3 ms·

This is a very difficult topic, however I've got a similar feeling to you. Once the news broke out that they would be doing these things, the headlines mentione

This is a very difficult topic, however I've got a similar feeling to you. Once the news broke out that they would be doing these things, the headlines mentioned also "nationalism" would be banned. The American Revolution was a nationalistic revolution. Heck, some folks got together to found a new nation! There's nothing more nationalistic than founding a nation. Also every nation on earth is nationalistic, by pure definition of what a nation is. What do they mean when they say they would ban nationalism? Nationalisms without state-backing? e.g. Basque nationalism? We certainly have a problem with hate speech and social media, but even though I have no idea about how to solve it I fear this might not be a step in the right direction. Edit: sigh - downvoted already without a reply. Fanatism is so damaging to democracy and debate.

wDcBKgt66V8WDs 7y ago
We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.
- CloudNetworking 7y ago
  > We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats. > What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other. We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic). My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform. Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh
- cronix 7y ago
  Antifa. They promote and engage in violence all of the time. You can say x is y times worse, but violent/hateful groups are violent/hateful groups and should be treated equally. They've even been labeled a terrorist organization, but still, for some reason, have free reign over most cities.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    Free reign except for the police targeting them, refusing to protect them, actively protecting proud boys, and having numerous examples of police supporting white power movements.
    - cronix 7y ago
      In Portland, it's the citizens that the police refuse to protect. They let antifa and proud boys duke it out, while the regular people without a bone in the fight are left to defend themselves. Literally sit there a block away watching as antifa steps into the streets, redirects traffic, and beats citizens and cars that don't obey their instructions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-dcJrnGTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-dcJrnGTM
  - wDcBKgt66V8WDs 7y ago
    But that's exactly my point. Antifa is definitely a bad thing, but it is literally a response to the other side. If right wing extremists didn't exist FIRST, antifa wouldn't exist AT ALL. If nationalist extremists don't exist, antifa has nothing to fight. edit: to be clear, I think antifa etc should be banned as well and I do not condone their actions or think they are a good response. But they didn't start the problem. They haven't killed dozens of people on multiple continents.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      Or they will invent enemies where none exist, or they will expand the boundaries of who qualifies as an enemy. There are other routes for this kind of group to appear and stay in motion.

wDcBKgt66V8WDs 7y ago

We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other.

CloudNetworking 7y ago
> We live in a globalized world, there's an argument to be had that nationalism in the cheery light you just presented it as is no longer such a good thing. I'm of the opinion that the very concept of countries is inherently violent, so there's my bias, but I don't want to get into this. Right, nations can only exist as long as they use violence to fight (perceived) threats. > What I do want to get into is all this "why ban one side and not the other", well probably because one side is significantly more violent and is only becoming more agitated? Is that not completely obvious? They're not trying to ban a school of thought, they're trying to prevent terrorist attacks by white men on non-white and immigrant people. As has been literally happening. The most violent parts of the left are responses not home grown hatred, and they're not shooting up places of worship. Go ahead, find the like 2 bad examples of left leaning violence but it doesn't take much to find 10x that from the right. One is not like the other. We want the same and I agree we have a huge problem with right-wing extremism that does not mirror in left-wing extremism (sic). My worry is: how soon until the same people we want to deplatform are the ones in charge of the platform? Get Twitter as an example: It is usually left-leaning and minority Twitter users the ones getting the shit end of the stick. Jack Dorsey is known for being, to say the least, accepting of nazis in his platform. Edit: Again another bunch of downvotes without replies. sigh
cronix 7y ago
Antifa. They promote and engage in violence all of the time. You can say x is y times worse, but violent/hateful groups are violent/hateful groups and should be treated equally. They've even been labeled a terrorist organization, but still, for some reason, have free reign over most cities.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Free reign except for the police targeting them, refusing to protect them, actively protecting proud boys, and having numerous examples of police supporting white power movements.
  - cronix 7y ago
    In Portland, it's the citizens that the police refuse to protect. They let antifa and proud boys duke it out, while the regular people without a bone in the fight are left to defend themselves. Literally sit there a block away watching as antifa steps into the streets, redirects traffic, and beats citizens and cars that don't obey their instructions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-dcJrnGTM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq-dcJrnGTM
- wDcBKgt66V8WDs 7y ago
  But that's exactly my point. Antifa is definitely a bad thing, but it is literally a response to the other side. If right wing extremists didn't exist FIRST, antifa wouldn't exist AT ALL. If nationalist extremists don't exist, antifa has nothing to fight. edit: to be clear, I think antifa etc should be banned as well and I do not condone their actions or think they are a good response. But they didn't start the problem. They haven't killed dozens of people on multiple continents.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    Or they will invent enemies where none exist, or they will expand the boundaries of who qualifies as an enemy. There are other routes for this kind of group to appear and stay in motion.