Facebook bans far right groups

[Eddie Dane]

Really ? Nobody has challenged this ?

No, in Nazism the deaths were/are not the goal. They're the twisted MEANS to the goal. The goal was/is their ideal of a utopian society.

The distinction is not nearly as sharp as you'd like it to be.

Yeah, but the murdery parts are explicit rather than implicit.

And there is no escape. You can't change ethnicity, you can change social class.

 

[Darat]

Really ? Nobody has challenged this ?



No, in Nazism the deaths were/are not the goal. They're the twisted MEANS to the goal. The goal was/is their ideal of a utopian society.



The distinction is not nearly as sharp as you'd like it to be.

The goal was to have no one they considered inferior, that could only be achieved by killing those they considered inferior, their goal can't be separated from their means, they are one and the same.

 

[smartcooky]

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!

 

[smartcooky]

The goal was to have no one they considered inferior, that could only be achieved by killing those they considered inferior, their goal can't be separated from their means, they are one and the same.

Yep. Grey2000 has obviously never heard of the Wannsee Conference, and what the Nazi's did there, which was to decide;

What they were going to do.
How they were going to do it.
Who they were going to do it to.

 

[luchog]

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.

Tolerance is not a moral absolute, it is a peace treaty.

Those who do not respect the peace treaty are not protected by it.

Taking "rights" as absolutes ultimately means that no one can have rights, because rights are going to inevitably conflict. "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose," to quote a libertarian principle. If we cannot set appropriate boundaries for the exercise of rights, addressing the expected points of conflict with reasonable limitations and redress for violations, then we eventually only those strong enough to dominate in a conflict of rights will have them. At that point, they cease to become rights, and end up becoming privileges accorded only to the strongest, Might Makes Right(s).

We've seen this happen far too often. It happened in Nazi German, and it's happened numerous times throughout the US with the suppression of the rights of indigenous peoples, African slaves, and continues to happen to this day.

We already accept a large number of limitations on the exercise of our rights.

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".

As a society we decide what the limitations on rights need to be to ensure that people are free to live their lives as they see fit, to maintain personal autonomy, while protecting the equal rights of others to do the same. We protect rights up until they interfere with the equal rights of others. Being imperfect humans means that we don't always get it right -- for example, the GW Bush administration's "free speech zone" legislation -- but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We cannot get it perfect, but we can make changes as needed, as it becomes clear that threats exist and we understand better how to counter them.

Ignoring threats and letting them grow unchecked has never been an adequate counter.

 

[Carlotta]

This American takes the neo-nazis very seriously! I live less than two hours from Charlottesville, which I know and love. Liberal academic city on a hill. They are not a joke!

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Maybe the following is of interest to the people in this thread:

I've been listening to some podcasts relevant to this discussion. (I use Podcast on iPhone).

I Don't Speak German.
The creators of this podcast follow a number of Alt-Right Youtube personalities and Podcasters and chart the world of the Alt-Right. kind of what I did myself some years ago, but better.
https://podtail.com/podcast/i-don-t-speak-german/
The creators are waaaaaaaaaay to the left of me, and I don't always agree with their views, but on the whole, it is a very good effort and worth your time IMHO.

Behind the Bastards
Podcast series about bad people, many of them on the far right.
https://www.behindthebastards.com/podcasts
The episodes about the US Nazi leader Rockwell was very interesting.
I used to think this guy was a joke (walking around in full Nazi uniform in 1960's America), but it seems he was actually very influential and pioneered extreme-right propaganda tactics that are very relevant today.
Highly recommended.

How many bad people on the far left have they covered.

It Could Happen Here
Explores the potential for the growing divisions in US society going 'hot'.
Looks at the militia movement, amongst other things.
https://podtail.com/podcast/it-could-happen-here/
Also highly recommended.

Do they cover ANTIFA?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I'll cosign luchog.

Y'all say "well what if they target leftist groups?" They have, for years. If you didn't notice, it's because you had no skin in the game, and you didn't care enough. Or, because you're a white nationalist yourself Either way

Wow, Farrakhan (who has a mixed and mostly negative record), along with Alex Jones and that Milo idiot.

You force me to defend Farrakhan.

What good deed did Jones or Milo ever do? Protect police from an antipathetic police force? Run off violent criminals? Even provide hope to people in prison, in exchange for allegiance to their weird cult?

Let's get to rights, I acnowledge that the NOI did, and *still* despise what they were, are, and will continue to be. And I've outlined what good they did, in this thread, while still saying that they were once, ultimately, helpful for good.

Can anyone say what Alex Jones, Spencer, or Milo whatever have done to help any community?

You likely cant. Other than the white nationalists screaming about him, I'd never speak a good word about him. As it is, I *have* to point out the good he's done, before condemning him.

We're actually fighting against a white nationalist, anti-Hispanic, anti-black, anti-LGBT move here. And the whiners are like the people who screamed at any black person attending a "white" college in the 60s. You're nothing new. The only question is wether or not society at large will accept it again. In the US...that's open to question.

Besides Farrakhan, who are some of the leftists who have been deplatformed?

 

[smartcooky]

Besides Farrakhan, who are some of the leftists who have been deplatformed?

Richard Dawkins
Ward Churchill
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Bob Casey
William Ayers
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Jonny Moseley
Doris Kearns Goodwin
Greg Mortenson
Michael Moore
Gary Yourofsky
Jeremiah Wright
Scott Ritter
Alice Walker
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Anna Quindlen
Roberta Wilhelm
Marvin Casey
Robert Trivers
John Corvino
David Corn
Robert Hagan
Anita Sarkeesian
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Stanley Tucci
Norman Finkelstein
Tom Paulin
Tony Kushner

That enough for ya? There's plenty more if you want (that lot is just half way down the the page of 10 pages)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Richard Dawkins
Ward Churchill
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Bob Casey
William Ayers
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Jonny Moseley
Doris Kearns Goodwin
Greg Mortenson
Michael Moore
Gary Yourofsky
Jeremiah Wright
Scott Ritter
Alice Walker
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Anna Quindlen
Roberta Wilhelm
Marvin Casey
Robert Trivers
John Corvino
David Corn
Robert Hagan
Anita Sarkeesian
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Stanley Tucci
Norman Finkelstein
Tom Paulin
Tony Kushner

That enough for ya? There's plenty more if you want (that lot is just half way down the the page of 10 pages)

You're claiming these people are banned from FB?

Did I misread your post? The first two I checked, Dawkins and Corn have current FB pages.

I could see Mumia Abu-Jamal having an issue, but Doris Kerns-Goodwin?

 

[smartcooky]

You're claiming these people are banned from FB?

Did I misread your post? The first two I checked, Dawkins and Corn have current FB pages.

I could see Mumia Abu-Jamal having an issue, but Doris Kerns-Goodwin?

Please look at the post I replied to!!!

Captain Howdy asked "who are some of the leftists who have been deplatformed?"

ALL of the people I listed are politically left or centre-left, and all had invitations for speaking engagements yanked after complaints from people on the right of the political spectrum.

Being banned from Facebook is not the only way of being deplatformed.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I suspect that from the perspective of most people in 2070 we are all extremists, though I don't hazard to guess in which direction(s).

Eating animals, I believe your descendents will be saying "I know she ate animals but she did invent totally safe, free endless energy production.." in much the way that we would say "George Washington kept slaves but did....."

"The fact that Xer cured cancer does not excuse their use of disposable plastics. The council has chosen to remove their statue. Those who object in writing, speech or thought shall be branded with the mark of Himmler and excluded from Universal Basic Income."

Been thinking about this series of posts the past few days, and brought up the ideas with someone yesterday too. Good contributions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Please look at the post I replied to!!!

Captain Howdy asked "who are some of the leftists who have been deplatformed?"

ALL of the people I listed are politically left or centre-left, and all had invitations for speaking engagements yanked after complaints from people on the right of the political spectrum.

Being banned from Facebook is not the only way of being deplatformed.

That's why I asked. All those !!! are uncalled for.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I wonder how the people in this thread feels about twenty years of US troops in Iraq, or the fact that asian factories need to install "suicide nets" so we can all get affordable smartphones.

This is a derail. But since you brought it up...one year of US troops in Iraq or anywhere in the middle east is a waste of valuable resources. There are no US interests in the middle east that cannot be achieved by buying them. Which we would have the money to do if we didn't keep spending it on trying to provoke Syria and Iran into a war. The only legitimate interest the US has in the middle east is to prevent "refugees' from entering Europe. Doing business with asian countries is bad karma. Until their human rights and animal right record is on par with our own, we shouldn't buy anything from them or sell anything to them. If that means iphones cost $5,000 then that is what we should pay for it

 

[CaptainHowdy]

The goal was to have no one they considered inferior, that could only be achieved by killing those they considered inferior, their goal can't be separated from their means, they are one and the same.

Your knowledge of history is seriously lacking. Nobody they considered inferior? Only achieved by killing those they considered inferior? Do you have a source for this?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Richard Dawkins
Ward Churchill
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Bob Casey
William Ayers
Mumia Abu-Jamal
Jonny Moseley
Doris Kearns Goodwin
Greg Mortenson
Michael Moore
Gary Yourofsky
Jeremiah Wright
Scott Ritter
Alice Walker
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Anna Quindlen
Roberta Wilhelm
Marvin Casey
Robert Trivers
John Corvino
David Corn
Robert Hagan
Anita Sarkeesian
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Stanley Tucci
Norman Finkelstein
Tom Paulin
Tony Kushner

That enough for ya? There's plenty more if you want (that lot is just half way down the the page of 10 pages)

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

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Please look at the post I replied to!!!

Captain Howdy asked "who are some of the leftists who have been deplatformed?"

ALL of the people I listed are politically left or centre-left, and all had invitations for speaking engagements yanked after complaints from people on the right of the political spectrum.

Being banned from Facebook is not the only way of being deplatformed.

No, being banned from Facebook and all the major platforms is deplatforming. I thought that was obvious.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, being banned from Facebook and all the major platforms is deplatforming. I thought that was obvious.

No, it's not.

To disinvite a speaker from an event, usually at a college or university campus, due to controversy surrounding their views.

Source

Okay, it's Urban Dictionary, but this source is up to date and accurate on slang terms originating from the Internet in a way that other sources are not.

 

[smartcooky]

No, being banned from Facebook and all the major platforms is deplatforming. I thought that was obvious.

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

 

[Ryokan]

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.

Yeah, I have a friend who got suspended from Facebook for a (humerous) rant about white men.