3 ms·

> Are you suggesting that groups like the daily stormer, the national policy institute, etc. are not organized political groups? The national policy institute i

> Are you suggesting that groups like the daily stormer, the national policy institute, etc. are not organized political groups? The national policy institute is quite literally a lobbying organization. Facebook's announcements do not specify these groups in particular, and do not seem to indicate that its definition of "white nationalism" and "white separatism" will be nearly as clearly defined as banning recruitment to the Caliphate. > Like I said, if I were being confused with a white nationalist with any regularity, I would take steps to correct that perception, perhaps by trying to understand why people think such things. Through conversation, directly, with those people, or on my own with research. Not by trying to appeal to some higher ethics that the people who think I might be a white nationalist are wrong. > Something about everywhere you walk smelling like shit and all. Sorry to burst your bubble, but calling people white nationalists almost certainly isn't going to change their views. Quite the opposite, all it accomplishes is lessens the severity of these terms and makes it such that people roll their eyes when they see the label thrown around. And it further alienates people like me, who do support immigration and affirmative action etc, but are increasingly turned off by the every diminishing threshold at which terms like these get thrown around. Furthermore, it makes it even harder to distinguish between actual white nationalists and legitimate views that people are trying to make socially acceptable by painting them with the white nationalist brush. Something about crying wolf and all.

joshuamorton 8y ago
>Facebook's announcements do not specify these groups in particular, and do not seem to indicate that its definition of "white nationalism" and "white separatism" will be nearly as clearly defined as banning recruitment to the Caliphate. So your concern is literally just "I don't know how this will be enforced." If so, why not just...wait, and voice your concern when you have evidence of facebook abusing this, instead of doing what you're doing now, which looks to me a lot like what you disdainfully refer to as "crying wolf". >Sorry to burst your bubble, but calling people white nationalists almost certainly isn't going to change their views. Sure, but there are few enough white nationalists now that I don't particularly need to worry about them. The issue is if their mindshare grows. And calling them out keeps it that way. >And it further alienates people like me, who do support immigration and affirmative action etc, but are increasingly turned off by the every diminishing threshold at which terms like these get thrown around. See, I know a lot of people, and the only ones who ever say things like this are ones on the internet. I've never met a real actual human who is so concerned at the thought of someone calling someone else a name that they're going to stop supporting immigration reform or affirmative action. Like I said, you seem really, really concerned about not being called a white nationalist. If you really do support things like affirmative action and reasonable immigration policy, I'm not sure why you have such a concern. Either no one is calling you a white nationalist, in which case, again, why do you care about the nonexistent strawpersno who might do so? Or, the one person who is is so fringe as to be easily ignored. Or, again, its happening often enough to be a concern. In which case I'd consider asking why. Because like I said, this sounds like an experience unique to you.
- manfredo 8y ago
  > So your concern is literally just "I don't know how this will be enforced." If so, why not just...wait, and voice your concern when you have evidence of facebook abusing this, instead of doing what you're doing now, which looks to me a lot like what you disdainfully refer to as "crying wolf". After that, the damage has been done and trust in Facebook will have been diminished. And there is a very big difference between "crying wolf" (as in, actually mislabeling something benign as something dangerous) and voicing concern based on previously observed behavior. Calling opposition to immigration white supremacy is the former, saying that there's a distinct probability that Facebook's enforcement of these rules will impact non-white-supremacist views is the latter. > Sure, but there are few enough white nationalists now that I don't particularly need to worry about them. The issue is if their mindshare grows. And calling them out keeps it that way. You seem to be missing the core point I've been making. The issue is not with actual white nationalists which, as you point out, are few and far between. The issue is with mainstream views getting consistently labeled as white nationalist which introduces several issues. One, it makes distinguishing between the former and the latter more difficult making it very likely that mainstream views get banned under the label of white nationalist. And two, it makes it so that people are less concerned with claims of white nationalism thus making it more acceptable for the actual white nationalists to operate openly. > See, I know a lot of people, and the only ones who ever say things like this are ones on the internet. I've never met a real actual human who is so concerned at the thought of someone calling someone else a name that they're going to stop supporting immigration reform or affirmative action. You're right, but you're refuting a straw man. Alienation doesn't mean ceasing support for particular issues. More often than not it means refusing to identify with political groups. This isn't speculation, this is backed up by evidence. Record numbers of people don't identify with either Democrats or Republicans [1]. > Like I said, you seem really, really concerned about not being called a white nationalist. If you really do support things like affirmative action and reasonable immigration policy, I'm not sure why you have such a concern. Either no one is calling you a white nationalist, in which case, again, why do you care about the nonexistent strawpersno who might do so? Or, the one person who is is so fringe as to be easily ignored. Yet again, you're talking about things I never wrote. I do not get called white nationalist and I don't think I ever have been called as such. But I do see co-workers and former classmates call mainstream views white nationalists, and I do see how it makes political discussion toxic and non-productive. These aren't strawmen, these are people I go to work with every day that are adopting stances that make it impossible for them to engage with people with opposing political views beyond hurling insults. Even though they aren't calling me a white nationalist, they're still calling my conservative family members and friends white nationalists when they say things like supporting the border wall makes someone a white nationalist. This isn't healthy for a democracy and it makes me not want to identify with the groups that they are a part of. And to circle back to the original point that was made, the prevalence of mainstream getting called white nationalist makes it a real possibility that Facebook will start banning mainstream political views. If "build the wall" starts getting banned as white nationalist as many of my co-workers want it to be then Republicans are going to be very eager to bring down the regulatory hammer on Facebook and perhaps big tech companies in general. > https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification...

joshuamorton 8y ago

>Facebook's announcements do not specify these groups in particular, and do not seem to indicate that its definition of "white nationalism" and "white separatism" will be nearly as clearly defined as banning recruitment to the Caliphate. So your concern is literally just "I don't know how this will be enforced." If so, why not just...wait, and voice your concern when you have evidence of facebook abusing this, instead of doing what you're doing now, which looks to me a lot like what you disdainfully refer to as "crying wolf". >Sorry to burst your bubble, but calling people white nationalists almost certainly isn't going to change their views. Sure, but there are few enough white nationalists now that I don't particularly need to worry about them. The issue is if their mindshare grows. And calling them out keeps it that way. >And it further alienates people like me, who do support immigration and affirmative action etc, but are increasingly turned off by the every diminishing threshold at which terms like these get thrown around. See, I know a lot of people, and the only ones who ever say things like this are ones on the internet. I've never met a real actual human who is so concerned at the thought of someone calling someone else a name that they're going to stop supporting immigration reform or affirmative action. Like I said, you seem really, really concerned about not being called a white nationalist. If you really do support things like affirmative action and reasonable immigration policy, I'm not sure why you have such a concern. Either no one is calling you a white nationalist, in which case, again, why do you care about the nonexistent strawpersno who might do so? Or, the one person who is is so fringe as to be easily ignored. Or, again, its happening often enough to be a concern. In which case I'd consider asking why. Because like I said, this sounds like an experience unique to you.

manfredo 8y ago
> So your concern is literally just "I don't know how this will be enforced." If so, why not just...wait, and voice your concern when you have evidence of facebook abusing this, instead of doing what you're doing now, which looks to me a lot like what you disdainfully refer to as "crying wolf". After that, the damage has been done and trust in Facebook will have been diminished. And there is a very big difference between "crying wolf" (as in, actually mislabeling something benign as something dangerous) and voicing concern based on previously observed behavior. Calling opposition to immigration white supremacy is the former, saying that there's a distinct probability that Facebook's enforcement of these rules will impact non-white-supremacist views is the latter. > Sure, but there are few enough white nationalists now that I don't particularly need to worry about them. The issue is if their mindshare grows. And calling them out keeps it that way. You seem to be missing the core point I've been making. The issue is not with actual white nationalists which, as you point out, are few and far between. The issue is with mainstream views getting consistently labeled as white nationalist which introduces several issues. One, it makes distinguishing between the former and the latter more difficult making it very likely that mainstream views get banned under the label of white nationalist. And two, it makes it so that people are less concerned with claims of white nationalism thus making it more acceptable for the actual white nationalists to operate openly. > See, I know a lot of people, and the only ones who ever say things like this are ones on the internet. I've never met a real actual human who is so concerned at the thought of someone calling someone else a name that they're going to stop supporting immigration reform or affirmative action. You're right, but you're refuting a straw man. Alienation doesn't mean ceasing support for particular issues. More often than not it means refusing to identify with political groups. This isn't speculation, this is backed up by evidence. Record numbers of people don't identify with either Democrats or Republicans [1]. > Like I said, you seem really, really concerned about not being called a white nationalist. If you really do support things like affirmative action and reasonable immigration policy, I'm not sure why you have such a concern. Either no one is calling you a white nationalist, in which case, again, why do you care about the nonexistent strawpersno who might do so? Or, the one person who is is so fringe as to be easily ignored. Yet again, you're talking about things I never wrote. I do not get called white nationalist and I don't think I ever have been called as such. But I do see co-workers and former classmates call mainstream views white nationalists, and I do see how it makes political discussion toxic and non-productive. These aren't strawmen, these are people I go to work with every day that are adopting stances that make it impossible for them to engage with people with opposing political views beyond hurling insults. Even though they aren't calling me a white nationalist, they're still calling my conservative family members and friends white nationalists when they say things like supporting the border wall makes someone a white nationalist. This isn't healthy for a democracy and it makes me not want to identify with the groups that they are a part of. And to circle back to the original point that was made, the prevalence of mainstream getting called white nationalist makes it a real possibility that Facebook will start banning mainstream political views. If "build the wall" starts getting banned as white nationalist as many of my co-workers want it to be then Republicans are going to be very eager to bring down the regulatory hammer on Facebook and perhaps big tech companies in general. > https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification...