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 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/
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.
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.
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.
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.
As opposed, I presume, to the black supremacist scum of Black Lives Matter?