Facebook bans far right groups

[ponderingturtle]

Is funny how all that could apply 60 years ago about race. And if must people followed that logic then we would still have separate drinking fountains.

"You have the right to eat, just not in my restaurant, there is the door. "

Not at all you just have to understand protected classes and non protected classes. Race and religion are protected classes being a nazi isn't. I know it is outrageous that anyone would ever think about not renting out their space to the nazis, while if it AOK if they target the gays because that is their religion and even the jews have nothing in their religion against the nazis.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Again: The concept of free speech does not apply to a business entity.

Of course all these defenders of free speech are silent on the banning of female nipples on facebook but they get real upset when they come for the nazis.

So remember nazis may be bad but at least it isn't a breast.

 

[ahhell]

The soapboxes owner gets to make the decision. Your view that it magically becomes different when the soapbox gets too big not withstanding.

There are many places where being of sufficient size does magically(legally) make a private entity different. Generally based on number of employees or market size.

I'll can handwring over your idea that private entities stop having rights when they get too big a lot longer than you can hangwring over "OMG who gets to decide who's a Nazi."

I do think its worth a little hand wringing given how slippery political labels are. Fascism is a far right ideology that Facebook could easily justify banning from their site, on the other hand, its also basically just meant, "people I don't like" since the late 40s.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I was thinking that. But apparently some members here think that Breitbart should be required to carry ISIS hate speech.

And my amateur hardcore pornography.

 

[Checkmite]

Words indeed mean thing, thus my point. We are so quick to label people we disagree with as Nazis when they really aren't at all.

That has been a problem. People have used the word "Nazi" as a convenient exaggerated pejorative for people they disagree with for so long, it has created this situation where we're now dealing with actual Nazi sympathizers finally but calling them such brings out defenders who contend it's just another mislabel.

There are some who even want to "technically" the word "Nazi" into a cage so small that it can only be applied to a member of the original mid-century German political party, and not anyone who merely shares the ideology to a greater or lesser extent. This is why I prefer to use a rotating terminology, using "racists", "white supremacists", "white nationalists", and "Nazis" throughout discussions, to make it clear that the set which is the union of all these ideologies is the set I'm talking about. It keeps the discussion from getting mired in semantics, as if asserting that "nazi (or whichever particular term) is the wrong word" invalidates the greater argument.

 

[ponderingturtle]

the socialists, the trade unionists, the jews (Wikipedia), the gypsies and the gays.

But the gays had it coming, why else do you think we kept them in nazi concentration camps after the war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany#Post-War

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/gay-prisoners-germany-wwii/

 

[JoeMorgue]

I do think its worth a little hand wringing given how slippery political labels are. Fascism is a far right ideology that Facebook could easily justify banning from their site, on the other hand, its also basically just meant, "people I don't like" since the late 40s.

And that's where we differ.

You see "Facebook banning people they don't like" as some horrible fate that we must do everything to avoid. As seen as a minor annoyance at worst since the soapbox owner is not under any, any obligation to provide use of their soapbox to anyone they want, even if they are applying inconsistent standards.

I'll take a private organization not letting people on their soapbox with a lot more ease then I'll take Nazis getting to use that soapbox.

I'm not so afraid of moral inconsistency as a high level sin that I'm comfortable with Nazis being handed megaphones to prevent it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Defending free speech is ALWAYS about defending the rights of abhorrent people to express their abhorrent views. If nobody thinks their views are abhorrent, then nobody will want to restrict their rights to free speech.

For this reason, I believe this is not a valid rebuttal.

Exactly say what you will about nazis at least it isn't naked women. That is far far more vile than any nazi. I mean what are a few minor terrorist attacks like the Anders Brevin compared to seeing a breast!

 

[JoeMorgue]

The problem with saying "Defending free speech is ALWAYS about defending the rights of abhorrent people" is that that is functionally identical to just defending the horrible people.

If you always and only defend X when Y is involved, you aren't defending X, you're defending Y and not admitting it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So is that what passes for nazis nowadays ? My, how times have changed.

That must make the Democrats communists.

Not really

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan

At least america stood up to the Nazis and proudly said "no we will not take your jews, we hate the very idea of people seeking asylum here, solve you own jewish problem yourself" and they did. And as we see by modern policies around asylum seekers that was the right thing do to, I mean if we had granted Anne Frank asylum she never would be a world famous author after all.

 

[Stout]

Of course all these defenders of free speech are silent on the banning of female nipples on facebook but they get real upset when they come for the nazis.

So remember nazis may be bad but at least it isn't a breast.

That's a made up story

I for one sure wouldn't mind if Facebook went all page 3

#freethetiddies

 

[ponderingturtle]

1. Nazis
2. White supremacists
3. Racists
4. Bigots
5. Antifa

Yep anyone protesting nazis is just as bad as being a nazi.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Whataboutism. False dichotomy. Leading statement.

Do you think this policy of Facebook only applies in America? Do you think it is within Facebook's power to address killings in 'Muslim ran' countries? Do you think that Facebook taking this action in absolutely any way even hinders other actions in other countries? Do you think America should be held to a lesser, equal, or greater standard than other countries by Americans?

My evaluation is that it is absolutely possible to care about both the rise and power of far right groups in the US and about religious governments (even specifically Muslim ones) at, get this, the same time.

Your reasoning looks to be all over the place. Try refining your objection to the subject at hand.

Of course given the role of facebook in inciting the Rohinga Genocide it still doesn't count of course as anything bad because who cares about genocide against muslims?

 

[ahhell]

And that's where we differ.

You see "Facebook banning people they don't like" as some horrible fate that we must do everything to avoid. As seen as a minor annoyance at worst since the soapbox owner is not under any, any obligation to provide use of their soapbox to anyone they want, even if they are applying inconsistent standards.

I'll take a private organization not letting people on their soapbox with a lot more ease then I'll take Nazis getting to use that soapbox.

I'm not so afraid of moral inconsistency as a high level sin that I'm comfortable with Nazis being handed megaphones to prevent it.

Meh, I hardly think its some horrible fate, I just think it worth a little hand wringing. I don't mind if they ban NAZI's, I just think its worth paying attention to who they actually ban and then criticizing them if they get a little too ban happy. Which is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.

I can certainly understand folks that might be willing to go a little farther given that facebook does have a near monopoly over the megaphone.

Is there anyone else in this thread going much further than that?

I'm in favor of people being able to tell people in Che Guevara shirts they don't get to use their soapbox.

Would it be a bit worrisome, perhaps worthy of criticism even, if facebook decided to ban images of Che?

The problem with saying "Defending free speech is ALWAYS about defending the rights of abhorrent people" is that that is functionally identical to just defending the horrible people.

If you always and only defend X when Y is involved, you aren't defending X, you're defending Y and not admitting it.

IS the ACLU just a bunch NAZI and Pedophile supporters then. Defending free speech is always about defending the speech of folks that are offensive or abhorrent to someone. There's not much point in defending speech of those who nobody wants to censor.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Does anyone think that Nazism is not inherently violent and it doesn't call for the killing of vast numbers of us (us meaning fellow citizens)?

Richard Spencer.

 

[Stout]

Not really

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2019/02/20/695941323/when-nazis-took-manhattan

At least america stood up to the Nazis and proudly said "no we will not take your jews, we hate the very idea of people seeking asylum here, solve you own jewish problem yourself" and they did. And as we see by modern policies around asylum seekers that was the right thing do to, I mean if we had granted Anne Frank asylum she never would be a world famous author after all.

This archaeological stuff is interesting, but not at all relevant to my post.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This archaeological stuff is interesting, but not at all relevant to my post.

We can all agree that there is nothing wrong with white supremacists organizing marches full of people using nazi slogans and nazi imagery, and there is of course nothing remotely related to nazis about that. Those as we have been clearly told by the president are fine people. All perfectly clear.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm I see it in conservative mindsets, breasts are of course horribly corrupting to the children, but hardcore nazi ideology is good for them.

 

[Stout]

We can all agree that there is nothing wrong with white supremacists organizing marches full of people using nazi slogans and nazi imagery, and there is of course nothing remotely related to nazis about that. Those as we have been clearly told by the president are fine people. All perfectly clear.

Dude, I said "ever since Trump got elected" in post #104. I don't know why there's so much problem with that post, there's not a lot of words in it but maybe I typed it too fast.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Dude, I said "ever since Trump got elected" in post #104. I don't know why there's so much problem with that post, there's not a lot of words in it but maybe I typed it too fast.

I was describing the, in his words, fine people of the Charlottesville unite the right march. But thanks for playing. But I guess merely him being in office doesn't count as since he got elected for some reason.