Facebook to BAN White Supremacists

[Lomasexual]

It's suspect that they are not doing that for every racist/ supremacist group...

There are only two groups of extremists that have proven, over and over, to be dangerous. Murderously dangerous.

One is white supremacists, the other is islamic extremists.

These two groups commit just about all acts of terrorism. The islamic extremists are hugely over-represented given their population sizes within western countries. They are the worst offenders by far.

But white supremacists are the only other group committing these atrocities, and it is fair enough that they are being targeted.

[Eff Pandas]

There are only two groups of extremists that have proven, over and over, to be dangerous. Murderously dangerous.

One is white supremacists, the other is islamic extremists.

These two groups commit just about all acts of terrorism. The islamic extremists are hugely over-represented given their population sizes within western countries. They are the worst offenders by far.

But white supremacists are the only other group committing these atrocities, and it is fair enough that they are being targeted.

This.

I wouldn't be mad at them banning all mfers using excessive hate in their words doe. There's plenty of mfers hating online these days. And while some are demonized like these two, as I believe they should be more scrutinized, some of these hate filled mfers are spitting hate bs daily & are supported sometimes comically by the same mfers they are hating on.

People will argue free speech, but just like BS being a sh^thead with banning certain things I wanna say like **** without having to spell it out as f#ck a private company can restrict your usage of langauge. From there consumers can decide if they wish to continue operating on that platform & then the free market decides who's around moving into the future based on how all those x's & o's work out.

That said I wouldn't be opposed to hate speech (& there is a huge difference between talking critcally & straight up hate) not being supported by free speech like yelling fire on a crowded theater or w/e. Thing is idk how you can put hard boundaries on words that make much sense that couldn't be worked around anyway with our always evolving language. And I certainly don't want anyone going to jail over a controversial, but not truly hateful thing they said like seems to be happening in the UK these days.

[////]

The trouble is that white "supremacists" are mostly a bogeyman & refers to (even then fringe) 1700s ideologies about global white imperial domination that have long since become impossible. If merely opposing mass immigration or tying national identity to ancestry constituted supremacy, then nearly all non-white/non-Western countries would be ethnic supremacist regimes. It's simply not what the word "supremacy" means.

On the other hand, merely banning actual separatists or isolationists wouldn't have the same ring to it because people would treat separatism as more of a civil rights issue & it would garner too much sympathy, defeating the purpose.

They mean they will crack down on people posting immigration, demography & crime statistics regarding the colonization of Europe, regardless of their ethnic background, and simply deeming them "white supremacists" will save them time/money by preventing any objections. It's a tool of logistical power & it will also appease the hostile ethnonationalist groups leaning on them (SPLC, CAIR, etc.).

In turn you will probably see more turn to acts of physical terror.

Likewise the Islamists who are engaged in civilized public debate are the least likely to blow themselves up. It's some kid who had their parents killed or village destroyed and had no platform or voice who radicalizes and sees physical resistance as the only possible resistance. This has become the similar position of the native European & we will likely see radical white separatist/isolationist terror shift from largely fictional to a real statistically significant problem.

[////]

There are only two groups of extremists that have proven, over and over, to be dangerous. Murderously dangerous.

One is white supremacists, the other is islamic extremists.

These two groups commit just about all acts of terrorism. The islamic extremists are hugely over-represented given their population sizes within western countries. They are the worst offenders by far.

But white supremacists are the only other group committing these atrocities, and it is fair enough that they are being targeted.

Do you have a citation for that?

The stats I've seen show that racially motivated terrorism accounts for a very small % even for all races combined.

White separatist, black separatist, etc terror events/fatalities are not only dramatically rarer than Islamic terror but also rarer than Christian, Jewish, socialist, libertarian, environmental, etc...

If you've seen otherwise I'd like to compare.

I do think it will increase because of the variables involved but historically it's a minor %..

[Earl-Hickey]

The issue is what will they class as "white supremacy" obviously nazis can gtfo but the line will probably be set at whatever liberals don't agree with

[WarVeteranO01]

this hysteria about white supremacists was only started to slander trump's presidency and the people that voted for him. where were all these morons fearmongering 2-10 years ago? white supremacists are supposedly this huge threat to society but blacks still beat whites and all other races in violent interracial crime by whopping margins. but oh we can't talk about that doe.

Oh poor white supremacist, victims of false news & hate. lol! Dude you swear like blacks are out hunting down killing white people just because. Does it happen? I am sure it does from time to time just like you get white supremacist that commit violent acts against others.

1 thing I can guarantee, a large majority of violent crime you speak of is black on black. So why does it bother you or why do you use it as a defense? & lets be real here, if a white person is involved in a violent attack by a black person, I seriously doubt the white person is a Law abiding citizen.

[GhostofDempsey]

I'd like to know the criteria used to identify or label someone a white supremacist. Probably anything that offends a snowflake--so basically being white.

[D4thincarnation]

But Black Supremacists can still use the platform?:

[JJRod]

Who really gives a ****? All these hate groups be it white supremecist, black supremecist, radical Islamist will just find another outlet to spew their hate.

I’m wondering why Facebook doesn’t monitor more closely people who do f up things on their Facebook live.

[Willy Wanker]

Facebook should just ban white people.