Status in Question Player removed from Hall of fame?

[WalshistheGOAT]

This is raising awareness about a horrible church existing.

There is no awareness to be raised about Nazi’s. There’s no debate to be had, no value gained from listening to their views. There is no place for them in society.

I have many issues with Newman. Saying that it really doesn’t matter whose podcast it was, I would be abhorred by anyone giving Nazi’s airtime.

No need to raise awareness re actual Nazi's I absolutely agree with. Raising awareness about modern day Neo-Nazi's I disagree with you on.

Up until a few years ago many were blind to the rise of organisations like Sewell and Cottrell's. Around half way through last year a local cafe in my area actually hosted one of their rallies/meetings believe it or not. There had been a few flyers in the area popping up around the shops and occasionally in the mail, I always just dismissed it as junk mail from some group I'd never heard of but it turned out to be a Sewells gang of whackjobs.

When it came out in the papers that the cafe had hosted them there was fierce backlash for them and a fair bit of vandalism on the front doors etc. Many of the subsequent conversations with neighbours down the park or down the street were about that very topic for a couple of weeks after.

If more people like Newman (Ideally someone better equipped to debate them) were out there interviewing and rightfully calling them out for abhorrent views perhaps it wouldn't have been as much of a shock and me and my local community would be more aware of the dangers of associating with that group. All I'd really heard of them before that was that they had some lame meeting in a cave up at the Grampians and had crashed a few protests in the city.

Tbh I'd say more people in my area would have known about the Westboro Baptist Church or Cult of Scientology than they would have the National Socialist Network ran by Sewell - Likely due to the extensive list of documentaries and interviews that have been produced exposing the key figures involved in those groups.

 

[TheHumanShoe]

Okay so only Sam Newman doing a podcast gives them a platform and everybody else is okay to report on them.

You're now just being facetious.

We're not talking about the news outlets reporting on a Neo-Nazi doing a crime, we're talking about them being given the airtime that they crave (from someone who for better or worse that has a pretty sizeable following) to spread their hateful messages. There's a quite a substantial difference between the two.

 

[H00t]

No need to raise awareness re actual Nazi's I absolutely agree with. Raising awareness about modern day Neo-Nazi's I disagree with you on.

Up until a few years ago many were blind to the rise of organisations like Sewell and Cottrell's. Around half way through last year a local cafe in my area actually hosted one of their rallies/meetings believe it or not. There had been a few flyers in the area popping up around the shops and occasionally in the mail, I always just dismissed it as junk mail from some group I'd never heard of but it turned out to be a Sewells gang of whackjobs.

When it came out in the papers that the cafe had hosted them there was fierce backlash for them and a fair bit of vandalism on the front doors etc. Many of the subsequent conversations with neighbours down the park or down the street were about that very topic for a couple of weeks after.

If more people like Newman (Ideally someone better equipped to debate them) were out there interviewing and rightfully calling them out for abhorrent views perhaps it wouldn't have been as much of a shock and me and my local community would be more aware of the dangers of associating with that group. All I'd really heard of them before that was that they had some lame meeting in a cave up at the Grampians and had crashed a few protests in the city.

Tbh I'd say more people in my area would have known about the Westboro Baptist Church or Cult of Scientology than they would have the National Socialist Network ran by Sewell.

I agree people should be made aware of such groups existing. That doesn’t mean giving them the ability to espouse their views to a wider audience.

There are many ways to raise awareness without giving any legitimacy to their views.

 

[Saints4ever]

You're now just being facetious.

We're not talking about the news outlets reporting on a Neo-Nazi doing a crime, we're talking about them being given the airtime that they crave (from someone who for better or worse has a pretty sizeable following) to spread their hateful messages. There's a quite a substantial difference between the two.

Fair enough.

We will agree to disagree. I doubt they have any new supporters from sprouting their crap on Sam’s pod.

 

[EagleMan87]

Okay so only Sam Newman doing a podcast gives them a platform and everybody else is okay to report on them.

You'll notice that news reports don't actually give them a platform to spout their horrendous ideals; that's the issue.

 

[H00t]

Okay so only Sam Newman doing a podcast gives them a platform and everybody else is okay to report on them.

There is a massive difference between reporting on Nazis and giving them a platform to espouse their views.

You do realise you are supporting giving Nazis a platform right?

 

[Saints4ever]

You'll notice that news reports don't actually give them a platform to spout their horrendous ideals; that's the issue.

Maybe not but it still puts them in the public eye.

 

[Saints4ever]

There is a massive difference between reporting on Nazis and giving them a platform to espouse their views.

You do realise you are supporting giving Nazis a platform right?

Not at all I’m supporting Sam Newman having the right to interview whoever he wants.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

I agree people should be made aware of such groups existing. That doesn’t mean giving them the ability to espouse their views to a wider audience.

There are many ways to raise awareness without giving any legitimacy to their views.

Anyway H00t, clearly you and I have a difference of opinion on that part of it so there's no point going back and forth over it forever.

I still disagree with the statement that anyone was defending Nazi's on here though. Differing opinions on how best to deal with them yes, but I think every person here has condemned figures like Sewell and Cottrell for the scumbags that they are.

But best wishes, im out of here.

 

[H00t]

Not at all I’m supporting Sam Newman having the right to interview whoever he wants.

Just to be crystal clear this means you are ok with giving known self-proclaimed Nazis a platform to spout their views.

 

[H00t]

Maybe not but it still puts them in the public eye.

Nazi’s need to be proactively quashed. There should be public eye and awareness on Nazi groups, so that they get actively chased out of society.

What they shouldn’t ever do is be given a platform to speak their views and attempt to legitimise them.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

There are interviewers and documentary makers who can drill down into modern day Nazi's in an appropriate way. Sam Newman is not that person.

If nothing else it's just another example, in a long line of examples, of his stunning lack of judgement.

 

[H00t]

The action of banning them from voicing their beliefs is a fascist action though, it is the action that I take issue with not the reasoning or even people behind it.

I am not trying to suggest anywhere that people who are against Nazi's are as bad as Nazi's, as I mentioned in my latest post (which occurred after yours that I am replying to) I am saying that using fascism to fight fascism is stupid and lazy and we can surely do better than that.

Community policing (which is what this is) isn’t fascistic. Calling out Nazis isn’t fascism. What it is doing is trying to prevent it ever gaining a foothold here.

The government has banned some hate speech and Nazi gestures but most of it isn’t being done by the state. This also isn’t fascism.

You calling it fascism doesn’t make it so. If you hate fascism as much as you claim you should direct your energy in fighting back against Nazi’s not using their talking points against those calling out Nazism.

 

[RandyStickman]

My post isn't "Wow, this makes me uncomfortable and I don't want to hear it/confrontational "journalism" is bad", my post is that there is absolutely no good reason to give them a platform to speak on.

Do you really think them being "shamed" by Sam Newman is detrimental to them? No. They went on it to be able to reach further audiences as he has a larger audience and a greater pull. All publicity is good publicity.

Hence why it's dangerous and highly irresponsible for them to be allowed to speak about their hateful views.

Saying what Sam Newman did by speaking to them and has some good merits is highly dangerous.




Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

You are jumping to conclusions there fella. Your assumption that the further audiences they reached may agree with their views is the real danger. By advocating for censorship you are displaying your negative cognitive bias towards what you imagine Sams audience is.

Free speech, regardless of how repugnant or disagreeable it is. Free speech does not mean vilification, threat or defamation, it means dissent. The danger of censorship is a resultant fear of expressing a view or opinion. Political correctness and cancel culture has shut down discussions that society needs to have.

Finally, you are entitled to have an opinion on Sam and his podcast guests, but you are not entitled to make decisions on what other people can and cannot listen to. To make that decision is what is highly dangerous.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

 

[Happy Mastenator]

You are jumping to conclusions there fella. Your assumption that the further audiences they reached may agree with their views is the real danger. By advocating for censorship you are displaying your negative cognitive bias towards what you imagine Sams audience is.

Free speech, regardless of how repugnant or disagreeable it is. Free speech does not mean vilification, threat or defamation, it means dissent. The danger of censorship is a resultant fear of expressing a view or opinion. Political correctness and cancel culture has shut down discussions that society needs to have.

Finally, you are entitled to have an opinion on Sam and his podcast guests, but you are not entitled to make decisions on what other people can and cannot listen to. To make that decision is what is highly dangerous.

We don't need a discussion on NAZIs though. Unless it's how to punch them in the face and make them so ashamed to show their face in public ever again.

 

[RandyStickman]

You can't tolerate intolerance in society, lest it spread and become the norm. End of story.

In Karl Popper's 1945 "The Open Society and it's Enemies" the concept of the paradox of tolerance is discussed.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
However, this is not the end of the story...he continues with some caveats....

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

 

[RandyStickman]

We don't need a discussion on NAZIs though. Unless it's how to punch them in the face and make them so ashamed to show their face in public ever again.

I did not mention Nazi's in my comment. Other forum members have though. I do agree that their ideology is dangerous and must be challenged and kept in check by public opinion. There is just a difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve this. Some say do not give them any platform/media presence is the best way to dismantle their organisation. I think that giving them more media exposure and putting them under the spotlight will expose their harmful ideologies to a larger public audience and the public will reject them and their beliefs.

 

[sharps24]

View attachment 2222864

Works for witches too.

 

[sharps24]

At the risk of being called the n word for pointing this out, it is dumb to call people n's when that's not what they are. And btw I'm not even sure it's legal anymore in Australia to share a meme with that flag with the hindu good luck symbol thing on it, even ironically.

The gutter worms that Sam interviewed are ethno-nationalists. Which is a ridiculous thing to be in Australia given our settler history. Calling them n's is simply a rhetorical tactic used by the ignorant to avoid having a discussion. Ethnonationalism is not illegal, and it's part of the fabric of the political ideology and of policy framework of many nations to this day. Maybe even a majority of nations. It is antithetical to the fabric of this nation, and if people actually understood what it is these losers were advocating for they would be held in even lower esteem than they already are. Calling them nazis probably elevates the respectability of their ideas all said and done.

Most normal people are no longer falling for the 'they're nazis" routine, it's been played too many times. Sure, these guys might actually be as close as you're likely to get but no, they are not actual nazis. And hell, 50% of the population have probably been called that at some point in the past 10 years so when they see the usual suspects trotting out the same old once more, without even understanding whats going on many would have sympathy for the fact that here are a couple of people being demonised, probably for no good reason. And that probably is a problem, because it means that some people are just going to go check them out because they can't stand the left and part of them actively want these people to be right about something just to spite the left.

Just let these idiots get up in front of people and talk about wanting to live in a white ethnostate, which it sounds like what happened when Sam gave them a platform. That in itself is far more offensive to people than the possibility that they are just really really into the man with the funny moustache and all those cool uniforms. The one person who I've ever met who somewhat agrees with Sowel and co actually pretty quickly convinced himself that Australia belongs to the aboriginals and that none of us should be here, and thinks the proper course of action for him is to return to Europe where his parents are from and where it could actually make sense to be an enthonationalist.

We could solve the entire problem of having most of these people in the country by simply helping them reach the logical end of their arguments and helping them save for a plan ticket. For those that want to stay and advocate for a forceful return to the white australia policy, then sure let them fully emerge into the social pariahs they are. They're not nazis though. And the mere slinging mud at them with the tiredest of insults is an insufficient way to deal with the problem imo.

 

[zhoung]

I did not mention Nazi's in my comment. Other forum members have though. I do agree that their ideology is dangerous and must be challenged and kept in check by public opinion. There is just a difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve this. Some say do not give them any platform/media presence is the best way to dismantle their organisation. I think that giving them more media exposure and putting them under the spotlight will expose their harmful ideologies to a larger public audience and the public will reject them and their beliefs.

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.Voltaire, (Attributed); originated in "The Friends of Voltaire", 1906, by S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778)

 

[EagleMan87]

In Karl Popper's 1945 "The Open Society and it's Enemies" the concept of the paradox of tolerance is discussed.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
However, this is not the end of the story...he continues with some caveats....

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.

We're living in a very different world to the one Popper lived in; I don't they could even comprehend the internet, and the unprecedented platform this has given those who espouse their hate.

 

[Profop]

At the risk of being called the n word for pointing this out, it is dumb to call people n's when that's not what they are. And btw I'm not even sure it's legal anymore in Australia to share a meme with that flag with the hindu good luck symbol thing on it, even ironically.

The gutter worms that Sam interviewed are ethno-nationalists. Which is a ridiculous thing to be in Australia given our settler history. Calling them n's is simply a rhetorical tactic used by the ignorant to avoid having a discussion. Ethnonationalism is not illegal, and it's part of the fabric of the political ideology and of policy framework of many nations to this day. Maybe even a majority of nations. It is antithetical to the fabric of this nation, and if people actually understood what it is these losers were advocating for they would be held in even lower esteem than they already are. Calling them nazis probably elevates the respectability of their ideas all said and done.

Most normal people are no longer falling for the 'they're nazis" routine, it's been played too many times. Sure, these guys might actually be as close as you're likely to get but no, they are not actual nazis. And hell, 50% of the population have probably been called that at some point in the past 10 years so when they see the usual suspects trotting out the same old once more, without even understanding whats going on many would have sympathy for the fact that here are a couple of people being demonised, probably for no good reason. And that probably is a problem, because it means that some people are just going to go check them out because they can't stand the left and part of them actively want these people to be right about something just to spite the left.

Just let these idiots get up in front of people and talk about wanting to live in a white ethnostate, which it sounds like what happened when Sam gave them a platform. That in itself is far more offensive to people than the possibility that they are just really really into the man with the funny moustache and all those cool uniforms. The one person who I've ever met who somewhat agrees with Sowel and co actually pretty quickly convinced himself that Australia belongs to the aboriginals and that none of us should be here, and thinks the proper course of action for him is to return to Europe where his parents are from and where it could actually make sense to be an enthonationalist.

We could solve the entire problem of having most of these people in the country by simply helping them reach the logical end of their arguments and helping them save for a plan ticket. For those that want to stay and advocate for a forceful return to the white australia policy, then sure let them fully emerge into the social pariahs they are. They're not nazis though. And the mere slinging mud at them with the tiredest of insults is an insufficient way to deal with the problem imo.

Problem with this approach is that there’s the few mentally ill people that will listen, fall down a rabbit hole and decide fire bombing a child care centre is a good idea

Waiting to help real nutters reach the logical end of a political movement that they don’t really understand is privilege only afforded to those not directly in the firing line of their hate

 

[Soggy2112]

Removing him on the basis of interviewing a couple of radical nazi wack jobs?

Had a listen for the sake of understanding the outrage and all I heard was Newman pretty much telling them they're nuts for 55 minutes while they tried to explain their positions on different topics and sooked that Newman called them out for Holocaust denial and Hitler sympathizing.

But why the need to give them the platform in the first place? Nothing that those guys would have said would be information that’s not freely available on the internet already.

All that Newman has done is allowed these guys to preach to a new audience.

Now sure, 99 out of 100 will probably say how ridiculous they are, but if one person gets radicalised or gets pushed further down that rabbit hole because of Sam then that’s on him.

There’s also the use of the word “controversial” that Sam uses to describe them. By using that word he’s actually validating their views as if there’s something worth considering in them.

They’re saying the holocaust wasn’t real. There’s no controversy or debate to be had there, that’s a blatant, evil lie.

They’re saying one race is inherently superior to another. Again, that’s a blatant and evil lie.

These are not topics that are worthy of a “debate”. In fact, there’s no point debating them, because they are operating from a perspective that will simply not look at any kind of actual evidence. They are ignorant, evil ****heads, and there should be no issue with people dismissing them as such.

But realistically, this is on brand for Sam. Go back and watch the final quarter documentary and the way Sam carries himself, and ask yourself what side of the fence he’s privately on, if that’s the way he chooses to be in public.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

But why the need to give them the platform in the first place? Nothing that those guys would have said would be information that’s not freely available on the internet already.

All that Newman has done is allowed these guys to preach to a new audience.

Now sure, 99 out of 100 will probably say how ridiculous they are, but if one person gets radicalised or gets pushed further down that rabbit hole because of Sam then that’s on him.

There’s also the use of the word “controversial” that Sam uses to describe them. By using that word he’s actually validating their views as if there’s something worth considering in them.

They’re saying the holocaust wasn’t real. There’s no controversy or debate to be had there, that’s a blatant, evil lie.

They’re saying one race is inherently superior to another. Again, that’s a blatant and evil lie.

These are not topics that are worthy of a “debate”. In fact, there’s no point debating them, because they are operating from a perspective that will simply not look at any kind of actual evidence. They are ignorant, evil ****heads, and there should be no issue with people dismissing them as such.

But realistically, this is on brand for Sam. Go back and watch the final quarter documentary and the way Sam carries himself, and ask yourself what side of the fence he’s privately on, if that’s the way he chooses to be in public.

I don't disagree with you on much of this, but I still don't believe its wise or warranted to remove Sam from the HOF for interviewing two loonies.

If he had have denied the holocaust or condoned Hitler's behaviour himself then fair enough, but thats not what occurred.

He just did a crap job at pushing back on the stuff that they said that he (and 99% of people) disagreed with.