4 ms·

Legally, of course, FB is completely right. Morally - try to replace "white nationalism" with, say, "communism" (one can argue communists killed a lot of people

by smsm42 8y ago

Legally, of course, FB is completely right. Morally - try to replace "white nationalism" with, say, "communism" (one can argue communists killed a lot of people, so why not?), "Christianity", "Islam", "Black separatism", "Wiccans"... I could continue forever, but I hope you get the point. If you're consistently fine with any $GROUP put there, no matter how much you love it/disgusted by it, then your position is consistent and you are one of about 0.001% of people that has a consistent free speech position. For the rest, the answer would be "but this is completely different - $INGROUP can not be banned, they are a nice people that sometimes are misunderstood, but $OUTGROUP are definitely all violent bigots that should be banned everywhere for everybody's safety". Of course, FB does not owe anybody to neither have consistent free speech position, nor support free speech at all, nor be an inclusive platform. They could convert their site to the fan club of Jar Jar Binks tomorrow and make every user to pledge loyalty to Supreme Lord Jar Jar or take a hike. Completely within their rights. Presenting themselves as an open platform while executing a clear political censorship is less morally clear (though of course still legally completely OK). It doesn't matter that political censorship is now directed to the group that is outgroup for most people here - it always starts that way. It never ends there.

harrumph 8y ago
> one can argue communists killed a lot of people, so why not? Because in the really existing world, we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists shooting up mosques, driving their cars into protestors, infiltrating police departments, perpetrating 73% of fatal extremist incidents in the US, receiving attaboys and cover from the Oval Office, poisoning YouTube RIYL algos, etc.
- Macross8299 8y ago
  > receiving attaboys and cover from the Oval Office I don't recall of any incident where the President congratulated a white nationalist terrorist or said anything that could even be conceived as such, do you have a source for this?
  - harrumph 8y ago
    ... “Good people on ‘both sides’?”
    - Macross8299 8y ago
      Context matters. Was he saying that referring to the "terrorist vs innocent people" or "protesters vs counter-protesters" in context of the Charlottesville protest where the terrorist incident occurred? It's a gaffe for sure but I don't think the intention was to congratulate a terrorist.
      - harrumph 8y ago
        You think “both sides” is somehow unclear as to what is meant by “both”? Let me thank god I’m not your manager.
        Macross8299 8y ago
        Look at the original quote you're citing [0]: >"I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me," Trump said. "You also had some very fine people on both sides," I can't even read this as him saying there are fine white nationalists, let alone him saying that white nationalist terrorists are fine. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        You can't say you condemn neo-Nazis in the same breath that you praise a white supremacist rally for having good people. A white supremacist rally that resulted in people being killed and seriously injured. A rally where the people yelled 'the Jews will not replace us', waved Nazi flags and more. Who were the 'very fine people' on the side of the neo-Nazi rally?
- Fins 8y ago
  > we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists shooting up There must be quite a few really existing worlds then, because this is exactly what leftists always do.
  - harrumph 8y ago
    > There must be quite a few really existing worlds then Apparently there are. Please give my regards to the people who live on your planet, wherever it is.
    - Fins 8y ago
      Even disregarding entire countries where leftists came to power (how's Venezuela doing in your universe?) in this world (let's call it "real" for convenience) and ignoring for the moment the question whether those semi-mythical "nazis" even are "right" in the political sense, which seems to be quite a stretch really, in this, real world, it were very much leftists that rioted through Berkeley or decided that it was time to shoot up some Congressmen. In your universe, do those naughty nazis rampage through city streets and beat up gay black actors? Pretending that there is one completely blameless side and another that's completely evil, let alone and that FB can be trusted to distinguish one from the other -- that might work well in the coastal echo chamber, but it is neither true, nor a good idea.
      - harrumph 8y ago
        >semi-mythical "nazis" wat
- smsm42 8y ago
  > we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists Ever heard of Antifa? BANM? Or maybe Red Brigades? Red Army Faction? Sendero Luminoso? BLA? Japanese Red Army? Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? There were dozens, probably hundreds, violent leftist groups. I don't know if they shoot up mosques, specifically, but why this specific mode of terror is your sole concern? They certainly did shoot, blow up, hang, cut off heads, poisoned and murdered by other means many people. And that's just terrorists, wait until they get the real power of state coercion... then the count goes to millions. You mean there's no active leftist militant group in your town right now? Good for you. You may want to familiarize yourself with recent history and wider world though, to get a bit more complete picture than the current news cycle. Oh and btw, the guy that shot up the mosque was very concerned about the environmentalism and thought China is a model country. Should we start deplatforming environmentalists and those who like China?
  - harrumph 8y ago
    >There were dozens, probably hundreds, violent leftist groups. Maybe the problem is you aren't a native English speaker and don't know that "were" is a past tense form of "is". >Red Brigades? Red Army Faction? Sendero Luminoso? BLA? Japanese Red Army? Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? Also, you might be interested to learn that the United States (where this conversation was plainly centered before you attempted to change the subject) is an entirely separate country from that of Peru, Germany, Italy, Indonesia, etc. Further, the twentieth century is not what we are experiencing today. That's called the twenty-first century. Once you catch up with these details, feel free to review/chant/inscribe on your forehead backwards so you can read it in a mirror: We Are In No Way Faced With A Growing Trend Of Violent Leftists.
beat 8y ago
Morally, FB is completely right. They only become wrong by running down your slippery slope. They're not banning Christian speech, or Republican speech, or whatever. The existence of a slippery slope does not demonstrate that everything that could reach the slippery slope is de facto immoral.

by smsm42 8y ago

harrumph 8y ago

> one can argue communists killed a lot of people, so why not? Because in the really existing world, we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists shooting up mosques, driving their cars into protestors, infiltrating police departments, perpetrating 73% of fatal extremist incidents in the US, receiving attaboys and cover from the Oval Office, poisoning YouTube RIYL algos, etc.

Macross8299 8y ago
> receiving attaboys and cover from the Oval Office I don't recall of any incident where the President congratulated a white nationalist terrorist or said anything that could even be conceived as such, do you have a source for this?
- harrumph 8y ago
  ... “Good people on ‘both sides’?”
  - Macross8299 8y ago
    Context matters. Was he saying that referring to the "terrorist vs innocent people" or "protesters vs counter-protesters" in context of the Charlottesville protest where the terrorist incident occurred? It's a gaffe for sure but I don't think the intention was to congratulate a terrorist.
    - harrumph 8y ago
      You think “both sides” is somehow unclear as to what is meant by “both”? Let me thank god I’m not your manager.
      - Macross8299 8y ago
        Look at the original quote you're citing [0]: >"I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me," Trump said. "You also had some very fine people on both sides," I can't even read this as him saying there are fine white nationalists, let alone him saying that white nationalist terrorists are fine. [0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...
        fzeroracer 8y ago
        You can't say you condemn neo-Nazis in the same breath that you praise a white supremacist rally for having good people. A white supremacist rally that resulted in people being killed and seriously injured. A rally where the people yelled 'the Jews will not replace us', waved Nazi flags and more. Who were the 'very fine people' on the side of the neo-Nazi rally?
Fins 8y ago
> we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists shooting up There must be quite a few really existing worlds then, because this is exactly what leftists always do.
- harrumph 8y ago
  > There must be quite a few really existing worlds then Apparently there are. Please give my regards to the people who live on your planet, wherever it is.
  - Fins 8y ago
    Even disregarding entire countries where leftists came to power (how's Venezuela doing in your universe?) in this world (let's call it "real" for convenience) and ignoring for the moment the question whether those semi-mythical "nazis" even are "right" in the political sense, which seems to be quite a stretch really, in this, real world, it were very much leftists that rioted through Berkeley or decided that it was time to shoot up some Congressmen. In your universe, do those naughty nazis rampage through city streets and beat up gay black actors? Pretending that there is one completely blameless side and another that's completely evil, let alone and that FB can be trusted to distinguish one from the other -- that might work well in the coastal echo chamber, but it is neither true, nor a good idea.
    - harrumph 8y ago
      >semi-mythical "nazis" wat
smsm42 8y ago
> we are in no way faced with a growing trend of violent leftists Ever heard of Antifa? BANM? Or maybe Red Brigades? Red Army Faction? Sendero Luminoso? BLA? Japanese Red Army? Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? There were dozens, probably hundreds, violent leftist groups. I don't know if they shoot up mosques, specifically, but why this specific mode of terror is your sole concern? They certainly did shoot, blow up, hang, cut off heads, poisoned and murdered by other means many people. And that's just terrorists, wait until they get the real power of state coercion... then the count goes to millions. You mean there's no active leftist militant group in your town right now? Good for you. You may want to familiarize yourself with recent history and wider world though, to get a bit more complete picture than the current news cycle. Oh and btw, the guy that shot up the mosque was very concerned about the environmentalism and thought China is a model country. Should we start deplatforming environmentalists and those who like China?
- harrumph 8y ago
  >There were dozens, probably hundreds, violent leftist groups. Maybe the problem is you aren't a native English speaker and don't know that "were" is a past tense form of "is". >Red Brigades? Red Army Faction? Sendero Luminoso? BLA? Japanese Red Army? Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam? Also, you might be interested to learn that the United States (where this conversation was plainly centered before you attempted to change the subject) is an entirely separate country from that of Peru, Germany, Italy, Indonesia, etc. Further, the twentieth century is not what we are experiencing today. That's called the twenty-first century. Once you catch up with these details, feel free to review/chant/inscribe on your forehead backwards so you can read it in a mirror: We Are In No Way Faced With A Growing Trend Of Violent Leftists.

beat 8y ago

Morally, FB is completely right. They only become wrong by running down your slippery slope. They're not banning Christian speech, or Republican speech, or whatever. The existence of a slippery slope does not demonstrate that everything that could reach the slippery slope is de facto immoral.