: I'm sorry I'm not clear here. You haven't, it seems to me explained why their views aren't legitimate (your word not mine). 1:they are divisive, i.e. they split the working class.
2:They can, in the worst case, amount to tacit consent to violence, many of the people in Nazi germany were not conscious of, or actively involved in teh holocaust, and repression of teh jews, but due to a similar sort of racism, they let things go that far.
:TO compund this you then state that they *know* that they hold a view point that is unacceptable. Unacceptable in what way? to you? to society in general?
To official culture, its the phenomenon of "I'm not a racist, but..." (e.g. "I'm not a racist, but I do think those fucking pakis ought to be stewed alive in their own juices, and then sent back where they came from.").
:Provided that they don't break the law (and let's face it, an eighty-five year old great grandmother is unlikely to go round starting rumbles in the street) then I stongly believe they may be allowed to hold that point of view.
"allowed" is a tricky word, I would certainly think they ought to be given a serious ear bashing, and argued with, certainly you can't 'ban' such views, only argue against them, and fight them that way- racism *must* be opposed.
: So what you are saying is that people disagreeing with your point become morally weak in some way, and shouldn't be allowed to hold htese views in our state. I just seem t have lost the thread here...
Not morally weak, so much as finding themselves justifying murder, because the state is allowed to, I was also showing, in my point, how moderation is extremism as well.
: I think this is more guff. I'm sensing some suggestion of original sin, we are all guilty of hatred in some form or another, and this expresses itself either in action or in inaction. And you haven't addressed my original point, which is that a view, which you disagree strongly is "not legitimate". I want to know who decides..
We have to decide, we have to look at the consequences of our views, and we have to defnd them/attack them in open debate.
I didn't bring legitimacy into the debate, that was lark, I just think that all nationalism is unacceptable, for me, and I willa rgue why I think that.
None.
