Facebook's new policy: Ban white nationalism and separatism

In all honesty, all you're doing is cherry picking the utter bare bones of facts Either that, or you didn't learn squat in American history class.
I never said Columbus discovered the USA. Some of the West indies are considered part of the Americas but that's besides the point. Donald Trump JR is also a grown man, I didn't miss the word baron.

The poster I responded to, who is someones likely someones extra trolling account, made just for this article. Mentioned language, that is why I focused on illegal immigration.

Most immigrants are more law abiding then their American counter parts, with their next generation statistically becoming pretty much just like your average America. If anything they become Americanized.

"But, blacks are never going to let you forget they were brought here against their will, no matter how far their success carries them into American society.."
You don't know every black person... You sound just as bad as those people who say white privilege. Hell look at Kanye West's crazy arse. -Slavery was a choice.

The football thing, personally I didn't like the kneeling, then I decided who cares I'm here to watch football, I don't usually watch the national anthem anyways. I will reluctantly get into this later.

The reason the Polish, Italian and Irish were picked on is because at the time we banned nearly everyone but European immigrants... They needed someone to pick on with their rhetoric. It works over and over, century after century. I really doubt your ancestors spoke English when they immigrated to America unless they came from England. Then again most normal societies actually consider speaking multiple languages a sign of intelligence, so who knows.

I butter my bread butter side down!

I agree they could have stayed in their native country and fought to make it better. And so could have your ancestors. And every single person who has colonized America. So get off your morale high horse.

Low income areas always have a higher crime rate. Regardless of race. Well maybe not the Amish... But that's not a race. Anyways, some races are statistically more likely to have less money then others do in part how America used to be. Then there are Asian people who blasted everyone financially and low crime wise despite poverty and the old racist system. But I never see them looking down their noses at the rest of us. They have class.

Culture.. ug.. if there is a culprit culture plays a way greater role then race. (My opinion) Where do you think that class comes from?

The kneeling seems to be promoted by BLM. BLM only cares when a white person negatively affects a black person. That is racist. Black lives don't matter if it's another race hurting black people?

Reparation. How far do you go back? Should slavery be the only crime affected? What if my ancestor was left orphan by your murderous ancestor? That would cause my lineage economic woah too. Do we take it globally and demand payment from Africans who sold other Africans into slavery? What about the Nazis, do we demand payment from them? The egyptians? The witch burners? The indentured servants? on and on and on. It gets very complex. My answer is no.

I didn't want to get into it but that's my 2 cents.
 
I never said Columbus discovered the USA. Some of the West indies are considered part of the Americas but that's besides the point. Donald Trump JR is also a grown man, I didn't miss the word baron..

upload_2019-3-28_14-23-2.jpeg
upload_2019-3-28_14-23-2.jpeg
upload_2019-3-28_14-23-2.jpeg
upload_2019-3-28_14-23-2.jpeg
upload_2019-3-28_14-23-2.jpeg
upload_2019-3-28_14-23-2.jpeg
More images
Barron Trump
Donald Trump's son

Born: March 20, 2006 (age 13 years), Manhattan, New York City, NY

Full name: Barron William Trump
Education: Columbia Grammar & Preparatory School (2017), St. Andrew's Episcopal School
Siblings: Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Tiffany Trump, Eric Trump
Parents: Donald Trump, Melania Trump
Nephews: Theodore James Kushner, Joseph Frederick Kushner, MORE
 
Keep in mind recently they got exposed of having users passwords in plain text for 20k FB employees to see. This is defintely not a way to get peoples eyes off of it.

One thing I don't get is how every once in a while some social media platform says "We'Re gOiNg tO fIgHt hAte SpEeCh" like they haven't been doing that before. You're telling me they let racism on their platform all this time? They're just mining woke points for publicity.
 
So why ban only white nationalism, why not ban all nationalism? Is Facebook gonna ban itself for being racist?


Because White Nationalism has used Facebook to commit TERRORIST ACTS.

On peaceful Church goers...

Jews in a temple.

Blacks in a church.

Muslims in a mosque.

Do I really need to explain that or are you trolling?
 
Because White Nationalism has used Facebook to commit TERRORIST ACTS.

On peaceful Church goers...

Jews in a temple.

Blacks in a church.

Muslims in a mosque.

Do I really need to explain that or are you trolling?
The overarching question becomes have other groups not affiliated with white nationalism used Facebook to organize attacks? If the answer is yes, then they need to be banned as well..

But directly in the case of White Nationalism, can acts that have been committed in it's name, be attached directly to one or more of its groups. The term itself is generic and non specific.

My idea of true freedom is, if the Ku Klux Klan wants to get together and hate blacks, it's fine by me. If they want to post to Facebook about how much they hate blacks, that's also fine by me.

Here's the catch, as long as they don't take action on their hatred, the mere mention of hating blacks comes under the protection of the 1st amendment.

So, unless we install a totalitarian government which makes "thought crime" a punishable offense, then the KKK should be free to express itself verbally..

But the overarching concern to the government, and to communist SJW "liberals" alike. Should be if and when these groups are banned from public forums, two fundamental things will take place. First, these groups will be driven completely underground, where their postings won't be available for scrutiny by law enforcement. You'll also aggravate they hatred they already have for groups other than white nationalists.

OK, I've been around since the dawn of the civil rights movement. Given the tone of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, NAACP, Black Lives Matter, and others. there is no possibility that enough concessions will ever be made. As soon as you grant one thing, they'll ask for more in an eternal cycle of perceived or imagined slights, and jockeying for social position.

Someone slashed one of my tires in front of my face a few years back. I spoke to a very educated Asian man about it. (Yes, he is a psychiatrist). What he said was this. "you're telling me a black woman who is also a lesbian slashed your tires". I answered "yes". To which he said, "that's a triple minority, you'll never win that argument". (period)
 
Last edited:
FB can do whatever it wants and no one has to use it in the USA. There are plenty of public forums where you can say whatever you want.

This is what you should actually be alarmed about. FB offers free internet in developing countries. At one point 65 countries, idk about right now im not up to date on it. But you can only use it to access FB and 150 or so FB offered sites. FB and internet have become synonymous in those regions. In some places like Myanmar, FB is preinstalled on their mobile devices and is the only app that can be used data free.

Considering how much misinformation is on FB.... No I don't always agree with everything John Oliver says, but he often goes above and beyond on what no one else is talking about.
http://digg.com/video/facebook-john-oliver
 
Why? Because I believe in equality of all things? If you want to put the clamp-down on one kind of racism and terrorism, you have to do it equally and fairly across the board. You don't get to be selective otherwise you're a pathetic hypocrite, just like Facebook. So yeah, you fit in perfectly there. Have fun!


I'm tired of seeing these people using social media to MURDER OTHERS and commit TERRORISM and spread HATE.

Therefore, I support every single effort they take to censor these trash.
 
The problem is, if you start to censor one group for something, where does it stop? You may not like what they have to say, but they have the right to say it. And you have the right not to read it by not visiting their pages. That is the very tenet of freedom of speech and expression. Censorship is evil on every level regardless of intent.
So you think child molesters should be able to express their desires on FB? The first amendment does not extend to online forums. They could say their beliefs in public but would likely catch an *** wooping.
 
No. You're talking about something that is a crime. Being a "white supremacist" is not a crime. It's a perspective, no matter how foul and wrong, it is just an ideal set. That's the difference.

And the people giving the whooping would be the ones going to jail/prison. Just because you don't like someone or what they say/believe doesn't give you the right to commit violence upon them.
I steered us in a gross direction. I was trying to point out not all censorship is "evil". I agree with you, we have the freedom to go wherever we want on the internet. And forums\social media have the right to censor in anyway they want.
 
The overarching question becomes have other groups not affiliated with white nationalism used Facebook to organize attacks? If the answer is yes, then they need to be banned as well..
Try the link in my post above in this thread if you are really that curious. You will get an answer to your question, Grasshopper!

But directly in the case of White Nationalism, can acts that have been committed in it's name, be attached directly to one or more of its groups. The term itself is generic and non specific.

My idea of true freedom is, if the Ku Klux Klan wants to get together and hate blacks, it's fine by me. If they want to post to Facebook about how much they hate blacks, that's also fine by me.

Here's the catch, as long as they don't take action on their hatred, the mere mention of hating blacks comes under the protection of the 1st amendment.

So, unless we install a totalitarian government which makes "thought crime" a punishable offense, then the KKK should be free to express itself verbally..
As I have posted to various TS threads before, SCOTUS has ruled that incitement to violence is not protected by the 1st amendment. That you state "as long as they don't act on it" is a load of :poop: That boundary between hate speech and inciting violence is almost certainly like the boundary between genius and insanity, and there have been instances in recent years where someone spouting hate speech has inspired others to act on it. As I see it, it would not be all that much of a stretch to declare that hate speech can be incitement to violence and, therefore, illegal making those who use it subject to arrest and perhaps more.

You and I may come down on the same side of many issues, like our mutual dislike of Musk, however, I highly doubt that I will ever convince you of this, and no matter how much you might dislike what I have to say, I'm not playing your game.

But the overarching concern to the government, and to communist SJW "liberals" alike. Should be if and when these groups are banned from public forums, two fundamental things will take place. First, these groups will be driven completely underground, where their postings won't be available for scrutiny by law enforcement. You'll also aggravate they hatred they already have for groups other than white nationalists.
So are you supposing that underground groups like this do not already exist?

And are you supposing that such underground groups are not surveiled?

And, given the reactions to attacks by individuals espousing attachment to such causes, do you suppose that any further attacks will be greeted with open arms and welcomed into the folds of society?

You and I both know how humans share characteristics with other hominids, and even chimpanzees will gang up and overthrow bullies.

OK, I've been around since the dawn of the civil rights movement. Given the tone of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, NAACP, Black Lives Matter, and others. there is no possibility that enough concessions will ever be made. As soon as you grant one thing, they'll ask for more in an eternal cycle of perceived or imagined slights, and jockeying for social position.

Someone slashed one of my tires in front of my face a few years back. I spoke to a very educated Asian man about it. (Yes, he is a psychiatrist). What he said was this. "you're telling me a black woman who is also a lesbian slashed your tires". I answered "yes". To which he said, "that's a triple minority, you'll never win that argument". (period)
I knew there must be at least one incident that you had with someone who did not look like you that was exceptionally unpleasant.

I have had such instances, too. In fact, my entire seventh grade year there was ONE individual who was exercising his right to be a total :poop: head. However, that experience is far, far, far outweighed by the experiences with people that do not look like me that were entirely the opposite. Among those instances, I have never experienced anyone who has expressed to me that I must make amends to them because of my skin color.

Every skin color has its a$$holes, and I would have to say that I have experienced far more of those a$$holes that look like me.

FWIW, I wish you well.
 
...[ ]...As I have posted to various TS threads before, SCOTUS has ruled that incitement to violence is not protected by the 1st amendment. That you state "as long as they don't act on it" is a load of :poop: That boundary between hate speech and inciting violence is almost certainly like the boundary between genius and insanity, and there have been instances in recent years where someone spouting hate speech has inspired others to act on it. As I see it, it would not be all that much of a stretch to declare that hate speech can be incitement to violence and, therefore, illegal making those who use it subject to arrest and perhaps more. ...[ ]....
The opposite argument could be made that talking about your "issues", can relieve you of the stress they are causing you. . This is reinforced with the concept of "talk therapy". That's where you go to talk with some wank from the suburbs, normally the product of middle to upper class parents, with a head so full of absurd idealism, if he or she were to sneeze, they'd blow their brains out. And....,.it costs a ship load of money. That's so these products of middle to upper class parents, can grow up to be middle to upper class parents themselves, without ever doing one honest days work.

Ergo, talking about your "issues" must be good for you, if only by the massive medical bills you can run up being "cured"

IMHO, getting together with your buddies and talking things over could be just as beneficial. Now, since we're in the "cyber age", those buddies might be online, say at "Facebook", or similar. In other words, if a person can divest himself of his or her anger, then physical action becomes less of a possibility. Granted, that would only be effective with people still sane enough to know they have issues.
.
You and I may come down on the same side of many issues, like our mutual dislike of Musk, however, I highly doubt that I will ever convince you of this, and no matter how much you might dislike what I have to say, I'm not playing your game.
As surprising as this may be to you, I didn't invite you to any "game" you presume I might be playing. If you take notice, I didn't quote any of your posts on this issue either, so that nothing I have written could be construed as an "invitation".

Stick around though, I'm going to profile you good and proper, for accepting the invitation I didn't offer, and playing the game I don't recall starting.
So are you supposing that underground groups like this do not already exist?

And are you supposing that such underground groups are not surveiled?
We've talked about this before. The fact that people, of necessity, have to measure intelligence against their own, which also goes for morality as well.

I can safely assume that you think I'm stupid or naive, since you summoned the hubris to pose those questions.

What I actually believe, is that it's much easier to keep an eye on activities which are out in the open, than to burn through undercover operating budgets chasing those individuals into the four winds

And, given the reactions to attacks by individuals espousing attachment to such causes, do you suppose that any further attacks will be greeted with open arms and welcomed into the folds of society?
What I believe is, that unless an organization is that fringe radical to begin with, that they will ostracize a full blown radical since that would bring too much heat to their cause. Haven't you ever watched TV process dramas?

You and I both know how humans share characteristics with other hominids, and even chimpanzees will gang up and overthrow bullies.
Perhaps, but with some qualifiers. First, not if the apes are bonobos. They will merely have sex with an attacker until the attacker passes out from joy overdose. Bullies are often large and powerful, therefore they should provide good stamina in the bedroom as well.
I knew there must be at least one incident that you had with someone who did not look like you that was exceptionally unpleasant.
I thought continuing with more incidents would be in bad taste, so I left it at the one. I insist I have a mild form of PTSD, since that and other wonderful interpersonal instances get played back in my head from time to time. Maybe I'm just too sensitive.

I have had such instances, too. In fact, my entire seventh grade year there was ONE individual who was exercising his right to be a total :poop: head. However, that experience is far, far, far outweighed by the experiences with people that do not look like me that were entirely the opposite. Among those instances, I have never experienced anyone who has expressed to me that I must make amends to them because of my skin color.
What's wrong with this paragraph? Well first off, I'm fairly certain you've had more problems with people of your own color, since they were the majority where you grew up..I've always suspected that you grew up in an environment which allowed your juvenile beliefs and idealism, to remain intact. I also believe you're a product of parents who left the city in the early stages of the "white flight epidemic", who then looked back in guilt for doing so.

I'm also fairly offended, that you think I'm incapable of differentiating between color and class. Trust me I'm not. Nor do I treat individuals of different lineages differently, at first meeting or on a daily basis differently. In my case though "some of my best friends", are the people who give me the courtesy of leaving me alone.

Modern blacks are to a greater extent, incapable of differentiating color and class, at least on a more prevalent basis than whites. The classic example of that, happens every Sunday during the fall. Some fool in the ghetto puts his hands in his pockets when the police just told him to put them up over his head. He pays that ultimate price for his foolishness, and we have to watch 10 million dollar a year black football players disrespect our flag and out country because of it.

I know for a fact, simply by virtue of the type of music required to sooth you, and your unshakable faith in the inherent goodness of human kind, that you would likely be dead in a year doing inner city police work. But since it's almost a totally remote possibility that you would ever allow yourself to be in that occupation in such an area, we'll mercifully never have to find out. Another possibility is, that you would make friends with the people you were supposed to be busting. Instead of assigning a police officer to an area, it would be more like giving them a puppy.

Sadly, I picture your teenage years, as movie scenes from "Pretty in Pink", with you being tortured by those nasty "blue bloods" of your same color. With that said, your issues with puberty seem to have been routine intra class struggles, as opposed to being racially motivated. Which is partly why I believe you can't distinguish racially motivated problems from more typical tribal status issues, since you haven't really experienced them.

I dated a beautiful blond girl from the suburbs during her high school years. I asked her one day how she felt about "African Americans". She told me, "we have a black girl in our class, she's very nice. Her father is a doctor. You are that girl, reincarnate. And I have no doubt that girl was indeed, "very nice".

I'd also be willing to bet those bullies who bothered you growing up, weren't carrying Glocks in their waistbands. Mine do.


Every skin color has its a$$holes, and I would have to say that I have experienced far more of those a$$holes that look like me.
Well like they say in the real estate business, "the only three things that matter are location, location, location".

As I've tried to explain to you on many occasions, I'm a misanthrope, and a sociopath. The sad part of that is, I'll die completely alone. The upside of it is, I'm immune to the hype, the spin, the quirks, the smoke, the bullshIt, and the propaganda that various factions of our society blow up in furtherance of their primary goals, their secondary agendas, or "ulterior motives", if you will.

FWIW, I wish you well.
I appreciate that.

CODA: BTW Simply by virtue of population density and breeding habits, my a$$holes outnumber yours by at least a ratio of two to one.
 
Last edited:
In general, the vast majority of facebook posts are hate post in one form or another. Be it race, politics, lifestyle, traffic, or the crap service you received. It's all hate and complaints. Even more so complaints about someone else's complaints about something.
 
@treetops
It's ok for people to threaten Barron Trump ... how fast would someone be in jail if those same threats were made against Obama's girls ? But what do I know ? I'm a white , Christian woman from the South.
The member you accused of, "joining for the sole purpose of furthering the discussion", did in fact spell, "Barron", correctly, with the double "rr".

I'm not disputing that the lady's membership might be, a one post affair. I did not correct her post in any way. That's it verbatim, coming directly from the Techspot server.

So, I said:
As for "every president being threatened", you completely failed to notice the poster wasn't talking about "The Donald", she was talking about his youngest son "Barron"....[ ]...
Then you said something, and I continued with:

OK, so now you've gone and quoted my post with an explanation, SIC:
Which I can'r even quote since you've managed to screw up your post to the point where nothing appears in the originator's (you) text box..

Oh, that's OK I'll fix that screw up as well
Ha when the original poster first said Baron I thought they meant like Trump is a king and his son is a baron, Don JR or the other guy. I didn't know he actually had a son named Baron.
Who luvs ya baby? :rolleyes: :p :laughing:

 
The greatest accomplishment of the left's masters has been to convince white lefties that they're horrible people and to hate themselves and their skin color.
 
The greatest accomplishment of the left's masters has been to convince white lefties that they're horrible people and to hate themselves and their skin color.
Not "hate" per se but rather to feel ashamed and guilty over what formerly would be considered good fortune, being born white.
 
@captaincranky I did not think through my response to you; and I apologize for not thinking through it first. I have not read any other replies in this thread, so I may, again, be talking out my a$$, and I think that between us, we are better off saving our pi$$ing contests for subjects where we are in complete agreement. :laughing:

Yet, I did some thinking after my reply to your post, and, if you are interested, here is what I thought about.

I did some research into what drives hate groups. There seems to be no current scientific consensus on what exactly drives them.

IMO, it is the same motivation that you see as driving those you spoke of in the post of yours that I replied to:

Always wanting more.

As I see it, these hate groups rise up because the people within them feel as if they have less than others. They then blame a particular group of people, who, as I see it, have no true responsibility to the fact that the haters find themselves feeling as if they have less than others. In other words, they scapegoat them.

Which brings me to one point where we have agreed in the past. Until there are deep changes in society and the systemic problems are resolved, any group of people can and will feel as if they have less than others, and nothing given to those groups that feel that way will sate their perceived lack.

I am sorry you have had bad experiences with others; for me, I take the bad apples and throw them in the garbage disposal. That usually saves most of the other apples in the batch.
 
As I see it, these hate groups rise up because the people within them feel as if they have less than others. They then blame a particular group of people, who, as I see it, have no true responsibility to the fact that the haters find themselves feeling as if they have less than others. In other words, they scapegoat them.


""If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” -Lyndon B. Johnson"


"White Nationalism" which I simply refer to as RACISM is about convincing White Men that they are entitled to be at the top of everything, and the best of everything. It's prevalent in Hollywood...Television "programming" and media.

Social Justice is under attack because it's basically about evening the playing field - no one is better than anyone else.

White Nationalists have been enticed to "fight for their land"...in the case of America, land stolen from the Nartive Americans...and in the case of colonized countries, land stolen from natives.

Take for example the Afrikaner (White South African) land thieves who thought they'd be able to segregate (apartheid) thee Blacks of South Africa after STEALING their land and then maintain their theft of it for many generations. Never did they expect these people to rise up against them and literally start killing them.

And then you have a RACIST President in America who speaks about them in the same manner he did the racists in Charlottesville.

I refuse to call RACISTS "white nationalists". I call em exactly what they are.

Fox News and Conservative talk follow the LEE ATWATER strategy for promoting RACISM. They just try to "keep it abstract".

Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are targeted by racists because they are popular platforms unlike Stormfront and pure racist websites who keep their racism out in the open.

I absolutely support social media and websites likeTechspot for not tolerating their racist hatespeech AT ALL...no matter how abstract it is.
 
"White Nationalism" which I simply refer to as RACISM is about convincing White Men that they are entitled to be at the top of everything, and the best of everything. It's prevalent in Hollywood...Television "programming" and media.
This simply isn't true. There is a high percentage of homosexuals involved in the arts, both in performance, and behind the scenes in writing. Their quest for legitimacy, has led to an unrealistically high percentage of gays represented in TV scripted dramas. This has been escalating over the last several years, starting with, in principle, "Modern Family".

Madison Avenue has picked up the ball, and advertising is now targeting all races, creeds, national origins, sexual persuasion, along with mixed race marriages.

In fact, I think I saw an ad spot promoting same sex getaways.

I actually watch OTA network prime time TV.

As for your earlier rant in admiration of Techspot. It's good for you in particular if they don't let, "racist", or "hate speech" in, that way you can have the soap box all to yourself.

Fun facts. When the black South Africans rebelled, they did in fact, take the farms off the whites/. And then, there was a considerable period when food was scarce, since the newly minted black farm owners, weren't all that good at running them.

I not quite sure what to make of all this hyper liberal propaganda you're putting up. Attention starved maybe?

In any case, majorities aren't all that liberal or healthy, no matter what flavor is in power.

And here's the latest reporting on south Africa's economic condition as of April 2018: https://www.aier.org/article/land-confiscation-south-africas-nail-coffin
 
Last edited:
Are you making excuses for Hitler?

HITLER became POPULAR because HATE, INTOLERANCE and RACISM was allowed to propagate.
Your peoples' love and tolerance was so overbearing that Germans decided to turn to hate just get a little breathing room.
 
Back