• The problem with the gun rights is that they don't create safety for themselves or their family the more guns are located in private ownership. The statistics speak for themselves, when you can see that in the US, there are the most casualties in gun-related crimes, because they already have the weakest gun laws worldwide. They all would be better off with fewer guns as private property.
  Furthermore, crime in general is a social issue, located in a far more fundamental issue: The disparity between social classes in general. The poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime such as robbery or murder. We have to remove the social disparity to create equal wealth, then it won't be necessary to own a gun to defend yourself anymore. This is killing two birds with one stone.
• Could you maybe specify the second point? I think I don't get this one.
• The third point I would rather call a minority among those being referred to "White Pride" - most of those who celebrate the white race do exactly this - viewing their own "race" (as if there was one) as superior to others (namely the black people, Asian people, and so on). Hence, I would say that the only reason you have far-right friends is that these are still more rationale, and not as extreme as those who wear white hoodies or march in the Unite The Right rallies. But of course I don't want to assume this, since I don't know you friends. It just sounds to me like this. I think we can agree that among the best known far-right individuals is Steve King, and he once said that there were no accomplishments (meaning fundamental inventions) from other cultures than Western ones, although we have an Arabic numeral system, paper made of woods rather than parchment or stone/ceramics tablets, and a Latin alphabet rather than runes. Of course there's nothing wrong about celebrating the accomplishments of the Western civilization (although I would really like to know of those that didn't have any serious consequences in the near or latter future).
• And this is by far one of the most disgusting explanations I ever heard about joking about genocides: «Wanting acceptance for sharing their point of view (even if unpopular), as well as exercising freedom of speech» - Seriously? This is nothing about the freedom of speech, this is awkward, to be calmer. If someone ever made such a joke in front of me, I would whack this person and leave the scene. You will never gain acceptance for making jokes about the Removal Act, the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide or anything like this. This is nothing to joke about, this is one of those accomplishments of the Western civilization.

Beside this: Could you tell me how you created this chart? I didn't find any way to create them, it doesn't seem to be integrated in the markdown system.

@Sunyata You're welcome, I just likewise enjoy to hear of people who are not afraid to explore the opposite of their own views, even though I took the easy way by referring to respective literature, written by people like Friedman, Kristol, Adam Smith, and so on. It's hard to find rational right-wingers, and I merely avoid the far-right because to me, they are unreasonable in many ways.

Wanting acceptance for sharing their point of view on history (even if unpopular), as well as exercising freedom of speech

Well then, which facts did they bring up to, for example, contradict the Great Removal Act (I assume you're a US-American, but feel free to disagree with me when I'm mistaken)? I would be very delighted to hear how the Trail of Tears never took place, actually. Because it's one thing to not believe those genocides never took place, but which right did they have to joke about the grief of the bereaved who believe/know they have happened? To me, in the outcome, this sounds more like a cheap apology to clear one's own bad conscience; they know it's wrong, but they cheer themselves up by believing it actually never took place, so they neither harmed the bereaved, nor themselves. AT least, this is my theory, on many such some things.

@James .... Normally, such some conversations are firstly about understanding the opposite side, one can hardly affect the opposite by explaining differences or highlighting flaws in the opposite's view. Mostly, they are already hardwired in their own views, so that a change had to come from themselves.

And yes, he was pre-capitalist and hardly a right-winger, compared to today's standards. But right-wingers are most often concerned about economics and the market, rather than social issues. Thus, to understand them better, it's often helpful to read something about economics and how the market works, and how they view it in its working. Because those who I met so far and to whom I talked, mostly said that in their personal utopia, the market would be shaped according to Smith's Wealth Of Nation, a market in which everyone can equally contribute to reach their personal wealth, by hard work. Today's market, according to them, is corrupted by the state and the stock market, which is why to them, this is not a capitalist system that has failed, but a corporate.

---

@Sunyata Most of these cultures have all been beautiful in their own ways, thus it was even a greater shame to see them removed westwards, murdered in brutal and primitive ways, due to imperialist interests. There could never be any excuse for these deeds, nor any indemnification.

@Wolf Did you ever read an article by the Daily Stormer? This page declares comments and opinions as articles, and spreads fake news. Am I supposed to argue about fakes and opinions that are declared as facts? The left should be smarter than this. This way, we are destroying ourselves in integrity. Nowadays, fake news have become the greatest threat to the integrity of journalism, right-winged governments declare journalists the enemy of the people, in Germany, the US, and Brazil. Since such some governments have taken effect, assails against journalists have risen, people have been murdered during demonstrations (Charlotteville), aggressions have increased as well. I offered him a discussion, but he named a web outlet that refers to the German Nazis propaganda magazine Der Stürmer; when I asked him to name me more reasonable outlets like the National Review, he began to insult me, which was the point at which I am no longer itnerested in arguing. I once talked to a well-known right-winger in the German space of G+, we had an intense and erudite discussion. He was far different from Thaeneitos, he was reasonable. We as the left are not supposed to take trolls serious, or did the allies ever take the Third Reich serious?
If someone thinks that not taking those trolls serious was irresponsible, I guess that this person is likely to not have recognised yet what is dawning before us. I am eager to be introduced into discussions with reasonable right-wingers of any kind, but am going to further avoid children who annoy me with their pubescent misbehaviour and lack of maturity. If you feel interested in discussing them, go ahead, but don't coerce me in doing the same. Call me whatever you want, but I am not going to waste my precious time for people who would not appreciate this turn. I have got news to read, plenty of news. And I've got stuff to write.

@Sunyata

I think maybe Oliver has the same feeling, at least that’s what used to be my own mental attitude

To me, it was just the lack of respect he displayed. I try to read as many comments and news from the right-winged point of view, which is the reason why I try to read as many articles from the Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, the National Review, and so on. Sometimes, I even take a glimpse on Fox News, to see how they cover the news. But there is a line not to be crossed because then, the abyss of mondern news coverage has been reached, and this is the Daily Stormer. During the midterms, they didn't even bother to hide where they stand, using memes to call upon their readers to vote for the GOP; slurs against feminists and human rights activists were common, and as I wrote before, commentary and opinions have been shown as actual articles, which to me is far from reason. Beside: Even Reason, the right-wigned libertarian magazine, was easier to read, at least they tried to act serious, which made reading about the government shutdown pretty intriguing, because I knew they would try to play down the role of government in non-profit sectors.

As I wrote to Wolf already, I won't spend my time for people who act disrespectfully and wouldn't appreciate the time I spent with them. I've got plenty of articles to read, and texts to write, for a more respectful audience. You may feel asked to read the comment to Wolf as well.

Hi @Sunyata. Shortly after leaving my former faith I read Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer. A key point Boyer makes is we humans are mind readers. That is, we use our minds to think about what other minds are thinking. We can do this even if the person we're thinking about is not nearby.

We humans also spend a lot of time trying to judge the motivation of others to determine if they are part of our "in-group" or "out-group."

Thus our ability to think about what God might be thinking is tied up in all this. Add to this fear being emotive.

Each of the four items will be touched by such cognition. The 2nd amendment should give every American confidence that they, unlike people of other nations, will never be disarmed by the government. After all it is a constitutional guarantee. The other amendments could work that way too.

But notice it often works exactly the opposite. It is as if the act of stating a guaranteed right makes the mind fearful that such a right will be taken away. The cognition of the brain then takes the owner down a path exactly opposite the desired outcome. If a person was fearful and concerned about family safety the logical thing to do is not own a gun. That's not me just guessing. That is what Scientific American reported. Personal ownership of a gun puts the owner at risk of suicide, homicide and accident at higher rates than non gun owner. The likelihood of using a gun to threaten, harm or kill a bad guy just does not cover for these other risks. Even though the 2nd amendment was crafted to improve the security of the state, personal gun ownership and exercise in USA has had the opposite results.

Conspiracy at scale is essentially impossible. This is so, because of how hard it is to keep information secret. On top of that a perfectly executed conspiracy would simply become reality and lose meaning. If we're in the matrix, so be it. If aliens at the south pole control the price of oil and manipulate train schedules for nefarious reasons, so be it. However, our brain is going to seek to model a highly complex world that actually resists full understanding at any one point in time. Thus the conspiracy narrative gains traction in our mind. Because it helps explain the world.

Don't be distracted by the "deep state" it is the "shallow state" who is really in control! Likewise Bilderberg is cover for the real controllers -- Build-a-bear! Getting kids to install surveillance devices in stuff animals -- how evil is that?
^ This last paragraph is a synopsis of some of the banter between me and close friend who sometimes engages conspiracy theories. In the end, one should not take themselves too seriously, methinks!

Cheers,
-Randy

Hi @Dusk.

The Scientific American article I'm referencing is this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gun-science-proves-arming-untrained-citizens-bad-idea/

I'm not sure who you are referencing in regards to folks in other countries. I'm Canadian by birth, immigrated to the USA in 1998 and became a citizen in 2010. The USA clearly runs a higher than normal risk for gun-related suicide and homicide. 7 to 8 times higher for homicide compared to Canada[1].

The right to bears arms is a constitutional right that has been reaffirmed as recently as recently as Heller v DC in 2008. I'm not suggesting that violation of constitutional rights don't happen. Most cases that go to the Supreme Court involve exact that.

When we see two individual in Montana were stopped by border patrol for speaking Spanish, some raise the specter we all about to lose our fourth amendment rights. My point is many wind up more fearful than they should be. That this fear can wind up robbing us of peace and ironically in some cases causing the very problem we are afraid of.

Cheers,
-Randy
[1]Even as awful as the numbers are, as individuals, we should be far more fearful of heat disease. While 45k die from suicide in the USA each year, heart disease takes 635k.

This may be helpful for my friends on the left, when you see something that stimulates despair, confusion or fear:

The Parable of the Saw

"Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words, but we shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and we shall not give in to hatred. On the contrary, we shall live projecting thoughts of universal love to those very persons, making them as well as the whole world the object of our thoughts of universal love — thoughts that have grown great, exalted and measureless. We shall dwell radiating these thoughts which are void of hostility and ill will.' It is in this way, monks, that you should train yourselves.

"Monks, if you should keep this instruction on the Parable of the Saw constantly in mind, do you see any mode of speech, subtle or gross, that you could not endure?"

"No, Lord."

"Therefore, monks, you should keep this instruction on the Parable of the Saw constantly in mind. That will conduce to your well-being and happiness for long indeed."

Source

@Sunyata I have a great deal of sympathy with your approach, but I have a couple of very deep problems with where you have got to on this.

First, I think there is some confusion in your mind between 'understanding' and 'sympathy'. Sometimes we use these words as if they meant the same thing, but in this kind of activity, we have to be very careful to distinguish them. To try to understand is always a good thing, but when you say that you regard a racist as a friend, that is going beyond understanding towards sympathy. You say your aim is to make connections with people, but befriending racists can only obstruct you from making true connections with the people who are targets of their hatred.

Second, I think that your understanding of this particular sub-culture is incomplete. For example you discuss jokes about genocide, but the real problem is what lies behind the jokes. This is the racism I spoke of above, which includes among other things an attempt to minimise the crime of the Nazi holocaust and, in particular, to deny the mass murder of six million European Jews. I believe this attempt to be based entirely on fake evidence and spurious argument. When I tried to engage @Charlie Prime recently, his only response was to keep asking me if I was Jewish. I believe that these holocaust deniers either know, or strongly suspect that their beliefs are false and that is why they refuse scrutiny. (Another issue that you don't address, which I believe is even more fundamental to this sub-culture is attitudes to women.)

Finally, while I think that what you are doing is very courageous, I also think that it is very dangerous. By befriending these people without challenging their beliefs you are giving them space and credibility to promote their hatred and lies. Perhaps this space you have created can be somewhere where we can address these really problematic attitudes, but only if your new found friends are willing to engage in honest discussion of their beliefs.

First, I think there is some confusion in your mind between ‘understanding’ and ‘sympathy’. Sometimes we use these words as if they meant the same thing, but in this kind of activity, we have to be very careful to distinguish them. To try to understand is always a good thing, but when you say that you regard a racist as a friend, that is going beyond understanding towards sympathy. You say your aim is to make connections with people, but befriending racists can only obstruct you from making true connections with the people who are targets of their hatred.

@John Rooke I hear your concern about getting closer to people who have opinions that you believe are dangerous

---

I have a family member who is really important to me (all members of my family are but i’m esp. close to him)

He has become more and more right-wing over the last few years. My first reaction was to become stressed and fall into my old patterns of arguing :( This results in more frustration and upset on his part. Now i’ve learned mostly listen instead ♥

Sometimes i share my concerns as well though! And i even ask if he can reflect back what that is so i’m sure that he understand my values. But only if i believe he is ready to hear me, which unfortunately is not that often, but there can be a chance after having listened to him for a while first

I want to be friends with him, and have empathy and sympathy, sharing joys and connecting with the suffering that’s there. Eventually i want to be friends with everyone, i don’t want to exclude people

---

I know this may be a lot to take in (usually i don’t share this much at once and this personal in a public post). Is it valuable to you? Does it make sense?

I also think that it is very dangerous. By befriending these people without challenging their beliefs you are giving them space and credibility to promote their hatred and lies.

@John Rooke When reading this i am worried that you may be right. Scared even. I have thought about it before but thank you for giving me this candid reminder

I want to contribute to a more peaceful world where everyone's values matter and are taken into consideration. This is one of the reasons i talk with people on the far right. I believe when we can see the underlying values we can find ways of addressing them that does not include violent means (i'm not saying that my right-wing friends are for using violence, but i worry that some of what they advocate might lead to violence in the long-term)

I don't know what more to say, i think what you wrote is important enough for me to think about for a while, and i might come back to it here later. And please feel free to continue to remind (like you did above) because i need to hear the left-wing perspective (sometimes there is a concern of being so "lost in empathic connection" that we forget our own values!)

Hi @Sunyata.

No problem. I understood your post as an attempt to take an issue and go beyond "enemy image" to get to the deeper concern.

Even when we can understand a deeper concern it doesn't mean we then agree that, say, it is okay, to make jokes about genocide. In my reply, I was wishing to do the same. I was focusing on the role of fear. In regards to conspiracy how our minds attempt to model the world. To bolster my comment I show how some common fears, such as the ones that relate to guns, are not as significant as often imagined. Of course even if the threat is not as real as we imagine the fear and the anxiety it generates surely can be.

Even if we attempt be objective as we can, context plays an important role. For most Americans owning a gun for self-defense will slightly increase personal risks for them and those close to them. But that risk remains small compared to heart disease. Thus a choice to go to the gym rather than the shooting range will in most cases reduce life-ending risks to a greater extent. For a police officer though having a gun increases safety.

For most Americans their 4th amendment rights will probably never become an issue. But for certain classes of individuals, such as young black and Latino men in New York, a 4th amendment violation is more likely[1]. In all this, rooting out fear, especially if it is unwarranted, can improve our lives.

I think the women in Montana did a wonderful job of that (at least what was recorded). They did ask about "profiling" but listened to the customs patrol officer and said "okay" when he explained himself. Rather than trying address a civil rights issue in public they just gathered evidence and took it to court later. I say the same thing to my girls. The police have a job to do, try and help them, assume good faith, but in the back of your mind, remember your have rights. Those rights include being silent and asking for a lawyer.

Over the years I've had to work hard not to take online comments personally. Being accepted and liked is weakness I have. So I see your OP as a brave post (thank you!). Trying to engage those opposite views is not easy.

One of the things I decided to do was use my real name and city location when posting online (Randy Galbraith living in Chandler, AZ). Initially I did to be of help to Ex-JWs. Many have lots to lose if JW family and friends got to know of their doubts or online comments critical of the faith. Thus I thought it important for those of us that could, to step out and have our online ID match our real life one. There of course is some fear in that -- but I have found is most people online that I interact with are good folks. My friend at work who I banter 2nd amendment rights with is now a close and dear friend. Our ability to discuss this subject, sometimes seriously and sometimes with a bit of humor [2]has been wonderful.

Cheers,
-Randy
[1]I base this comment on data I've heard on this over the years. I ran Google to confirm. This morning it turned up a reference to New York Civil Liberties Union that shows data confirming this.
[2]I once argued with him that my study of calculus would prove more life-saving during an end-of-the-world scenario than being armed.

@Dusk There is certainly a vast amount of holocaust denial material out there on the internet. So much that it is difficult to know where to start. But as a simple exercise, that should be reproducible I searched DuckDuckGo with the terms < did the holocaust really happen>. The first two sites to come up are Wikipedia and then someone who states an unwillingness to address the evidence, but merely recommends a book. The third hit is a Stormfront.org forum page headlined '10 reasons why the holocaust didn't happen'. The OP there actually only manages 6, so I'll just address these.

• Eisenhower, De Gaule and Churchill do not mention it on various occasions. But it is not explained why they should have done. De Gaule had strong reasons not to do so, since France was directly implicated in sending Jews to their deaths. Churchill however, was protesting the murder of Jews by the Nazis as early as 1941. In July 1944 when the full extent of the Auschwitz atrocity was revealed to him, he wrote to Anthony Eden:

'There is no doubt this is the most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved'

• Eli Weisman in hospital in Auschwitz. Why would an inmate of a death camp be in hospital? Presumably because he among the few prisoners who was chosen for work duties.
• Why didn't Eisenhower mention the holocaust in his state of the nation address following the end of WWII. Again, why would he?
• No human remains have been found. This is not true. You can easily find reports of subsequent burials and sites where ash was dumped.
• UN figures for World Jewish population in 1947 are almost the same as League of Nations figures for 1938. I haven't been able to find any evidence that these organisations ever collected and/or published such figures. They seem to originate in a publication called the World Jewish Almanac, which did indeed publish similar figures of pre and post war Jewish populations. However, this is because those figures were based on estimations made in 1938. No new estimate was made until 1949. There is no attempt to explain why, if the Holocaust is an international Jewish conspiracy, the Jewish Almanac was not made aware of this until 1949.
• The 1947 Red Cross report showed the figure of 271, 301 people died in all camps during the course of the war and of those that died 40% were jews. However, the report in question makes it clear that the Red Cross (ICRC) were in no position to estimate the number of Jews who were murdered:

The supervision which the ICRC was empowered to exercise in favour of prisoners and internees did not apply to them. In most cases, they were, in fact, nationals of the State which held them in its power and which, secure in its supreme authority, allowed no intervention in their behalf. [...] The Committee had in fact, through the intermediary of the German Red Cross, asked for information concerning civilian deportees "without distinction of race or religion", which was plainly refused in the following terms: "The responsible authorities decline to give any information concerning non-Aryan deportees" [...] camps exclusively reserved for Jews were not open to inspections

The report confirms that the ICRC was in no doubt that Jews were being sent to death camps at this time.