5 ms·

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people com

> There is no greater protection to vulnerable populations than transparency This is somewhat true, but your argument has a pretty big flaw. > When people communicate on a public platform unself consciously, they reveal themselves openly and freely This simply isn't true. You aren't revealing that you read this content. THe authors aren't always revealing themselves. Those who don't really do themselves any harm because they tend to be well established as white supremacists already. Richard Spencer doesn't care if someone calls him racist and evil. This is why people take photos and plaster them online when white supremacists march. People get recognized, that's the point where they can be called out. > Freedom of speech is a gift and a valuable tool. These people are radicalizing young men into committing violent acts. They should be banned the same way terrorist content has been removed from other platforms.

jelliclesfarm 8y ago
I think terrorist content is different from nationalism/racism. The latter is still a deeply held belief. Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. This is really a failure of state to install controls and protections from out of control elements. This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather than breakdown of society. One cannot make an entire society conform. To me, that’s terrorism too.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather than breakdown of society. You could say that Facebook has effectively privatized prior restraint, given the "town square" arguments made elsewhere in the thread. Great when we happen to agree with the views being restrained, I suppose.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  > The latter is still a deeply held belief and I need to kill the <undesirable group> isn't sincerely held? I think you have to believe pretty sincerely to be radicalized to the point of committing murder. > Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. Why? I was perfectly happy living in a society where that was not the case. Where freedom of expression is guaranteed, rather than absolute freedom of speech. It's not flawless, but it's better than nazis murdering people all the damn time.
  - jelliclesfarm 8y ago
    This action doesn’t have an impact. If one thinks racism will erode because Facebook redirects one to a page imploring one to not hate, then I don’t think one has been on the receiving end of racism at all. If anything..driving free speech..however hateful..to dark recesses with only a willing or curious audience ...and without the judge mental and opposite view in the public..will only make the situation worse. Nasties multiply faster when they are not witnessed. On a simple level, think of an ocd monologue about whether your malaise is flu...vs checking with a doctor and he declares you ill(or well). Being witnessed is a huge deal. It affects people’s opinion of themselves. It is well known that we behave better when we know we are being watched.
- azernik 8y ago
  > The latter is still a deeply held belief. And Salafi Jihadism isn't? I have some Saudis and Pakistanis I should introduce you to...
zcid 8y ago
> This is why people take photos and plaster them online when white supremacists march. People get recognized, that's the point where they can be called out. I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys" are willing to openly espouse their views while the opposing side frequently utilizes masks to hide their identity.
- anth_anm 8y ago
  > I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys" Friend, if you aren't willing to condemn the white supremacists as the bad guys I seriously question your decision making. There is zero value in maintaining this veneer of both sides being in any way the same.
  - zcid 8y ago
    I've talked to some people that didn't seem so much white supremacists as pro-white. They were mostly concerned about the willingness for society to ignore attacks on white people while vilifying the smallest transgressions against other groups. I've also seen the violence from the masked, hard-left types while never any initiated from the other side. At least in some parts of the US. I can't speak for what occurs in Europe.
    - DanBC 8y ago
      > I've also seen the violence from the masked, hard-left types while never any initiated from the other side. In Europe and the US the main sources of terrorism are i) the far right, ii) Islamic extremists, and then a long way behind iii) animal rights and environmental extremists. If you haven't seen far-right violence it's because you're not looking. It's pervasive.
      - zcid 8y ago
        I'm sure it (far-right violence) exists. But most of the videos I have seen online show antifa initiating violence. As far as I can tell, antifa seem to be the soldiers for the extreme left. Are we just more willing to accept their behavior because they are fighting for the "correct" side?

jelliclesfarm 8y ago

I think terrorist content is different from nationalism/racism. The latter is still a deeply held belief. Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. This is really a failure of state to install controls and protections from out of control elements. This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather than breakdown of society. One cannot make an entire society conform. To me, that’s terrorism too.

CamperBob2 8y ago
This is a breakdown of state measures to deter/punish unlawful acts and failure to protect WHEN actions occur rather than breakdown of society. You could say that Facebook has effectively privatized prior restraint, given the "town square" arguments made elsewhere in the thread. Great when we happen to agree with the views being restrained, I suppose.
anth_anm 8y ago
> The latter is still a deeply held belief and I need to kill the <undesirable group> isn't sincerely held? I think you have to believe pretty sincerely to be radicalized to the point of committing murder. > Regardless of how we feel about it, everyone has the right to feel love or hate or superiority. Why? I was perfectly happy living in a society where that was not the case. Where freedom of expression is guaranteed, rather than absolute freedom of speech. It's not flawless, but it's better than nazis murdering people all the damn time.
- jelliclesfarm 8y ago
  This action doesn’t have an impact. If one thinks racism will erode because Facebook redirects one to a page imploring one to not hate, then I don’t think one has been on the receiving end of racism at all. If anything..driving free speech..however hateful..to dark recesses with only a willing or curious audience ...and without the judge mental and opposite view in the public..will only make the situation worse. Nasties multiply faster when they are not witnessed. On a simple level, think of an ocd monologue about whether your malaise is flu...vs checking with a doctor and he declares you ill(or well). Being witnessed is a huge deal. It affects people’s opinion of themselves. It is well known that we behave better when we know we are being watched.
azernik 8y ago
> The latter is still a deeply held belief. And Salafi Jihadism isn't? I have some Saudis and Pakistanis I should introduce you to...

zcid 8y ago

> This is why people take photos and plaster them online when white supremacists march. People get recognized, that's the point where they can be called out. I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys" are willing to openly espouse their views while the opposing side frequently utilizes masks to hide their identity.

anth_anm 8y ago
> I've found it interesting that the supposed "bad guys" Friend, if you aren't willing to condemn the white supremacists as the bad guys I seriously question your decision making. There is zero value in maintaining this veneer of both sides being in any way the same.
- zcid 8y ago
  I've talked to some people that didn't seem so much white supremacists as pro-white. They were mostly concerned about the willingness for society to ignore attacks on white people while vilifying the smallest transgressions against other groups. I've also seen the violence from the masked, hard-left types while never any initiated from the other side. At least in some parts of the US. I can't speak for what occurs in Europe.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > I've also seen the violence from the masked, hard-left types while never any initiated from the other side. In Europe and the US the main sources of terrorism are i) the far right, ii) Islamic extremists, and then a long way behind iii) animal rights and environmental extremists. If you haven't seen far-right violence it's because you're not looking. It's pervasive.
    - zcid 8y ago
      I'm sure it (far-right violence) exists. But most of the videos I have seen online show antifa initiating violence. As far as I can tell, antifa seem to be the soldiers for the extreme left. Are we just more willing to accept their behavior because they are fighting for the "correct" side?