4 ms·

I saw the above comment not as equating free speech supporters to white ethnic-nationalists, but as criticizing conflating white ethnic-nationalists with free s

I saw the above comment not as equating free speech supporters to white ethnic-nationalists, but as criticizing conflating white ethnic-nationalists with free speech supporters. There are a lot of people with ideas very different from mine who are not dangerous racists, and I’m happy to share a social network with them. The remainder can stay on stormfront, which continues to exist because of the free speech rights you refer to. (And which would presumably immediately ban anyone who arrived professing non-racist viewpoints).

aldoushuxley001 8y ago
Fair, but I would suggest that the above comment really is equating free speech supporters with white ethnic-nationalists. It's just implicit rather than explicit. To quote ashleyn: 'Very tired of this "free speech" refrain... facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists a platform or support their cause in any capacity' ashleyn may not have intended it, but their comment implies those who are using the "free speech" refrain are white ethnic-nationalists.
MrLeap 8y ago
I get the impression the guy above you is grey because people disagree with him more than him being off topic, or not adding to the discussion. I'm going to try my hand at going even more off topic. Not just to dick with people, but this thread made me think about it and I think it adds to the conversation. I've been playing a game that's basically a feudalism simulator recently, and I've found it interesting how familiar the dynamics of feudalism seem. I've started thinking about how the social contract that protected the tyrannies they were subject to still go on today. Transformed a bit, but not at all weakened. We have a court spymaster leaving, but making a final declaration to the noble houses that the kingdom he is leaving has a responsibility use its power to control some people more, some information less. Then the guy at the top of the comment chain is like a peasant (in the feudal sense, I'm not trash talking) who is happy to see his liege wield his tyranny against people he doesn't like. Then someone responds by pressing the power of another title (the first amendment). It's an uphill battle for him though. The empire (The United States) has nearly a hundred year precedent that the first amendment doesn't apply to kingdoms with a government type of "corporation". I don't have a strong opinion about this. I do miss my view of counter-racist action in the 90's. I liked the memory of black service members defending dirty racists from violence, and the caption on the image being something like "I don't agree with a damn thing you're saying but I signed up to protect your right to say it!" Stuff like that made me feel like we weren't just objectively right, but had a moral high-ground. More and more often it's feeling like a lesser of two evils.

aldoushuxley001 8y ago

Fair, but I would suggest that the above comment really is equating free speech supporters with white ethnic-nationalists. It's just implicit rather than explicit. To quote ashleyn: 'Very tired of this "free speech" refrain... facebook is under no legal obligation to extend white ethno-nationalists a platform or support their cause in any capacity' ashleyn may not have intended it, but their comment implies those who are using the "free speech" refrain are white ethnic-nationalists.

MrLeap 8y ago

I get the impression the guy above you is grey because people disagree with him more than him being off topic, or not adding to the discussion. I'm going to try my hand at going even more off topic. Not just to dick with people, but this thread made me think about it and I think it adds to the conversation. I've been playing a game that's basically a feudalism simulator recently, and I've found it interesting how familiar the dynamics of feudalism seem. I've started thinking about how the social contract that protected the tyrannies they were subject to still go on today. Transformed a bit, but not at all weakened. We have a court spymaster leaving, but making a final declaration to the noble houses that the kingdom he is leaving has a responsibility use its power to control some people more, some information less. Then the guy at the top of the comment chain is like a peasant (in the feudal sense, I'm not trash talking) who is happy to see his liege wield his tyranny against people he doesn't like. Then someone responds by pressing the power of another title (the first amendment). It's an uphill battle for him though. The empire (The United States) has nearly a hundred year precedent that the first amendment doesn't apply to kingdoms with a government type of "corporation". I don't have a strong opinion about this. I do miss my view of counter-racist action in the 90's. I liked the memory of black service members defending dirty racists from violence, and the caption on the image being something like "I don't agree with a damn thing you're saying but I signed up to protect your right to say it!" Stuff like that made me feel like we weren't just objectively right, but had a moral high-ground. More and more often it's feeling like a lesser of two evils.