Facebook bans far right groups

[wareyin]

Do you know the religion of all your neighbours ? If you do, I'm impressed. We tend not to discuss things like politics and religion at our block parties but maybe you do where you live.

I live in the bible belt of the USA. People put stickers of the church they attend on their cars around here.

I'd paint a swastika on your fence if I thought you were acting like a nazi.

That says more about you than about how your neighbor is acting.

 

[Stout]

I live in the bible belt of the USA. People put stickers of the church they attend on their cars around here.

So not exactly diverse then. Lots of Christians and ?

That says more about you than about how your neighbor is acting.

Yea so ? I think my neighbor is acting like a nazi, there's a MAGA hat in his front window.

 

[psionl0]

I guess if one's go to attack on a neighbor they dislike is a swastika or a burning cross or the like, maybe some (if not all) of that dislike stems from bigotry rather than any actions or attitude from the neighbor.

Or maybe they figure that this is the best way to make the neighbour from hell suffer.

 

[quadraginta]

No, it was just a bait and switch and not particularly helpful because conflicting scenarios like that don't normally exist in real life.

I have had bad neighbours in the past and they can really make your life a living hell. I fully understand somebody wanting to get back at an arse hole like that.

By painting a swastika on their fence?

Why not "Domineering Arrogant Prick"? That's what the guy was mad about, wasn't it?

Symbols have meaning. Some more than others. There are a lot of things he could have defaced the fence with without having to work his way up to a swastika.

The fact that it even occurred to him is disturbing. Doing it suggests motives beyond simple neighbor spat.

 

[quadraginta]

I live in the bible belt of the USA. People put stickers of the church they attend on their cars around here.

<snip>

That's so they won't get towed when they leave their car in the church parking lot while they're carpooling.

 

[psionl0]

By painting a swastika on their fence?

Why not "Domineering Arrogant Prick"? That's what the guy was mad about, wasn't it?

Symbols have meaning. Some more than others. There are a lot of things he could have defaced the fence with without having to work his way up to a swastika.

The fact that it even occurred to him is disturbing. Doing it suggests motives beyond simple neighbor spat.

Why did you pretend that the post just above yours didn't exist?

 

[wareyin]

Why did you pretend that the post just above yours didn't exist?

Not to speak for quadraginta, but probably because the post just above theirs didn't justify painting a swastika. Nothing really does, and the idea that it would be a "go-to" insult or way to get back at someone shows some serious racism/bigotry on the part of the painter.

 

[psionl0]

Not to speak for quadraginta, but probably because the post just above theirs didn't justify painting a swastika. Nothing really does, and the idea that it would be a "go-to" insult or way to get back at someone shows some serious racism/bigotry on the part of the painter.

Strawman. Nobody said anything about "justified". Your insistence that the facts don't matter and that this was purely racially motivated doesn't fly.

 

[smartcooky]

Strawman. Nobody said anything about "justified"..

Really?

Or maybe they figure that this is the best way to make the neighbour from hell suffer.

I have had bad neighbours in the past and they can really make your life a living hell. I fully understand somebody wanting to get back at an arse hole like that.

It matters. It makes all the difference.

Your spoiler didn't say that Fred "knew" that his neighbour was Jewish. And even if he did, your post made it clear that Fred only responded because he was provoked.

To me, these all look like attempts at justification.

 

[psionl0]

To me, these all look like attempts at justification.

The word "justified" doesn't appear in any of those quotes. In fact, the only time I used the word was in post #741 where I specifically denied that the attack was justified.

Your bait and switch tactic is a total failure.

 

[smartcooky]

The word "justified" doesn't appear in any of those quotes. In fact, the only time I used the word was in post #741 where I specifically denied that the attack was justified.

Oh please, spare me the BS, weasel words; you're better than that.

I don't have to actually say the word "justified" in order to convey to the reader/listener that I consider something to be justified.

justified
/ˈdʒʌstɪfʌɪd/
adjective
adjective: justified

1.
having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

Firstly, I can use other words...

advocate
champion
espouse
confirm
vindicate
warrant
affirm
assert
aver
avouch
avow
claim
contend
insist
plead
proclaim
profess
protest
state
argue
debate
discuss
emphasize
stress
underline
underscore

Secondly, I can use a phrase or a sentence that does not include "justified" or any of the words listed above, for example...

"I understand he had good reason to do that"
"I think that's a fair decision"
"I think he had it coming"
"I fully understand somebody wanting to get back at an arse hole like that."

All of these phrases are implying justification.

I don't know whether or not English is your first language, but I can tell you it is a lot more complicated and nuanced than you are pretending it is.

Your bait and switch tactic is a total failure.

Others here disagree.

I think it successfully illustrates that things people do cannot always be taken in isolation... context matters! I consider the fact that you are still bleating about it, to be confirmation of that success.

 

[psionl0]

Oh please, spare me the BS, weasel words;
< --- snip --- >

No matter how many dictionaries you consult, you can't escape the fact that I said "Not that this makes the attack justified . . . ."

I consider the fact that you are still bleating about it, to be confirmation of that success.

So the fact that you and others have been bleating about it for 2 pages proves nothing?

 

[luchog]

Well then, they could have a system in which users may have a "Verified Account", where you can volunteer to supply that information if you choose to, and in return, Facebook would display a nice big "Account Verified" logo next to your name. Other users can then weight their decision as to how real you are.

Like what Twitter does.

I think that's a marginally better approach, but still a bit problematic.

Unfortunately, I don't really see a good solution to the problem that both maintains the protection of anonymity for those who need it, while providing accountability for those who abuse it. Any solution is going to depend on the individual, subjective judgements of individuals who will, consciously or unconsciously, enforce their own worldviews and agendas, as we see with Facebook's moderation team.

My own personal preference is to err on the side of anonymity, but I cannot give a particularly compelling reason to do so.

 

[luchog]

No matter how many dictionaries you consult, you can't escape the fact that I said "Not that this makes the attack justified . . . ."

So the fact that you and others have been bleating about it for 2 pages proves nothing?

The problem with your denial is that everyone reading it can see the huge, implied, "but" present in so many of the other highlighted comments that followed it.

And I think you know exactly what "but" that is.

If that was not intended, then perhaps you should consider that the problem is how you're wording your comments, not other peoples' interpretations of them.

 

[luchog]

And the thing is, the algorithm seems to send these sorts of far-left and far-right conspiracy video links to just about everyone. Sometimes I hesitate to click on a video on Youtube that I disagree with just because it might attract more in my suggestions, but it doesn't seem to make much of a difference.

Because of the number of people who do click on them, who do follow them. The more popular something is in general, the more the Facebook and Youtube algorithms will shop them around, hoping to generate even more clicks, and retain more attention from a population with a shrinking attention span.

I get all sorts of random crap showing up in my Youtube feed, and it's always crap with a whole lot of views. Most of it is, fortunately, pop-culture pablum; mainly because I steadfastly avoid politics on Youtube, and mostly avoid "re-sharing" content on Facebook (I'm not on Twitter, but if I was, I would definitely not re-twit anything political there).

Hate gets views. That is something that most long-time Youtubers, especially content-creators, are aware of. People love to join mobs. Even (especially?) lynch mobs. The mob provides a sense of belonging, of camaraderie, and of a united front against the Wrong, the Other. Controversy in general draws attention, but hate in particular, because it's such an intense emotion. It generates outrage, both on those who agree, and those who disagree; and the latter are just as important for maintaining its popularity, because they are still driving viewership. Doesn't matter what the hate is about -- pop culture, sports, politics, religion, immigration, pizza toppings -- as long as it is something that people feel a strong emotional reaction to. A reaction which can be manipulated to gain views.

And the far-right understands this all too well. They know how the system works and know how to effectively manipulate it, what buttons to push to get views. And in the process, how to get the fence-sitters and politically less astute to, if not join their side, then at least act as "useful idiots" in their defense. That's why they are pushing the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" angles so incredibly hard right now, despite being demonstrably opposed to both.

 

[smartcooky]

The problem with your denial is that everyone reading it can see the huge, implied, "but" present in so many of the other highlighted comments that followed it.

And I think you know exactly what "but" that is.

If that was not intended, then perhaps you should consider that the problem is how you're wording your comments, not other peoples' interpretations of them.

Stating "Thing A", then later saying "Things B, C and D" which undermine or obviate "Thing A", and then claiming you always meant "Thing A", makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to understand what you really mean.

 

[psionl0]

Stating "Thing A", then later saying "Things B, C and D" which undermine or obviate "Thing A", and then claiming you always meant "Thing A", makes it somewhat difficult for the reader to understand what you really mean.

Suggesting possible motives for why a person does something doesn't mean that you support what the person did. Claiming mitigating factors doesn't mean that you support what the person did.

 

[uke2se]

Suggesting possible motives for why a person does something doesn't mean that you support what the person did. Claiming mitigating factors doesn't mean that you support what the person did.

To be clear, you support painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house if the painter feels the Jewish person is a domineering prick, and you don't think this is a hate crime?

 

[psionl0]

To be clear, you support painting a swastika on a Jewish person's house if the painter feels the Jewish person is a domineering prick, and you don't think this is a hate crime?

*slowly* n-n-n-n-o-o-o-o.

Defacing a neighbour's propery is not justified under any circumstances. However, if you are going to add provocation and arse-holery into the mix then you can't classify the retaliation as a hate crime anymore.

 

[uke2se]

*slowly* n-n-n-n-o-o-o-o.

Defacing a neighbour's propery is not justified under any circumstances. However, if you are going to add provocation and arse-holery into the mix then you can't classify the retaliation as a hate crime anymore.

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.