19 ms·

White nationalists and separatists are racists because they want an ethnostate. I don't think it should be difficult to tell why these ideas are racist, and I h

White nationalists and separatists are racists because they want an ethnostate. I don't think it should be difficult to tell why these ideas are racist, and I hope you would make the same judgement. Also, the separatist movement in Spain was not racist because any number of races can live in the region that called for separation. An ethnostate is racist.

repolfx 8y ago
One thing I genuinely don't understand about all this is how Israel fits into it. From wikipedia: The primary principles of Israeli citizenship is jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) for Jews and jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) for others.[2] Citizenship by descent? Lots of Jewish people are white, or at least all the Jews I've ever met looked just like me. Israel is without a doubt intended for ethnically Jewish people, and is thus an 'ethno-state' by any reasonable definition. So does that make the Israeli people collectively racist? They elected the government that wrote those citizenship laws after all. Is it a white nationalist movement? Or if someone's going to argue that Jews aren't white, OK, why isn't it a racist non-white nationalist movement then? If advocating for a country to be reserved for specific kinds of people is no longer allowed on Facebook, what happens to Israeli election-related material? Sure, advocate against white nationalism, they sure have a powerful platform to do it. Banning all discussion of it seems like it puts Facebook in a position of terrible hypocrisy to me.
- ada1981 8y ago
  So your thesis is that Israel as a country is officially a white-nationalist state -- (perhaps the most successful one?) and that Facebook would need to prohibit all political material from Israel because it would be inherently white-nationalist?
  - repolfx 8y ago
    To be clear, I wouldn't support that at all. I have no beef with Israel or Jews. What I'm trying to explore is where the logic in this thread takes us. If I'm fine with or at least neutral towards Israel, and I am, and if Facebook shares this view, and it clearly does, and if Israel is an "ethnostate", which it is, then by simmannian's definition, I and Facebook would have to be OK with racist states. That sounds totally wrong but I can only see three possible resolutions: 1. Being an ethnostate isn't racist or problematic. But in that case, being white nationalist would also not be racist or problematic, which means Facebook's policy is in contradiction. 2. Advocating for an ethnostate is wrong if it's "white", but Israel isn't a problem because Jews aren't "white". Maybe there's some convoluted path by which this is true, but I use a simple definition of whiteness - do they look like me? They do, so, this one can't work either. 3. It's only problematic if westerners do it, for no defined reason. Of those I can only see (3) being a plausible explanation for Facebook's behaviour here. Which unfortunately seems to back up the feeling some of these people have that white people are being 'persecuted' for views that are considered fine when other races have them. This whole thing rapidly seems to hit unresolvable contradictions. It seems like Facebook should just stay out of it as a result: any path forward puts them in a position of hypocrisy, which I find to be one of the worst sins. Note that none of the above means I'm myself white nationalist or approve of it. Just that I think it's really important that moral positions are coherent, internally consistent and people who claim to follow them follow them even when inconvenient. That's more important than almost anything else, in my worldview.

repolfx 8y ago

One thing I genuinely don't understand about all this is how Israel fits into it. From wikipedia: The primary principles of Israeli citizenship is jus sanguinis (citizenship by descent) for Jews and jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) for others.[2] Citizenship by descent? Lots of Jewish people are white, or at least all the Jews I've ever met looked just like me. Israel is without a doubt intended for ethnically Jewish people, and is thus an 'ethno-state' by any reasonable definition. So does that make the Israeli people collectively racist? They elected the government that wrote those citizenship laws after all. Is it a white nationalist movement? Or if someone's going to argue that Jews aren't white, OK, why isn't it a racist non-white nationalist movement then? If advocating for a country to be reserved for specific kinds of people is no longer allowed on Facebook, what happens to Israeli election-related material? Sure, advocate against white nationalism, they sure have a powerful platform to do it. Banning all discussion of it seems like it puts Facebook in a position of terrible hypocrisy to me.

ada1981 8y ago
So your thesis is that Israel as a country is officially a white-nationalist state -- (perhaps the most successful one?) and that Facebook would need to prohibit all political material from Israel because it would be inherently white-nationalist?
- repolfx 8y ago
  To be clear, I wouldn't support that at all. I have no beef with Israel or Jews. What I'm trying to explore is where the logic in this thread takes us. If I'm fine with or at least neutral towards Israel, and I am, and if Facebook shares this view, and it clearly does, and if Israel is an "ethnostate", which it is, then by simmannian's definition, I and Facebook would have to be OK with racist states. That sounds totally wrong but I can only see three possible resolutions: 1. Being an ethnostate isn't racist or problematic. But in that case, being white nationalist would also not be racist or problematic, which means Facebook's policy is in contradiction. 2. Advocating for an ethnostate is wrong if it's "white", but Israel isn't a problem because Jews aren't "white". Maybe there's some convoluted path by which this is true, but I use a simple definition of whiteness - do they look like me? They do, so, this one can't work either. 3. It's only problematic if westerners do it, for no defined reason. Of those I can only see (3) being a plausible explanation for Facebook's behaviour here. Which unfortunately seems to back up the feeling some of these people have that white people are being 'persecuted' for views that are considered fine when other races have them. This whole thing rapidly seems to hit unresolvable contradictions. It seems like Facebook should just stay out of it as a result: any path forward puts them in a position of hypocrisy, which I find to be one of the worst sins. Note that none of the above means I'm myself white nationalist or approve of it. Just that I think it's really important that moral positions are coherent, internally consistent and people who claim to follow them follow them even when inconvenient. That's more important than almost anything else, in my worldview.