• 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

Baylor said:
The Muslims of middle Eastern ethnicity are not Dutch any more than George Orwell was Indian or Richard Dawkins is Kenyan.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

For a start, both India and Kenya were effectively ruled by Britain at the times of the respective births of Blair and Dawkins. so the situations are not comparable. Either of them would have been entitled to claim nationality of where they were born, if they had chosen to.

By your reasoning, you're not American.
 
Stacko said:
Twitter hid from the same problem.
Click to expand...

Damn, I had come here to post this.

Um, yes, it likely would auto-ban quite a few republicans, I agree. I also think that this is fully appropriate.

Steve King: "Why oh why was I banned from Twitter? Are you censoring conservatives?"

Jack: "Let's see...Ah, it seems you posted 'the fourteen words" repeatedly, rep. King."

Substitute Bannon, Miller, Dolt 25, whoever for King.
 
Mumbles said:
Um, yes, it likely would auto-ban quite a few republicans, I agree. I also think that this is fully appropriate.
Click to expand...
WOW! Somebody sure piled the grease on that slope!

From Nazis, the censorship now applies to Republicans (and presumably any other non-left wing views).
 
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.

I'm not falling for GOB's illusions. Bill Weld, Rick Wilson, Tim Scott, and Marco Rubio, to name a few, would be fine. For that matter, so would Twitter user blackrepublican, who goes into the GOP's racial problems in great detail - a lesson that many republicans desperately need.

But Steve King? Despicable Donald? They're both obviously white supremacists who post white supremacist memes and phrases, so of course they'd get caught up in any effort to ban white supremacists.
 
psionl0 said:
WOW! Somebody sure piled the grease on that slope!

From Nazis, the censorship now applies to Republicans (and presumably any other non-left wing views).
Click to expand...

It's not who you are, but what you do.
 
psionl0 said:
WOW! Somebody sure piled the grease on that slope!
Click to expand...

Someone sure did... it was you with the tin of Valvoline and the oily rag...


psionl0 said:
From Nazis, the censorship now applies to Republicans (and presumably any other non-left wing views).
Click to expand...


"quite a few Republicans" >>>>>> "Republicans"

Indeed... looks like you have got yourself a set of motorised goalposts!
 
Why Won’t Twitter Treat White Supremacy Like ISIS? Because It Would Mean Banning Some Republican Politicians Too.
[...]
At a Twitter all-hands meeting on March 22, an employee asked a blunt question: Twitter has largely eradicated Islamic State propaganda off its platform. Why can’t it do the same for white supremacist content?
[...]
With every sort of content filter, there is a tradeoff, he explained. When a platform aggressively enforces against ISIS content, for instance, it can also flag innocent accounts as well, such as Arabic language broadcasters. Society, in general, accepts the benefit of banning ISIS for inconveniencing some others, he said.
[...]
The employee argued that, on a technical level, content from Republican politicians could get swept up by algorithms aggressively removing white supremacist material. Banning politicians wouldn’t be accepted by society as a trade-off for flagging all of the white supremacist propaganda, he argued.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...-mean-banning-some-republican-politicians-too
 
Because as we all know, Hate Speech Laws stopped Matteo Salvini, Jair Bolsonaro and other Far Right Demagogues from winning elections. I sometimes get the impression that liberal parties, facing defeat everywhere across the planet, are getting desperate and want to freeze everything at The End of History forever. Except it's too late for that.
 
Last edited:
Mumbles said:
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.
Click to expand...
You may have only named a handful of republicans now but as sure as water is wet, that list is going to grow. The net will also widen to include those who are sympathetic to these views and even to those who don't condemn those views strongly enough.
 
psionl0 said:
Actually you said "Prove there are cases where political ideology is the only basis for closing accounts".

Even so, this is far too broad a brush. Any opinion could be interpreted by somebody as meaning they should commit violent acts. On that basis, half the posts in ISF might have to be deleted.
Click to expand...

Imagine if the dog of the neighbour of David Berkowitz had its own facebook account. There would be deranged killers everywhere!
 
Last edited:
psionl0 said:
You may have only named a handful of republicans now but as sure as water is wet, that list is going to grow. The net will also widen to include those who are sympathetic to these views and even to those who don't condemn those views strongly enough.
Click to expand...

Either you're painfully ignorant of what a slippery slope fallacy is, or you're deliberately getting it wrong. Which is it?
 
psionl0 said:
You may have only named a handful of republicans now but as sure as water is wet, that list is going to grow. The net will also widen to include those who are sympathetic to these views and even to those who don't condemn those views strongly enough.
Click to expand...

Ah! Now we have a proper "slippery slope" argument! Befoire you were just yelling about something nobody said.

Now then...

I am the Scum is correct, slippery slope arguments are fallacious by their very nature. It's perfectly acceptable to autoboot white supremacists and stop right there, and leave people that are merely "sympathetic" towards genocidal hate mongers around vto explain why, exactly, they view genocidal bigots as people to sympathize with.

Who knows, maybe they're one-time bigots who recovered and want to discuss how to get people out of that garbage - these people do exist, and some have even devoted their lives to the cause of helping others out of that space.
 
Mumbles said:
Notice how psionIO tries to shift from "quite a few Republicans", with clear and obvious examples given, to just "Republicans" as a general target.

<snip>
Click to expand...


The man obviously knows Republicans better than we do.

Who are we to challenge his assumption that all Republicans are White Supremacist wackos?

I'm willing to take his word for it.
 
psionl0 said:
It is only a fallacy if you say that all slopes end in hell. It is not a fallacy to say that it doesn't stop here.
Click to expand...

Okay, it's the first option.

Educate yourself. If that doesn't work, then just drop the chicken little act and find an argument you're willing to substantiate.
 
dann said:
I think I can answer that one for Baylor. We all know him well enough by now.

You'd have to be a white Calvininist Protestant to qualify as proper Dutch in his universe, but even so, if you're a little left-leaning, that's a dealbreaker.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot the bit about something, something, childless bugmen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom