• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Facebook bans far right groups

Ryokan said:
Yeah, I have a friend who got suspended from Facebook for a (humerous) rant about white men.
Click to expand...

I've never noticed anything of the sort.

Do either of you use Facebook?

That's the sort of story that gets spread by non-users to make them feel superior.

I see people who joined in 2009 then quit and who think it's still like it was then.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I've never noticed anything of the sort.

Do either of you use Facebook?

That's the sort of story that gets spread by non-users to make them feel superior.

I see people who joined in 2009 then quit and who think it's still like it was then.
Click to expand...

Yes. We are both still active on Facebook.
 
luchog said:
Going strictly by the experiences of numerous friends and acquaintances, as well as my own, Facebook has always been ready and eager to purge the site of any content complaining about white people in general, white men in particular, and suspending or banning those who post such content. So far, just about everyone except white supremacists seem to get the banhammer regularly.
Click to expand...

Could you give us some examples? I'm going to guess your friends expressed their views in ways that were against the terms and conditions of Facebook. And as such it was not the content of the messege but the way it was delivered that was the issue.

Of course you will reply with "no,I checked and they violated none of the terms or conditions. I just happened to look them all up the other day. " which, of course you will not be able to confirm because you will be unable or unwilling to show us these examples you wish to use as evidence.

To summarize,you are attempting to sway people using literally nothing more than your assurance that you know people who are the victims of foul play on the part of a major company. Not exactly the evidence standard we rewrite for most things around here.
 
Ryokan said:
Yes. We are both still active on Facebook.
Click to expand...

Care to actually prove your claim about the suspension?

If not it can be disregarded in the same way I would disregard any claim made without evidence.

I can all but guarentee if you show the messege and the suspension we would see it was due to your friends posting style conflicting with the terms and conditions of Facebook, not the core messege they were stating.

But you won't, yet you expect it to be used as evidence. Funny how that standard goes out the window when it is you that just knows something to be true.
 
I don't care to prove anything. I didn't present it as evidence of anything. Feel free to disregard it if you want.

Where did the hostile tone and accusatioms come from?
 
luchog said:
For example, free speech.

If there were no limits on where and to what extent this could be exercised, then you'd end up with me standing outside your window shouting at you through a megaphone at 4am. Or while standing in the middle of a city council meeting in session.

If there were no limits on what could be said, I could libel and slander you, ruin your reputation with specious claims and lies, and you would have no recourse.

I could spread conspiracy theories about prominent public figures or personal enemies and demand that they be assassinated.

We've seen what happens when people exercise their "free speech" without reasonable restrictions and limitations. We see bigots use their "free speech" to harass black and hispanic and LGBTQ people; up to and including getting them killed through lying to the police about threats, aka "swatting".
Click to expand...
These are not examples of free speech. These are examples of doing actual harm to others.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I haven't heard of most of those people and neither have you. Are you saying that none of these people have a presence on twitter, facebook, youtube, patreon, amazon, etc? When were they deplatformed? What was the reason? Remember, getting a warning from ISF doesn't count as a deplatforming.

To make it easy, let's narrow it down to three of the somebodys:

Norman Finkelstein (I'm guessing he's run into problems for calling out Israel as a white nationalist apartheid state. Not exactly a left wing issue)

Alice Walker

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard of most of these people either so I started going through the list. I gave up when I found out Jonny Moseley was disinvited as a commencement speaker at Berkley because he dropped out of college, in 2002.

And Dawkins ?

He's not on the left, the left hates him because he's "Islamophobic" He used to be on the left but the left turned on him like he was rabid. Disinvited from a speakers conference for reposting the Islam vs feminism video, disinvited by a radio station for Islamobhobia....Then there was that gays for Islam-Islam for gays tweet.

Disinvitation Database


Using that database, it certainly looks like an awful lot of the *we don't think you should have access to certain ideas and information because they're bad ideas and information and you're not to be trusted with them* is coming form the left.
 
smartcooky said:
I've been reading a bit of Karl Popper lately, especially his opinions regarding tolerant societies. He argues that if we tolerate the intolerant, we will risk ultimately losing our tolerant society altogether.

Popper said
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. 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. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The same could be argued about free speech. If a society allows unlimited, absolute free speech to everyone, then by default, it must extend that allowance to those who would ultimately wish to remove the right to free speech, and if that happens, society risks losing that right altogether.

This is what happened in Europe in the 1920's: Nazi's came to power from very small beginnings, from discussions in drinking establishments and poorly attended public meetings. Groups such as Freier Arbeiterausschuss für einen guten Frieden, the Free Workers' Committee for a Good Peace) and Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Worker's Party) formed. Very minor, very low key, just like some of the extreme right wing groups we have today. These groups grew and grew, and after a few setbacks, ended up coming to power, and the result was total suppression of opposing views, and millions of people killed in ten years of Holocaust and five years of global warfare.

Americans probably see modern Nazi's as not unlike The Blues Brothers "Illinois Nazis", a bunch of incompetent, unintelligent man-children playing at being bad guys. I promise you, those in Europe have a very different view - they see the far right as a real threat, because they are.

In France, Marine Le Pen leads the National Front, a far right idealogical party that, under her, has distanced itself from the anti-Semitism of her father, and has instead, taken up opposition to immigration from the Middle East - they have simply replaced the Jew Boogeyman with the Muslim Boogeyman. The National Front is a neo-Nazi organisation in every way but name, and in the 2011 elections, they were the third most popular party - that's about the same level of support the Nazis had in the early 1930's Weimar Republic.

Do not dismiss neo-Nazis lightly!
Click to expand...

Pretentious much?
 
Stout said:
I hadn't heard of most of these people either so I started going through the list. I gave up when I found out Jonny Moseley was disinvited as a commencement speaker at Berkley because he dropped out of college, in 2002.

And Dawkins ?

He's not on the left, the left hates him because he's "Islamophobic" He used to be on the left but the left turned on him like he was rabid. Disinvited from a speakers conference for reposting the Islam vs feminism video, disinvited by a radio station for Islamobhobia....Then there was that gays for Islam-Islam for gays tweet.

Disinvitation Database


Using that database, it certainly looks like an awful lot of the *we don't think you should have access to certain ideas and information because they're bad ideas and information and you're not to be trusted with them* is coming form the left.
Click to expand...

Well played, sir. The idiotic left and their preaching of "tolerance" toward the most intolerant ideology on Earth (possibly - at least one other is in the running, and it ain't Christianity), Mohammedism, will never cease to boggle me.
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
These are not examples of free speech. These are examples of doing actual harm to others.
Click to expand...


Who gets to decide that? Who gets to decide what speech is harmful, and how is that harm measured?

You're evading the point, not addressing it.
 
Orphia Nay said:
I've never noticed anything of the sort.

Do either of you use Facebook?

That's the sort of story that gets spread by non-users to make them feel superior.

I see people who joined in 2009 then quit and who think it's still like it was then.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

That's the most cack-handed evasion I've seen in this entire thread.

But just FYI, I'm a regular Facebook user, as are many of my friends. The most recent suspension was roughly a month ago (closer to five weeks now), the most recent content removal was just a couple weeks ago. I had my own account temporarily suspended last winter for daring to post a list of genocides committed by white people against indigenous people in response to a Trumpista. Nothing that violated the terms of service unless you consider calling Anglo-American culture to account for its past crimes to be "anti-white" as apparently the Trumpistas did.

And no, I'm not going to tell anyone who my friends are. That's called "doxxing", it's highly unethical at best, and I'm certainly not going to contribute to it. The absolute last thing they need is to have a bunch of Internet trolls sealioning and harassing them.
 
Ryokan said:
Yeah, I have a friend who got suspended from Facebook for a (humerous) rant about white men.
Click to expand...

Dear facebook algorithm,

I've written to you before to ask that expressions of racism and sexism be flagged by you and removed from the site. I was not alone and it seems that in recent years you have really listened to us and measures have been implemented. Thank you for that.

However, today I'm contacting you to ask for some adjustments to how you operate. You see, I made a sexist and racist joke recently and it got removed. This is not acceptable! I was fighting the patriarchy and whiteness!
I can see this is all very confusing, as you are nothing but a clunky bit of code slapped together in New Delhi by the same guy who keeps sending diaper ads to couples who've just had a miscarriage.

At my university, we feel that left-wing and brown people are not susceptible to the same basic psychological mechanisms and propaganda tactics as right-wing people and white people. So I feel it is only fair that you be reprogrammed to allow racism and sexism against certain groups. I'm sure the many Facebook shareholders will have no problem with this being explicitly written into the code. After all, what's a little bit of blowback for a company as universally liked and respected as Facebook? It is for a good cause after all. I'm sure you'll see the sense in choosing to promote my fringe worldview over making billions of dollars in ad revenue.

I would like to warn however that maybe you're thinking 'what if I learned to recognise sarcasm? Then I could just un-flag jokes'. No no no! That's not how it works! The Alt-Right insidiously uses tongue-in-cheek humour to provide an entry point to their toxic ideology. This cannot be confused with my absolutely hilarious 'Kill all White Men' and 'Castrate all Boys' posts.

In short, all I'm asking that a team of AI developers make sure that the world's main social platform implement their algorithms in an inconsistent way so I can do things that I explicitly don't want others to do.

I await your positive response.
 
smartcooky said:
Not to me it isn't, It has a wider meaning than just social media

deplatforming
Cancelling or disinviting someone to speak at an event - usually due to some form of offense committed by the speaker that would damage the reputation of the event sponsor or event theme.​

https://www.definitions.net/definition/deplatforming


Deplatforming of invited speakers
Controversial speakers invited to appear on college campuses have faced deplatforming in the form of attempts to disinvite them or to prevent them from speaking. The British National Union of Students established its No Platform policy as early as 1973.​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deplatforming#Deplatforming_of_invited_speakers
Click to expand...

If that's the definition you're using, I was deplatformed from speaking at high school graduation because of a scheduling conflict. I'm a leftist. Did you get to the "C" on that list?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
How many bad people on the far left have they covered.


Do they cover ANTIFA?
Click to expand...

Yes. Specifically, they note that similar groups are forming on the left and 'tooling up' for when TSHTF.

There is also a good episode about what the opposing groups have in common and the misassumptions they have about each other.

These guys are lefties, but not to a crazy extent. The reporter is also a bit of gun nut, which helps him find some common ground with the militia types. And he does understand why people in rural people don't like having their lives dictated by coastal liberals. There is empathy here as well as a warning against hardening attitudes.
 
luchog said:
Who gets to decide that? Who gets to decide what speech is harmful, and how is that harm measured?

You're evading the point, not addressing it.
Click to expand...
Are you serious?

Making loud noises outside somebody's window at 4am is not stating an opinion.

Libel, slander and malicious lies is not stating an opinion.

Urging the assassination of public figures is not stating an opinion.

These are all examples of maliciously causing harm to others and the victims have legal recourse to all of them - even if it is only financial compensation.

Opinions are beliefs - even racist ones like "white men can't jump". We can disagree with them - even vehemently and nobody is required in any way to assist the speakers to express their opinions. But neither you nor anybody else has the right to say "it's OK to express this opinion" or "it's not OK to express that opinion".
 
psionl0 said:
Opinions are beliefs - even racist ones like "white men can't jump". We can disagree with them - even vehemently and nobody is required in any way to assist the speakers to express their opinions. But neither you nor anybody else has the right to say "it's OK to express this opinion" or "it's not OK to express that opinion".
Click to expand...


The two points which appear to have flown right over your head are:

1) We already place limits on when, where, and how the exercise of rights, including freedom of speech, can be exercised. You appear to agree that some limitations are acceptable, as demonstrated in the post I replied to.

2) This isn't about expressing opinions or beliefs, this is about people advocating for the genocide of any and all human beings they consider inferior to them, and recruiting others for the purpose of advocating for and eventually committing said genocide. That's what Naziism is, and that is what these people are demonstrably doing.
 
psionl0 said:
Did somebody say "slippery slope"? ;)
Click to expand...

I had to look that up, because I read Popper many years ago.

Popper's argument makes logical sense as long as you define intolerance as a monolithic concept. But it isn't. There are different degrees of intolerance: the type of intolerance that, like Popper, I would not tolerate, would be the one that calls to action based on a denial of other people's moral agency and autonomy.

Bad ideas should be challenged intellectually, not through censorship. If, for example, racism is intellectually untenable (which is, in different ways), society benefits more by challenging it rather than censoring it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom