Facebook bans far right groups

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

In your Orwellian world, a post in Facebook or Twitter saying "Somebody should blow up Sydney Harbour Bridge" would be sufficient to detain the author.

Actually in hindsight, some of those people should have been stopped.

 

[wareyin]

I think it's probably a bad idea to treat speech as if it is the same as the acts that we imagine might accompany the speech.

If you want to prosecute racist acts, then you should probably wait until there are actually acts to prosecute. Prosecuting hypothetical acts on the basis of speech alone seems like a really bad idea.

And that's not even getting into the fact that none of the "nazis" under discussion have even spoken about the acts they've been assaulted for.

Whatever tenuous and creepy-ass connection you're trying to make between speech and act, to justify your own support of political violence, you still haven't even proven the speech itself.

You mean taking action to prevent harm to others is a bad thing? Or taking action to prevent harmful ideas from spreading is a bad thing? I'm not clear where you are getting "prosecute" from, since we are discussing racist groups no longer having the privilege of using Facebook to spread their hate.

 

[Eddie Dane]

Actually in hindsight, some of those people should have been stopped.

But not all.

My decade-old Tweet in which I suggested Britney Spears 'be sewn into a sack with several wild animals and thrown off a bridge' was actually a critique of her music, hilariously coated in dark humour.

I swear.

 

[Giz]

There is a little tract called “DEFENSE OF THE INQUISITION”, it goes:
----------------------------------------------------------------
In true SJWs there is nothing to be seen of that moral and doctrinal laxity which the modernists qualify as "tolerance" or as "liberty of conscience." SJW’s maybe patient and merciful with repentant sinners, but never recognize any right of error and expose obstinate propagators of error to public condemnation. The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of SJWs.

While SJWs may recognize the freedom of conscience of the individual in his innermost heart, if the individual is free, at the risk of his salvation, to refuse the faith, it does not follow that he can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to hell. So, the SJWs respects the freedom of conscience of individuals, but not the freedom of expression of false doctrines.
-----------------------------------------------------------------



For this who are wondering, the actual text is below. It is illuminating how consistent humanity’s inquisitorial urge is over the centuries. The espoused cause may differ, but the self –righteous refusal to agree to disagree, the desire to burn the heretic rather than submit to democratic debate is consistent.


In the true Gospel there is nothing to be seen of that moral and doctrinal laxity which the modernists qualify as "tolerance" or as "liberty of conscience." Christ was patient and merciful with repentant sinners, but He never recognized any right of error and He exposed obstinate propagators of error to public condemnation. The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of our Lord.

But if the Church recognizes the freedom of conscience of the individual in his innermost heart, if the individual is free, at the risk of his salvation, to refuse the faith, it does not follow that he can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to hell. So, the Church respects the freedom of conscience of individuals, but not the freedom of expression of false doctrines.


http://archives.sspx.org/against_sound_bites/defense_of_the_inquisition.htm

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm failing to see a point there, beyond the ignorant strategy of "If I change the words on this bad thing to your words, then you look like the bad thing."

 

[Giz]

I'm failing to see a point there, beyond the ignorant strategy of "If I change the words on this bad thing to your words, then you look like the bad thing."

Because on a skeptic debate forum and more generally in society, people have decided that freedom of expression should be curtailed based on their particular creed.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Sir, this is a Facebook thread.

 

[Giz]

Sir, this is a Facebook thread.

You might want to report the last 100 posts

 

[wareyin]

No, I don't report posts but I was wondering whether those people who do, did.

Go read the post for yourself to see whether I'm being "honest" in my characterization. It's not too far upthread, post #600.

I don't think your characterisation is honest, I don't think the post is saying what you claim it is, and so I didn't report it. See, you got an honest answer despite your dishonest framing.

 

[Stout]

I don't think your characterisation is honest, I don't think the post is saying what you claim it is, and so I didn't report it. See, you got an honest answer despite your dishonest framing.

What ? You don't equate the "final solution" with genocide and mass murder ?

Really ?

 

[Bouncing Bettys]

Is there not something to be said for trying to prevent such acts from happening in the first place? Especially when such acts may result in the deaths of many innocent people?

Do we always have to cure, rather than prevent?

Curtailing freedoms, deplatforming, etc seem to marginalize individuals, push them into echo chambers, and towards radicalization. Allowing bad ideas to be expressed and challenged civilly is just one of the steps in changing minds.

If you wish to prevent people from becoming racist, I imagine addressing the underlying social and economic issues would be the best way to go about it.

 

[wareyin]

What ? You don't equate the "final solution" with genocide and mass murder ?

Really ?

If that's your honest take on it, report it. As it stands you appear to be simultaneously claiming that it is not worth reporting and that it's one of the most egregious rule violations here.

You may see why I don't believe your characterisation.

 

[wareyin]

Curtailing freedoms, deplatforming, etc seem to marginalize individuals, push them into echo chambers, and towards radicalization. Allowing bad ideas to be expressed and challenged civilly is just one of the steps in changing minds.

If you wish to prevent people from becoming racist, I imagine addressing the underlying social and economic issues would be the best way to go about it.

Ah, yes, civil debates do so much to change people's minds. Racism, religion, favorite flavor ice cream, all these things can easily be changed by civil debates.

 

[Bouncing Bettys]

Ah, yes, civil debates do so much to change people's minds. Racism, religion, favorite flavor ice cream, all these things can easily be changed by civil debates.

You're right. If basic factors like reading comprehension can cause an argument to fail, what hope is there for civil debate.

Curtailing freedoms, deplatforming, etc seem to marginalize individuals, push them into echo chambers, and towards radicalization. Allowing bad ideas to be expressed and challenged civilly is just one of the steps in changing minds.

If you wish to prevent people from becoming racist, I imagine addressing the underlying social and economic issues would be the best way to go about it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, I don't report posts but I was wondering whether those people who do, did.

Go read the post for yourself to see whether I'm being "honest" in my characterization. It's not too far upthread, post #600.

post # 600:

It sure would be. Those of us able to share and live in peace would be better off for sure.

But I'm not talking about necessarily locking them up. What we need is a final solution to the racist question.

"A final solution" is too vague to be actionable, IMO, especially in this context.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What ? You don't equate the "final solution" with genocide and mass murder ?

Really ?

It can be, but it can also mean other kinds of solutions. And in this context I don't see anyone gathering up an army.

 

[ahhell]

Seriously? I assume it was just a dark joke but "final solution" in a discussion of far right groups and you really don't see that its a pretty clear allusion to "the final solution"?

I find this hard to believe.

 

[Stout]

post # 600:
"A final solution" is too vague to be actionable, IMO, especially in this context.

Oh come on ! What do you get when you google the words "final solution" ? A cheezy song by a band called Europe ?

An upstanding and progressive poster has made the type of post that would not only get you banned from Facebook but a visit from the FBI as well.

Brain bleach, for The Final Countdown.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Your point isn't much of one. Perhaps if instead of irrelevant examples you posted examples of things FB has banned that you don't think they should have?

 

[smartcooky]

You mean taking action to prevent harm to others is a bad thing? Or taking action to prevent harmful ideas from spreading is a bad thing? I'm not clear where you are getting "prosecute" from, since we are discussing racist groups no longer having the privilege of using Facebook to spread their hate.

Because in "Free Speech Racist" world there is no nuance. From the point of view of scumbag racists, bigots and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones, a privately owned platform deciding that they no longer want to host them = censorship.

To racists, bigots and conspiracy theorists, "Censorship" means any reduction their Deity-given right to say what they like, where they like, when they like, and to spread their vile filth.