Facebook to ban white nationalism and separatism

[G-MAN2004]

The problem is that Facebook has only applied a rule to white groups, it seems fairly straight forward that they should have rules that apply equally to all groups.

This is exactly it. But according to Mr. Cool Edgy Guy in his 40s that makes us pathetic, wannabe oppressed victims for pointing it out.

If we're ever going to have a fair and equal society, why don't we start by not picking and choosing when it comes to stuff like this? Seems rather obvious really...

 

[GGizmo]

Facebook has plenty of blackmail material, they will use it. This is the fascism that has been supported by right wingers for decades, can’t bring yourself to blame your own actions for the state of things, so it’s obv the libs fault.

Any time you’ve voted for either of the two primary parties is tacit approval of these behemoth corporate fascists.

The last time I voted for one of the main political parties was Blair's Labour party in 1997, in order to get rid of the stale Tories led by Major.

You can't blame it all on right wingers. It's the left that is urging these big companies these days to bring on censorship and they start crying when they are getting censored themselves, the youtube saga etc.

If people are going to keep crying to these companies to be protected, instead of just blocking someone, then they are encouraging the foundation of censorship to happen. Jack Dorsey said in a recent interview that its the left that don't want to talk to anyone outside of their political bubble and deploy mass blocklists against nearly everyone else. The SJW have allowed censorship to take place by keep causing a big drama about everything.

The biggest liabaility for these social media companies are the people who go on them.

 

[Caracus2k]

It wasn't too long ago that people were being accused of racism just for flying the English flag. It also wasn't that long ago (maybe 6 months) that there was a guy thrown out of a boxing event because he was wearing a Union Jack covered coat, at an event in Britain!

A ban on team/ country clothes and paraphernalia at sporting events is fine just as long as its consistent.

The comparable scenario if Facebook were running a boxing match is they would specifically ban people from wearing anything connected with the UK (US etc) whilst allowing everyone to rock up wearing any other countries flag.

As far as I know the ban you mention was a general one and so no unnecessarily discriminatory on the basis of race or nationality.

 

[RDM]

I don’t think this ban is going to have a major impact on my surfing habits as I dont frequent white nationalist web sites.

 

[G-MAN2004]

I don’t think this ban is going to have a major impact on my surfing habits as I dont frequent white nationalist web sites.

Neither do I, but that's not the point.

 

[Chris Wilson]

I don’t think this ban is going to have a major impact on my surfing habits as I dont frequent white nationalist web sites.

I don't use Facebook and if I want a fix of "white nationalism" I merely jump in the car and go to the pub In fact it will be interesting to experience the political discussions tonight...

 

[StriderX]

I don't use Facebook and if I want a fix of "white nationalism" I merely jump in the car and go to the pub In fact it will be interesting to experience the political discussions tonight...

...if there are white nationalists at your pub, I’m sure the local plod would like a chat.

 

[Nitefly]

Just to play devils advocate with you - If you're a white straight man then look at how many negative stories are about your sex, skin colour and age in recent years -

• Don't like a film - sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot
  
• A Christian - sexist, racist homophobe, bigot, transphobe
• Concerned about a rise in Islamic terrorism - racist islamaphobe
• Don't want kids to learn about sex in primary schools - sexist homophobe
• Pound of your country and its achievements in the past - racist xenophobe
• Concerned about imported "cheap labour" undercutting jobs for low paid UK workers - racist xenophobe
• Pay a female co-worker a compliment - sexist, misogynist, bigot
• Concerned about refugees and the impact mass numbers have on our infrastructure - racist xenophobe
• Want to see genuine equality - sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot
• Don't want to see trans-women dominate womens sport - sexist, homophobe, transphobe
• Believe that there are two sexes - transphobe
• Want a fair outcome from the family courts post-divorce - sexist bigot
• Believe that your 2000+ year old Country is strong enough to cope after leaving a 40 year old institution - racist xenophobe
• Want a meritocracy in the workplace, where the best succeed - sexist, racist, homophobe, bigot
  
• etc etc

My response of all of those is either (a) dismiss the criticism because it’s rubbish (b) I wouldn’t put myself in a position to receive any such criticism because my personal views don’t attract such criticism (a couple of those possitions are fairly unfounded / dumb).

Whether you agree with these or think they're utterly bonkers, these are the type of complaints that more and more white, straight men believe they are seeing in the news, in real life etc. So when a group of people believe that they are being singled out for these constant "attacks" just because of the colour of their skin and their sex - which is the definition of racism and sexism - with nothing said or done or worse, even encouraged by some, then it is no wonder so many white straight men are getting angry, not only for themselves but more so for their sons, who they believe will be massively denigrated in future unless "someone" says enough is enough in the present.

I think most people just want "fairness" from a situation so the acid test for judging these news stories on whether they consider them to be an "attack" on straight white men would be "if the situation is flipped, is the situation now considered sexist, racist, homophobic etc when it wasn't before" so for example -

Black film director says "I won't hire a white actor to be a lead ever again" - Nothing negative said
White film director says "I won't hire a black actor to be a lead ever again" - OMG RACIST!!!!!

Woman says "Equality means that single sex only venues like mens clubs or golf clubs etc are sexist" - No negative press
Man says ""Equality means that single sex only venues like women only clubs or women only hours at the gym/swimming pool etc are sexist"" - OMG SEXIST!!!!!

So if there is a clear case of hypocrisy in the way that some news stories are reported then I can see why some men would consider that an "attack". Both of those examples are real BTW, the director is Jordan Peel and the Women only club was "The Wing" in New York - neither received negative press despite both being clear cases of racism and sexism respectively.

It’s really rather best not adopt some sort of ‘side alligence’. I understand that SOME people may be unduly critical of ‘white men’ as a whole but, as I just said, it’s undue, so I really do find it quite hard to care much about an undue opinion. An appropriate level of care is due.

Jordan Peel said his reason for not casting a white lead is because “he’s seen that movie”. Eh I’m struggling to get excited... and I’m certainly not feeling oppressed. As for male only clubs... well, it depends on the facts as to whether the club is sexist or not.

*shrug* I really don’t get the passionate concern.

There also seems to be this sort of tit for tat response.... oh X said Y oooOoOooo well he can’t say that if A said B oooOooOoO. People just need to rise above it and stop being nobs, frankly.

 

[Chris Wilson]

...if there are white nationalists at your pub, I’m sure the local plod would like a chat.

LOL, I think some maybe ARE the local plod Not all "plods" are left leaning liberals old boy. Google Sir James Anderton for example.

 

[GGizmo]

I think there are a couple of points to this story.

1. I think the main annoyance at this kinda stuff is the rule isn't applied fairly to everyone. It picks out one group yet I assume a black nationalist can say whatever they want and not be punished.

2. It seems the old trick of picking on a group that most people disagree with, even hate, is used to set a precedent that will be used against other people later on. But by the time people start complaining its too late. Sadly this seems to work everytime.

 

[VincentHanna]

Black nationalists, that famous group

 

[stockhausen]

Black nationalists, that famous group

What the hell are "white nationalism" and "separatism"? They seem like the meaningless terminology that only the Americans could come up with.

 

[FoxEye]

What the hell are "white nationalism" and "separatism"? They seem like the meaningless terminology that only the Americans could come up with.

Yeah I'm not sure either.

e: Presumably it's whatever they want it to be, so they will (as they already can) remove whatever they like.

 

[easyrider]

The beginning of internet regulaton

 

[Angilion]

I think your position is a fair one (not ‘the’ correct one) but only framed in your ‘intellectual vacuum / closed system’ for which every statement must be deemed to have secondary connations, or otherwise in light of your perception of the movement which I (admittedly) drew you to.

So I’ll revise my position slightly to say that whether ‘black lives matter’ is racist or not depends on the actual intention and attitudes of the person making the statement. I can effectively prove that saying ‘black lives matter’ isn’t racist in a particular context by stating it myself out loud. I am a deeply flawed human in many ways but I can say with certainty that there is no unintended racism sitting beneath my statement. If you said ‘yes but what about other races’ then I’d say ‘yes, of course, those matter too’.

It is surely better in the absence of confirmatory knowledge of actual racism to simple take the declaration of ‘black lives matter’ as making a narrow statement and perceive those words as having a meaning limited to those words. Namely ‘black lives matter’, rather than ‘only black lives matters’ or ‘black lives matter more than other lives’.

The twist to all of this, as you point out, is that some people may say ‘black lives matter’ and have a dubious ideaology whereby ‘black lives are the only lives that matter or are relevant’. There is a degree of fair criticism of a portion of that actual movement and really that stems from the actual intentions of some people parading that banner, not the words being said.

In summary then, it’s best to take a narrow interpretions of what people say, give them the benefit of the doubt (I.e. do not infer moral dubious-ness) but then allow your opinion to change by maintaining a healthy skepticism further to the observation of their actions.

If, instead, we infer connotations (of racism) to statements that, when given their narrow interpretation or actual intention, are not racist, then we end up in the situation whereby people are too frightened to say what they think because they will be accused of being immoral. I think you’ll agree that’s something we all want to reduce.

Sorry for the waffle

No worries, it's good waffle Which makes me think of food...why the two very different meanings of "waffle"? I need to eat when I finish replying to your post.

Anyway, back to your post. The main bit I disagree with is this:

"only framed in your ‘intellectual vacuum / closed system’ for which every statement must be deemed to have secondary connations"

which I think applies to your interpretion better. My interpretation is based on the real-world speech and actions of followers of the ideology, the stated purpose of the ideology and the results of the ideology. That's not "intellectual vacuum / closed system". My interpretation is also based on what is said, without assuming additional meanings that are not said. That's not "every statement must be deemed to have secondary connotations." Your interpretation ignores the real world results and assumes additional meanings that are not spoken ("yes, of course, those matter too") and which contradict both the words that are spoken and the actions that are taken.

It is surely better in the absence of confirmatory knowledge of actual racism to simple take the declaration of ‘black lives matter’ as making a narrow statement and perceive those words as having a meaning limited to those words. Namely ‘black lives matter’, rather than ‘only black lives matters’ or ‘black lives matter more than other lives’.

Or "yes, of course, other people's lives matter too".

When someone deliberately and explicitly excludes people not of the "right" race from their list of whose lives matter, I consider that sufficient evidence of racism for a preliminary conclusion of racism and when they choose to act on that belief in a political way, I consider it compelling evidence. If they were to simply repeat the slogan and later explained that they didn't intend to exclude people not of the "right" race when they excluded people not of the "right" race, then I would revise my conclusion of racism. I wouldn't do what you're doing and start by assuming they intended to mean something other than what they said, that their words had a meaning not limited to those words.

So yes, I think it is better to take the declaration of "black lives matter" as making a narrow statement with the meaning limited to those words. Not to assume that they meant "everyone, regardless of their race" when they said "black".

"I can effectively prove that saying ‘black lives matter’ isn’t racist in a particular context by stating it myself out loud. I am a deeply flawed human in many ways but I can say with certainty that there is no unintended racism sitting beneath my statement."

By that standard of proof, no statement is racist. I could say "Kill the whites" out loud with complete certainty that there is no racism sitting beneath my statement. I could say "I want to eat aeroplanes" or "I am the walrus" with complete certainty that neither of those statements are true. Anyone can say anything and mean anything (or nothing).

 

[robgmun]

Except that's not really true? Let's take the Marvel Cinematic Universe as an example:

Captain America - White Male
Iron Man - White Male
Thor - White Male
Loki - White Male
Spider-Man - White Male
Starlord - White Male
Hawkeye - White Male
Bucky - White Male
Drax - White Male
Dr. Strange - White Male

Seems like there's still plenty of roles out there for white males? Where's the black transgender Thor? What about the disabled lesbian Drax? No?

The MCU is one of the last examples left as it started in 2008, waaay before the whole SJW trash started in earnest. As if they tried to introduced any gender or colour swaps back then the MCU wouldn't have lasted beyond Phase 1. But that's all changing now with them as it started with Black Panther, Ms Marvel and other movies post Endgame. Producers said themselves that future movies are going to be generally female focused

They are ruining franchisees left and right. Look how they trashed Star Wars with the new movies. They stuck in a ridiculous Mary Sue, a black man that wants to get into her pants and a Latino that is annoyingly positive about everything. They've retconned Dumbledore as gay in the new Wizarding movies because JK Rowling wants to jump on the bandwagon and Hollywood is pumping out female swap movies like there's no tomorrow.

On TV they gender swapped Dr Who and it was the worst series since it's return, Not to mention all the CW superheros shows which i've mostly all dropped because how idiotic it got and Supergirl is SJW central but the ratings are so bad it should have been cancelled in season 2 but they're keeping it alive for some reason.

But the most interesting thing is that the only ones with success is the two Comic Book movies with female superheros Wonder Woman and Ms Marvel. Mostly because they're superhero movies (and in Ms Marvel's case only because it was linked in to Endgame). Everything else has been a critical and financial failure, by this time the studios usually drop the trend that's losing them money and try something else. But they are pushing it harder than ever. Which leads me to believe there is an agenda going on here.

 

[robgmun]

Here's infamous left wing media darling, the Daily Mail, confirming it's on the rise

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/a...ECK-Trump-plays-white-nationalist-threat.html

It's a symptom of the media pushing the agenda, it's a self-fore-filling prophecy and the media in general is to blame. But of course when the numbers are so small to begin with any small rise it going to seem much bigger % wise.

Saturday, 450,000 people marched to cancel Brexit and no one panicked. Today 10,000 marched for Brexit and everyone lost their ****. Police everywhere and MP left through side exits. Jeez

 

[Raikiri]

The MCU is one of the last examples left as it started in 2008, waaay before the whole SJW trash started in earnest. As if they tried to introduced any gender or colour swaps back then the MCU wouldn't have lasted beyond Phase 1. But that's all changing now with them as it started with Black Panther, Ms Marvel and other movies post Endgame. Producers said themselves that future movies are going to be generally female focused

I'm sorry but Black Panther and Ms. Marvel, characters created in 1966 and 1977 respectively are SJW trash that wouldn't have happened in 2008? Uh...

They are ruining franchisees left and right. Look how they trashed Star Wars with the new movies. They stuck in a ridiculous Mary Sue, a black man that wants to get into her pants and a Latino that is annoyingly positive about everything.

They're better than the prequals, just because you don't like them doesn't mean they trashed them. Also, "A black man that wants to get in her pants"? What difference does it make if he's black, really? You have a romantic sub plot in most film, Han and Leia? It's only ok if it's two white people?

They've retconned Dumbledore as gay in the new Wizarding movies because JK Rowling wants to jump on the bandwagon and Hollywood is pumping out female swap movies like there's no tomorrow.

Wasn't Dumbledore 'announced' as gay in 2007? Again, in your own words way before the SJW trash... so not quite jumping on a bandwagon?

On TV they gender swapped Dr Who and it was the worst series since it's return,

Everyone has said that about every new season. It's a TV show for kids, who cares?

Not to mention all the CW superheros shows which i've mostly all dropped because how idiotic it got and Supergirl is SJW central but the ratings are so bad it should have been cancelled in season 2 but they're keeping it alive for some reason.

Supergirl last 16 episodes - 1.25m viewers
Arrow (on the 7th season now) - 1.17m viewers

So why are they keeping Arrow alive? Or maybe you're just being biased?

 

[RaohNS]

Thanks for the input, we're clearly talking about the actors portraying them.



...k?

A character from Africa, litterally called 'Black Panther' is black?



Again, a character that has always been black since their first appearance in the comics (1973) is black? ...k



Yup, so? The one in the last 5 spiderman films has been a white male.



In the Comics right? So not taking away any jobs from the poor disenfranchised white males?

You are sort of proving the underlying message that is really: Who gives a **** about this identity politics rubbish.

 

[robgmun]

I'm sorry but Black Panther and Ms. Marvel, characters created in 1966 and 1977 respectively are SJW trash that wouldn't have happened in 2008? Uh...

Absolutely, if for example Black Panther was the one to kick off the franchise instead of Iron Man it would have at best been a moderate success and wouldn't have been enough to start the global franchise it is now. Who talks about the Blade movies now? No one they're completely forgotten. IM "only" pulled in $500m and Captain America $320m and i don't think BP back then would have done as well as those two in 2008. Blade only pulled in 130m and that would have been a bomb in this day and age.

They're better than the prequals, just because you don't like them doesn't mean they trashed them. Also, "A black man that wants to get in her pants"? What difference does it make if he's black, really? You have a romantic sub plot in most film, Han and Leia? It's only ok if it's two white people?

Even i have to admit they're better than the prequels, but only because the prequels are unwatchable **** stains on the movie industry. And I found the whole "where ya white women at?" stereotypical portrayal of Finns character extremely cringe inducing and problematic and was only there to serve as someone for Ray to turn down because she's a "Strong female character that need no man". Watch it again, in the first movie he's only motivation to be there in the movie is because he find Ray fit. But that pales into insignificance to how Ray is portrayed, even a lot of women find here too perfect to connect to the character.

Wasn't Dumbledore 'announced' as gay in 2007? Again, in your own words way before the SJW trash... so not quite jumping on a bandwagon?

No one noticed and barely made the news because the Harry Potter movies where pretty much done and dusted. We're talking about mainstream media here and nowhere in the HP books it mentioned he was gay. They only started to make a song and dance about it when the new movies came out

Everyone has said that about every new season. It's a TV show for kids, who cares?

Dr Who was never just a kids TV show, when it was invented it was a serious sci-fi show in a weekday prime TV slot. It's only in the last few years they gone into PC melt down and now they're using the "Kids Show" excuse for the horrible quaility. It's a travesty what it's become.

Supergirl last 16 episodes - 1.25m viewers
Arrow (on the 7th season now) - 1.17m viewers

So why are they keeping Arrow alive? Or maybe you're just being biased?

0.08m viewers doesn't make a difference between to the two, both have been haemorrhaging viewers (supergirl had to move channels just to keep it alive) Either way i've dropped both 2 seasons ago