7 ms·

Are you sure? Do we even know, for sure, what "white nationalist" means? I'm white, and I favor a government that's principally oriented toward advancing this

Are you sure? Do we even know, for sure, what "white nationalist" means? I'm white, and I favor a government that's principally oriented toward advancing this nation's interests. Am I a white nationalist?

jpkiser 8y ago
Banned.
0xbadcafebee 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism
Veraticus 8y ago
Words have meaning, and people know what those meanings are. "White nationalist" does not mean "white people who like their country" and it's disingenuous to pretend it does.
- atmosx 8y ago
  There is an infinite number of definitions for “like their country”. Nazis in Greece like their country or what they perceive as “their country”.
- fastball 8y ago
  It's much more disingenuous to pretend that words and phrases have universal meanings.
  - azernik 8y ago
    Universal isn't necessary. Well-understood in the American political context is sufficient.
- CarlSchmitt 8y ago
  Not really...members of the MSM and random Twitter blue checkmarks had no issues calling Polish Nationalists "Nazis" and "White nationalists"...it is a legitimate political view to keep Poland Polish or Hungary Hungarian...are these "White nationalist" views or something different?
  - yawaramin 8y ago
    That depends. When you say 'Keep Poland Polish', what exactly do you mean?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jakeogh 8y ago
  Wrong. It's a deliberate attempt to language engineer the idea that loving your country is bad. This is not new, the power structures that benefit from centralization (correctly) see national sovereignty as an obstacle. Note how you will never hear the term "ethnic supremacists" used by conventional media. It's too accurate and does not push the borderless agenda.
  - codyb 8y ago
    I don’t think anyone’s mentioned policing patriotism. You can be as patriotic as you want. America’s great, I love our nation, it’s people, culture, and ideals. That’s different from saying things like “get that Spanish off the menu, this is America”, “go home foreigners”, and “immigrants are criminals”. I’m sure you can see the difference.
    - jakeogh 8y ago
      There will always be some junk quotes people can find (or make up!) to support their agenda. I don't really care what FB does, I prefer it to have all the rope it needs, but this normalization of taking and modifying the meaning of terms to fit the anti-borders narrative is dishonest and manipulative. Again, it's not even remotely a new thing, the anti-borders crowd has been gunning against nationalism time eternal.
      - Veraticus 8y ago
        "Loving your country" is not "white nationalism." You're the one trying to redefine terms if you believe it is.
        jakeogh 8y ago
        It's an inherently dishonest frame. I cant imagine running around talking about "(insert color) nationalists" when actually referring to people promoting segregation of citizens.
        8y ago
clucas 8y ago
You're right that some of these terms have ambiguity, but your example is silly - it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist." But even setting aside your specific example, I don't believe that ambiguity should paralyze us into inaction. I think it's fair to say "OK, we'll ban anyone who advocates distributing political power based on race, with the white 'race' getting the most power... when people cross that line won't always be clear, but we'll do our best." For private action especially, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
- cat199 8y ago
  > it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist." Is it? Or is this a deliberately conflated term promoted as an 'official' label in public discourse in order to dissuade association with those favoring the more benign meaning? Agreed that ambiguity shouldn't create inaction - but it just as well shouldn't promote incorrect action either
  - speedplane 8y ago
    > Or is this a deliberately conflated term promoted as an 'official' label in public discourse in order to dissuade association with those favoring the more benign meaning? Why would you use the term white and nationalist together? Being white has very little to do with being a nationalist unless you believe it has everything to do with it, in which case you would be racist.
    - cat199 8y ago
      Maybe you wouldn't, but if you happen to be white, and taking an (inclusive, not race based) nationalist ideology, you can now conveniently be smeared by describing these two facts.. Oh her? don't listen to her, shes a 'white nationalist'. Also, if, assuming this confusion to be true, having the term 'white nationalist' existing in the discourse as a negative, those who are not aware of the nuances between 'whites who happen to be nationalist' and 'those promoting a white nation' are pre-biased via faulty discourse to discount the words of 'whites who happen to be nationalist'. Any popular terminology which deliberately overlooks subtlety and dismisses it when it is pointed out in the discourse is problematic. It's effectively a subtle smear campaign against the non-problematic nuances. See also the strangely similar situation with the term 'skinhead' - Initially this was a mostly apolitical working class subculture, most listened to soul music and smoked pot and listened to reggae, and many were apolitical or left/socialist leaning. Genearlly mildly populist, mostly white, but yes somewhat 'dangerous' in that it was a popular social movement of unconventional rowdy people of all stripes. (much like the 'disenfranchised trumpians' that the media is happy to highlight as contributing to the rise of the so-called 'white nationalism' we're talking about here) Cue one politically motivated overtly racist subgroup acting up and stealing all the headlines, and now the entire term/culture is essentially taboo.. One can argue that this group just got the press and 'messed up the term', but at some point editorial bias is a factor. For god sakes this is 'hacker news' I shouldn't need to explain this.
justatdotin 8y ago
will neo-nazis be able to side-step appropriate regulation by framing hate statements as questions?
just_passing_by 8y ago
Can a person from Eastern Europe adamantly sure their ancestors up to 5th generation were never involved in colonialist slave trade be considered a white supremacist for not embracing the white man stigma of the naval post-colonial societies?
mch82 8y ago
We know, for sure, the dictionary definition. Consider looking it up & assessing whether you wish to apply the label to yourself.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  >Consider looking it up & assessing whether you wish to apply the label to yourself. But this isn't what will happen. Expressing skepticism about immigration - a fairly normal and mainstream opinion in the 1990s and early 2000s - can easily be construed today as "white nationalism" by many on the political left. It's not you who gets to define what your views are on these platforms, it's the "moderators".
  - KozmoNau7 8y ago
    Openly questioning the validity of the capitalist system has been construed as hardcore hunger and famine bread lines planned economy USSR-style communism for decades. Welcome to not having a safe space anymore.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      Openly questioning the validity of the capitalist system is fine. Facebook shouldn't be banning people who don't like capitalism from their platform either.
    - sisu2019 8y ago
      you are a complaining about your ideology being ridiculed because its bad and leads to awful results, your interlocutor complains about not being able to voice his opinion without actual persecution.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
seventytwo 8y ago
Yes. Because history demonstrates our ability to do that - not to allow factions like the KKK to triumph. We’ve done this kind of thing before, and we’ll do it again. Facebook responding like this IS the marketplace of ideas reacting.
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  I've noticed this tendency among a lot of right wingers. Lately I've seen it a lot in metalhead circles, particularly black metal, which does have a bit of a nazi problem in some parts. They'll crow and gloat about how the scene isn't a safe space, that it's founded in hate and intolerance. But as soon as well-known nazi/NSBM-related bands or members of the scene are deplatformed and antagonized for their views, the tone goes straight to "get these leftists out, this is a right wing scene! This is censorship!" and so on. Apparently only right wing radicals should be allowed to have safe spaces... /s
tibbydudeza 8y ago
In Sweden perhaps not since white and nation is analogous but in US you are going have a problem.
kingkawn 8y ago
Yeah it means neo-Nazis who believe in the innate supremacy of the white race. If you’re one of them I want you to be deplatformed immediately and without sentimental hand-wringing about liberal platitudes. This will be an ongoing project and will require constant tweaking and adjustment, but I’m all for their removal from the public sphere. There are underlying economic and social issues leading to the reemergence of this worldview that need to be dealt with urgently and with peacemaking intention. Still, in the meantime this kind of thought if unchecked leads to genocide and must be stopped.

jpkiser 8y ago

Banned.

0xbadcafebee 8y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

Veraticus 8y ago

Words have meaning, and people know what those meanings are. "White nationalist" does not mean "white people who like their country" and it's disingenuous to pretend it does.

atmosx 8y ago
There is an infinite number of definitions for “like their country”. Nazis in Greece like their country or what they perceive as “their country”.
fastball 8y ago
It's much more disingenuous to pretend that words and phrases have universal meanings.
- azernik 8y ago
  Universal isn't necessary. Well-understood in the American political context is sufficient.
CarlSchmitt 8y ago
Not really...members of the MSM and random Twitter blue checkmarks had no issues calling Polish Nationalists "Nazis" and "White nationalists"...it is a legitimate political view to keep Poland Polish or Hungary Hungarian...are these "White nationalist" views or something different?
- yawaramin 8y ago
  That depends. When you say 'Keep Poland Polish', what exactly do you mean?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
jakeogh 8y ago
Wrong. It's a deliberate attempt to language engineer the idea that loving your country is bad. This is not new, the power structures that benefit from centralization (correctly) see national sovereignty as an obstacle. Note how you will never hear the term "ethnic supremacists" used by conventional media. It's too accurate and does not push the borderless agenda.
- codyb 8y ago
  I don’t think anyone’s mentioned policing patriotism. You can be as patriotic as you want. America’s great, I love our nation, it’s people, culture, and ideals. That’s different from saying things like “get that Spanish off the menu, this is America”, “go home foreigners”, and “immigrants are criminals”. I’m sure you can see the difference.
  - jakeogh 8y ago
    There will always be some junk quotes people can find (or make up!) to support their agenda. I don't really care what FB does, I prefer it to have all the rope it needs, but this normalization of taking and modifying the meaning of terms to fit the anti-borders narrative is dishonest and manipulative. Again, it's not even remotely a new thing, the anti-borders crowd has been gunning against nationalism time eternal.
    - Veraticus 8y ago
      "Loving your country" is not "white nationalism." You're the one trying to redefine terms if you believe it is.
      - jakeogh 8y ago
        It's an inherently dishonest frame. I cant imagine running around talking about "(insert color) nationalists" when actually referring to people promoting segregation of citizens.
        8y ago

clucas 8y ago

You're right that some of these terms have ambiguity, but your example is silly - it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist." But even setting aside your specific example, I don't believe that ambiguity should paralyze us into inaction. I think it's fair to say "OK, we'll ban anyone who advocates distributing political power based on race, with the white 'race' getting the most power... when people cross that line won't always be clear, but we'll do our best." For private action especially, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

cat199 8y ago
> it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist." Is it? Or is this a deliberately conflated term promoted as an 'official' label in public discourse in order to dissuade association with those favoring the more benign meaning? Agreed that ambiguity shouldn't create inaction - but it just as well shouldn't promote incorrect action either
- speedplane 8y ago
  > Or is this a deliberately conflated term promoted as an 'official' label in public discourse in order to dissuade association with those favoring the more benign meaning? Why would you use the term white and nationalist together? Being white has very little to do with being a nationalist unless you believe it has everything to do with it, in which case you would be racist.
  - cat199 8y ago
    Maybe you wouldn't, but if you happen to be white, and taking an (inclusive, not race based) nationalist ideology, you can now conveniently be smeared by describing these two facts.. Oh her? don't listen to her, shes a 'white nationalist'. Also, if, assuming this confusion to be true, having the term 'white nationalist' existing in the discourse as a negative, those who are not aware of the nuances between 'whites who happen to be nationalist' and 'those promoting a white nation' are pre-biased via faulty discourse to discount the words of 'whites who happen to be nationalist'. Any popular terminology which deliberately overlooks subtlety and dismisses it when it is pointed out in the discourse is problematic. It's effectively a subtle smear campaign against the non-problematic nuances. See also the strangely similar situation with the term 'skinhead' - Initially this was a mostly apolitical working class subculture, most listened to soul music and smoked pot and listened to reggae, and many were apolitical or left/socialist leaning. Genearlly mildly populist, mostly white, but yes somewhat 'dangerous' in that it was a popular social movement of unconventional rowdy people of all stripes. (much like the 'disenfranchised trumpians' that the media is happy to highlight as contributing to the rise of the so-called 'white nationalism' we're talking about here) Cue one politically motivated overtly racist subgroup acting up and stealing all the headlines, and now the entire term/culture is essentially taboo.. One can argue that this group just got the press and 'messed up the term', but at some point editorial bias is a factor. For god sakes this is 'hacker news' I shouldn't need to explain this.

justatdotin 8y ago

will neo-nazis be able to side-step appropriate regulation by framing hate statements as questions?

just_passing_by 8y ago

Can a person from Eastern Europe adamantly sure their ancestors up to 5th generation were never involved in colonialist slave trade be considered a white supremacist for not embracing the white man stigma of the naval post-colonial societies?

mch82 8y ago

We know, for sure, the dictionary definition. Consider looking it up & assessing whether you wish to apply the label to yourself.

remarkEon 8y ago
>Consider looking it up & assessing whether you wish to apply the label to yourself. But this isn't what will happen. Expressing skepticism about immigration - a fairly normal and mainstream opinion in the 1990s and early 2000s - can easily be construed today as "white nationalism" by many on the political left. It's not you who gets to define what your views are on these platforms, it's the "moderators".
- KozmoNau7 8y ago
  Openly questioning the validity of the capitalist system has been construed as hardcore hunger and famine bread lines planned economy USSR-style communism for decades. Welcome to not having a safe space anymore.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    Openly questioning the validity of the capitalist system is fine. Facebook shouldn't be banning people who don't like capitalism from their platform either.
  - sisu2019 8y ago
    you are a complaining about your ideology being ridiculed because its bad and leads to awful results, your interlocutor complains about not being able to voice his opinion without actual persecution.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

seventytwo 8y ago

Yes. Because history demonstrates our ability to do that - not to allow factions like the KKK to triumph. We’ve done this kind of thing before, and we’ll do it again. Facebook responding like this IS the marketplace of ideas reacting.

KozmoNau7 8y ago
I've noticed this tendency among a lot of right wingers. Lately I've seen it a lot in metalhead circles, particularly black metal, which does have a bit of a nazi problem in some parts. They'll crow and gloat about how the scene isn't a safe space, that it's founded in hate and intolerance. But as soon as well-known nazi/NSBM-related bands or members of the scene are deplatformed and antagonized for their views, the tone goes straight to "get these leftists out, this is a right wing scene! This is censorship!" and so on. Apparently only right wing radicals should be allowed to have safe spaces... /s

tibbydudeza 8y ago

In Sweden perhaps not since white and nation is analogous but in US you are going have a problem.

kingkawn 8y ago

Yeah it means neo-Nazis who believe in the innate supremacy of the white race. If you’re one of them I want you to be deplatformed immediately and without sentimental hand-wringing about liberal platitudes. This will be an ongoing project and will require constant tweaking and adjustment, but I’m all for their removal from the public sphere. There are underlying economic and social issues leading to the reemergence of this worldview that need to be dealt with urgently and with peacemaking intention. Still, in the meantime this kind of thought if unchecked leads to genocide and must be stopped.