That is sadly the case, although not limited to right wing Buddhists.
Most of the more whacky posts take place in a section reserved for long standing members (can’t remember if you were a member or not). Some however are in the public sections of DW. I’m not a mod or an admin, so I have no control over how it’s run. DW was initially set up due to the heavy handed moderation at the now defunct E-Sangha, as well as some other issues there. The founder and most of the admin/mods are centre right wing. That does mean there is a tendency to view matters of free speech differently. It also means, in terms of western Buddhism and online forums, we are something of a minority since the vast majority of western Buddhists are liberals/left wing. Regarding the issues you have raised around COVID, there are times where I would prefer to see less misinformation being posted. Then again, from another perspective, I think such actions can simply feed the narrative of a hidden truth being suppressed by the authorities, which feeds into the conspiracy.
E-Sangha was a long time ago. People were born, have grown up, and started families since that was a thing. Being center right wing is out of date for the world of 2022. The right wing doesn’t value free speech, just their ability to spread disinformation. I’ve seen censorship there in the past, on other Internet forums. The right wing has also been the group of people censoring history from school text books, pushing education vouchers for home schooling ( censorship - cut their kids off from ideas ), and punishing people at a governmental level for telling the truth about pandemic data.
I did run into a fairly misogynistic Buddhist ( American ) at a vihara a few decades ago, but he was pretty much on his own.
To keep this thread on topic, I think neutralizing Buddhist extremism starts on the Internet. That is where such people meet each other, network, recruit, and grow.
Well, I’m naturally inclined to disagree. I think the left and right both need each other, each adding something of value to society. I think it’s a mistake to think that “my side” is always right, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum. Society is too complex for that IMO. I’m also sincere in my beliefs, and I know many good centre right wing people who are too. Whilst I’m not denying that what you are referring to happens, you seem to be suggesting the everyone who is centre right is guilty of that or are bad in some way. I would find that to be an extreme view.
1 Like
The founder and admins are not “centre right”. The founder is a “libertarian” and the admin is most definitely not “centre right” although exactly what persuasion off far right ideology he follows, I’m not sure. They created a forum where anti-sematic, anti-muslim, and misogyny was rife and accepted along with the normalization of extreme right wing views and anti “woke” “social justice” + conspiracies. That forum became something very rotten and a safe space for extreme views. This should not be ignored or glossed over. And new and extreme right wing positions should not be legitimized with labels such as “centre right”
6 Likes
This reminds me of MN 22:
Take a foolish person who memorizes the teaching—statements, songs, discussions, verses, inspired exclamations, legends, stories of past lives, amazing stories, and classifications. But they don’t examine the meaning of those teachings with wisdom, and so don’t come to a considered acceptance of them. They just memorize the teaching for the sake of finding fault and winning debates. They don’t realize the goal for which they memorized them. Because they’re wrongly grasped, those teachings lead to their lasting harm and suffering. Why is that? Because of their wrong grasp of the teachings.
6 Likes
Besides the misogyny and other distasteful views at DW, there was also a person insisting on highly dubious Pali translations, such as the verb ‘viharati’ actually meaning ‘to fetch’. That all the dictionaries and translations were wrong.
So it seems a place best avoided. The Milton scholar Stanley Fish actually wrote a book on the dangers of ‘free speech’- maybe he has a point!
Well I disagree. I think a liberal democracy requires a left, centre and right wing. Society is complex, and so it’s good to have multiple perspectives on how to improve it. Regarding “most people”, if we look to the politics of my country, the UK, most people are not centrists. Most people are not Liberal Democrats. Most are centre left or centre right. I wouldn’t say my party, the Conservative Party, is a hotbed of dangerous extremism. I mean so far we have had two female PMs, with either another female PM or an Asian British PM coming next. We also introduced gay marriage. I imagine these are things you approve of.
It’s been a while since I asked David about his politics, but the last I heard he doesn’t vote Libertarian. That said, I wouldn’t say Libertarianism is a far right ideology. I don’t think classical liberalism, or the founders of the USA, were far right extremists. To give an example, libertarians have been arguing for gay marriage for just as long as left liberals have been. I don’t see that as being the nimitta of far right thinking. As for the other admin you mentioned, whilst the is a penchant there for conspiracy thinking (which I constantly argue against) I don’t see any signs of him being far right at all.
They created a forum where anti-sematic, anti-muslim, and misogyny was rife and accepted along with the normalization of extreme right wing views and anti “woke” “social justice” + conspiracies. That forum became something very rotten and a safe space for extreme views. This should not be ignored or glossed over. And new and extreme right wing positions should not be legitimized with labels such as “centre right”
Part of the TOS states
2. Speech
Any subject matter that may be off-topic or is intended to cause disruption or harm may be removed without notice. This includes, but is not restricted to:
a. Nasty speech
b. Badmouthing Buddhist discussion forums
c. Unnecessarily explicit language and imagery
d. Unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or traditions - including psychoanalyzing other members, and predictions or threats of kammic retribution
e. Disruptive meta-discussion (i.e. discussion about discussion, including in-topic complaints about the existence of discussions that don’t suit your preferences)
f. Personal attacks, including:
> — the vilification of members based on personal attributes (e.g. gender, nationality, sexuality, race, age)
— the vilification of members based on their approach to the Dhamma (e.g. their practices, level of experience, or chosen tradition)
— mocking or berating members
g. Attacks against the Buddha, Dhamma, or Sangha, which violate the Intention of this forum (See Section 1. Intention for details)
h. Goodbye Cruel Forum posts
i. Posts that are not mindful of the current topic, as defined in the initial post
j. Pressuring members to engage, despite them having already explicitly declined such engagement in the current topic
k. Content of a political or economic nature that is not in traced back to Theravada doctrine. (Such discussion is allowed at Dharma Paths)
You will notice what I have bolded. Recently there was a decision to remove a long standing member for their anti-Semitic and fascist sympathising views. Said person crops up on every Buddhist site I know, even this one, as they create new accounts each time. Regardless, it’s not the case that DW tolerates the things you mentioned. Now we do get some members who post misogynistic crap, not specifically aimed at anyone but in general. Whilst these are unpleasant, they are routinely and consistently debunked by other members there. Personally I think showing the flaws in their reasoning is better than quickly jumping to the ban hammer.
And new and extreme right wing positions should not be legitimized with labels such as “centre right”
No one is doing that here.
Yes, and it is tiring having to repeatedly debunk them . Said person also posted here for quite some time. That said, nearly everyone comes to see through the nonsense.
So it seems a place best avoided. The Milton scholar Stanley Fish actually wrote a book on the dangers of ‘free speech’- maybe he has a point!
I’m not familiar with his arguments. What I have noticed though is that when people argue for limiting speech, it’s always in a way in which they approve of. They only want speech they like.
We never need nazi’s, fascists, and dictators. What used to be considered “right wing” would be considered centralist today.
Who people want to marry is none of my concern. More people should take that view.
I think we are possibly talking past each other here. When I say right wing, I don’t mean far right. I agree that we don’t need the input of fascists, dictators or nazis. I would also add communists to that list of extreme and authoritarian ideologs too. I do think though the likes of the Labour Party, Tory party, Lib Dems and so on each have their role to play in society.
Who people want to marry is none of my concern. More people should take that view.
Libertarians would agree with you.
You think it is in your purview to decide who other people marry?
No, and I rather liked David Cameron’s speech where he said he supports gay marriage not in spite of his conservatism but because of it (because marriage is a good thing for couples). I think marriage is a good thing for homosexual relationships, as chaotic as some are due to social stigma. I used to actually ask why two family members who are consenting can’t marry. This was back in my more pure libertarian days, where I argued against laws which punish incest. Today, on that issue, I’ve moved back a bit. With that said, on marriage, do we want polygamy normalised? It leads to higher birth rates. Is that something the world needs at the moment, given climate change?
Unless you think only libertarians are gay, liberals and conservatives would also agree with me. Plenty of conservative gay people who are married.
There sure are. I agree.
Who is “we” and why do “we” get to decide. Polygamy and polygamous marriage has been around since the beginning of marriage. Certainly common in the Buddhas time.
The “we” is yourself and other readers. It’s a common expression. It invites the audience or reader to consider what is being discussed. I’m certainly not doubting that polygamy is old. I was asking if we want a situation where polygamy, specifically polygyny, is normalised as it leads to higher birth rates. Of course from a purely deontological perspective that doesn’t matter I guess, and human rights are deontological in nature. Is your argument that if another person’s rights aren’t being infringed, then it shouldn’t be illegal?
Please keep to the topic folks! If it’s not on topic and it’s just two of you talking, please do it in a PM.
If you think it is important to have a discussion about this in public, then please start a new thread. You are no longer talking about Buddhist Extremism.
6 Likes