Arab-nationalists, turkish nationalists, Zionists, black nationalists, Russian nationalists, chineese nationalists, Vietnamese nationalists haven't been taken down.It doesn't make you a terrorist being white&/or a nationalist anymore than being a Muslim does unless you yourself are a terrorist?I know many Muslims that get very upset when people assume things because of their religion or brown skin, stuff like they are terrorists or antisemitic or racist or homophobic or sexist.
The man who did the terrorist attack in New Zeland was streaming for a long time and his stream was not taken down which in my opinion is stupid because I've seen people who were reported for swearing and their posts were taken down fast.
I've seen Muslims cut people's heads off
I knew that's what it would boil back down to, a bias against so-called "Muslims", in that case, I've seen white people hang black children, what is the KKK? A white guy wanted to start a race war and shot 9 black people in a Church.That was a weak argument to come back with. There are good and bad people in all races and religions, one person does not define a whole community because each individual is different.Your question was completely legitimate and I agree with you to an extent, Facebook should ban all types of supremacy groups. But the images you have put to match this post I cannot approve of and I believe they're stemmed from ignorance and maybe even a tad of bias and hatred.
If I decided to go on a murder spree and streaming it live on Facebook or YouTube what's really to stop me doing it?
Shouldn't your morals stop you?Your ethics?Why would you do that in the first place?
Point is I could create another account.People who do this sort of thing espicially the lone wolves seem to lack morality or ethics of any sort. It's like that part of their brain is switched off.
Yes, a person could regardless of which supremacy group a person is apart of. So the issue isn't with Facebook just banning white supremacy groups alone and no other supremacy group- the issue is with Facebook's content security altogether.
By denying extremists a platform you send them underground where the gain more power
Not really, because do 2 billion people go 'underground' or do 2 billion people use Facebook?By denying them access you are giving them a smaller audience, when going underground most of the viewers are just members of their own sad organisations.
Not at all. Banning things just makes them taboo.
What do you mean, by taboo?
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
"First off like 80% of terrorist attacks have been done by those that claim to be "white nationalists" here in the US shit dude in New Zealand was a nationalist. Second off white people are in every country especially Africa, Africa is divided into mini countries and territories because of white people. Also have you not heard of the apartheid in South Africa? Jeez you're ignorant. "Not sure if troll or just indoctrinated and uneducated.
He is white in a country that was originally inhabited by brown and black aboriginals... He said he didn't like the Muslims coming there he took action... Also apartheid is a real thing that happened in Africa its not an opinion idiot.. Also look it up most terrorists in the United States are white... It's not impossible to be a terrorist because you're white. Stfu
So what, you have black nationalists openly running for congress as well as anti-Semitic Muslims and LGBTQ banning Jews from their marches.Most of what you consider white nationalist terror attacks are just criminals or mentally ill people, is it only terror when white people do it how about most gun crime, robbery, rape and murder being committed by young black males and if you consider how black people are targeting white people you'd see that actually most terror attacks are by young black males hence why prison are overflowing with African Americans.If you look at all the countries "white people invaded" you'd see we left the countries advanced infastructure and raised living standards whereas before all there was mud huts ie Africa. Look at how when black people took over Zimbabwe and South Africa those countries have quickly become shitholes.Muslims and Africans invaded Europe long before white people invaded them.
Going by FBI statistics about 1 in 50.000 black people commit a hate crime whereas 1 in 100.000 white people do.I hate generalizations and I know that saying this will hurt black people, because they are good people, and I am sorry for this.But if you are going to be an uneducated bum and promote NPC lies spewed by spiteful extremists then I will have no trouble wasting 1 or 2 minutes on you. First off America is majority white, so of course white people commit more crimes of any kind in absolute numbers. However if there are 1000 people of ethnicity x in a country and 900 of them commit a crime while there are 10000 people of ethnicity y in a country with 5000 of them commit a crime doesn't mean that people of ethnicity y are "more criminal" rather the opposite. First off, the numbers famously quote, which says that they are about terrorism are arrests and only that. Not the legally succesful persecutions. "115 right-wing inspired terror incidents. 35% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 29% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 79 deaths.63 Islamist inspired terror incidents. 76% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 13% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 90 deaths.19 incidents inspired by left-wing ideologies (including eco-terrorism). 20% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 10% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 7 deaths."Islamic terrorism killed more people than right wing terrorism. 79 as opposed to 90.Now let's start with the reality that white-on-x homicides are more likely to be "counted" as "terrorism" than x-on-white attacks. There's also the fact that statistically speaking a person of non-white ethnicity is more likely to kill a white person than a white person killing a person of non-white ethinicity. I feel disgusted for having to take radical right-wing terrorist "in defense" because of uneducated, indroctrinated person like you.
@ChrisHumble_ look at his like to dislike ratio. People can detect bs and this opinion is ridiculous.
Good way to justify terrorism 👍👍
Yeah, because that is exactly what I'm doing... 🤪I am explaining why people like yourself shouldn't be surprised when shit like this happens, when you're so intolerant of other peoples beliefs, that you want to censor them...
Yes I'm soo intolerant of your views 🙄...Your existence makes my blood boil🤣Go watch your stupid movies , where you get your political views 👍👍
You are intolerant, but you can laugh it off... Friend...An insult from you is of no significance...
I'm laughing because how insensitive and dumb you are not because I'm insensitive to the topic.Just read aloud what you said , if you can 'see' what you wrote you'll get it.Try and be logical
Aren't they? The interacial crime rate says otherwise.
You haven’t cited your statistics, but regardless, the interracial crime rate doesn’t show motive.
The motive is racism.
No. It’s not. Racism is dependent on an imbalance of power. As white people currently hold more power in the United States and other Western nations than do people of other races, it is impossible within those nations to be racist toward white people. One can be prejudiced against white people, but not racist.
Racism is the discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.
It's far more complicated than that.
The whole imbalance of power thing doesn't mean much because it's not 1960 anymore. Being prejudiced against people because they are white is called racism, to deny this makes you a racist.
The imbalance might not be quite as severe as it was in the past, but it is still very present.As for myself, even according to your definition, having a different definition of a word does not constitute racism, as there is no assumption of superiority.
You don't have to have an assumption of superiority just a hatred or prejudice against those who are of a different race. You change the word racism to mean what you want it to mean or to excuse your racist behaviour.
Of a different race? I’m white. I also never stated anything that would indicate a prejudice against one of the races.
That's even worse, you suppose that because a person is black that they can't be as equally racist as a white person. You are in fact a racist white person.
That’s funny, because I distinctly remember that not being the reason I gave. Try again.
The reason you give doesn't matter, you can't decide what you feel is racist and what is not.Thinking black people can't be racist is racist against black people. Stop thinking of black people as "The white man's burden" it's 2019 not 1899 Mr Kipling.
Again, another thing I never said. My argument rests entirely in the fact that Racism is a system which nonwhite people don’t serve to benefit from. Any argument you try to make against me that does not address that point is redundant and a non sequitur.
Your argument is irrelevant because you can't interpret what constitutes racism &what does not.Believing that Racism is a system which nonwhite people don’t serve to benefit from is a racist belief. Racism is the discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. You are racist for believing that non-white people can't equally discriminate or be prejudiced against those of other races because they are non-white.
I said that they could be prejudiced actually. But racism is more complex than prejudice. And discrimination is also a system. So the same argument applies there. And by the way, this isn’t just my interpretation. It’s fairly common among liberal people, and stems from comparing the actual effects that prejudice has on different groups. If a group is in power, then others can be prejudiced all they want. It likely isn’t going to hurt the people at the top. Having a more simple definition does not mean that you are correct. You must also realize that I could accuse you of the same exact thing. Making up your own definition to suit your argument. Based on the fact that you’re upset about white nationalist pages being taken down, it wouldn’t be too much of a reach to assume that you are yourself a white nationalist. That brings with it a pretty heavy bias.
The fact that you think Black people can't be racist shows how racist you are is all in saying which is fairly common among white liberals.
My proof wasn’t in citing the other people. It was in citing the roots of the argument. And your twitter argument proves nothing. I will note however, that he never referred to them as lazy or in any way implied that that was why they had difficulty getting an ID. The only thing in common between this conversation and that one is that both you and the other woman seem exceptionally fond of putting words in other people’s mouths.
Im not putting words in your mouth, you claim that black people can't be racist, which is racist against black people. What will you claim next, will you claim Asians can't be bad at math or that native Americans can't handle their fire water?
I never said that black people can't be racist, actually. I just said that no one in Western countries can be racist against white people. In other places, sure. But not in Western nations. So yes. You are putting words in my mouth, and you’re conflating my argument with completely unrelated things.
That's racist against POC of color. Your basically saying that be their virtue of being non-white that they are like children. Basically back to your "white man's burden" philosophy.Black people can be just as racist as white people regardless of geography, to say otherwise is racist.
I never said anything about children, not did I say anything about a white man’s burden. Learn to read. Then we can talk like adults.
But Mr Kipling you don't think people of color can be adults.
Now you’re just trying to be annoying. I never said anything like that. I will say that you, personally, are acting like a child. This conversation is wasting my time. If you want to have an actual civil argument, come back with something that actually addresses my point, and doesn’t imply that I said things that I didn’t.
You can't put black people in a box and feed them welfare scraps, you have to treat them as equals not as a burden.
Please point me to where I said anything that contradicts that.
"Racism is dependent on an imbalance of power. As white people currently hold more power in the United States and other Western nations than do people of other races, it is impossible within those nations to be racist toward white people" seems ridiculous that your notion of racism is based on geography.
And why on earth would that be ridiculous?
Because that's racist against black people. You are denying them the right to be a shitty person due to their skin color. Seems silly that a black person can't be racist to a white person in America yet if they both go to Africa the white person can't be racist against the African.
No I’m not. They can feel the exact same way and be just as much of an awful person. It’s just called by a different word as the effects are different. And by the way, in many countries in Africa, white people still hold more power. Power is not always determined by the majority.
It's called by a different word by you due to your racist notions regarding black people.
No. It's called by a different word because the word that it's called by refers not to the action in a vacuum, but to the action and it's implications. That's why different words exist. So that we can use them to say different things.Besides, it's not even clear if you're arguing that the social situations aren't different, or just that you think the words mean the same thing.Either way, this conversation has taken up far too much of my time. Have a nice day.
Racism is a word with a meaning that's already determined, your changing of the racism word to exclude black people is racist.
So you are saying that nationalism is bad because of one instance in thousands years of history?How hundred million people has communism killed and it's still openly promoted. White nationalism has nothing to do with fascism and it's nothing different from Asian nationalism or black nationalism but fascists like you will never understand this.
Facism continued in Spain, chilie and Argentina right up to 70s. Facism has nothing to do with white nationalism. Facism played a very small role in WW2 and didn't kill anywhere close to what the Nazis or communists did. National socialism and communism were the main reason WW2 was fought when the decided in 1939 that Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, Lithuanian nationalism, Latvian nationalism, Estonian nationalism, Greek nationalism, Yugoslavian nationalism, Belgian nationalism, Danish nationalism, Norwegian nationalism, Luxembourg nationalism, Dutch nationalism and British nationalism needed to end.
FB and others e. g. Twitter literally were constantly deleting ISIS content. Facebook claimed they deleted 3 million pieces of ISIS propaganda in Q3 of 2018 alone
@tartaarsaus exactly so we can't call them out for deleting alex jones etc though i think this whole thing is more about control rather than censorship and farcebook are only doing it because of the threat of legal action from governments around the world
I think some SJWs did claim drinking milk was white supremacy.
SJWs in companies have repeatedly shown they are willing to sacrifice profit for virtue. Just look at video game companiesSJWs "I'm going to do it"Fans of games "We hate it. We won't buy the game if that happensSJWs "I did it."*Fan don't buy the gameSJW "Another blow against the patriarchy!"
@Monster_Recluse it's good PR though. Just look at the BFV campaign.
There was that Mafia game that made you play as a black dude that wants to kill the KKK instead of what you would expect from the Mafia. That series is now dead.There was Dishonored 2 where they brought in a gender studies major to help change the character into a woman. That series is now dead and it underperformed expectations.Marvel comics changed tons of it's characters to non whites or women and filled it's stories with woke. Comic sales for them across the board are bad and from what I have heard people say are probably bad enough so they are losing money on major titles like Iron Man. The comic books division is probably operating at a lose. Let that sink in.Dead or Alive announced the characters were getting less sexy costumes. The game tanked n sales.How are those video game reviewing agencies like IGN and Kotaku doing? They've been woke for years. Their name is a punchline and nobody gives a shit about their reviews anymore.If companies were soley driven by capitalism do you think that the Western side of gaming would have completely desexualized it's female characters? Demand for sexualization is so high that basically anything with a sexy women in that is not shovel ware will get good sales--and plenty of shovelware does too. The Neptunia series is the worst JRPG I have seen in terms of mechanics and design, and reuses assets shamelessly. Yet nobody cares. Tell me Legandary Sir whether you actually, truly beleive the collective buying power of gamers in the West does not want sexualization?
2.2 billion people use it
Mostly idle accounts or old people.2.2 registered, I highly doubt those are all active users.
Apparently it's about 2.32 billion monthly active users
Because I'm afraid.
Facism makes me butthurt I guess, do you approve of racism?
No, you adore and worship fascism and racism, that much is obvious. You're using all the KKK/neonazi dog whistles and code words, you filthy nazi.
Facism has nothing to do with racism. Even national socialists weren't racist.
Okay, now you just PROVED that your a total piece of shit. Try reading a "book", if you have enough intelligence to know what "books" are:Lusane, Clarence (2003). Hitler's Black Victims: The Historical Experiences of European Blacks, Africans and African Americans During the Nazi Era. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-93295-5.
If you were well read up on the subject of racism you'd know that national socialism &facism are too entirely different things.Mostly slavs were the victims of the Nazis. Facism continued in Spain until the late 70s as well as Argentina and Chile.
You pathetic little moron. YOU FLATLY STATED THAT "national socialists weren't racists". Once I proved you STUPID AND WRONG (you're probably being proved stupid and wrong 20 times a day), you shift the goalposts. I get it, you are an evil little shit who is to COWARDLY to even post behind a silly pseudonym. You are the past. You will go extinct. You are a worthless shit.
Typo, I meant facist. Point is that white people were the primary victims of Nazism, basically eastern Europeans.Instead of trying to insult me you should may be read up a little bit up on the subject to avoid looking like a silly ignorant fool once again.
I've read quite a bit on the subject. You just want to live as a slave. I don't.
Obviously not if you can't tell the difference between facism, kkk, national socialism, communism etc
Except in South Africa and Zimbabwe
Lol true...I'm from India by the way
Are white people responsible for how awful your country is?
White people ( British ) tried to suck everything out of our country.They tried everything they could.But white people do not have that power to make my country awful. its us who made it worse. by the way super proud of my country
Wasn't your country basically a Muslim country until the British came &kicked the Mughals out?
Nope, they did not kick them out. India still has I guess third largest Muslim population.It was partly ruled by Mughal emperors while there were other kingdoms as well.Mughals also came to India as invaders something around 800 years ago. They brought Islam with them. Hinduism has been here since more than 4000 years.'India' before that spread till Afghanistan and Iran in West and Myanmar in East..Where are you from?
But basically until the British showed up the Mughals were in control and had killed millions of Hindus and was slowly islamising your country just like everywhere the Muslims conquered.
Really slowly. They were here 600 years.Our culture is strong it's not easy to wipe it off
How strong is Indian culture in the Pakistan region.With enough time they could have eradicated you guys, just look at non Muslim groups in the middle East, over time they all disappeared.
Pakistan is a example of how bad Muslims can be to minorities.As I told you earlier , Hindu culture isn't easy to wipe off. No we won't disappear LoL
Now you won't disappear thanks to the British
No thanks to them
Without them you'd be pakistani
It just depends on the public image that it has and what exactly FB would ban. Afaik white nationalism tends to have much more undertones of separatism, which of course immediately breaks FB's rules, than other of those groups. But it depends on their perspective. Then the variable that they base this policy on is how extremist elements within the movement are rather than merely the skin colour of the people. That'd effectively also remove the possibility that it's actually racist policy.
I should add: 'assuming that the premise of white nationalism/separatism being more extremist is factually correct'. Other than that, it's a political decision not necessarily made based on the sole factor of race, rather a culmination of things. It may have the percept that it is racist, as it specifically targets one thing - though I know that general rules of Facebook ban other extremism as well - but that does not imply that the defining factor is race.