Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Reinstates White Nationalist Leader's Account (buzzfeed.com)
An anonymous reader quotes BuzzFeed:
On Saturday evening, Twitter reinstated -- with verification -- the account of Richard Spencer, a leading figure of the so-called alt-right movement, and the head of the white nationalist think tank, The National Policy Institute. Spencer's account was suspended mid-November as part of a larger cull of prominent alt-right accounts... However, according to Twitter, Spencer was banned on a technicality: creating multiple accounts with overlapping uses. Twitter's multiple account policy was put in place as a safeguard to help curb dog piling and targeted harassment. [Twitter] offered to reinstate one of Spencer's accounts if he agreed to follow the company's protocols.
Vox says the move "raises the question of to what extent Twitter intends to enforce the 'hateful conduct' policy." But the suspension had also been criticized by David Frum, a senior editor at the Atlantic, who wrote that "The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing...lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity... today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter." But BuzzFeed points out that though the account's been reinstated, Spencer "is now tip-toeing around the company's three strike policy, which carries a permanent suspension."
Vox says the move "raises the question of to what extent Twitter intends to enforce the 'hateful conduct' policy." But the suspension had also been criticized by David Frum, a senior editor at the Atlantic, who wrote that "The culture of offense-taking, platform-denying, and heckler-vetoing...lets loudmouths and thugs present themselves as heroes of free thought. They do not deserve this opportunity... today, a neo-Nazi has more right to build an arsenal of weapons and drill a militia than to speak on Twitter." But BuzzFeed points out that though the account's been reinstated, Spencer "is now tip-toeing around the company's three strike policy, which carries a permanent suspension."
alt-right = neo nazi white nationalist = neo nazi. certain trump cabinet members = neo nazi. facts are facts. own up to it,
No, because then you make him a "free speech martyr" and he'll still end up getting his message out on another platform anyway.
Terms are terms, and service providers set the terms. Anyone who violates them loses the service. Twitter is being weak and not enforcing its own policy. Fuck the idiotic trolls and faggot kids who can't deal with reality, they don't deserve coddling much less respect.
The term "White Nationalist" is meant to evoke the term "Nazi" mixed with "KKK".
But really it's neither of those things. A nationalist (of any skin color) simply wants government to put the interests of his nation first, above those of other nations generally.
When put that way it doesn't sound scary (or even unreasonable) at all. A nationalist can still want to work with other countries, can still support legal immigration - it simply means they adopt the doctors credo "First do no Harm". That is why the chattering news must paint the term with a racial brush, to frighten children or the weak minded...
Note they never call out "black nationalists" even though there are plenty of them... that would be racist after all! But it's OK to try and evoke hate for people based on color when they are white.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
because these groups have been hitting the dog whistle so hard you'd think they picked up a coaches whistle by mistake.
And we called out Black Nationalists in the 70s. They mostly calmed the hell down and stopped being racists. The White Nationalists didn't do that when they were called out. They doubled and trippled down. Mostly because they're being used by a wealthy elite to win elections and stuff state legislatures with pro-corporate anti-worker politicians. That's what pisses me off the most about racism. It's just an excuse to give everything to the 1%.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yes, it is within their legal rights to enforce the fuck they want.
But it's still not a good idea, specially if your plan is to actually combat white nationalism instead of just sweeping it under the rug.
Yes, and then let this application grow and gain neo nazi moderators and turn it into a racist safe space.
Without free discussion, and real actual discussion instead of retarded namecalling we get shit like trump in power.
Just so long as he doesn't post, say, a non-explicit picture of a mother breastfeeding her child.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
It's called stormfront
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Oh the irony, a user who doesn't like hate speech using a pejorative term for a gay male. Shame on you.
I believe it's possible to have two of these three things: anonymity, free speech, and an absence of hate speech. However, I don't think you can have all three of those things simultaneously. Twitter is a business and are free to decide what to allow and prohibit on their service, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with their decisions. No matter how much you censor hate speech, the ideas will thrive in dark corners. People have to decide to reject those ideas, rather than just pushing them out of view so they can wait in the shadows. The change in attitudes toward homosexuality isn't because of censorship, but just because people have learned there's no reason to be hateful. Language such as yours isn't unacceptable because it's censored, but because we've stopped repressing homosexuals and people have decided isn't not so bad.
I believe the best way to stop hate is to confront it. The problem is that most people aren't willing to speak up when they see hate. It's easier to look away and let them hate continue. That's why it thrives, and will continue to do so. I've seen some really nasty hate speech on Facebook, even with the use of real names. Even when something is clearly offensive and harassing, people generally look away, and the behavior continues.
Shame on you for your hate speech. You're part of the problem.
Freedom of speech in your US constitution applies only to the state. You ignorant fuckwit.
The first amendment only applies to congress and state legislation, you dummy.
Actually it was Hillary Clinton's infamy and unfitness for office that elected Donald Trump, in a close contest of infamy and poor fit for the job. Trump outperformed Romney in non-whites across the board. Dems could have run just about anyone but Clinton and taken the office. But no.
Were you in a fraternity when you studied law at Trump University? Because you just embarrassed all your brothers with that legal opinion which bears no relationship to reality.
If I demand to read my poetry at Carnegie Hall, it is not censorship for them to say, "Get the fuck out or we'll call the cops". It is not censorship if my Great American Novel is rejected by Simon & Schuster for being badly written.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Huh?
It's feminists who are pissed off about FB's ban on non-sexual images that (gasp!) involve a breast. Regardless of context. Things involving breast cancer are particularly frustrating. They banned a Swedish video on breast cancer awareness. They instituted a permanent ban on a tattoo artist who tattoos nipples on women who have gotten mastectomies. There's hundreds and hundreds of examples. Photographic? Artistic? Cartoony? Banned, banned, banned. Some people have taken to representing breasts and nipples as squares as a workaround.
The thing that's most annoying about it is that they're portraying things that are distinctly not sexual as if they're sexual. A mother breastfeeding her child is not a sexual act, and it's disgusting and insulting to act like it is. A breast cancer awareness video or a survivor of breast cancer are not there for sexual titilation - they're about survival from a deadly disease. Facebook's obsession about these things is a giant insult.
You went off on a most bizarre tangent there... what on Earth does Jenner have to do with Facebook's banning of breastfeeding / breast cancer images?
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
Yes, and then let this application grow and gain neo nazi moderators and turn it into a racist safe space.
Without free discussion, and real actual discussion instead of retarded namecalling we get shit like trump in power.
But I don't think they actually want a safe space, they want victimization.
The alt-right segment that is causing trouble on Twitter has a very predictable pattern, they find a target and then troll them until they get a reaction. If the victim retaliates they claim that the victim is the real racist/sexist/bad person, if instead the service retaliates they claim they're being censored.
In either case they need a victim to target and aggravate and they need an authority to rebel against. You're not going to get a lot of black women signing up to be harassed on an alt-right Twitter knock-off. The only way they get what they're looking for is by being on the same service as their target.
If you're talking about actual harassment I have no problem with banning, they get to throw a tantrum for a couple days but then you've taken away their access to victims.
I stole this Sig
So a nation with Jewish, Muslim, and Christian elected leaders is all about repression and abuse. One that has mosques, synagogues, and churches all mixed together. Go 100 miles outside of Israel and see what it's like to start a synagogue or church. Tell us what it feels like as the sword cuts through the back of your neck...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
More interesting is the government's baldfaced assertion that it has the power to strip religious behavior from the behavior of staying alive, which is to say, earning money, which is to say, baking for some people.
"We hereby declare that religious people need our permission to be religious in earning a living, a brute requirement of staying alive! We decline to permit them."
Religion is something they declare, fait accompli, is not part of business, AKA remaining alive by putting food in your mouth. They declare it only is permitted, by government, as a quaint lifestyle choice severed from anything of note.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Twitter has gladly helped criminals, abusers, and racists - as long as they were leftists. Some of them even have the ear of Twitter's Ministry of Truth & Safety department.
When we start hearing of people on the left get removed from Twitter (permanently), then they might have some shred of legitimacy.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The only violation that matters is not being a proper leftist according to Twitter.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
These things, IMO, have resulted in the alt-right.
You lack historical depth. The "alt-right" has always been here, they just used to be the norm. It's only by standing up and demanding that they be recognized, that they exist and have the same rights that the so called special interest groups have managed to push society into no longer accepting the "alt-right" viewpoint as normal. Of course, they're only "special interest groups" in that they stand up to the bigots who would pretend they don't exist. When your entire philosophy rests on treating everyone who thinks differently from yourself as a sub-human with no right to exist, being stood up to does seem extraordinary.
Excellent post that points out the Left's hypocrisy. Generalizing a group based on a few of its members is bad and makes you a bigot, but it's okay for them to do it to white people who support individual freedom and free speech by painting them all as inbred hill-billies.
The only thing new about alt-right is the politically correct terminology because the poor little snowflakes get butthurt when someone calls them what they are - white supremacist scum.
> Racist bigots never magically disappear. Unfortunately, almost all of the people who fought in WWII are gone now, or they'd tell you
They'd tell you "n*ggers sit in the back of the bus." Most people from WWII would have told you that black people people shouldn't be allowed in restaurants where white people eat. The majority were "racist bigots". That didn't change by whooping their ass, as fun as that might have been.
As opposed, I presume, to the black supremacist scum of Black Lives Matter?
No, you can convince them to be less racist. Yes, if the neo-Nazis gain a lot of power, then - and only then - is violence the best way to deal with them. It's far preferable, however, to convert them before it gets to that point. Minds can be changed. You're just too fucking eager to incite violence.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
I'm sorry - if you're going to make a claim of supremacism - you should show some evidence.
"Please stop shooting us when we're unarmed and haven't done anything" is sort of the EXACT OPPOSITE of that.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You see, the problem is that alt-right types will take a statement like this one about South Africa - a majority black country - and use it to demonstrate 'reverse racism' in the U.S. - still a majority white country, and full of other minorities besides black people. There is no such thing as reverse racism in a country where the supposed racist minority is still suffering discrimination. Yes, I suppose there can be a form of 'compelled non-discrimination' - if only as a form of social pressure, which some whites will see as discrimination against them.
Affirmative Action is a whole other subject, and maybe it's not the best way to remedy the effects of past outright discrimination, but those effects are real - and if you've got a better idea, then out with it.
As far as white people needing a 'white identity they can be proud of'. How about an 'American identity that represents our national value of equal opportunity for all'. Using racial identity to shore up your personal pride is maybe a valid reaction to having been discriminated against because of your race to counter the narrative of racial inferiority that still infects this country. But it's downright silly to build an identity based on being white in America. What exactly is that identity - "we used to run this country - but now we're just as downtrodden as the rest of ya"? It's a big ole distraction / misdirection of anger towards the people who trod you down. Hint - it's not black people, it's the party who's nutcase candidate you just elected.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...