Facebook bans far right groups

[smartcooky]

Trump is a ridiculously bad dresser. Why can't he just get a suit that fits and not wear his tie hanging down to his scrotum?

Maybe he just needs to wear his tie shorter.....

 

[Bouncing Bettys]

Looks like a couple of racists got triggered by my little joke. How drole.

ETA: For those who need the joke explained, I used a Nazi-expression to demand the wholesale murder of all racists in an expression of what the Nazi-apologists would call free speech. As we can see, they didn't like it much. The difference between me and Nazis who use the expression to demand the murder of minorities is that I was joking.

Not to derail this thread any further but I'd be curious to know your thoughts, or anyone's for that matter, on Mark Meechan (CountDankula) attempting to prank his girlfriend by secretly training her pug to do a "Nazi salute" and the resulting arrest and sentencing by the courts.

I appreciate humour and no subject should be off limits. Refreshing to see it from both sides in the political climate we find ourselves in.

 

[wareyin]

Maybe he just needs to wear his tie shorter.....

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/oklylthznzd00m9/TrumpClownShortTie.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

Oh, come on, who would believe such an obvious caricature? Those hands are far too large for this picture to be taken seriously!

 

[smartcooky]

Not to derail this thread any further but I'd be curious to know your thoughts, or anyone's for that matter, on Mark Meechan (CountDankula) attempting to prank his girlfriend by secretly training her pug to do a "Nazi salute" and the resulting arrest and sentencing by the courts.

I appreciate humour and no subject should be off limits. Refreshing to see it from both sides in the political climate we find ourselves in.

OK, so lets add some background to give some context to this.

Taken in isolation, you'd be forgiven for thinking that what he did is just a joke, that his arrest and conviction was a gross overreach by authorities. However, as you know perfectly well, its not as straightforward as that.

1. For a few years now, Meechan has been a big supporter of UKIP, even campaigning for them in a few videos.

2. In March 2018, Meechan met with far-right leader Tommy Robinson prior to Robinson's jailing.

3. Robinson also protested outside the court when Meechan was sentenced.

4. On May 6, 2018 Meechan spoke at a far-right "March For Freedom" alongside Milo Yiannopoulos, Lauren Southern (via video link as she's banned from the UK), and UKIP leader Gerard Batten.

5. On 16 June 2018, Meechan announced that he had joined UKIP

6. In April 2019, Meechan said he intends to stand for MEP on behalf of UKIP in the upcoming 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. He was named fourth on UKIP's list in Scotland.

7. Meechan is an avid supporter of Alex Jones.

In my view, all of this taken together makes Meechan at worst, a white supremacist, or at best, a supporter of their cause. This kind of scum often use the expression "only joking" as a retrospective cover for their racism when they have been caught and called on it.

Now regardless of that, I still do think that it was a bit of an overreach, but not as much as I first thought - before I found out that Meechan had form.

 

[Mumbles]

I have to admit that kind of like the aesthetic Nation Of Islam has going. The whole smart suit with bowtie look really works. Although X wore it best.

Trump is a ridiculously bad dresser. Why can't he just get a suit that fits and not wear his tie hanging down to his scrotum?

I said that for a specific reason. There's the difference in fashion sense, the simple fact that Farrakhan wouldn't dream of serving guests room temperature fast food, he's far more well-spoken and charismatic (his audiences as well - this would make him vastly more dangerous were he white)...

And then there's this:


...and yet we pretend that Dolt 45, of all the clowns, is the sophisticated one, and Farrakhan the raving anti-Semite leftist (again, he's a far right reactionary, and not at all prone to raving. Clearly anti-Semitic, though). It's this sort of lazy acceptance of white supremacists that got us in the US our current idiot president, who now threatens more wars, massive tariffs, and massive social division - *actual*, violent division, not "Obama said his son would look like Trayvon, wah!"

Maybe Facebook, and quite a few other media outlets, should reconsider how they treat white supremacists compared to how they treat Farrakhan.

 

[carlitos]

In my view, all of this taken together makes Meechan at worst, a white supremacist, or at best, a supporter of their cause. This kind of scum often use the expression "only joking" as a retrospective cover for their racism when they have been caught and called on it.

Now regardless of that, I still do think that it was a bit of an overreach, but not as much as I first thought - before I found out that Meechan had form.

Wow. I had heard of the case but never looked into it. He was convicted of being "grossly offensive" under the Communications Act 2003. That's just insane. Holy crap.

Note - I'm sure that this guy is a total douchebag, but that doesn't matter to me.

 

[carlitos]

the simple fact that Farrakhan wouldn't dream of serving guests room temperature fast food,

When I was a kid, my mother and I were traveling in the city via bus and got caught in the rain. I was really young, like maybe 4. We ducked into a restaurant, and she ordered some kind of sandwich on "wheat bread," and the server informed her that they "didn't serve white bread," so don't worry. Turns out it was a NOI place. My mom loved to tell that story.

 

[dudalb]

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

The single thing I find most frightening to day is that more and more people on both the left and the right think they have a right..in fact, a moral duty..to surpress and punish those who they think might, is some way, be "Harmful To Society".

Or in other words, " I have a right to shut you up, you doubleplusungood crimethinker".

 

[dudalb]

I note that a couple of our resident Trump defenders are outraged that Facebook kicked out a couple of racist, and consider that a violation of free speech.
I wonder if they would be equally outraged if it had been a couple of Marxist Revolutionaries who had been kicked off. I really doubt it.

 

[tyr_13]

"Computer, identify the farthest-right Facebook group, and ban it."

COMPLETED

"Loop previous instruction."

WORKING...
WORKING...
NO GROUPS FOUND

"Computer, ban extremist groups that are clearly violating the TOS."

"Operation complete. 1,432 groups deleted out of 14,145,458."

 

[Stout]

Wow. I had heard of the case but never looked into it. He was convicted of being "grossly offensive" under the Communications Act 2003. That's just insane. Holy crap.

Note - I'm sure that this guy is a total douchebag, but that doesn't matter to me.

This is where all this censorship stuff is headed. Real criminal charges, not just some moral scold wagging their finger on the internet.

There's some sort unspoken of Chinese style social credit system on just who gets to make these jokes like 100 finger wags rewards you with the privlige of making mass murder jokes.

 

[luchog]

How do you think that racist attitudes of the past were changed? Was it because one day the government suddenly decided to change things? No! It was because the free exchange of ideas made this change possible.

Not quite. The "free exchange of ideas" on racism didn't really exist at that time. What changed the attitudes of the past was a relatively small minority of people agitating for change, organizing marches and protests, stating sit-ins and get-out-the-vote campaign, and building up enough momentum to convince elected officials to push through anti-discrimination and anti-segregation legislation, legislation which was actively opposed by the majority in many communities.

Said opposition was very often brutal and bloody, and many people died trying to achieve said equality. Sitting around talking about it didn't do it, people going out and getting themselves killed trying to make a change did.

Racism isn't countered much by "the free exchange of ideas", because there really aren't any ideas to be exchanged from the racist's point of view, there is only emotion and rationalization. What counters racism most strongly is exposure to and interaction with other ethnicities, where one can experience the humanity of others, instead of merely being preached at about it. Racism, despite the justifications given for it, is ultimately based on fear, and only countering that fear with experience and exposure has any real effectiveness.

If you listen to a lot of the former neo-Nazis, those who have turned their back on other hate groups, and embraced a more progressive and less hateful outlook, one of the key factors was circumstances forcing them together with the objects of their hate. Not by "ideas" happening to drift by them while they were ensconced in their echo chambers.

One who did not live through or closely study those times tend to forget that nearly the entirety of American society was an echo chamber of sorts. Very little dissent and free speech was actually tolerated if it countered the jingoism, red-baiting, racist fear-mongering that dominated American culture at the time. The various media production codes, the red-scare witch-hunts, neighbors suspiciously spying on neighbors, and so on. It took work and blood to get to where we are today, not whinging about "free speech" and censorship.

got sucked into echo chambers before Facebook was a thing.

I think what people are failing to understand is that actions like Facebook banning racist, terrorist, and similar group is doing is breaking up those very echo chambers.

The "free exchange of ideas" is only possibly where ideas are exchanged. Social media echo chambers do not allow said free exchange, and those who are engaged in those echo chambers are not about to go seeking out other ideas.

When I was in my 20s, I very nearly ended up going down what we would now call an "Incel" rabbit hole. What prevented me from doing so was having people around who made the effort to call me on my BS, and verbally slap some sense into me; combined with going out and actually spending time with people, women in particular, and learning through experience how and why I was wrong.

If I had had one of the contemporary Incel communities to reinforce my anger and fear, then I very likely would have ended up far, far worse and never gotten myself out of the negative headspace that enabled it.

The same with my Evangelical religious-right upbringing. It was being forced out of that and into a wider society, where I could experience things from outside perspectives, that enabled me to turn my back on it.

That[/i] is why the far-right, religious terrorists, Incels, and other hate groups push so hard against allowing private companies like Facebook and Twitter and Reddit to remove their hate. They rely very heavily on having those echo chambers, having those communities reinforcing their fears and hatreds. They depend on those platforms for recruitment and reinforcement. That is why they have duped others into defending them as "free speech". They are not at all in favour of free speech. If you don't believe me, go hang out in one of these groups, try to "freely exchange" anti-racism, pro-LGBTQ, pro-feminism ideas. See how quickly you're shouted down and banned.

That's why religious groups are pushing so hard right now for "religious freedom" legislation that allows them to divorce themselves, and more importantly their children, from wider society. To create those echo chambers in charter schools, churches, businesses, and so on.

In order to learn and grow and "freely exchange" ideas, the echo chambers need to be broken up. Leaving them to fester and grow will not in any way serve any sort of "free exchange". As long as people are capable of finding sufficient numbers of others to reinforce their fears and hatreds, they are not going to be interested in "ideas" that oppose their own worldview.

 

[smartcooky]

I think what people are failing to understand is that actions like Facebook banning racist, terrorist, and similar group is doing is breaking up those very echo chambers.

The "free exchange of ideas" is only possibly where ideas are exchanged. Social media echo chambers do not allow said free exchange, and those who are engaged in those echo chambers are not about to go seeking out other ideas.

When I was in my 20s, I very nearly ended up going down what we would now call an "Incel" rabbit hole. What prevented me from doing so was having people around who made the effort to call me on my BS, and verbally slap some sense into me; combined with going out and actually spending time with people, women in particular, and learning through experience how and why I was wrong.

If I had had one of the contemporary Incel communities to reinforce my anger and fear, then I very likely would have ended up far, far worse and never gotten myself out of the negative headspace that enabled it.

The same with my Evangelical religious-right upbringing. It was being forced out of that and into a wider society, where I could experience things from outside perspectives, that enabled me to turn my back on it.

That[/i] is why the far-right, religious terrorists, Incels, and other hate groups push so hard against allowing private companies like Facebook and Twitter and Reddit to remove their hate. They rely very heavily on having those echo chambers, having those communities reinforcing their fears and hatreds. They depend on those platforms for recruitment and reinforcement. That is why they have duped others into defending them as "free speech". They are not at all in favour of free speech. If you don't believe me, go hang out in one of these groups, try to "freely exchange" anti-racism, pro-LGBTQ, pro-feminism ideas. See how quickly you're shouted down and banned.

That's why religious groups are pushing so hard right now for "religious freedom" legislation that allows them to divorce themselves, and more importantly their children, from wider society. To create those echo chambers in charter schools, churches, businesses, and so on.

In order to learn and grow and "freely exchange" ideas, the echo chambers need to be broken up. Leaving them to fester and grow will not in any way serve any sort of "free exchange". As long as people are capable of finding sufficient numbers of others to reinforce their fears and hatreds, they are not going to be interested in "ideas" that oppose their own worldview.

THIS.

Excellent post!

 

[luchog]

Oh, and going back to something I and others mentioned earlier about Facebook banning people for daring to fight back against white supremacism, yet another artist banned:

Facebook Bans Artist For Transforming MAGA Hats

 

[Baylor]

What choice is there, really?

For argument's sake, let's say you have a not-so-original business idea and buy a digital billboard on Times Square. You then let people put messages on the billboard via a website, interspersed with commercials.

I start posting MY content on YOUR platform, Giz Inc.

Only, my content is Holocaust denial, the charge that the Sandy Hook parents are crisis actors (along with their addresses) and that Rocco's Pizza place is holding kids captive in the basement (with address) and that Martin Luther King was a Jewish pawn.

What company policy are you as CEO of Giz Inc going to implement?

On the one hand, you own some of the most prominent advertising space in the country and it plays a big role in the national conversation. So you feel you should stick to principles of free speech. And people love the drama of the argument-counterargument that is giving your billboard a lot of attention.

On the other hand, some mentally ill person seems to have just shot up Rocco's Pizza with an M-16 while ranting about paedophiles and your billboard. And the phones are ringing off the hook with lawyers and what not, and your receptionist really, really, really wants you to take this call from this CNN producer and the whole office is staring at you, wondering how you're going to handle this.

Are you referring to Comet Ping Pong?

 

[Baylor]

Wow. I had heard of the case but never looked into it. He was convicted of being "grossly offensive" under the Communications Act 2003. That's just insane. Holy crap.

Note - I'm sure that this guy is a total douchebag, but that doesn't matter to me.

What are you basing this on? I don't know much about Count Dankula either but he appears to be of the "radical centrist" bunch. So you just call people "douchebags" even though you admit you have no reason to? You're just "sure" he is. Are you sure you're not just placating the far euroleft that controls this forum?

 

[Baylor]

The argument for censorship: These are private companies, they can choose what they let on their platforms
The argument against censorship: These platforms are so big that they are now where public discourse takes place, and should thus be seen as public utilities and we can invoke the US constitutional right to free speech.

The argument is more like:

The argument against censorship: These platforms were piggybacked off U.S. taxpayer funded infrastructure. And the technology was built on U.S. taxpayer funded research. So these companies have no right to censor political speech when their companies were built off the backs of the American taxpayer.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The argument is more like:

The argument against censorship: These platforms were piggybacked off U.S. taxpayer funded infrastructure. And the technology was built on U.S. taxpayer funded research. So these companies have no right to censor political speech when their companies were built off the backs of the American taxpayer.

By the same token, the US should be able to dictate drug prices.

 

[psionl0]

"Computer, identify the farthest-right Facebook group, and ban it."

COMPLETED

"Loop previous instruction."

WORKING...
WORKING...
NO GROUPS FOUND

I'm sure that after removing the farthest-right Facebook group, it would identify the next farthest-right Facebook group as the farthest-right Facebook group. Loop the instruction often enough and the farthest-left Facebook would ultimately be identified as the farthest-right Facebook group and after that was removed, there would be no groups left.

 

[psionl0]

No contradiction, I'm just bad at writing.

That might explain why sometimes it appears that you are arguing that private media companies should have the right to include or exclude racist extremists on their platform and at other times you appear to be arguing for the suppression of all racist views altogether.