3 ms·
Sure: > This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact, one wh
by nailer 6y ago
Sure:
> This heavy-handedness isn't an encroachment on free speech but a necessary impediment to keep the spirit of free speech and free society intact, one where the tolerant voices aren't drained out by the relentlessness and irrationality of the intolerant.
Could easily be used to ban Islam on Facebook. Or Scientology. Or far left / far right governments. Or Antifa / Proud Boys / other vigilante groups. Or popularly supported groups with a fringe element (BLM). Or free market capitalists, or communists.
As one should already gather from reading above, I am not suggesting that Facebook should ban any of these.
Ultimately every group doesn't tolerate something, and this argument could be used to ban them.
- hef19898 6y agoIt kind of is a legal requirement in Germany already, so there is this.
- duxup 6y agoTo me a wholesale ban on a religion, whose practitioners vary wildly seems like a completely different thing. Holocaust denial is pretty specific in comparison.
- free_rms 6y agoWhat % of a religion would need to be, say, anti-gay, before we deem the whole thing problematic and ban it from facebook? The more I investigate "where to draw the line", the more I'm convinced we aren't capable of doing so in a just fashion.
- duxup 6y agoI feel like any given region's propensity to say not like a particular sexual orientation is dramatically different from say holocaust denial that is straight up rooted in antisemitism.
- free_rms 6y agoSo you're making a narrow case that holocaust denial is specifically bad and not endorsing more policing by facebook in general? There's certainly precedent for holocaust denial being considered specifically and uniquely harmful, although it feels a little dated in the year 2020.
- duxup 6y agoAll hate groups seem dated, sadly hate doesn't seem to just sort of become a thing of the past :( As far as you question goes to some extent yes. I wouldn't want to see some sort of litmus test for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. A specific christian identity group (randomly made up here) that is hateful, no problem with removing them. All Christian groups, no.
- legolas2412 6y ago> for groups that clearly aren't purely a hate group. As an atheist, I do find them a hate group. Are you going to declare militant atheism intolerant, or religion?
- duxup 6y agoI'm not at all sure why simply being an atheist would be a hate group. I don't know what "militant atheism" is though.
- nailer 6y agoWhy not? Nearly every interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah is anti gay (I personally interpret the story as about not raping, but that's off topic). Why wouldn't it be OK to ban a belief system that specifically discriminates against an innate feature?
- duxup 6y agoI don't think that any system that has something you can find objectionable about it would mean you should ban a group. There is a difference between groups with some questionable beliefs about others, and those whose groups are entirely about hating other people.
- UncleMeat 6y ago100% is fine. That's the thing with neonazis. They are 100% in agreement about ethnic violence. It isn't a side effect of their belief system. It is the core of their belief system that undesirable people should be murdered.
- nailer 6y agoWhich neo nazi groups are currently a problem in the US? What left wing groups would you consider banning?
- nailer 6y agoWhy is religion different from other views?