Facebook bans far right groups

[Mumbles]

As Darat has said it's people who espouse key aspects of Nazi ideology, and are proud to do so. Now you might argue that they are no true Nazi - although I'm not sure Nazism was such a coherent ideology, but it's quite likely that they are closer to Nazism than, say Mormons, Catholics, Presbyterians, and Orthodox Christians, although all claim to be Christian.


Also, if a violent racist wants to be called a Nazi, does it actually matter if they're not doctrinally pure, and spend a bit more hate on Blacks than on Jews?

Actually, as far as the US goes, it's more that they've resorted to viewing the Jews as the masterminds directing the stupid black and brown people to destroy the white race by marrying white women. The use of "free speech" to incite violence against black communities has been common since reconstruction, when newspapers would publish lies about superpowered black men raping white women, which led to multiple black communities being destroyed and the residents slaughtered.

Compare the above to what Dylan Roof said when slaughtering a black church group who had welcomed him. The internet is simply more effective than the face-to-face recruitments that these violent supremacists used to require to get their message out, and companies like Facebook have allowed these communities to thrive for years, while banning people who criticized them.

But I do agree, if they want to wave nazi flags and chant nazi slogans in events organized by nazi-themed websites, I won't object if anyone calls them nazis. I personally call them "wannabe nazis" to mock them, but we should always be clear on who is an actual threat, and who simply has a different tactic.

At least the right wing is clear about the real causes of school shootings. Ostracising the nazi kid, that is what really caused the Parkland shooting, not is mildly extreme right wing politics. If only people were more accepting of white supremacists they wouldn't be shooting people. Right wing talking points 101.

It's exactly like how Eliot Rodger would have never gone on a shooting rampage had a few women simply become his sex slaves. Or how Stephen Miller wouldn't have become a prominent white nationalist working for Cheeto Benito had Hispanic people simply followed him around picking up his trash.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

That is a very broad brush you are applying here. Who gets to be the arbiter of what speech deserves protection and what doesn't?

If you followed the argument, that was explicitly stated.

Rubbish. Every law must be firmly based on logic. Anything else and it is just deciding which lunatic will run the asylum.

Not rubbish, as that is what I was stating about the legal system: that it cannot both recognize and deny simultaneously.

Did you actually read anything?

 

[jimbob]

Wow. Tu quoque and whataboutism as proponents of various Big Truths claim the other stinks. On ISF. Truly, we have indeed become the empty ranting echo chamber we often bemoan in Community. Skepticism? Meh.

Speech that directly denies or seeks to suppress political equality does not deserve protection within the same political system that guarantees that political freedom, as it denies the very foundation of the freedom it claims to do so. Logical contradiction is not a valid foundation for law. It creates permanent conflict and undermines the legal system and democracy. Jim Crow, for starters. North Carolina. Babies in cages. The contradiction persists in the US because of the progressive enshrining of the Founding Fathers and Constitution in – vomit your guts out – "divinely inspired" or "übermensch" clothing. The GOP has publicly shoesized its democratic IQ in an attempt to make fascism sound like sunshine and flowers.

I hold to the exact same position wrt religious doctrine: those creeds that would deny freedom of religion to all other faiths cannot possibly deserve protection under that very same freedom, or it is no freedom at all. Currently, Christians are the worst offenders, but the other Abrahamics are close behind, taking turns with their threats.

The enemy of any single political freedom, or all such freedom, is totalitarian doctrine, be it religious or political. Historical inevitability, racial purity, nationalism, an Abrahamic/Hindu/Buddhist neck slicer... whatever: all crap. Perfect truths, on human faces, wear a death mask. They all deserve Hume's Guillotine.

uke2se has the following quote in his signature

"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. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's exactly like how Eliot Rodger would have never gone on a shooting rampage had a few women simply become his sex slaves. Or how Stephen Miller wouldn't have become a prominent white nationalist working for Cheeto Benito had Hispanic people simply followed him around picking up his trash.

If the synagogue had only known not to try to help those seeking asylum Robert D. Bowers would never have had to shoot it up. Really a first rate conservative knowing that when conservatives say never again they mean never again will we fail to send those seeking asylum back to where they will be killed, like when we proudly stood up to Hitler and told him that no we would not take his jews in and he would have to find his own solution to his jewish problem. One of the proudest moments in conservative american history.

 

[dudalb]

uke2se has the following quote in his signature

"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. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1

The problem who decides who is intolerant and who is not?

 

[ponderingturtle]

The problem who decides who is intolerant and who is not?

Yea it is so hard to know who the real bigot is, bigotry against the bigots is the worst kind of bigotry. I mean when someone spouts off about being the superior race how are we supposed to know if they are the bigot or the libtard thinking there is something wrong with that is the bigot?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

The problem who decides who is intolerant and who is not?

Yes. It's like with property. Who decides who owns what? Who's even to say what can be owned and what not?

This whole law thing is just a complete non-starter.

 

[Mumbles]

If the synagogue had only known not to try to help those seeking asylum Robert D. Bowers would never have had to shoot it up. Really a first rate conservative knowing that when conservatives say never again they mean never again will we fail to send those seeking asylum back to where they will be killed, like when we proudly stood up to Hitler and told him that no we would not take his jews in and he would have to find his own solution to his jewish problem. One of the proudest moments in conservative american history.

In a way, this gets to the heart of the matter - modern "conservatism" (in the US, it's much less "conservative" than it is "republican party") that goads this sort of terrorist into action. It's not about taking a soapbox from Dylann Roof, it's about yanking it from under Richard Spencer (and definitely covering him as the genocidal freak he is, rather than "the Dapper white supremacist" as if the objection to white supremacism is their fashion choices). It's not about taking a soapbox from Elizabeth Hokoana, it's about taking it from Milo Yamomsasnitch (or whatever his name is - I can't be bothered to look it up). It's not about getting rid of the folks that harrass Parkland survivors or the parents of the Sandy Hook victims - it's about holding Alex Jones accountable for goading these people on. It's not about Robert Bowers or that idiot that attacked a CNN cameraman, it's about taking the soapbox from Dolt 45. We've seen the effects of their hatred and fearmongering, and it's nothing but terrorism and cruelty. Not a single one of them have contributed anything positive to make up for the harm done by their fanatical followers.

So you know what? If they're left to rant on a street corner as people mock them, good! But it turns out that the "Marketplace of Ideas" functions about as well as the "Market of Mortgage-Backed Securities" - with no rules, it routinely explodes and causes devastation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is not and there has never been "absolute" freedom of speech. Speech that is (falsely) defamatory, threatens harm or incites others to commit harm has always been unlawful and rightfully so.

But you now want to extend limitations on free speech so that they extend to mere opinions. This is not acceptable.

It's also a misinterpretation of the facts.

It's not opinion alone, it's opinion intertwined with behavior.

 

[mgidm86]

At least the right wing is clear about the real causes of school shootings. Ostracising the nazi kid, that is what really caused the Parkland shooting, not is mildly extreme right wing politics. If only people were more accepting of white supremacists they wouldn't be shooting people. Right wing talking points 101.

No it fits with the basic conservative rhetoric around free speech. Free speech is right wing people getting given a platform for free and of course not being turned away for their actions from anything, while having the freedom to turn away gays for being gay.

So it is a violation of free speech for a restaurant to refuse to serve nazi's but a triumph of free speech for a restaurant to turn away homosexuals.

If the synagogue had only known not to try to help those seeking asylum Robert D. Bowers would never have had to shoot it up. Really a first rate conservative knowing that when conservatives say never again they mean never again will we fail to send those seeking asylum back to where they will be killed, like when we proudly stood up to Hitler and told him that no we would not take his jews in and he would have to find his own solution to his jewish problem. One of the proudest moments in conservative american history.

The problem who decides who is intolerant and who is not?

What he said ^ Definitely.

Yea it is so hard to know who the real bigot is, bigotry against the bigots is the worst kind of bigotry. I mean when someone spouts off about being the superior race how are we supposed to know if they are the bigot or the libtard thinking there is something wrong with that is the bigot?

You're on a roll, keep 'em coming!

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. It's like with property. Who decides who owns what? Who's even to say what can be owned and what not?

This whole law thing is just a complete non-starter.

Why are you appealing to the law to solve that problem? There is no legal definition of tolerant vs intolerant people.

 

[smartcooky]

Keep that paranoid media-barrage up long enough and it's only a matter of time before some nut shoots some poor person walking out a gay bar after a Ru Paul karaoke night.

Or some deranged nutcase shoots up a Pizza shop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/pizzagate-attack-sentence.html

 

[smartcooky]

In a way, this gets to the heart of the matter - modern "conservatism" (in the US, it's much less "conservative" than it is "republican party") that goads this sort of terrorist into action. It's not about taking a soapbox from Dylann Roof, it's about yanking it from under Richard Spencer (and definitely covering him as the genocidal freak he is, rather than "the Dapper white supremacist" as if the objection to white supremacism is their fashion choices). It's not about taking a soapbox from Elizabeth Hokoana, it's about taking it from Milo Yamomsasnitch (or whatever his name is - I can't be bothered to look it up). It's not about getting rid of the folks that harrass Parkland survivors or the parents of the Sandy Hook victims - it's about holding Alex Jones accountable for goading these people on. It's not about Robert Bowers or that idiot that attacked a CNN cameraman, it's about taking the soapbox from Dolt 45. We've seen the effects of their hatred and fearmongering, and it's nothing but terrorism and cruelty. Not a single one of them have contributed anything positive to make up for the harm done by their fanatical followers.

So you know what? If they're left to rant on a street corner as people mock them, good! But it turns out that the "Marketplace of Ideas" functions about as well as the "Market of Mortgage-Backed Securities" - with no rules, it routinely explodes and causes devastation.

 

[tyr_13]

What legal principle are people asserting Facebook be forced to give up their freedom of association? Is anyone arguing that Facebook should be considered a utility?

It's weird that the general 'side' that argues against even net-neutrality seem to be taking the opposite view for Facebook for...reasons?

 

[Ziggurat]

What legal principle are people asserting Facebook be forced to give up their freedom of association?

Is anyone here arguing that Facebook should be forced to give up their freedom of association? I haven't so argued, I've only claimed that Facebook is acting badly, not illegally.

But more generally, businesses are frequently denied freedom of association on the grounds of anti-discrimination laws.

 

[psionl0]

Never said it was his argument. Just supplying some information that you didn't seem to know.

I was giving Eddie the credit of knowing that the government can't tell a multinational media company what it can publish in a foreign country.

 

[psionl0]

Who is a danger to society has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

Look I understand why this is opposed. I consume quite a bit of way-too-edgy content. I've followed my share of conspiracy theorists, alt-right podcasts, anarchist Youtubers etc. Believe me, I've enjoyed the Wild West of edgy opinions for twenty years. It's practically my hobby. But society will think it is more important that their local Synagogue doesn't get shot up then that Richard Spencer gets to have a say on Twitter. More important that their kid doesn't get a preventable disease than that some uninformed soccer mom gets to play healer on Facebook.

Evidently, I can listen to hours of right-wing podcasts without hating Jews, laugh my ass off at Alex Jones and still not think school shootings are staged, and I doubt I'll find the Flat Earth society convincing.

I don't think I'm very special at all, but this is a numbers game: 5% of us are idiots and therein lies the problem.

This was fine when we had some Neo-Nazi living in Alaska distributing his message to his ten followers by mailing them casette tapes.

What would you do if you were Marc Zuckerberg? Let Alex Jones have his long angry rants about pedophilic drag queens who groom children? And then one of his followers detonates a nail bomb in a gay bar. People start pointing fingers at your respectable multi-billion advertising business. What will your press release look like?

Assuming that there exists somebody who is wise enough and incorruptible enough to decide what information the 5% can be exposed to (assuming that this is not a made up statistic) you haven't made a case for trying to suppress this information.

Can you imagine what would happen if governments attempted to make dissenting opinions about vaccinations illegal? Even reasonable people would begin to suspect that a conspiracy was afoot. That 5% of people who were antivaxers would surely rise.

You are proposing tactics similar to those used in the "war" against drugs.

 

[Mumbles]

Is anyone here arguing that Facebook should be forced to give up their freedom of association? I haven't so argued, I've only claimed that Facebook is acting badly, not illegally.

But more generally, businesses are frequently denied freedom of association on the grounds of anti-discrimination laws.

Facebook (along with quite a few other social media sites) has been "acting badly" for years now, by stifling objections to these wannabe Nazis, TERFs, and KKKers, while letting actual hate mobs run wild.

And as this article in Slate points out, this was seen from miles away from the people best positioned to see it, and all warnings were pointedly ignored, if not mocked. Maybe it's time for these sites to listen to the people who got it right at every turn, drawing on the work of Ida B. Wells and others who were at it more than a century ago, and ignoring the Michael Tracys, Gawker writers, and Twitter CEOs who work from a tradition that has always gotten it wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Facebook (along with quite a few other social media sites) has been "acting badly" for years now, by stifling objections to these wannabe Nazis, TERFs, and KKKers, while letting actual hate mobs run wild.

And as this article in Slate points out, this was seen from miles away from the people best positioned to see it, and all warnings were pointedly ignored, if not mocked. Maybe it's time for these sites to listen to the people who got it right at every turn, drawing on the work of Ida B. Wells and others who were at it more than a century ago, and ignoring the Michael Tracys, Gawker writers, and Twitter CEOs who work from a tradition that has always gotten it wrong.

That's a fascinating article, thanks for sharing.

It's so relevant to the subject of social internet haters on these two sites (FB and Twitter) plus flooding comment sections and stalking people.

What is it about feminism that is so threatening to some men?

 

[smartcooky]

And as this article in Slate points out, this was seen from miles away from the people best positioned to see it, and all warnings were pointedly ignored, if not mocked. Maybe it's time for these sites to listen to the people who got it right at every turn, drawing on the work of Ida B. Wells and others who were at it more than a century ago, and ignoring the Michael Tracys, Gawker writers, and Twitter CEOs who work from a tradition that has always gotten it wrong.

And if just a few idiots from 4Chan can create such a furore of hate with so few resources and get the attention Carlson, then just imagine what the resources of the FSB and the Russian Government could do.... oh, wait!!