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."
The guy who reported a bunch of childporn accounts to twitter is still banned.
And the childporn accounts are still active...
Ban the motherfucker for TOS violation and deny him the audience that feeds his hatred of everyone and everything else.
alt-right = neo nazi white nationalist = neo nazi. certain trump cabinet members = neo nazi. facts are facts. own up to it,
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
This is surely the hate speech our founding fathers died of dysentery for. CAPTCHA : REREAD
God damn you are one stupid ignorant mother fucker aren't you? Now it is clear why everything you post pisses me the fuck off. You're a god damn nazi sympathizer!
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/
that elected Donald Trump President. If identity politics works for blacks and Hispanics, it should be good enough for whites. Payback is a bitch.
an ill wind that blows no good
You are an ignorant fucktard.
Why, has nothing been done. The KKK has killed more people in the us than any Muslim, and they are still allowed the wear the uniform.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Our Flag held high! We march in step together..we march for Trump, we march for the USA. For our comrades that BLM has shot at..they march in peace, within our ranks with us.
Clear off the streets, the Trump battalion marches , our streets are free, march if you have the cash.
For our comrades we will march in step together, we march for Trump, we are the 1%.
-Sung to the tune of "Die Fahne Hoch" written by Mr. Horst Wessel.
This is just another loser crybaby democrat calling for more censorship. Fuck him and all the other infantile trolls that can't deal. He better learn to suck it up, *bitch*!
There are several reasons to give it back:
1) first amendment rights in America really need to apply for this. The idea of the internet is that it is no different than speaking publicly.
2) it is far better to know what this WT is up to. And the only way is to have him record it on a freely available medium, such as twitter.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Wow... when Trump wants something done, it really does get done!
Ban the motherfucker for TOS violation and deny him the audience that feeds his hatred of everyone and everything else.
Firstly, I'm not convinced that he promotes hatred.
We've learned in the last few weeks that the mainstream media is quick to mislabel something as bigoted and other related labels, so long as it promotes their position. To get to the truth you have to actually find the statements some person was saying, and then determine for oneself whether they're bigoted or not.
(And I haven't taken the time or effort to do this for Richard Spencer, never heard of him before this moment.)
And further, asking whether Trump was bigoted caused people to post entirely non-bigotry quotes as "proof" of his racism. Mexico isn't a race, he was specifically referring to criminals, Islam is not a race (it's a culture), and so on.
It's gotten so that no one can even mention race in an academic sense without being called a bigot, because the left knows that it's an easy way to shut down debate on the subject.
Secondly, the term "KKK member" has strong connotations, "white supremacist" is largely indicative of bias, but "white nationalist" seems like it's a tailored term to insult and demean most of the people who voted for Trump. It's trying to equate voting for Trump with white supremacy, which again is a way of shutting down debate on the issue. I'm white, I want the government to put the US first in things (such as trade agreements), but I'm not a racist or hateful person. Why am I (and half the country) always marginalized by the left?
It's estimated that there are less than 50,000 white supremacists in the entire country, and less than 1000 of the tattooed, nazi-ish, violent types that you see in a Banshee episode.
Trump got elected because there are real issues that were not being addressed by the establishment, but no one on the left *or* right has owned up to this simple fact.
Instead, it's all about racism. Voting for Trump was a hate crime.
Thirdly, the left really *really* doesn't have any good sense of priorities when it comes to human rights. Apparently anything goes, so long as it promotes their agenda. This twitter thing, and the quote above, is a good example of that in practice.
We don't allow twitter to hire only whites (14th amendment &c), or only men (19th amendment). We don't allow twitter to refuse services to gays or older people or the poor or veterans, because that would be a violation of their rights.
Why do we allow twitter to violate first amendment rights?
No one is required to give you a public forum, the saying goes, but Twitter *is* a public forum.
And finally, recall about a decade ago how ISPs would turn over subscriber information to the government on request without a warrant. The government thought that was OK because the ISPs were free to refuse, and it wasn't a violation of our rights because it wasn't the government doing it.
If we let companies censor our speech, then the same situation will happen. The government can "request" something be censored, with a wink and a nudge, and it won't be the government doing it.
We're rapidly losing our free speech rights.
And it starts with leftist idiots like the OP above, who thinks it's OK to violate that right, so long as the ends are virtuous.
I thought we were against Fake News.
Oh, another white nationalist. They are rising to the surface like so much fecal mater.
I think it's damned scary how so many people try to define "Free Speech" as only the speech they want to hear, words with which they agree, while anything even mildly offensive or challenging to the their world view and preconceptions is quickly labeled hate speech, or racism "loud mouth thugs" who should be banned from social media. And it's not just the overpampered snowflakes who think this way, it's also many of the adults in education and the media, as well.
What else has every US administration done since the dawn of the Republic? (re: putting residents of the U.S. ahead of others)
I can't give you examples off the top of my head for past administrations, but Obama has decided that Iran should really have nuclear weapons and proceeded to make sure they have enough money and a nuclear program to make it happen. Given how they feel about the U.S. I'd say it's about five years before we start literally reaping the benefits of that choice.
In no way can arming Iran with nuclear weapons be considered putting even the people of the world, ahead of, well, anyone...
Obama was characterized as a nationalist by our local media, making him a black nationalist.
But I'll bet they did not use the term "black nationalist", now did they? That's exactly my point, adding a race qualifier to "nationalist" is inherently racist, no matter what race you choose to use.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not sure how it was not obvious, but I am more against nazis and racism than you are.
In fact your stance against me and the points I raise means you are inherently racist, sorry to say.
Perhaps if you reflect internally over the course of some years you might correct that flaw in yourself, but I highly doubt it. How do you feel about Israel for example? I feel it's a fine upstanding country; your more than obvious feelings about it, well they tell us all we need to know about you being closer to a taxi than you will admit to yourself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The first amendment also prevents forced speech. The government can't force you to engage in any particular speech or type of speech. If Twitter doesn't want certain types of speech on their site, that is their first amendment right. For example, a Christian baker can't turn away a gay couple on the grounds that the couple is gay. The baker can, however, refuse to bake a cake that has a particular message on it that he or she finds offensive.
You are saying that Twitter considers everything anyone says on their forum as being said by Twitter?
You're trying to confuse the issue. That's a swing and a miss.
Its like the other propaganda saying the infowars guy is an ex kkk leader. This is rudiculous.
I think the average person has always been a little more racist than the mass media. I don't think this was deliberate censorship, it was just the fact that to work in mass media people tend to be relatively smart and well educated, and as you add education a lot of the ignorance that feeds racism goes away.
Now that social media has reached the masses all that unintentional censorship is gone and ignorant views and arguments are getting a lot more air.
I don't think that censorship is the answer but we need to recognize that it was effective.
The real solution is to explain to the masses the thing that took the elites years of advanced education to figure out, that racism is wrong.
I stole this Sig
See subject: Guys like Soros & globalists like him have 1 agenda - to divide & conquer us. United we stand, divided we fall.
APK
P.S.=> That IS the "real deal" here & this country's being HIT @ every conceivable angle - they do NOT want Constitutional Republics out there, get it folks? If not, dig deep enough, you'll get it... apk
The "alt-right" was developed as a term to describe groups of conservatives who are not mainstream conservatives or establishment Republicans. As a classification term, it didn't imply racism- it encompassed several different groups of thought. I'm not sure how it was turned into a "movement", despite all these groups not really identifying as such, but I know that if you change "a classification for non-mainstream conservatives" into "a movement that accepts neo-nazis", you've totally redefined the term. Probably with the purpose of painting the non-mainstream conservatives with a neo-nazi brush, despite there being a decent number of the former, and only a handful of jackhats in the latter.
Regardless, it is done, and it happened super fast and recently. Already, the non-racist conservatives who are not mainstream have begun rebranding themselves to make plain that they are not "alt-right", because now the term just means "neo-nazi".
... if you don't like their policies, boycott them. If you don't white nationalist souche bags, ignore them, mock them, or otherwise reveal them in shaming ways.
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.
N/T
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.
Twitter loves and protects those people.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I don't know what dog piling is and I don't want to know - it's bound to be unpleasant.
> 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.
> These literal fascists can't be "debated", they can't be coddled, they must be beaten and when they try to act they must be shot without mercy.
An odd statement. If you go back to read up on Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance" he justified his intolerance of intolerance by pointing out the fear that such people would resort to "fists or pistols" instead of debate. And so he justified his idea by the right of self-defense.
In other words, anyone who is inciting or committing violence should not be tolerated.
Source
Back in the 1970s and into the 1980s "computer hackers" were people who spent excessive amounts of time trying to discover all the cool stuff they could do with these new home/personal computer things and with microprocessors. This was when BYTE magazine was in its heyday and carried Steve Ciarcia's hardware articles that covered all sorts of cool hardware people could build for themselves and assembly code for all sorts of clever "hacks". While there were certainly people who were "hackers" who also did illegal stuff (there are people in ANY group who do illegal stuff) that was not part of the definition. Then came the movie "War Games" and lots of press articles that all pushed the idea that "hackers" were dangerous introverted antisocial computer criminals, and SHAZAM! the term was re-defined.
With Republicans in Washington DC and New York claiming to be "conservatives" in every election cycle but then never doing a single damned thing that was conservative, Republicans and conservatives outside the DC-NYC corridor started calling them RINOs (Republican In Name Only) and since the press pretended those people were "right wing" the right wingers outside the corridor started calling themselves"alt right".... and this was when Bannon of Breitbart referred to Breitbart as the home of the alt right. During the 2016 cycle, the Clinton team decided to trash that label and pushed the theme that "alt right" equated to skinheads and Klansmen etc and THOSE vile idiots eagerly adopted the label because they're a tiny pool of attention-seeking dirtbags. Journalists, being 90%+ Democrat, did as they always do: reported DNC talking points as "journalism", thus totally transforming the label.
Originally, "Hacker" had nothing to do with criminal, and "alt right" had nothing to do with racism. The modern press are far more impressive at re-defining words than even Orwell could have forseen.
By describing him as a "white nationalist", they're trying to make us believe he's a nazi. That is unmitigated bullshit.
What Spencer does is report on the politically incorrect facts of radical muslim crimes and their religious motivation. Go have a look at JiahdWatch yourself. You might learn something.
White nationalist Richard Spencer talks to Al Jazeera
He starts off by objecting to being called a White Supremacist. He says it's a "slur".
He also says he isn't a neo-nazi or the KKK.
He then goes on to say that "America is a white country".
He decries the idea of a black James Bond that was discussed a few years ago.
He says:
"You could call it 'the great erasure'. It is a radical transformation of the 'white wall' and because this is happening, because we feel it. Everyone feels it. That's why the alt-right is powerful, because it's so true."
"They should be afraid because we are changing the current paradigm."
He says white males are under-represented in Silicon Valley, which is a point which may hit home to me. I'm not sure if it's true but I'm pretty sure they're not hiring black people in record numbers either.
But that's okay because he hates all immigrants.
Some excerpts from that interview:
"We just have to say 'This is not your country'"
"'This is ours. You are not us. This country is for us.'"
"Only Europeans could be the first ones to go to space. Only Europeans could build something as magnificent as...as..uh...uh...St. Paul's Cathedral or St. Peter's Cathedral. Only Europeans could engage in the kind of scientific discovery that we engage with."
"Only Europeans can be like this."
"Being an immigrant - I mean - it's kind of pathetic to be honest. You know, you're kind of like shuffling off from your own country and you're just entering another one and you're just kind of taking advantage of what other people built, just washing up on our shore. Give me a break. I wouldn't be proud of a nation of immigrants."
What I find "scary" about this is that I know many people will buy into his rhetoric. Look, I'm all for clamping down on immigration and the abuse of the H1B system but this guy is a wannabe Hitler. (Goddammit, I just Darwin'ed my whole post).
Robert Spencer never calls for or condones violence.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
in any but this story is not what it seem at least the reasoning. the press release at least.
'nuff said.
Racist.
@nero ?
Let's go the full distance here, give the devil his due, and presume that by and large the constellation of alt-right groups are all an ideological outgrowth of neo-Nazism.
My question is can such an ideology ever evolve into a more or less legitimate political ideology?
It strikes me that what's generally referred to as "Democratic Socialism" seems to ultimately be derived from Marxism and other extreme-left political movements, yet nobody makes the association between Democratic Socialism and Stalinism, Maoism or other extremist Marxist ideologies. By and large Democratic Socialism ditched the worst parts of its ideological origins, baked in democratic legitimacy, a highly regulated market economy but retained many socialist economic principals and social programs. It's mostly seen as a legitimate political movement except by fairly small group of hard-core ideological capitalists.
Could "neo-Nazism" do the same -- disavow the worst of its original ideology, the anti-Semitism, the explicit racism and white supremacy yet retain the nationalist elements and message that promotes a vision of promotion of specific national interests and cultural values, back democracy as a source of legitimacy and an economic philosophy that is constrained by its nationalism and then be seen as a legitimate political ideology?
IMHO, this looks like what a big part of the "alt right" seems to be trying to accomplish. It remains to be seen whether this is a real attempt at reforming right-wing nationalism or merely an attempt at re-branding without abandoning its worst values.
On Twitter just ask Trump.
I flushed it like the TURD it is, the second they started banning people over speech...
Is that the price of living in an open and free society is having to put up with things you personally find offensive. Identity politics liberals have been trying to make the whole world a safe space where no one is offended by hurtful words or ideas. While the desire to protect others who are being mistreated unfairly is admirable, this has been pushed too far triggering a backlash and eroding the principles of a free society in the process.
While leftists were patting themselves on the back for having "eliminated" racism from their carefully sanitized media feed, real racism went underground to fester and *grow unchecked* for a generation only to pop out like a pimple on prom night in the form of Trump and the alt right.
Leftists have been telling religious types for decades that "you can't legislate morality" while simultaneously failing to understand how it applies to them. You can't make racism, misogyny, etc disappear by restricting speech because these are personal beliefs, ie morality, and harassing bakers who refuse to make gay wedding cakes and getting people fired from their job at dominos pizza for expressing racist opinions on facebook isn't fighting racism it is making it stronger by making these people free speech martyrs and eroding respect for differing opinions which is a cornerstone of a free society.
Sure prevent people from denying others fundamental basic life needs like housing and healthcare based on discriminatory beliefs, but one single baker or delivery driver out of dozens of other possible options isn't denying gays or blacks cakes or pizzas. It is just about making yourselves feel good about shouting down views you find offensive and it is destructive to society as a whole, because you make it easier for them to do the same to you when they get power as they now have.
For the same reason you don't allow people to post job ads or for rent ads that say "No N*****s" it is also wrong to post job ads and for rent ads that say "No Racists". And before you say that hasn't happened remember people were loudly calling for Peter Thiel's removal from Facebook over his support of Trump. When you legitimize discrimination based on personal or political beliefs, no matter how offensive, you legitimize discrimination. Period. And when power changes hands, as it inevitably will, you will want a strong cultural and legal tradition protecting dissenting opinions.
A person believing in the elimination of people to bring about a nation ruled by religious zealots is banned forever, investigated and possibly blown up.
A person believing in the elimination of people to bring about a nation ruled by racist zealots is banned temporarily, given media time and their rights are argued for.
Those who terrorize one are condemned while those who terrorize another are given a chance.
Not saying either is right as they are both horrible imho but it's just an observation.
More accurate headline would be "Twitter Reinstates White Nationalist Attention Whore's Account". Spencer isn't the leader of much of anything. I also doubt "nationalist" is a good term for someone who thinks the EU is a good idea.
not in this context anyway. Google it. Go on. I'll wait.
And you're using a classic Karl Rove technique (whatever you are accuse the other side of being). Are you a paid professional troll (Russian perhaps)? If not then one of them got to you and you're parroting their arguments without realizing it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Twitter is STILL around? Who would have thought that?
twitter is gay
hitler was right about everything and dindu shit
tech industry is uber cucked
whites are the master race
but where. Trump competed for the electoral vote. Not the popular vote. That Hillary ran up the count with illegals on both coasts is of not interest.
an ill wind that blows no good