Right Wing arguments with absolutely no nuance from him at all. There is an absolute belief that we are all Left Wing, and therefore wrong. He is not listening, or contributing to the discussion in any meaniginful way. He is putting words in our mouths.

He is the one with an Agenda, not us.

I won't be engaging further with him.

"Whereas your entire definition of fascism seems to be based on seeing one person dumb to have a swastika tattoo."

Oddly enough, if I see someone with a swastika tattoo rioting in the vicinity of a mosque I don't find it utterly impossible to believe that they might be a fascist. Tell me about all the people you know with swastika tattoos who aren't, I'm listening.

Bloody decades of experience of these people is a contributing factor also. If every Muslim in this country was spirited elsewhere, they'd go back to officially hating Hindus/Sikhs/black people of Caribbean origin just like they did in the 60s/70s/80s.

ETA, well they still hate them also, just that they find Islamaphobia a richer well to dredge currently.

The intro paragraph to a Wikipedia page is not the best source about quite a complex subject. There's lots of better material. I like this interview:

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/19/17847110/how-fascism-works-donald-trump-jason-stanley

The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power

The online misinformation being spread by Tommy Robinson, Laurence Fox, Nigel Farage et al. is absolutely about "appealing to the ingroup" and "smashing truth and replacing it with power" - it is fascism.

Someone amplifying those messages is either are also fascist or a useful idiot.

@Uricon2

"Oddly enough, if I see someone with a swastika tattoo rioting in the vicinity of a mosque I don't find it utterly impossible to believe that they might be a fascist. Tell me about all the people you know with swastika tattoos who aren't, I'm listening."

I am trying to establish what the agreed definition of fascism or a fascist is.

Now the person with a swastika tattoo may well also believe in :
Dictatorial rule
Militarism
Forcibly suppressing opposition
Belief in a natural social hierarchy
which can be but is not exclusively based on race
Interests of the state override individual interests
Strong state control of the economy.

Or alternatively they may just be unpleasant dickheads who think they are being controversial.

Equally someone may believe in the above points but not have a swastika tattoo. Mussolini to my knowledge didn't have a swastika tattoo but I think most would agree that he was a fascist.

But having or not having swastika tattoo is not a definition of fascism.

So returning to @CassieMaddox statement:

"I'll say it again....not all brexiteers are fascists but all fascists are brexiteers."

This is a pointless statement unless you can actually define fascists or fascism.

@CassieMaddox

That article by Jason Stanley was awful empty drivel - how he managed to get it published is a miracle let alone be a Yale philosopher.

That said at least it is a better attempt at a definition of fascism than anyone with a swastika tattoo.

Let's look at what he said:

"The key thing is that fascist politics is about identifying enemies, appealing to the in-group (usually the majority group), and smashing truth and replacing it with power"

I mean that definition could equally apply to the Socialist Workers Party whose enemies are the wealthy or Just Stop Oil whose enemies are oil companies. Also what the hell does "smashing truth and replacing it with power" even mean? Sure it's got a catchy emotive feel to it but what does it mean? If "smashing truth" means spreading fake news then anyone spreading fake news is a fascist.

"But I really see fascism as a technique to gain power." So on that basis any politician that wasn't entirely truthful in their pre election promises or positions could be described as fascist.

"In the past, fascist politics would focus on the dominant cultural group. The goal is to make them feel like victims, to make them feel like they’ve lost something and that the thing they’ve lost has been taken from them by a specific enemy, usually some minority out-group or some opposing nation."

So that would equally apply to the Labour Party appealing to the majority that they have been screwed over by the Tories or returning to the original point anyone who voted for Brexit is by the above definition a fascist.

The biggest pile of crap stated was:

I" don’t really think of a fascist as someone who holds a set of beliefs. They’re using a certain technique to acquire and retain power."
That makes the power crept of fascism meaningless and subverts it to mean any political figure who is economic with the truth or allow fake news simply to gain power.

I think I will stick to the wiki definition of fascism - it's a lot clearer.

That's why you have to read more about fascism.

Fascism relies on undermining rational thought by discrediting objective sources. And generating an emotional rather than logical response in followers. They do this by discrediting experts and writing them off as an "elite" who don't understand. Fascist leaders position themselves as the only person who understands the "reasonable concerns" and their behaviour increases fear and causes people to see the leader as the solution to "the problem" and only pay attention to what they say.

Once you understand that you start to see the tactics of Farage etc in a very different light.

Anyway it's a derail to the thread. But strongly suggest you look into fascism with an open mind. You might learn something.

@CassieMaddox

"That's why you have to read more about fascism."

But if as you suggest the definition of fascism is much more complex than a wiki description and requiring much further research then my question is have all the posters using the word fascism or fascist done such further reading, because so far other than the definition I provided from wiki no one has been able to define what fascism actually is.

So without an agreed definition I return to your earlier comment :

"I'll say it again....not all brexiteers are fascists but all fascists are brexiteers."

And that without a clear definition of fascism this statement is meaningless .

It really has come to something when we are debating the minutiae of Fascism versus The Far Right / Extremism on a post in site stuff regarding concerns about Far Right* Agitators and that some posters continue to argue that there really isn't a problem.

I think one of the lowest points was when one particular poster claimed that they hadn't seen this, therefore it didn't happen. Despite the fact that it had been pointed out that the worst posts had been deleted, they still demanded evidence.

I'm waiting to see what the Government do about the people posting inflammatory stuff on Twatter/TikTok/Instagram.

Also amusing myself by spotting the latest "lines" from the agitators. The script is quite apparent.

The latter point is one of the genuine conundrums presented by moderation; by deleting posts one effectively hides the worst material which justifies the need for moderation. Sometimes I kind of prefer the old days of Usenet, where pretty much everything stayed in place, and the onus was on forum users to argue against it, as it both presented a transparent view of what was being debated, but also encouraged arguments against offensive material...

(Not practical in the modern world, I know, though I still miss it somewhat.)

I wonder if MNHQ ever passes deleted posts and relevant details onto the police. Some are clear attempts to incite racial hatred, so are potentially criminal in nature?

I'm wondering if we ought to start reporting them to the police ourselves where they have crossed a line from being offensive to actually being illegal? As well as reporting to MNHQ?

I'm glad that MNHQ zaps posts, but I would like to know if they would pass on deleted posts to the police where appropriate.

I see there are more this morning. Wide-eyed ‘can someone please explain to me about xyz’ posts designed to whip up racist and anti-immigration sentiment.

Yes and ‘this is like the Holocaust, when should I flee’.

We can see it, everyone can. MNHQ are simply not willing to do anything about these posters fanning the flames.

It’s not as if it will kill me to find some other way to waste my time. I have a social conscience but I didn’t cause this and I can’t cure it. I might check back in a week or so to see if there’s any improvement. Thanks to everyone who is willing to keep reporting and either ignoring or challenging the shit stirrers though.

I should probably retract what I said about MMHQ’s lack of willingness to tackle this after a couple of emails from them acknowledging that certain posters are not genuine and inflammatory threads are getting zapped.

Today's theme seems to be increasingly doom laden predictions about "it will get worse" or even civil war.

I think MNHQ is probably doing its best in difficult circumstances.

I was really shocked about one of their moderation decisions on a post that I had reported, as it was very obviously racist but initially left to stand - I was encouraged in the response from MNHQ to challenge it on the thread (which I had of course already done).

I queried the decision, setting out why I thought it needed to go. They looked at it again and subsequently agreed that it should be taken down. I imagine that there are so many posts that need zapping at the moment, it must be difficult to stay on top of them all.

Perhaps they've been influenced by Chief Troll Elon Musk's twitter prognostications of civil war in the UK?

Frightening that one man can have such power and be such a twat

I think it’ll start to fizzle now. The question is how to prevent a repeat.

He is actually the very epitome of "the elite". Enough money to make it pretty easy for him to get round laws. Can't stand him.

CassieMaddox

He is actually the very epitome of "the elite". Enough money to make it pretty easy for him to get round laws. Can't stand him.“

As is Farage. How on earth do they manage to pull in so much support? are people really so blood gullible (answers herself: yes)

When is a sieg heil not a sieg heil? When he might be ill, or just putting his arm up in the air. You had to be there!

If people can excuse that, sadly they will have no problem in thinking Nigel F a fine chap who truly reflects English values (I'm not going to insult our neighbour nations by association)

ETA Ill in some v unspecified mental or physical way. At a race riot.

Well said - not that the troll-in-chief will worry just hope he co-operates with investigation of the massive online data-base of twitter

''Downing Street has criticised comments by Elon Musk who posted on X that “civil war is inevitable” under a video of violent riots in Liverpool.

Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said the violence came from a small minority of people who “do not speak for Britain” and said the prime minister did not share the sentiments of the billionaire, who has previously been criticised for allowing far-right figures back on to his social media platform.

“There’s no justification for comments like that,” the spokesperson said. “What we’ve seen in this country is organised, violent thuggery that has no place, either on our streets or online''

.

EL doesn't like being taken to account, he replies