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."
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
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/
You are pretty good at demonstrating idiocy, so what does that say? This element is dangerous and must be dealt with violently and aggressively.
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!
Have they? Not saying the KKK is cool, but you have a pretty loaded comment hear, that I don't think holds up under the smallest amount of scrutiny.
Compare that number to the amount killed by Muslim extremists.
Realize you are terrible at math.
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.
No, its just that you don't follow the news very well.
Convenient list that ignores 49 killed in the name of Islam in Miami. That attack ALONE outstrips all those the Guardian totals up over 14 years as attributable to the KKK and white nationalists. They have an agenda, obviously, and because it goes along with your own agenda - you champion it. Even though it's missing GROSS chunks of attacks (San Bernardino anyone?)
Also interesting that the total starts AFTER 9/11 - giving a few thousand head start to the Islamic terrorists... But then, to offset that, you'd have to go back to the KKK in the pre-civil-rights movement, when it was the DEMOCRAT ENFORCEMENT wing with proud member Robert "sheets" Byrd and Fullbright (BilL Clinton's idol) leading the charge against those uppity black folks...
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
That article is total shit. Is says things like "groups like the KKK", and " people aligned with the KKK". I'm not even certain that the KKK has actually killed anyone since 9/11. Also the claim was the KKK, not racial extremist groups. Would you consider a Black Panther murder the same thing? I would, but most of you SJW idiots wouldn't.
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.
The FBI certainly didn't think he was gay. You must like reading all that fake news we keep hearing about.
Are you joking?
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.
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
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".
Hahaha. You mean, bring over some bondage gear? Yes, your leather cladded freaks will instill such fear! Hail Sodomy!
Yes, all you Germans are fat, perverted freaks and a threat to no one. No one is afraid of you. That's why your country is overrun, and they rape your women like animals! You're all cowardly, sick fucks!
That's for sure.
You are welcome on my lawn.
No, quite literally once war is declared, I will hunt down and shoot all the idiots who support a fascist America.
David Frum is not a democrat. He was a writer for National Review and a speechwriter for George W Bush. He is a lifelong registered Republican.
You are welcome on my lawn.
He fucking called the police during the shooting and claimed allegiance with ISIS. Whether he WAS a member of ISIS or not, he certainly was motivated by them (per his own fucking words) and used that as justification. But then, fuckwits like you choose to ignore what the facts are, what people actually say, and make shit up so you can continue your fucking SJW world-view.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Start with 2,996 on 9/11. How many have the KKK killed in the last 15 years?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In many countries, you'd be guilty of a hate crime for talking about double-taps to people (insinuating assassination). Pot - meet kettle!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I posted a link to CNN with the statement and claim; are YOU now claiming that CNN is alt-right? Try educating yourself. You really, really need to learn to read and think on your own before posting again...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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.
Got it. You're an idiot who's fully embedded in his own ways. A waste of space. Sucks to be you!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Remember Nelson Mandela was a terrorist and a member of a terrorist organization.
> 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.
Don't Germans have to keep their guns at a gun club? How will you shoot people when you don't have guns?
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
> 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
I would think many gay Muslims become very religious, just like many gay Catholics become priests.
Frum is a Ruling Party propaganda minion. He happens to have chosen the (R) brand of the Ruling Party, but he's utterly interchangeable with his (D) counterparts like that scumbag, James Carville.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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."
Bullshit. They wish there were enough of them to swing an election, and I'm sure that the left wing wishes that's why Hillary lost so that they could cling to their precious moral superiority hobbyhorse, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Trump didn't even get as many votes as Romney, and Romney was up against the most popular democrat since JFK.
He won, because the Democrats nominated the only crook in the country who could lose to him. Feeding Hillary's black hole of an ego instead of choosing a viable candidate is the biggest mistake they've made since firing on Fort Sumter.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Bernie might have lost, too. I've heard that the Republicans had a pretty massive opposition research portfolio on him.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Did you know that Clinton got more votes than any man in history? She's the most popular candidate EVER!
Or maybe it's just that there are more citizens now, more of them came out to vote in some areas, blah blah blah. And let's not forget Russia's influence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
So, you're saying he's not a true Scotsman?
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm not even certain that the KKK has actually killed anyone since 9/11
Oh well that's all right then, they're practically Christ-like.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, what I'm talking about could be construed as defending the KKK if a person has a vested interest in pushing the "America is racist!" meme. Rather than fret about the KKK (which WAS bad, back when Robert "sheets" Byrd was in it), let's concern ourselves with an ACTUAL group of people not just intent on killing one "race" in America, but ALL Americans. Islamic terrorism a real thing, it's killed thousands in the US over the last 16 years. Yet some would rather obsess over the KKK and the past than face the evil of today and the future.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
That's what I said. Frum can't be a True Scotsman because he opposed Donald Trump, who is the King of Scotland.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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?
Personally I see the Black Lives Matter organizations as more of a threat to society than the KKK. I see the alt-left out rioting and destroying property and beating people who didn't vote how they wanted as a bigger threat than the KKK. I'm looking at what the groups are doing today, and over the last few years, rather than 100 years ago.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!