5 ms·

This seems absurd and unreasonable once you look at it more closely. If any group of people say they want to go live apart from others (white, gay, men, linux u

by rdl 8y ago

This seems absurd and unreasonable once you look at it more closely. If any group of people say they want to go live apart from others (white, gay, men, linux users, whatever), I'm fine with that. I wouldn't want to live in a racial separatist region myself, but I have no problem with other people choosing to do so. Treating black nationalists as heroes (which in a historical sense they were) while making white nationalists a target of scorn seems...unsustainable. If FB wanted to redirect funding from "bad" things they don't like to a decent group, Life After Hate is about as bad as SPLC. There have to be better groups focused on helping people of various types.

oh_sigh 8y ago
The difference being that white nationalists generally don't want to run away to a large private homestead and live out their lives privately and whitely - they want to convert the existing multiracial society they live in into a uniracial one.
baddox 8y ago
The problem is when you say you want to live apart from others, but you want that to be right here where there happen to currently be other people. When you say that, even if you claim to not be advocating for violence or forceful removal, that is effectively what you’re advocating. There are white nationalist groups that actually use the phrase “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”
- antt 8y ago
  There are also Muslim groups who say as much. "We will just out breed them" is a common tactic used to great effect in Kosovo and Western Macedonia by Albanians. The shooting in Christchurch referenced a video from the Mosque in question that spelled the same thing out. Unfortunately I can't share the video due to laws which would put me in jail. [0] Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in English? [0] Isn't censorship grand? Now instead of seeing the video yourself you have to trust someone else to tell you what's in it.
  - baddox 8y ago
    > There are also Muslim groups who say as much. My criticism applies to them as well, and as far as I can tell, they are also banned from Facebook. > Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in English? English very clearly has nothing to do with my objection.
    - antt 8y ago
      >My criticism applies to them as well, and as far as I can tell, they are also banned from Facebook. Again, I can't link to either of the documents because censorship but the facebook group of the mosque that was shotup in Christchurch absolutely did have a video explaining why the Christian west was doomed due to having a birthrate of 1.x children per woman and why Muslims were going to inherit the countries because their birthrate was 5 children per woman. That was left up long enough for the terrorist to find it, put it in his manifesto and me look at it an hour after the shooting had happened. Good luck banning the FB page of that mosque after the terrorist attack against them though.
  - fzeroracer 8y ago
    If you can't link the document, why don't you link the video he purportedly referenced? There is nothing stopping you from sharing said video, you just can't share the doc. So I'm going to call baloney on your claim unless you can provide evidence for it.
    - f1refly 8y ago
      The link in the document was https://www.facebook.com/Otago-Muslim-Association-206778229358786/ https://www.facebook.com/Otago-Muslim-Association-2067782293... It's already removed though. He said the description to that video said something like "only for muslims do not share yadda yadda"
thundergolfer 8y ago
Those identity categories are not all equivalent. Wanting to live among only "white" people is not a coherent or rational preference. It can really only be grounded in racism.
- alexandre_m 8y ago
  I agree with you. But let's say you have some group who happen to opposes certain policies/bills in regard of immigration at the moment. Some people will label them automatically as racists, which is a broad statement that cannot be proven/unproven, what do you do with that? Where do you draw the line and who does?
- lyxsus1 8y ago
  Do you realise that any person has a right to have a racist point of view, exchange it in conversations with like-minded people and discuss it with others, unless it doesn't result in real discrimination?
  - thundergolfer 8y ago
    > unless it doesn't result in real discrimination? It's incredibly naive to think that "hav[ing] a racist point of view" wouldn't result in "real discrimination" out in the world. Here's something relevant from William Cliffor'd "Ethics of Belief": > I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive. No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind, we have no choice but to extend our judgment to all cases of belief whatever. Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity.
    - lyxsus1 8y ago
      Sorry, I don't think a misused quote can justify a thought crime. It would be funny and educative if we could temporarily reanimate Mr. Clifford to give him a chance to appreciate some twisted logic that is required to apply this particular quote in this particular context. But we can't, so I suggest we leave dead in peace. I never said that such point of view don't have consequences. But there is a law and means to enforce it when discrimination is realised. And you can indeed define some reasonable limitations on a limit on speech. But as soon as you go after personal opinions, you do more harm than good. By doing so, we steal from people a chance to make their own minds and actions. It's an important part of human experience for many. And when that freedom is threatened, they often resist as it were almost an existential threat to them. We know for a fact now, that humans are evolutionary wired in favour of tribalism and prejudices and overcoming our own nature is a hard and delicate process. And slow, conflicts can last for hundreds and thousand of years. History says that even if you manage to keep them dormant using state force, it's not forever. State will eventually fail and people will continue on killing each other with same amount of enthusiasm if not more. Just have look at pogroms that took place the moment USSR collapsed in brand-new national states, an excellent illustration. There must be a solution to those problems that relies on force as little as possible, otherwise it's not very sustainable. But instead I see justification of mob justice, thought policing and global censorship. The last one is especially infuriating. Tools that are required to implement such censorship should not exists and will certainly be exploited. After all, people we disagree with are just regular people, not monsters. Likely, troubled, needing a group they can identify with, lost in rapidly changing world, unneeded, susceptible to human flaws we all have to a certain degree. And yet it's not uncommon to believe that it's a good idea to just dismiss and alienate them and at the same time somehow pretend to hold a higher moral ground. I like those opinions no more than you do. But I see hate, arrogance and cruelty just shapeshifting and nothing good coming out of it.

by rdl 8y ago

oh_sigh 8y ago

The difference being that white nationalists generally don't want to run away to a large private homestead and live out their lives privately and whitely - they want to convert the existing multiracial society they live in into a uniracial one.

baddox 8y ago

The problem is when you say you want to live apart from others, but you want that to be right here where there happen to currently be other people. When you say that, even if you claim to not be advocating for violence or forceful removal, that is effectively what you’re advocating. There are white nationalist groups that actually use the phrase “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

antt 8y ago
There are also Muslim groups who say as much. "We will just out breed them" is a common tactic used to great effect in Kosovo and Western Macedonia by Albanians. The shooting in Christchurch referenced a video from the Mosque in question that spelled the same thing out. Unfortunately I can't share the video due to laws which would put me in jail. [0] Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in English? [0] Isn't censorship grand? Now instead of seeing the video yourself you have to trust someone else to tell you what's in it.
- baddox 8y ago
  > There are also Muslim groups who say as much. My criticism applies to them as well, and as far as I can tell, they are also banned from Facebook. > Is your objection to them saying it out loud, or saying it in English? English very clearly has nothing to do with my objection.
  - antt 8y ago
    >My criticism applies to them as well, and as far as I can tell, they are also banned from Facebook. Again, I can't link to either of the documents because censorship but the facebook group of the mosque that was shotup in Christchurch absolutely did have a video explaining why the Christian west was doomed due to having a birthrate of 1.x children per woman and why Muslims were going to inherit the countries because their birthrate was 5 children per woman. That was left up long enough for the terrorist to find it, put it in his manifesto and me look at it an hour after the shooting had happened. Good luck banning the FB page of that mosque after the terrorist attack against them though.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  If you can't link the document, why don't you link the video he purportedly referenced? There is nothing stopping you from sharing said video, you just can't share the doc. So I'm going to call baloney on your claim unless you can provide evidence for it.
  - f1refly 8y ago
    The link in the document was https://www.facebook.com/Otago-Muslim-Association-206778229358786/ https://www.facebook.com/Otago-Muslim-Association-2067782293... It's already removed though. He said the description to that video said something like "only for muslims do not share yadda yadda"

thundergolfer 8y ago

Those identity categories are not all equivalent. Wanting to live among only "white" people is not a coherent or rational preference. It can really only be grounded in racism.

alexandre_m 8y ago
I agree with you. But let's say you have some group who happen to opposes certain policies/bills in regard of immigration at the moment. Some people will label them automatically as racists, which is a broad statement that cannot be proven/unproven, what do you do with that? Where do you draw the line and who does?
lyxsus1 8y ago
Do you realise that any person has a right to have a racist point of view, exchange it in conversations with like-minded people and discuss it with others, unless it doesn't result in real discrimination?
- thundergolfer 8y ago
  > unless it doesn't result in real discrimination? It's incredibly naive to think that "hav[ing] a racist point of view" wouldn't result in "real discrimination" out in the world. Here's something relevant from William Cliffor'd "Ethics of Belief": > I shall surround myself with a thick atmosphere of falsehood and fraud, and in that I must live. It may matter little to me, in my cloud-castle of sweet illusions and darling lies; but it matters much to Man that I have made my neighbours ready to deceive. No belief held by one man, however seemingly trivial the belief, and however obscure the believer, is ever actually insignificant or without its effect on the fate of mankind, we have no choice but to extend our judgment to all cases of belief whatever. Belief, that sacred faculty which prompts the decisions of our will, and knits into harmonious working all the compacted energies of our being, is ours not for ourselves, but for humanity.
  - lyxsus1 8y ago
    Sorry, I don't think a misused quote can justify a thought crime. It would be funny and educative if we could temporarily reanimate Mr. Clifford to give him a chance to appreciate some twisted logic that is required to apply this particular quote in this particular context. But we can't, so I suggest we leave dead in peace. I never said that such point of view don't have consequences. But there is a law and means to enforce it when discrimination is realised. And you can indeed define some reasonable limitations on a limit on speech. But as soon as you go after personal opinions, you do more harm than good. By doing so, we steal from people a chance to make their own minds and actions. It's an important part of human experience for many. And when that freedom is threatened, they often resist as it were almost an existential threat to them. We know for a fact now, that humans are evolutionary wired in favour of tribalism and prejudices and overcoming our own nature is a hard and delicate process. And slow, conflicts can last for hundreds and thousand of years. History says that even if you manage to keep them dormant using state force, it's not forever. State will eventually fail and people will continue on killing each other with same amount of enthusiasm if not more. Just have look at pogroms that took place the moment USSR collapsed in brand-new national states, an excellent illustration. There must be a solution to those problems that relies on force as little as possible, otherwise it's not very sustainable. But instead I see justification of mob justice, thought policing and global censorship. The last one is especially infuriating. Tools that are required to implement such censorship should not exists and will certainly be exploited. After all, people we disagree with are just regular people, not monsters. Likely, troubled, needing a group they can identify with, lost in rapidly changing world, unneeded, susceptible to human flaws we all have to a certain degree. And yet it's not uncommon to believe that it's a good idea to just dismiss and alienate them and at the same time somehow pretend to hold a higher moral ground. I like those opinions no more than you do. But I see hate, arrogance and cruelty just shapeshifting and nothing good coming out of it.