V
Villan Of The North
Guest
The rise of the Nazis in 1930s Germany was initially ignored, democratic principles and mature attitudes saying that, if we ignore these people we will marginalise them and they will eventually go away. History shows us that this was a big mistake and that, by the time the President tried to do something they had gained popular support through good publicity and playing on the public's fears and insecurities (I know this is oversimplified but this is not the place for an historical essay analysing the run up to WWII).
On the other hand we have people like GT saying we should ban Islam - this is not a comment on GT but I think it's clear that the concept of banning free thought and speech (which is what banning any religion is actually doing) is an extreme view. GT has not been ignored, his views have been debated....the result, we have given his views a platform, (currently) 7 pages of debate has ensured that far more people have read his views than would have been the case had his initial post been ignored by those opposing his views. We that oppose have given him the publicity needed to spread his views.
The same argument can be made for UKIP, although I do understand that much of UKIP is fairly main-stream, they do tend to attract the right wing nutters that spout extreme right wing views - we (the public, not least on VV) have debated and argued against these views. The net result, they have gained so much attention that they have risen to over 12% of the popular vote, again, playing on the fears of the public.
So do we ignore or debate, or is there a third way?
On the other hand we have people like GT saying we should ban Islam - this is not a comment on GT but I think it's clear that the concept of banning free thought and speech (which is what banning any religion is actually doing) is an extreme view. GT has not been ignored, his views have been debated....the result, we have given his views a platform, (currently) 7 pages of debate has ensured that far more people have read his views than would have been the case had his initial post been ignored by those opposing his views. We that oppose have given him the publicity needed to spread his views.
The same argument can be made for UKIP, although I do understand that much of UKIP is fairly main-stream, they do tend to attract the right wing nutters that spout extreme right wing views - we (the public, not least on VV) have debated and argued against these views. The net result, they have gained so much attention that they have risen to over 12% of the popular vote, again, playing on the fears of the public.
So do we ignore or debate, or is there a third way?
