• 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

uke2se said:
Ok, so you don't support it but it isn't a hate crime?

Well, luckily I very much doubt any court in any country with hate crime legislation would agree with you, as your position is utterly ludicrous.
Click to expand...
*slowly* p-r-o-v-o-c-a-t-i-o-n - a-n-d - a-r-s-e - h-o-l-e-r-y
 
psionl0 said:
*very slowly* p---r---o---v---o---c---a---t---i---o---n --- a---n---d ---- a---r---s---e --- h---o---l---e---r---y
Click to expand...

I can't be arsed to keep up this cute game anymore. Suffice to say, provocation doesn't absolved a person from a hate crime. It could be seen by a court as an extenuating circumstance when considering whether or not a crime has been committed, but because the person chose to paint a swastika, I very much doubt there's a court in the world that would aquit the person.

Had he painted "you provocative ********" it wouldn't have been a hate crime, but if he'd painted "you provocative Jew ********" it would have been. Do you see the difference?
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
*very slowly* p---r---o---v---o---c---a---t---i---o---n --- a---n---d ---- a---r---s---e --- h---o---l---e---r---y
Click to expand...


Here's the thing.

If I were to decide I wanted to express my displeasure at a neighbor for being an ******* by painting something on their fence (Which I can't see myself doing. I would hope I could be more creative. :)), I would never consider doing it by painting a swastika.

Lots of things come to mind, but a swastika just isn't one of them.

A swastika is (these days, aside from traditional uses in India) pretty much always a hate symbol. No amount of dissembling is going to change that.

Unless you are suggesting that the swastika was intended as a good luck symbol then there aren't really any alternatives.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Maybe adults don't need to "get back" at people.
Click to expand...

Yes, I much prefer face to face screaming and yelling, especially over a distance so he whole neighbourhood gets involved and maybe, just maybe, someone will call the police.

I've had much success with this technique when reasoning simply won't work and I've come to the conclusion that the only thing crazy really understands is more crazy.

I have to confess to fantasies about building a trebuchet to deal with annoying neighbours but I've never gotten past looking up the plans on how to build one and selecting a site for one.
 
Holy Crap !!

I always suspected there was something "off" about the OK symbol. I mean just look at all those smug ass SCUBA divers swaggering around with their wetsuits unzipped to the waist and baring their chests like well, nazis.

But the hashtag

That's something I had absolutely no idea about. It all makes sense now.

FASHTAG.

Damn nazi Twitter. It was a plot all along. Good thing I don't use it or I might expect a swastika painted on my fence
 
Stout said:
Holy Crap !!

I always suspected there was something "off" about the OK symbol. I mean just look at all those smug ass SCUBA divers swaggering around with their wetsuits unzipped to the waist and baring their chests like well, nazis.
Click to expand...


The problem with these sorts of hoaxes is that they tend to get taken seriously by the people they're supposedly satirizing.

Using the OK gesture as a "white power" sign started as yet another 4Chan hoax; but was very quickly picked up by various neo-Nazi and other white nationalist groups, who didn't quite realize they were being trolled.

Now, a slight variation of the gesture is being used, in all seriousness, as a white power sign by white nationalists. What started as a hoax very quickly became reality.

I doubt anything similar will happen for the hash sign, given how ubiquitous and necessary it is in many different contexts. This one is likely to stay nothing more than a joke.
 
luchog said:
The problem with these sorts of hoaxes is that they tend to get taken seriously by the people they're supposedly satirizing.

Using the OK gesture as a "white power" sign started as yet another 4Chan hoax; but was very quickly picked up by various neo-Nazi and other white nationalist groups, who didn't quite realize they were being trolled.

Now, a slight variation of the gesture is being used, in all seriousness, as a white power sign by white nationalists. What started as a hoax very quickly became reality.

I doubt anything similar will happen for the hash sign, given how ubiquitous and necessary it is in many different contexts. This one is likely to stay nothing more than a joke.
Click to expand...

I think the White Power guys got in on the act after they realised that some people fell for the hoax.
Now we have the complete merger between troll internet-culture and terrorism since the Christchurch shooter did the OK sign.

I bet little edgelords are planning to make 'good morning' a Nazi dog-whistle whilst doing bong-hits and gulping energy drinks.
 
uke2se said:
I can't be arsed to keep up this cute game anymore. Suffice to say, provocation doesn't absolved a person from a hate crime. It could be seen by a court as an extenuating circumstance when considering whether or not a crime has been committed, but because the person chose to paint a swastika, I very much doubt there's a court in the world that would aquit the person.

Had he painted "you provocative ********" it wouldn't have been a hate crime, but if he'd painted "you provocative Jew ********" it would have been. Do you see the difference?
Click to expand...
It is nice of you to make this concession but you are still missing the bigger picture.

There should be no place in the legal system for "hate crime" laws. It is such a vague term that it could literally be used against anybody for anything they might say or do. And the penalties are nothing to be sneezed at either. Going along with such jack-bootery just creates a climate of fear and mistrust.

"Intent to cause fear/harm/etc" is a much better way to word such laws. I guess the main objection is that intent needs to be proved. In the example given, if it could be established that guy knew that his neighbour was Jewish then that would probably be enough. I'm not convinced that just painting a swastika on a random person's fence is enough to show intent but others may see it differently.
 
psionl0 said:
It is nice of you to make this concession but you are still missing the bigger picture.

There should be no place in the legal system for "hate crime" laws. It is such a vague term that it could literally be used against anybody for anything they might say or do. And the penalties are nothing to be sneezed at either. Going along with such jack-bootery just creates a climate of fear and mistrust.

"Intent to cause fear/harm/etc" is a much better way to word such laws. I guess the main objection is that intent needs to be proved. In the example given, if it could be established that guy knew that his neighbour was Jewish then that would probably be enough. I'm not convinced that just painting a swastika on a random person's fence is enough to show intent but others may see it differently.
Click to expand...

Can you walk me through the "psionl0" world differences between what you want and what the rest of the world wants? I mean, *any* attempt to get back at a neighbor that you think is being enough of a jerk is going to be an attempt to cause harm, and likely an attempt to cause fear. It seems like there is absolutely no way to show a difference between making your neighbor suffer and intent to cause fear/harm/etc. And so, any racist jackhole would never, under your desired terms, be on the hook for the more egregious hate-crime, so long as you could get him for the slap on the wrist property crime.

I mean, under your desired system, any out and out racist who is actually committing a hate-crime, with the full on intent to blatantly communicate his intent to cause the fear and harm that these images are known and explicitly used to cause would be treated exactly the same as Billy-bob spray-painting his undying love of Charlene on the Jewish guy's fence. Surely you can recognize that this would be a failure of justice?
 
luchog said:
Now, a slight variation of the gesture is being used, in all seriousness, as a white power sign by white nationalists. What started as a hoax very quickly became reality.
Click to expand...
Is that the American Sign Language sign for "*******"? That which is described in Wikipedia as "The well-known OK gesture, when held with the thumb on top at the level of the chest"?
 
psionl0 said:
It is nice of you to make this concession but you are still missing the bigger picture.

There should be no place in the legal system for "hate crime" laws. It is such a vague term that it could literally be used against anybody for anything they might say or do. And the penalties are nothing to be sneezed at either. Going along with such jack-bootery just creates a climate of fear and mistrust.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand. It's the climate of fear and mistrust that hate crime laws are designed to combat. Before hate crime laws, blatant intimidation against minorities went unpunished because no laws applied. Alternatively, the offender got a slap on the wrist.

psionl0 said:
"Intent to cause fear/harm/etc" is a much better way to word such laws. I guess the main objection is that intent needs to be proved. In the example given, if it could be established that guy knew that his neighbour was Jewish then that would probably be enough. I'm not convinced that just painting a swastika on a random person's fence is enough to show intent but others may see it differently.
Click to expand...

It's not a random person. It's the person's Jewish neighbour.

You are dead wrong about this psionl0. I hope you come to understand that someday.
 
I for one find Twitter "threads" annoying to scroll through, compared to actual self-contained blog pages. But I understand why they exist and are used. This is the beginning of a quite interesting thread, I think, that demonstrates how social media is used by white nationalist groups to find conservatives and slowly radicalize and then recruit them into supporters of blatantly extremist views.
 
Checkmite said:
I for one find Twitter "threads" annoying to scroll through, compared to actual self-contained blog pages. But I understand why they exist and are used. This is the beginning of a quite interesting thread, I think, that demonstrates how social media is used by white nationalist groups to find conservatives and slowly radicalize and then recruit them into supporters of blatantly extremist views.
Click to expand...

A bit of good leg-work there to highlight the path of radicalization that people like Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are very much a part of.

The biggest counter argument in that thread against Shapiro being part of this is "but-but Shapiro is Jewish". He's a useful idiot is what he is.
 
uke2se said:
A bit of good leg-work there to highlight the path of radicalization that people like Shapiro and Jordan Peterson are very much a part of.

The biggest counter argument in that thread against Shapiro being part of this is "but-but Shapiro is Jewish". He's a useful idiot is what he is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the "gotcha' most apologists try to use; but it doesn't work because again, the alt-right is there to bridge that gap. Not every ultra-right-wing extremist hates Jews specifically. You've got any number of disparate groups, from the urbanite who actually wears a Nazi swastika necklace and throws livestreamed birthday parties for "Uncle Addy", to god-fearing rural hick who just hates n-words and holds onto a stash of Confederate bills for the day when the south Rises Again. You've got Christian dominionists who think a full-scale war needs to be deliberately provoked in Palestine so Jesus can come back sooner, and you've got educated atheist vloggers who in the pre-gamergate days spent most of their time making fun of exactly those people. Groups that 20 or even 10 years ago would've been openly antagonistic of each other.

The function of the alt-right is effectively to serve as a big tent under which all these people can gather. The mission statement is right there in the very name of the deadly Charlottesville alt-right rally: "Unite the Right".
 
Checkmite said:
I for one find Twitter "threads" annoying to scroll through, compared to actual self-contained blog pages. But I understand why they exist and are used. This is the beginning of a quite interesting thread, I think, that demonstrates how social media is used by white nationalist groups to find conservatives and slowly radicalize and then recruit them into supporters of blatantly extremist views.
Click to expand...


Good bit of online journalism there. I've seen that path happen with my own family; but from a religious proto-dominionist angle. My mother is convinced that Trump is "G-D's annointed", and for the longest time I couldn't talk to her at all without having to listen to her preach about him. Her FB page became flooded with Breitbart conspiracy theories and crap. Eventually I simply cut ties and don't talk to her much anymore. It's really saddening.
 
luchog said:
Good bit of online journalism there. I've seen that path happen with my own family; but from a religious proto-dominionist angle. My mother is convinced that Trump is "G-D's annointed", and for the longest time I couldn't talk to her at all without having to listen to her preach about him. Her FB page became flooded with Breitbart conspiracy theories and crap. Eventually I simply cut ties and don't talk to her much anymore. It's really saddening.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hear that. My mother has just voted for our batpoop-insane right-wing populists, but thankfully she doesn't preach it.
My mom is suddenly on team "the climate has always changed, so climate change is no big deal".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom