6 ms·

Farrakhan is, to be frank, not a tough case. There are plenty of people who have incited mass hatred who also were, not coincidentally, very much promoters of t

Farrakhan is, to be frank, not a tough case. There are plenty of people who have incited mass hatred who also were, not coincidentally, very much promoters of their own ethnic identity and superiority. Yes, black people have faced and continue to face unjust oppression. But that doesn't give carte blanche for anti-Semitism, with quotes like: “The Jews, a small handful, control the movement of this great nation, like a radar controls the movement of a great ship in the waters. … The Jews got a stranglehold on the Congress." Or implying that Jews are subhuman insects: “I’m not an anti-Semite. I’m anti-Termite.” Or veiled calls to violence: “And you do with me as is written, but remember that I have warned you that Allah will punish you. You are wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews, those of you that are not real Jews. You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the U.S. government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell. But I warn you in the name of Allah, you would be wise to leave me alone. But if you choose to crucify me, know that Allah will crucify you.” Or explicit calls to violence: "Can that be the holy land, and you have gay parades, and want to permit to have a gay parade in Jerusalem when no prophet ever sanctioned that behavior. How can that be the Israel, how can that be Jerusalem with secular people running the holy land when it should be the holy people running the holy land. That land is gonna be cleansed with blood!" Seriously, this is cut and dry. There are plenty of other people to lionize for e.g. promoting black bodies. And if wanting to kill all the Jews and loudly, repeatedly proclaiming his belief that they're evil and worthy of death to his religious followers on social media isn't a big enough deal to make it non-complicated, we're talking about the guy who called for the death of Malcolm X and whose religious followers carried out his assassination within months. He is violent and deranged and his followers have acted violently at his behest before. (Also, respectfully, I don't think Farrakhan's anti-Semitic proclamations feel particularly "cartoonish" to the Jews he's targeting.)

rayiner 8y ago
The point is not whether there are people to “lionize” that are better. The point is whether an organization like Facebook (which didn’t have a single black board member until last year) has standing to police such opinions. I vociferously oppose him, and think liberals have made a huge mistake being soft on anti-semitism lately. But leave that aside. Would just the stuff he has said about white people justify Facebook banning him? If so, that’s a pretty breathtaking assertion of power to police a very complex range of narratives.
- reissbaker 8y ago
  > But leave that aside. Anti-Semitism is literally what he's being banned for. How can you "leave that aside?" Should FB be able to ban religious leaders who repeatedly, consistently, publicly call for the death of Jews from their platform? If they should be able to ban Milo, then — yes, obviously. If you're arguing that no one should be able to be banned, I think our opinions differ, but I suppose we're each internally consistent with our values.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    The OP I was responding to just said people should be able to be banned for “racism” without qualifying it to anti-semitism. While that might be Facebook’s ostensible justification, the fact is that Farrakhan is famous for representing one of the extremes in the spectrum of black attitudes towards whites. I also think facebook should be able to ban people. But I think that Facebook banning someone like Farrakhan, who is famous for being an anti-white extremist in a country where white people enslaved black people, and where white police officers routinely gun down black people, opens up a huge can of worms. It’s an organization where black Americans are almost completely unrepresented policing the spectrum of responses black people are allowed to have in response to their treatment in this country.
    - reissbaker 8y ago
      He is a notable anti-Semite and extremist hate leader who blames black slavery on the Jews. Trying to provide cover for him by claiming it's simply "anti-white" is disingenuous at best. If you don't trust me, trust the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/louis-farrakhan https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... Being black in America doesn't give you a free pass on anti-Semitism. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
      - rayiner 8y ago
        I don’t know how old you are, but I think you’re being ignorant about the full spectrum of what Farrakhan represents. He co-organized the Million Man March, which was a defining event in the 1990s, much like the Ferguson shooting is today. A recent Rasmussen poll found that over half of black likely voters had an at least somewhat favorable impression of him. You’re acting like he’s just anti-Semitic and not culturally significant for other reasons. That you can ban him for that one thing and that makes no statement about what he represents overall. Farrakhan has always been anti-Semitic, and nonetheless many black people have been willing to overlook that. Here is a poll from 1986 where blacks split about evenly in their view on his favor ability (still, twice as high as Reagan’s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/01/18/reagan-rating-falls-in-poll-of-blacks/b452138c-46ba-4353-b6d7-eb895d650bdc/?utm_term=.fe18fc3a09f9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/01/18/r... Maybe the anti-semitism alone warrants a ban. Maybe any one of his extreme view warrants a ban. But it’s very problematic for Facebook, a company with almost no black leadership, to be making that call.

rayiner 8y ago

The point is not whether there are people to “lionize” that are better. The point is whether an organization like Facebook (which didn’t have a single black board member until last year) has standing to police such opinions. I vociferously oppose him, and think liberals have made a huge mistake being soft on anti-semitism lately. But leave that aside. Would just the stuff he has said about white people justify Facebook banning him? If so, that’s a pretty breathtaking assertion of power to police a very complex range of narratives.

reissbaker 8y ago
> But leave that aside. Anti-Semitism is literally what he's being banned for. How can you "leave that aside?" Should FB be able to ban religious leaders who repeatedly, consistently, publicly call for the death of Jews from their platform? If they should be able to ban Milo, then — yes, obviously. If you're arguing that no one should be able to be banned, I think our opinions differ, but I suppose we're each internally consistent with our values.
- rayiner 8y ago
  The OP I was responding to just said people should be able to be banned for “racism” without qualifying it to anti-semitism. While that might be Facebook’s ostensible justification, the fact is that Farrakhan is famous for representing one of the extremes in the spectrum of black attitudes towards whites. I also think facebook should be able to ban people. But I think that Facebook banning someone like Farrakhan, who is famous for being an anti-white extremist in a country where white people enslaved black people, and where white police officers routinely gun down black people, opens up a huge can of worms. It’s an organization where black Americans are almost completely unrepresented policing the spectrum of responses black people are allowed to have in response to their treatment in this country.
  - reissbaker 8y ago
    He is a notable anti-Semite and extremist hate leader who blames black slavery on the Jews. Trying to provide cover for him by claiming it's simply "anti-white" is disingenuous at best. If you don't trust me, trust the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/louis-farrakhan https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi... Being black in America doesn't give you a free pass on anti-Semitism. If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      I don’t know how old you are, but I think you’re being ignorant about the full spectrum of what Farrakhan represents. He co-organized the Million Man March, which was a defining event in the 1990s, much like the Ferguson shooting is today. A recent Rasmussen poll found that over half of black likely voters had an at least somewhat favorable impression of him. You’re acting like he’s just anti-Semitic and not culturally significant for other reasons. That you can ban him for that one thing and that makes no statement about what he represents overall. Farrakhan has always been anti-Semitic, and nonetheless many black people have been willing to overlook that. Here is a poll from 1986 where blacks split about evenly in their view on his favor ability (still, twice as high as Reagan’s): https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/01/18/reagan-rating-falls-in-poll-of-blacks/b452138c-46ba-4353-b6d7-eb895d650bdc/?utm_term=.fe18fc3a09f9 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/01/18/r... Maybe the anti-semitism alone warrants a ban. Maybe any one of his extreme view warrants a ban. But it’s very problematic for Facebook, a company with almost no black leadership, to be making that call.