Facebook is banning White Separatism and White Nationalism

[Derec]

Create a recruiting tool ? No, Facebook have done the opposite, they have prevented their platform from being used as a recruiting tool by banishing them from their platform. Whatever the white supremacists (or whatever group Facebook arbitrarily banish) get up to after they are banned from Facebook is not Facebook's concern.

But they are fine if black supremacist groups congregate on Facebook. That's wrong.

 

[Derec]

Racial pride is not a good, but it isn't an equally bad thing for all groups. That is b/c it is only a clear direct sign of bigoted racial-supremacist ideology when it comes from the socially and economically dominant group that stepped on the throats of other races for centuries and still does.

That's just an excuse for discriminating on the basis of race.

When the victims of that racially dominant group engage in racial pride it is a self-protective mechanism to rebuild the self-worth violently stripped from them by the dominant group.

Bullshit. Black supremacism is no better or more benign than white supremacism. As long as we keep playing these double standard games we will not see any healing of race relations.

IOW, while all racial supremacy ideologies are equally heinous and bigoted, racial pride only reveals that heinous ideology when engaged in by the dominant race with a history of violent abuse of other races, which in any western society means whites.

Even if I accepted that premise, Facebook is global. In South Africa, blacks are the dominant group. Their government is even dispossessing white farmers. By your logic, Facebook should allow South African white supremacists while only banning black supremacists from RSA.

(note: the above is NOT the same as nor gives support to the bogus notion that only whites can be racist. IF a non-white holds a racist supremacy ideology, then they are a racist person, even if their group lacks the power to cause as much harm. The issue is that racial pride among actually victimized groups is often not a sign of racial supremacy ideology or racism)

I do not think you have read enough black pride/black supremacist BS on the internet and other media, such as a CBS owned AM radio station in Atlanta (1380 WAOK). It is highly racist. Very hateful. Things like calling white people "cave beasts" and claiming that black people invented everything, but that all these inventions were "stolen" by whites.

Or how about successful black directors (like Peele, who previously made a movie where all white people are portrayed as supernaturally evil) refusing to cast white male actors in lead roles. Imagine if a white director came out and said that he would not cast a black actor in a lead role? That's racial discrimination and one is no better than the other just because one is considered politically correct.

 

[Derec]

Well, the average white nationalist is a whiny snowflake idiot who'd manage to feel oppressed no matter what you did or didn't do to them. Who gives a fucking shit what white nationalists think about anything or how butthurt they get by others treating them like they're some kind of white nationalist or something?

Why do you limit your derision to white nationalists only? Why do you think black nationalists, or Islamist nationalists etc. are a good thing that should be on Facebook?

 

[Derec]

Racism in Georgia, but the kind of racism the "identity politics" left enthusiastically approves of as "empowering".
Only black reporters allowed in Georgia mayoral race event

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[TSwizzle]

Create a recruiting tool ? No, Facebook have done the opposite, they have prevented their platform from being used as a recruiting tool by banishing them from their platform. Whatever the white supremacists (or whatever group Facebook arbitrarily banish) get up to after they are banned from Facebook is not Facebook's concern.

But they are fine if black supremacist groups congregate on Facebook. That's wrong.

I don’t know if you are comparing apples to apples here. I am going to bow out as I don’t have a problem with how Facebook runs its platform as I don’t use it and I don’t plan on using it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, the average white nationalist is a whiny snowflake idiot who'd manage to feel oppressed no matter what you did or didn't do to them. Who gives a fucking shit what white nationalists think about anything or how butthurt they get by others treating them like they're some kind of white nationalist or something?

Why do you limit your derision to white nationalists only? Why do you think black nationalists, or Islamist nationalists etc. are a good thing that should be on Facebook?

My apologies. Could you link to the multiple mass shootings by black nationalists in the past few years? I missed the news reports about those and therefore hadn't realized the level of threat they presented, so I made the mistake of not judging them the same way I do white nationalists and Islamic terrorists. That was my error.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well, the average white nationalist is a whiny snowflake idiot who'd manage to feel oppressed no matter what you did or didn't do to them. Who gives a fucking shit what white nationalists think about anything or how butthurt they get by others treating them like they're some kind of white nationalist or something?

Why do you limit your derision to white nationalists only? Why do you think black nationalists, or Islamist nationalists etc. are a good thing that should be on Facebook?

My apologies. Could you link to the multiple mass shootings by black nationalists in the past few years? I missed the news reports about those and therefore hadn't realized the level of threat they presented, so I made the mistake of not judging them the same way I do white nationalists and Islamic terrorists. That was my error.

Are Islamist banned from Facebook or only Islamic Terrorists? It is comparable to the difference between White Supremacists and White Separatists, both of whom are targeted by this ban.

Can I still go on Facebook and espouse how Islam is the superior religion and how Muslims are superior to Jews and Christians? Or would I have to promote violence in the name of Islam to get the ban?

 

[laughing dog]

In this week's Economist, there is an article about the rise and spread of white supremacists and nationalists around the world (sorry, I don't have a link). One of its points is that they use sites like Facebook, etc... to spread their ideas and to recruit. Given their demonstrated willingness to commit mass murders and violence, there is good reason to act to prevent them from fomenting more atrocities and hatred.

This whataboutism for black nationalists, etc.... ignores that fact they are not committing these atrocities.

 

[laughing dog]

My apologies. Could you link to the multiple mass shootings by black nationalists in the past few years? I missed the news reports about those and therefore hadn't realized the level of threat they presented, so I made the mistake of not judging them the same way I do white nationalists and Islamic terrorists. That was my error.

Are Islamist banned from Facebook or only Islamic Terrorists? It is comparable to the difference between White Supremacists and White Separatists, both of whom are targeted by this ban.

Why is it comparable?

Can I still go on Facebook and espouse how Islam is the superior religion and how Muslims are superior to Jews and Christians? Or would I have to promote violence in the name of Islam to get the ban?

Perhaps you should do some research and come back with the answers to the questions.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why do you limit your derision to white nationalists only? Why do you think black nationalists, or Islamist nationalists etc. are a good thing that should be on Facebook?

My apologies. Could you link to the multiple mass shootings by black nationalists in the past few years? I missed the news reports about those and therefore hadn't realized the level of threat they presented, so I made the mistake of not judging them the same way I do white nationalists and Islamic terrorists. That was my error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why do you limit your derision to white nationalists only? Why do you think black nationalists, or Islamist nationalists etc. are a good thing that should be on Facebook?

My apologies. Could you link to the multiple mass shootings by black nationalists in the past few years? I missed the news reports about those and therefore hadn't realized the level of threat they presented, so I made the mistake of not judging them the same way I do white nationalists and Islamic terrorists. That was my error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

Was that Black Nationalism or just hatred of cops?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, it doesn't seem to be the same thing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I didn't follow all the links but the last one includes history of the guy as part of a prison gang that wanted to take it out on cops by murdering them.

 

[dismal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Baton_Rouge_police_officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_shooting_of_Dallas_police_officers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_killings_of_NYPD_officers

Was that Black Nationalism or just hatred of cops?

So you’re calling for Facebook to ban Black people who hate cops?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How about particular prison gangs and other groups who espouse criminal violence or engage in conspiracies to commit them such as various terrorist (Neo)nazi groups and the prison gang in question?

 

[ronburgundy]

That's just an excuse for discriminating on the basis of race.

No, it is making a distinction based upon factual differences in historical and present day experiences (aka rational thought)

Bullshit. Black supremacism is no better or more benign than white supremacism. As long as we keep playing these double standard games we will not see any healing of race relations

.

Your reading comprehension fails you. I made a comment about racial pride and you responded about racial supremacy. Yes, Racial supremacy is bad, but racial pride is mostly a problem when it signals racial supremacy ideology. When a highly victimized minority expresses pride it is usually a self-defensive reaction. When members of the dominant victimizing group express pride, it is act of aggression and rationalization for further victimization. It is the same difference between an abused dog bites that bites as he's being cone beaten versus a dog walking down the street biting people without being provoked. While dogs biting people isn't a good thing, the former indicates a dog who needs to be taken from that abusive situation while the latter indicates a violent animal that needs to be put down.

IOW, while all racial supremacy ideologies are equally heinous and bigoted, racial pride only reveals that heinous ideology when engaged in by the dominant race with a history of violent abuse of other races, which in any western society means whites.

Even if I accepted that premise, Facebook is global. In South Africa, blacks are the dominant group. Their government is even dispossessing white farmers. By your logic, Facebook should allow South African white supremacists while only banning black supremacists from RSA.

My post wasn't about what Facebook should do. In fact I said that because white supremacists will make the same dishonest false equivalence that you did and use the ban as a rallying cry, Facebook's ban could backfire in terms of its impact on the growing white supremacy in the West. My post was about the false equivalence being made that racial pride is equally bad and motivated by the same thing whether it comes from the dominant group who have used it to rationalize slavery and violent abuse for centuries or comes from their centuries long victims.

But getting back to Facebook, Their product may be global, but "they" are human beings who almost entirely Americans. Thus, it would make perfect sense for them to take actions that focus on the racial supremacy in their own country and the Western world.

Besides, your characterization of South Africa is absurd and historically ignorant. "Dominant" is not a simple matter of numbers of people. South Africa was dominated by force and violence by white supremacists for most of the last century, up until the end of Apartheid a couple decades ago. That racist white rule resulted in whites controlling the vast majority of farmland and wealth in South Africa, and they still do. Although recent attacks on white farmers in South Africa has become a popular talking point among white supremacists in the US, farmers being attacked are mostly white b/c whites owned almost all the farm land. Blacks seeking retribution and redistribution of unjustly controlled farmlands, even if their methods are wrong, is not the same thing as modern US whites seeking to re-victimize the blacks that their ancestors used to enslave. Any racist ideology held by blacks in Africa is a direct result of being abused for centuries by white supremacists, unlike whites in the west who manufacture and support their white supremacy with absurd theories they spread on social media about victims on the other side of the planet b/c they have never been victimized for their race.

 

[ronburgundy]

My apologies. Could you link to the multiple mass shootings by black nationalists in the past few years? I missed the news reports about those and therefore hadn't realized the level of threat they presented, so I made the mistake of not judging them the same way I do white nationalists and Islamic terrorists. That was my error.

Are Islamist banned from Facebook or only Islamic Terrorists? It is comparable to the difference between White Supremacists and White Separatists, both of whom are targeted by this ban.

Not remotely comparable. All white separatists are white supremacists. Supremacist ideology is the only plausible motive for a member of a culturally, economically, and politically dominant group wanting to separate the races. In contrast, hardly any Islamists are Islamic terrorists, because there are countless reasons people become Islamic (mostly just accident of birth place), and in fact it makes no logical sense for a person to become an Islamist because they are already an Islamic terrorists.

Can I still go on Facebook and espouse how Islam is the superior religion and how Muslims are superior to Jews and Christians? Or would I have to promote violence in the name of Islam to get the ban?

Your absurd argument presumes that racial supremacy ideology is no different than arguing that one idea is better than another. That would mean that all scientific disagreements are the same as being a Nazi.

 

[SimpleDon]

Starting next week, Facebook and Instagram will remove posts and comments that praise or support white nationalism.

“It’s clear that these concepts are deeply linked to organized hate groups and have no place on our services, ” the company said in a post titled “Standing Against Hate.”

The social network said it hadn’t banned expressions of white nationalism because it was considering the broader scope of the concept, like separatism and pride. However, after conferring with race relations experts, Facebook decided that the rationale it applies to white supremacy also should apply to white nationalism, due to the company’s long-standing policy against hate speech on race, ethnicity or religion.

Facebook said it will apply the same artificial intelligence detection it uses to identify terrorism content for white nationalist posts.

Facebook also said it will connect people who make searches about white supremacy to organizations such as Life After Hate, which was founded by former violent extremists and provides education and support.

Interesting that it was "race relations experts" that they say made the difference for them in deciding this.... and not the attack in NZ.

There may be something that I am missing, but does anyone put any value on what they read on Facebook?

The way that I see it when any idiot can post anything they want to then anything posted has the value of an idiot's opinion, nothing more.

This to me is like the discussion about more money in politics when I asked the question "has anyone been convinced by seeing a TV ad for the 100th time when you weren't convinced by it when you saw it only 10 times?" I have never had anyone to say yes to this question, and yet people rail against money in politics.

 

[SimpleDon]

For a lot of people it's like their social hub. They see what their friends are up to, post their pictures, check out other people's posts, etc.

It's something of a natural monopoly because you want to be on the same platform everyone else is.

My sense is they've lost a lot of ground to things like Instagram with the younger generation.

My wife keeps track of her friends' children and their vacations on Facebook, but not their politics.

We have a mixed group of friends split about 50/50 between Republicans and Democrats, between conservatives and liberals. Political discussions are pretty much useless at the current time, peoples' opinions are pretty much cast in stone now.