5 ms·

I think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that?

by DuskStar 8y ago

fixermark 8y ago
That would likely depend heavily on whether the BP is calling for black nation separatism.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  And if they'd racked up over a hundred killings in a series of terrorist attacks in just three years.
dd36 8y ago
If they were regularly being implicated in terrorist attacks, yes.
drewrv 8y ago
The obvious analogy would be banning jihadi content, which it does.
- dominotw 8y ago
  White nationalism doesn't advocate killing all non-white nationalists. Bad take.
  - fixermark 8y ago
    Any white nationalism that advocates "a nation of their own" implicitly advocates such killing, because we're out of land. ... unless that philosophy explicitly states "... and we'll build that nation on the shores of Antarctica," there's a genocide implied.
    - RubberbandSoul 8y ago
      > because we're out of land. This argument is profoundly weird. There are more people living on Manhattan than in Montana.
      - fixermark 8y ago
        Correct, but the world is divided into nations already that use up 100% of the claimable useful territory. I can't imagine a non-violent process by which the United States carves up a chunk of Montana and goes "here you are separatists; have fun." That'd be inconvenient for the Montanans that own that land. ... and the US has some historical precedent regarding how it responds to separatists in general that isn't very promising. ;)
    - ewzimm 8y ago
      Nearly every group advocating white nationalism that I've seen, including both the lesser-known ones and people who get mainstream attention like Richard Spencer, talk about it in terms of what could be built up in a situation where existing governments break down. American advocates tend to see the country as on the brink of a civil war or some other destabilizing event, possibly due to environmental pressures or foreign attacks on infrastructure, and most famously the mythical "racial holy war" breaking out between ethnic groups. They see the movement toward either left or right identitarian politics as a sign that people are already realigning based on ethnic and cultural identities. By far the most common existing model I've heard reference for a theoretical white ethno-state is Israel. Non-white people would not be banned from participating in it, but it would exist with a mandate to serve the interests of a particular culture and people. In the same way that Jewish people can apply for automatic citizenship in Israel, people with European heritage would be given incentives to migrate and participate in the state. Of course, Israel did not come into being without war, and most white nationalists that I've seen anticipate future wars, but nearly all of them see an ethno-state as a response to war and destabilization rather than a cause of it. Most also advocate a peaceful migration of populations rather than forced or violent ones. The most common historical model for white nationalism is the United States itself. The country was not founded to serve the needs of every race and people equally, but the particular interests of white British colonists. Eglitarian movements participated in the creation, and the abolition movement pre-dates the founding of the country, but the overall effect of the specific policies and laws enacted prioritized the interests of white people, and policies implemented into the 20th century and even some today reflect this clearly. If we deny that countries like the USA were originally patriarchal white ethno-states that eventually allowed equal particpation for women and minorities after centuries of advocacy, we lose touch with history. Most people still recognize this, but it's often ignored, most often by people with center-right politics who would prefer that history more closely resembled the present. But those old traditions still have a strong pull on people, and the only way to argue against them is to admit that, for all of human history, most people have preferred to live around people who look like them and share a common culture. Moving toward a different type of social organization is extremely difficult and can't be done without discussing openly why people have tended to prefer it. Look at centuries of failed attempts at communes to see how difficult it is to get people to act against their natural inclinations. There are plenty of people with violent tendencies that would welcome ethnic wars. This is not restricted to white nationalists, but includes all sorts of people, and their motivations often intersect with other movements. The New Zealand shooter, for example, considered himself an "extreme Green" and killed people both because he interpreted them as a foreign invasion and because he wanted to oppose migrations that would lead to rises in population. This in itself does not mean environmentalism or advocating population declines is a dangerous movement. The particular aspects of his ideology advocating violence are dangerous, which is why there are rules specifically addressing calls to violence. This ban which states that expressions of racial pride is allowed but bans advocacy for a nation-state which prioritizes the needs of an ethnicity, and only if that ethnicity has light skin, raises some interesting questions. If the model for white nationalism is Israel, a nation that serves as the homeland for a particular, majority white people, does support for Israel qualify as white nationalism in this context? I'm sure Facebook won't interpret it that way, but there are stong anti-Israel movements that consider support for Israel over Palestine to be an expression of racism. How we handle these kinds of things moving forward is not at all clear.
koboll 8y ago
They should be able to ban whatever they want, as long as it isn't a protected class. So unless you can prove it was done with racial animus, sure.
danesparza 8y ago
The fact that you would find an equivalent with the Black Panthers is appalling. I would posit that if White Supremacy didn't exist, the Black Panthers likely wouldn't either. The reverse was not true for many decades.
- Macross8299 8y ago
  I don't think it's a particularly unfair comparison. Hate groups are still hate groups, regardless of "who started it." The SPLC considers some black nationalist groups (including offshoots/successors of the Black Panthers, which is relevant because there is no actual modern day "Black Panther Party") to be hate groups all the same.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that? Yes, Facebook should be allowed to ban people posting from before Facebook existed. OTOH, that's unlikely to be practical issue of any concern.

I think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that?

fixermark 8y ago

That would likely depend heavily on whether the BP is calling for black nation separatism.

hannasanarion 8y ago
And if they'd racked up over a hundred killings in a series of terrorist attacks in just three years.

dd36 8y ago

If they were regularly being implicated in terrorist attacks, yes.

drewrv 8y ago

The obvious analogy would be banning jihadi content, which it does.

dominotw 8y ago
White nationalism doesn't advocate killing all non-white nationalists. Bad take.
- fixermark 8y ago
  Any white nationalism that advocates "a nation of their own" implicitly advocates such killing, because we're out of land. ... unless that philosophy explicitly states "... and we'll build that nation on the shores of Antarctica," there's a genocide implied.
  - RubberbandSoul 8y ago
    > because we're out of land. This argument is profoundly weird. There are more people living on Manhattan than in Montana.
    - fixermark 8y ago
      Correct, but the world is divided into nations already that use up 100% of the claimable useful territory. I can't imagine a non-violent process by which the United States carves up a chunk of Montana and goes "here you are separatists; have fun." That'd be inconvenient for the Montanans that own that land. ... and the US has some historical precedent regarding how it responds to separatists in general that isn't very promising. ;)
  - ewzimm 8y ago
    Nearly every group advocating white nationalism that I've seen, including both the lesser-known ones and people who get mainstream attention like Richard Spencer, talk about it in terms of what could be built up in a situation where existing governments break down. American advocates tend to see the country as on the brink of a civil war or some other destabilizing event, possibly due to environmental pressures or foreign attacks on infrastructure, and most famously the mythical "racial holy war" breaking out between ethnic groups. They see the movement toward either left or right identitarian politics as a sign that people are already realigning based on ethnic and cultural identities. By far the most common existing model I've heard reference for a theoretical white ethno-state is Israel. Non-white people would not be banned from participating in it, but it would exist with a mandate to serve the interests of a particular culture and people. In the same way that Jewish people can apply for automatic citizenship in Israel, people with European heritage would be given incentives to migrate and participate in the state. Of course, Israel did not come into being without war, and most white nationalists that I've seen anticipate future wars, but nearly all of them see an ethno-state as a response to war and destabilization rather than a cause of it. Most also advocate a peaceful migration of populations rather than forced or violent ones. The most common historical model for white nationalism is the United States itself. The country was not founded to serve the needs of every race and people equally, but the particular interests of white British colonists. Eglitarian movements participated in the creation, and the abolition movement pre-dates the founding of the country, but the overall effect of the specific policies and laws enacted prioritized the interests of white people, and policies implemented into the 20th century and even some today reflect this clearly. If we deny that countries like the USA were originally patriarchal white ethno-states that eventually allowed equal particpation for women and minorities after centuries of advocacy, we lose touch with history. Most people still recognize this, but it's often ignored, most often by people with center-right politics who would prefer that history more closely resembled the present. But those old traditions still have a strong pull on people, and the only way to argue against them is to admit that, for all of human history, most people have preferred to live around people who look like them and share a common culture. Moving toward a different type of social organization is extremely difficult and can't be done without discussing openly why people have tended to prefer it. Look at centuries of failed attempts at communes to see how difficult it is to get people to act against their natural inclinations. There are plenty of people with violent tendencies that would welcome ethnic wars. This is not restricted to white nationalists, but includes all sorts of people, and their motivations often intersect with other movements. The New Zealand shooter, for example, considered himself an "extreme Green" and killed people both because he interpreted them as a foreign invasion and because he wanted to oppose migrations that would lead to rises in population. This in itself does not mean environmentalism or advocating population declines is a dangerous movement. The particular aspects of his ideology advocating violence are dangerous, which is why there are rules specifically addressing calls to violence. This ban which states that expressions of racial pride is allowed but bans advocacy for a nation-state which prioritizes the needs of an ethnicity, and only if that ethnicity has light skin, raises some interesting questions. If the model for white nationalism is Israel, a nation that serves as the homeland for a particular, majority white people, does support for Israel qualify as white nationalism in this context? I'm sure Facebook won't interpret it that way, but there are stong anti-Israel movements that consider support for Israel over Palestine to be an expression of racism. How we handle these kinds of things moving forward is not at all clear.

koboll 8y ago

They should be able to ban whatever they want, as long as it isn't a protected class. So unless you can prove it was done with racial animus, sure.

danesparza 8y ago

The fact that you would find an equivalent with the Black Panthers is appalling. I would posit that if White Supremacy didn't exist, the Black Panthers likely wouldn't either. The reverse was not true for many decades.

Macross8299 8y ago
I don't think it's a particularly unfair comparison. Hate groups are still hate groups, regardless of "who started it." The SPLC considers some black nationalist groups (including offshoots/successors of the Black Panthers, which is relevant because there is no actual modern day "Black Panther Party") to be hate groups all the same.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> I think the obvious analogy would be banning things like the Black Panthers. Should Facebook be allowed to do that? Yes, Facebook should be allowed to ban people posting from before Facebook existed. OTOH, that's unlikely to be practical issue of any concern.