4 ms·
> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others. "Speech that harms people"
by yegle 8y ago
> To the people that say "Where does it end?" – that's pretty easy. Let's start with curbing speech that encourages harming others.
"Speech that harms people" and "speech that hurt people's feelings" are so closely related and sometimes people (intentionally or unintentionally) mix them up.
- ianleeclark 8y agoAre you saying that white supremacists only hurt people's feelings and does not have real and tangible outcomes? Look to Christchurch or the innumerable attacks/murders/gig economy fascism in the US perpetrated by the far right.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- yegle 8y agoNO, that's ABSOLUTELY not the case. If you are looking for examples, search HN comments that begin with "I'm hesitated to say this but" or "I know this sounds XXX"
- ng12 8y agoThat's a fallacious argument. You could make the same argument about pro-Islamist sentiment (which is all over FB if you know where to look).
- Veraticus 8y agoIt's not fallacious: pro-ISIS stuff is already banned on Facebook so it's literally exactly the same standard.
- pathseeker 8y agopro-Islamist != pro-ISIS. It is completely fallacious.
- Veraticus 8y agoYou're right the two aren't equal, that's why pro-ISIS content is banned and pro-Islam content isn't! In fact, you could generalize this to a rule: extremist philosophies advocating violence are banned on Facebook. Islam isn't an extremist philosophy advocating violence as practiced by most of its adherents. But the parts of it that are (ISIS for example) are banned. Similar to white nationalism. Where exactly is the fallacy?
- ng12 8y agoWhat makes the political aspects of Islam any less extremist than White Separatism? It sounds to be like Facebook has brought down the banhammer on the non-violent part of that as well.
- Veraticus 8y agoThere is no non-violent component of white nationalism. It advocates the extermination of non-white people. If you think otherwise you are either a white nationalist or seriously misinformed.
- ng12 8y agoThe problem is your definition of "white nationalism". The article explains the difference between violent white supremacy and white nationalism: > Our policies have long prohibited hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion — and that has always included white supremacy. We didn’t originally apply the same rationale to expressions of white nationalism and separatism because we were thinking about broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — things like American pride and Basque separatism, which are an important part of people’s identity.
- Veraticus 8y agoLiterally the next sentence you neglected to quote says this: > But over the past three months our conversations with members of civil society and academics who are experts in race relations around the world have confirmed that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organized hate groups. There is no meaningful difference between white nationalism, white separatism, white supremacy, and hate groups. They are the same thing. So... I mean... did you read the article?
- pathseeker 8y ago>Are you saying that white supremacists only hurt people's feelings and does not have real and tangible outcomes? Are you going to extend that same logic to devout religious followers that want a government aligned with their religion and think non-followers should be forcefully re-educated or killed?
- ratling 8y ago> "Speech that harms people" and "speech that hurt people's feelings" are so closely related and sometimes people (intentionally or unintentionally) mix them up. Maybe make this argument when we aren't talking about literal Nazis. Advocating harm is their entire schtick.