> The social network will also prohibit stereotypes about Jewish people running the world or “controlling major institutions such as media networks, the economy or the government.”
Sure, the most well known social media founded by a Jewish person censuring conspiracy theories about Jewish controlling the media will absolutely not fuel the said theories... /s
They are literally censoring the truth. Not that I have anything against Jewish people controlling/owning big corporations, I actually admire them because despite of everything they're still strong on the game.
But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash. I can already see it. "See, they own everything and have so much power that now they won't let us even talk about it".
> But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash.
Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger.
Tells them: "all of you XXX are violent, uneducated, and stupid"
<gets slapped>
responds: "Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger."
<gets slapped again>
------
Sometimes people should be slapped, censored or jailed, who cares if that is part of the stereotypical way people view the CEO of the the global company that enforce the policy in their company.
Moreover, the fact that you are reiterating a stereotype that has nothing to do with Mark or Facebook. "If anything this will even make <facebook's case> stronger."
I think that is the very reason that Fb has resisted this kind of action. Just alone the term "stereotype" is a gaslighting term invented by a Jewish person in order to gaslight and psychologically abuse people.
Reality is that fb executives are wildly disproportionately Jewish and they are well aware of that, so the act of censoring the literal truth, so close to home, made them quite self-aware. But I think a combination of desperation/panic (people are increasingly noticing), buckling under the relentless pressure by Jewish groups, and hubris and drunken power has made them now relent/act. Even though the self-evident extreme abuse of the censorship they were self-aware of before remains. "No, in fact, all these Jewish people you see everywhere in control and involved in everything while only being about 1.5% of the US population, is only a "stereotype" (pavlovian bell rings) and a figment of your imagination."
Let's see how Jewish YC reacts to this discussion topic. The good thing about digital censorship from the censor's perspective, is that there will remain no evidence of the censorship once thoughts and accounts have been disappeared. Poof… they're gone and the next person that loads the page will never know that this post or these conversations existed. It's like being a tyrant demigod; powers no other tyrant in human history has ever had at their disposal.
It is the reiteration of an old mistake. Some say doing the same and expecting different results is madness.
There has been content like this since the inception of the net and it was always a side issue and got new prominence exactly as there were attempts to ban 'hateful' content.
True, there are some idiots actually trying to shoot up synagogues, religious Jews get the flak from thinks that are primarily associated with secular Jews, but that is to abstract for people insane enough to believe it.
It just makes you so indescribably mad if content is banned in an effort to allegedly protect you. It also will increase animosity.
Why not just ignore it? It worked extremely well... Jews were not oppressed because people had too much venues to utter their opinions, stupid as they may be. That is a complete inversion of conclusions that can be drawn from historical events.
Far from it. The Jewish people don't control "the media" or facebook, there may be a person that happen to be Jewish that have a role or a job somewhere. Mentioning the "Jewish people" in this context does not make any sense beyond perpetuating stereotypes and the fact that you don't even seem to understand this makes Facebook's decision even more obvious.
Weird, because considering that wildly disproportionate numbers of fb executives are Jewish, your point seems extremely manipulative, abusive, and gaslighting. So you are saying that reality is lying to us and you are telling the truth?
Funny enough is that the very term "stereotype" was invented by a Jewish person as a trigger word to gaslight in the very same way. The very word "stereotype" is an abusive gaslighting ... "don't trust reality, believe what I am telling you".
Great. I learned that the modern usage of the word 'stereotype' was coined in 1922 by Walter Lippmann, a German of Jewish descent [1]. I do not find this reference 'Funny', but IMO the fact that you do demonstrates your bias.
No. 'extremely manipulative, abusive, and gaslighting" would be, for example:
To suggest that a disproportionate number of executives at CNN have German descent (just to be clear, I have no idea what is the descent of executives in FB or CNN, nor do I care).
So talking about the German-controlled CNN is just an important relevant fact for every discussion. Now, every time don't like an article I can just reference this "fact" that CNN are controlled by the people that also tried to commit a genocide and if someone argues, I'll just gaslight about gaslight.
No, not far from it. The statement "Jewish people control the media" might no be 100% true but it is in part. They represent a tiny percent of the population and control a big chunk of the media.
But I'd like to go a bit further. Let's imagine than 10 years from now all media is under their control. Would we be able to mention it or we should be censored because it's a stereotype? This is an extreme example but it shows how stupid is censorship. What about new stereotypes? Do we need a ministry of stereotypes to tell us which speech is allowed and which one is not?
We're supposed to have free speech and to be critical with everything. Every time in history when we went down this path of censorship we ended up worse. And every time the censors did it because they thought they were right and had a moral obligation to do it.
you said: "No, not far from it. The statement <statement> might no be 100% true but it is in part."
Replace <statement> with:
"German are Nazis"
"Arabs f#@3 goats"
"Blacks are stupid"
...
Those are terrible things to say, your statement is no different. It is ignorant. It is a generalization. It is irrelevant. It is a stereotype. Moreover, it effectively played a key part in getting MILLIONS killed over the years.
I find it alarming that people are still debating whether this is a legitimate thing to say.
More alarming than having someone to tell you what you can say and what you cannot say?
If you find more alarming a stereotype than censorship, you have a real problem. Actually we all have a problem.
If you're that worried about stereotypes, you should know that censoring them makes them true in the eyes of the people. Or do you think that people who are stupid enough to hate other because some stereotypes will change their minds once they see they can no longer talk about it?
Yes, I believe racism and antisemitism should be activly removed from legal platforms.
I agree that there are unfortunately stupid people that this will make them strengthen their misconceptions. But IMO there are more stupid people who are going find legitimacy in reading such views in FB and mainstream media and that such legitimacy always translates to physical violence.
But who decides what's racism and antisemitism? I'm asking you because I've seen countless times how some democrats being antisemites publicly and they are being praised. When they are asked they say that has nothing to do with antisemitism.
To me this looks more like "I'm going to censor only what my rivals say". Do you think they'll remove content that says "white people <insert stereotype here>"?
This is stupid no matter how you look at it. You can't censor. You cannot fight stupidity with more stupidity. And please, don't say again that stereotypes can end up with millions dead. What happened in the nazi Germany goes beyond that. You can't just synthesize hundreds of years of religious and ethnic problems into "stereotypes".
Also while I can't quantify the stereotype's influence and subsequent effects on political bias, Islam antisemitism, etc., I believe it is as meaningful as it was in Nazi Germany and the death count could easily increase.
This policy is about the generalization:
"Jewish people control media networks, the economy or the government"
There is a literal difference between saying "German people are Nazis" and saying "Hitler was a Nazi", the latter shouldn't be censored, but context matter.
Given a specific German person that happen to be a Nazi and using that fact to insinuate that Germans are Nazis, would not be OK.
Something similar struck me about the article. It does not list the "external partners" facebook is working with that are largely Jewish organizations that have been relentlessly hammering Facebook; founded by and largely led by Jewish people, to control speech, in direct violation of the US Constitution, in order to suppress the notion that Jewish people control things.
It is unfortunately extremely abusive gaslighting behavior.
They don't care much about security (evident by the recent twitter hack). They don't care much about privacy. They don't care much about functionality.
Increasingly, I don't think people even care about the content or relationship/social aspect of the social media. My dad has like maximum number of friends on Facebook and I really doubt he actually engages with them. His feed is full of bullshit that he sometimes tell me about and is even self aware of a lot.
Why do you use facebook despite that?
He doesn't have an answer. I fear he is just addicted to scrolling when he has nothing to do.
He is also using Facebook and whatsapp because of peer pressure.
A weird phenomenon in india is how easily bullshit spreads on whatsapp. The reason is most people forward without even consuming the content. It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium.
> “We've consulted with many of our external partners over the past year to better understand implicit speech that has historically been used to disparage, intimidate or exclude people based on protected characteristics like race or religion,” said Facebook VP of Content Policy Monika Bickert in a phone call with the press.
What gives is that the VP of Content Policy at a multi-billion dollar company has fallen victim to the rhetoric of a post-modernist black power cult. Abstractly, a business executive is leveraging their position of power to play activist for a political-social agenda rather than set policy shaped by a desire to build a neutral and open social platform. This is at best ethically shady and at worst an abuse of power. How this prevents the spread of misinformation and counters bubble-think, I fail to see.
On top of that, if you actually examine the rhetoric it's 100% inconsistent. Critical thinking has fallen by the wayside in favor of the virtuous critical race theory. Nobody is thinking anymore and we're literally electing to censor truths, ugly as they may be, in order to push a totalitarian narrative. This should piss you off, fundamentally, not only because it's certifiably a bad idea, but because it is working to unravel our sense of objectivity which is required in most disciplines outside of sociology. We've seen it before. History will not look kindly back upon the movement we're experiencing. It's rather unsettling to see it play out if you ask me.
The boomers are all over FB. And most of them are gullible to propaganda, vote and engage in polarizing discussions (not that any of those don't apply to millenials, but to a lesser extent)
How can you ban a stereotype, especially when it's based on a fact so easily proven and incontrovertible that you can simply wait for 3 seconds after the latest Hollywood film and note all the -bergs, -steins, and precious-metal-laden surnames as the credits roll by.
Am I a conspiracy theorist if I dare to read what they put right in front of my face? Is observing the world around me now tantamount to hate speech?
Just because there are jews in media does not mean that “Jews control the media.” You are casually stepping into a history of discrimination that has continuously led back to genocide, each time beginning as just these sort of indignant observations.
I totally agree with you, but you have also to agree then (to stay coherent) that the fact some structures of powers are predominantly held by white men does not necessary mean there is a systemic racism and a white privilege. Otherwise the same reasoning could be applied to say that “the J00s control the media and Hollywood”
> Just because there are jews in media does not mean that “Jews control the media.”
It's a matter of how you define "control" and "Jews", I suppose. "Jews" as in "all jewish people"? Obviously not. "Control" as in "total control over all media companies" also obviously not.
Individual Jews in powerful positions of plenty of powerful companies at disproportionate rates? Probably yes, at least for the US, less so in Europe for obvious reasons.
In the end, I guess Facebook should simply outlaw all blanket statements. None of them are true, all of them are oversimplifying complex issues and are, if believed, harmful. But then again, what would remain if they did so?
It's splitting hairs, really. "Jews control the media" has taken on negative connotations, but it is basically just a more concise version of an objective observation like this, for example: "Jews are extraordinarily overrepresented in all mainstream forms of media in the West, including Hollywood, news, and television, especially in positions with significant influence over the content, such as producers, executives, and writers."
I don't accept that I have a moral obligation to ignore reality (or worse, deny it).
At least in Western Europe yes, noticing some patterns is forbidden by the law.
I have personally ancestors that died during the Shoah so I am especially sensible to the damage antisemitism can do but it’s getting downright absurd at this point
Edit: more precisely I do not believe that censoring such speeches can do any good. If the content of the speech is false there will be reactance and a Streisand like effect and if’s true it will only lead to more comptent and resentment.
I was speaking from a French perspective and I broadly thought it was pretty similar in most of W.E. I do not know the legislation and the jurisprudence in the Dutch case. Mea culpa if am wrong outside of France
> Dutch outlet NU.nl reported that a Facebook spokesperson clarified to them that the ban extends to Zwarte Piet, also known as Black Peter, a folk character that accompanies St. Nicholas on Christmas.
And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history.
We also celebrate the exact same event in my place and it's just a part of kindergarten, nothing related about US culture. People needs to be less stubborn and understand that not everywhere is the same as the place they grew up.
Edit: Although I've just learned that the Dutch & German versions look indeed different compared to my place. The massive black-beard ones we have in my place would still be okay for Facebook I believe, but it's the same concept really.
I have talked about the word neger ( Dutch variant of negro ) with all my known black acquaintances and also with some whom I didn't know before.
Nobody had any problems with the word neger. "Of course I am a neger they said, and you are a white guy. So what, just don't call me zwarte ( black ).".
That's interesting, the word is very taboo in Germany, essentially only used by very old people, relatively far right-wing folks and some Africans (though much, much less so than in the US).
That is interesting, because one of the black (should I call him that, I find "black" polarising) comedians here, Steven Brunswijk, used to call himself Braboneger which is a combination of his province and the mentioned word. However he stopped calling himself that because it wouldn't help his career (which I suppose means: others find it offensive). [0]
Where would you draw the line? In my place it's more common for him to have a very massive black beard covering 3/4 of his face instead so you can almost only see the eyes, is that more acceptable?
Its root is in mythology rather than anything else.
I’d say the line should drawn on the presentation. If we have hundreds of people on the streets wearing blackface and and red lipstick, that’s not okay. However if he’s presented as this bearded fellow, i see no problem.
This is the kind of representation of this man you have in my place. So yeah while this one is probably okay for Facebook, I understand the point of view of the Dutch and the German ones which are basically the exact same concept but with different visual choices.
I think you are missing the point just as much as people who make cultural claims. This whole thing about racism is all purely pretense, psychological abuse and degradation in order to wage war and domination and invasion and conquest upon Europeans the world over. It's no different than an abusive spouse saying "I wouldn't hit you if you did things right" … a pretense for being abusive and evil.
What people do not realize is that this is part of a plan to establish a new kind of aristocracy and feudalistic system the globe over. You will soon enough only be allowed to have approved thoughts and approved culture and own approved things … as decreed by our masters. And you will be swiftly dealt with if you disagree or even dare question your masters.
THAT is the point of all this racism stuff, denigration of the enemy to spread demoralization and deracinate European culture … a cultural, psychological, ethnic, and eventually genetic and physical genocide that is being perpetrated right under your nose.
Black Pete is a controversial subject for years by now. Given that “some” people might consider it racist, I’m not surprised that it’s no longer allowed on Facebook.
Also note the BLM movement that spread through our country as well, which I think will definitely impact the public opinion for about black pete.
Not saying I agree or disagree; not going to touch that dumpster fire with my opinions.
> And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history.
Even culture can negatively affect certain groups. Apparently the Zwarte Piet thing is negatively affecting and causing some racism.
There's the entirely ridiculous "Kick Out Zwarte Piet" group, whose behaviour initially made me against whatever they wanted to happen. There's also some practicalities. Normally kids wouldn't recognize the people playing "Sinterklaas" or "Zwarte Piet". The initial proposed alternatives were bad.
Still, saying "culture" as the only reason for being against something? It's not good enough!
The entire core of the question is whether when something is not intended to be racist is racist.
For instance: in Iran there is a festivity in which a person with a black face plays a huge role, and it has been declared world cultural heritage. I wonder why there is no discussion about that.
Is that because the Dutch are white and the past is the VOC and slavery? Or because the Dutch are white?
> Is that because the Dutch are white and the past is the VOC and slavery? Or because the Dutch are white?
As a Dutch person I will answer: the first.
The great grandfather's of the black kids getting name called 'Zwarte Piet' because of this tradition were literally slaves. Their grandparents were free but did not have remotely the same chances in life. Often couldn't read/write. Any original culture or family ties they had were completely erased. It wasn't like we allowed them to 'raise their kids' when they were slaves. Their parents had it much better. Went to the same schools, etc. Still had to deal with racism when going out or trying to get a nice job, but not at all with persecution. They still did not having a lot of good role models within their own community yet. And don't think about trying to go to a club or join a fraternity.
The current generation is the first one performing on par with native people within society. With more good role models and succesfull entrepeneurs.
Honestly. Decent folks in the Netherlands already changed the tradition to the chimney style. Small subtle change. Doesn't harm anyone.
The people at this moment who still strongly hold on to Zwarte Piet .. are racist. But the tradition wasn't intended to be. And before the discussions started it wasn't. It is now. Because it's impossible to claim that minor changes to traditions are this important to someone unless the intend is racist. Traditions that were always changing. That have changed over and over again. And the only change that is a discussion is this one.
It's especially dumb because the character is a positive reference to blacks. How will it help anybody if we remove all black people from our traditions and history?
Pretending that people in the nederlands are familiar with a cultural thing from the american continent (in that case, the "coon" caricatures, that have 0 history in northern europe), is an offensive form of cultural imposition.
Zwarte Piet / Black Pete is considered a great person (admirable). This despite the way that the person is shown. IMO it's always funny/humourus that people assume something else, especially it it's followed by various wild accusations. Suggest to read up on what's being celebrated.
> Enter the modern day Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. Leading up to W.W.II, Black Pete’s job was to investigate which children had been “bad,” and to take them away in his sack and/or whip them for discipline. Today, the dominating image of Black Pete is more one of entertainment for others’ enjoyment: He helps Sinterklaas deliver the presents and no longer acts as the one who brings punishment to the bad children. But the old task of Black Pete is still referred to in a funny matter. Many parents joke and say “I will tell Black Pete to take you with him to Spain!”. Sinterklaas will ask Black Pete to see ‘The Book’, which lists all the right and wrong things a child did. Over time, Zwarte Piet’s character morphed into a group of Black Petes; all considered a Zwarte Piet, but each with different characteristics.
> In the celebrations, Sinterklaas, who is white, is played by a white person. Black Pete is played in full blackface, usually by a white person as well, or by a black person also in blackface. The actors paint their faces black with huge red lips, wear a curly wig and Moorish dress. “They are portrayed as young, and agile, and do much running and jumping around and acting like acrobats,” says Leyla Hamidi of the National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination. Sinterklaas is portrayed as old, wise, mature, calm, and in control. In celebrations and the media, Black Pete is overwhelmingly viewed by children and adults as unintelligent and clownish. These and other characteristics were found to be typical characteristics of Black Pete as well as black characters in general in Dutch children’s books. Berend’s research found them portrayed as dumb, childish, idle, foolish, and strict (for the old version of Black Pete). Berends further showed similar results for the main physical depictions of black people in children’s books and Black Pete imagery – including enlarged red lips, enlarged white teeth, and enlarged and bulging eyes.
How's showing a certain group of people in a ridiculous way helping blacks and showing positivity?
I agree that Zwarte Piet is portrayed as a great person/character. Despite that, the way it's shown is nowadays outdated and is actually harmful. So despite everything being done in a way that is NOT racist at all, in practice it does cause some harm.
IMO the easy way out would still be to paint people, but to paint them in some weird colour.
Note: it took me a long time to get to this, this as "Kick Out Zwarte Piet" is one of the most stupid advocacy groups that I've seen. It almost seems like a hidden advocacy group IMO.
> IMO the easy way out would still be to paint people, but to paint them in some weird colour.
This is what some English / Welsh "Border Morris" dancers do. This page shows a wide mix. There's full black, half black or black shapes, soot-like smudges[1], mixed black and colour, or full non-black colour.
I guess they are claiming that Black Peter has nothing to do with minstrel shows, that are the reason why blackface is problematic in the USA (and it shouldn't really be anywhere else, in my opinion).
Racism is awful, but going around with US-shaped visors and using that as the sole/primary criterion of it is not good.
For another example: there is no association between Blackface and racism in Poland. Sure, there is plenty of racism on other grounds, but e.g. a white person putting on black make-up isn't part of it.
It's also not as black and white in the US despite the popular narrative. Blackface was an avenue of opportunity for freed black slaves to gain social visibility while at the same time a way for white people to slowly introduce black culture into the narrative. The practice of comedy at the expense of black slave stereotypes has fallen out of practice because it's no longer culturally relevant, for sure, but "coon" culture had an important role to play in US history. A modern analog might be hip hop. Eminem and other white rappers arguably don black-speak to participate in a scene that idolizes, or celebrates, the struggles of low income, predominately black, communities. But the art tells an important story. And it's great music!
In the Netherlands there have been big discussions and protests for and against one of our national holidays called "sinterklaas" (a second Christmas) Where there is a figure called "Zwarte piet" a blackface character that will bring the kids candy's, "pepernoten" and chocolate when they where nice that year.
When the news broke out that FB would start removing these kind of images from there platform both sides of the discussion mostly reacted here in the Netherlands that removing it completely is not the way to go. So i'm wondering how this news is received everywhere else in the world? Here is was the headline of most newspapers and our national television news yesterday.
In Germany we often paint someone black for the christmas story (Holy Three Kings). I think that will also be cancelled because of the failed American educational system.
Of course if you happen to be black, your role is determined if the story gets performed. Such is the weight of oppression...
It has nothing to do with the failed US "education" system. But it has everything to do with the people who do not control anything having pushed a relentless campaign against out-group competition using psychological manipulation and abuse. It is a war on Europeans that has been waged for centuries even.
They are in control of us and our lives the world over and they are our masters and we are their slaves. We also have no means for changing that as we slide ever deeper into their control through a kind of new aristocratic feudalism, where you are not allowed to even look at, let alone question the lord, queen, king, emperor … or you will swiftly be dealt with through immense violence that will shock others around you to subjugate themselves. They are now also using the African as their enforcer, as a type of mercenary in this war, that is motivated by promises of spoils and plunder for serving their masters.
As a German, you will be well aware of that fact that you are not allowed to even think, let alone question your lords that command you to believe what they authorize you to believe and any deviation from that will result in your being made an example of in front of your fellow peasants, lest they too think they can question their masters.
I am allowed to think anything in Germany. The enforcement of compliance for these types of content control actually stems mostly from shame in my experience. There are no Jews advocating for it in case you were insinuating them being behind it.
I also don't think anyone manipulates pupils in the public educational system, there might be extensive peer pressure through social media however and cases of neglected parenting.
That said, I defend people expressing themselves, even if I think the content to be bollocks. Facebook doesn't have to allow any content, but I think it would be the better approach.
And an example of how far back this goes (from the Wiki page decribing the origins of the custom):
"An event which took place in the autumn of 1450 illustrates well the way in which the often separate activities of poaching and protest could on occasion conflate. On October 1450 a large group of men entered the duke of Buckingham's park at Penshurst in Kent and carried off eighty-two deer. Thirty-two men, nineteen of them yeomen, were named in subsequent indictment which made clear that a good number had escaped by its claim that there had been a total of a hundred present (not a figure to be taken too literally). These armed men had charcoaled faces, wore long false beards and withheld their names, calling themselves servants of the Queen of the Fairies."
As a Belgian born in the late ’80s, this is both very understandable and slightly bewildering.
I can perfectly understand Facebook’s decision in the context of blackface being racist.
On the other hand, I have fond memories of watching a show for kids (on the public TV station) called “Dag Sinterklaasje”, which featured “Zwarte Piet” (Black Pete) in each of its episodes. This show invariably had a warm, charming and cosy atmosphere.
I completely agree with the decision, it’s just bewildering to realise that progress in social justice (if only symbolic progress) can catch you off-guard and forces you to reconsider parts of your youth.
If it doesn't look like progress, it probably isn't. Since the demographic change of the net, content is actually regressing back to a mean. There are some people that see racism everywhere because they have been told that they are victims. This is no road to anything that can be called progress.
I will probably get more downvoted than answers, but I'll try anyway: could anybody explain why "blackface" is seen as "racist"?
Especially in the context of an event where everybody is wearing a costume.
I lived (among some other continents) in Africa for some years, and you have tribes where people use a "whiteface" in some celebrations. Are we supposed to get upset about their "racism" as well?
Also, how will this in any way help socially disadvantages people, regardless their skin tone, anywhere in the world?
To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other.
It doesn't make any sense when you actually think about it. The problem is people don't actually think about it. Blackface was actually one of the few avenues available to black comedians at a time when they were actually oppressed. None of this fits the post-modernist narrative though so it's ignored because blackface is obviously racist, rite?
The historical links to minstrel shows are valid grounds for the offensiveness.
But sometimes you have to wonder about the validity of the outrage when a case has no links to this whatsoever, and where it is done out of pure admiration and celebration of a person of color.
A few years ago in Australia, a young kid and his mother were nationally shamed when the kid went to a school dress-up day as his favourite footballer, who is a dark-skinned man of Fijian descent [1].
He wore dark skin paint and a dreadlock wig, obviously because he idolises this footballer and wanted to look as much like him as possible.
The footballer then had to comment on the matter, and admitted that he himself had endorsed people dressing up this way in the past, and that even he had to be educated that it was not a cool thing to do.
It seems to me that Facebook instead of battling racism and other problems in the information bubbles that it has created, is doing some kind of straw man.
"Look here we are banning black face!" Don't get me wrong, symbols matter. But this is not even remotely the most consequential thing that Facebook can do to fight disinformation and racism.
Is it a global policy? Are they gonna ban pictures and videos of kids signing Christmas carols in my country? Or saying the name of the 3rd biggest river in Africa (in my language)
This is unfortunately going to end badly. We're still in a fairly decent position on the diminishing returns curve for banning offensive content, but it's already a far cry from what people were talking about censoring even a year ago.
The logical extreme for this sort of thing would be the censoring of anything that isn't as bland and boring as a history textbook (for exactly the same reasons). I expect there will be stronger and stronger pushback before it goes this far into the ridiculous, but this will be the general direction that every offence-taking group pushes things in.
The left can't take a joke. The right can't take criticism of orthodoxy.
Too conveniently, it bans a photo of Virginia governor Ralph Northam. It protects him.
The infamous photo shows him in blackface, with his then-girlfriend beside him in full KKK gear. (and uh, did they just have KKK gear lying around the house???)
It doesn't get covered much in the news. He is being protected because of his party affiliation as a democrat. He is still in office to this day. Imagine if such a photo had been discovered with a republican. It would be headline news for months.
99 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadSure, the most well known social media founded by a Jewish person censuring conspiracy theories about Jewish controlling the media will absolutely not fuel the said theories... /s
They are literally censoring the truth. Not that I have anything against Jewish people controlling/owning big corporations, I actually admire them because despite of everything they're still strong on the game.
But you can't tell me that censoring talking about them won't have a backlash. I can already see it. "See, they own everything and have so much power that now they won't let us even talk about it".
Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger.
Tells them: "all of you XXX are violent, uneducated, and stupid"
<gets slapped>
responds: "Yes, exactly my point. I find it very strange to fight a stereotype by acting in a way that could easily be casted into the said stereotype. If anything this will even make it stronger."
<gets slapped again>
------
Sometimes people should be slapped, censored or jailed, who cares if that is part of the stereotypical way people view the CEO of the the global company that enforce the policy in their company.
Moreover, the fact that you are reiterating a stereotype that has nothing to do with Mark or Facebook. "If anything this will even make <facebook's case> stronger."
Reality is that fb executives are wildly disproportionately Jewish and they are well aware of that, so the act of censoring the literal truth, so close to home, made them quite self-aware. But I think a combination of desperation/panic (people are increasingly noticing), buckling under the relentless pressure by Jewish groups, and hubris and drunken power has made them now relent/act. Even though the self-evident extreme abuse of the censorship they were self-aware of before remains. "No, in fact, all these Jewish people you see everywhere in control and involved in everything while only being about 1.5% of the US population, is only a "stereotype" (pavlovian bell rings) and a figment of your imagination."
Let's see how Jewish YC reacts to this discussion topic. The good thing about digital censorship from the censor's perspective, is that there will remain no evidence of the censorship once thoughts and accounts have been disappeared. Poof… they're gone and the next person that loads the page will never know that this post or these conversations existed. It's like being a tyrant demigod; powers no other tyrant in human history has ever had at their disposal.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
There has been content like this since the inception of the net and it was always a side issue and got new prominence exactly as there were attempts to ban 'hateful' content.
True, there are some idiots actually trying to shoot up synagogues, religious Jews get the flak from thinks that are primarily associated with secular Jews, but that is to abstract for people insane enough to believe it.
It just makes you so indescribably mad if content is banned in an effort to allegedly protect you. It also will increase animosity.
Why not just ignore it? It worked extremely well... Jews were not oppressed because people had too much venues to utter their opinions, stupid as they may be. That is a complete inversion of conclusions that can be drawn from historical events.
Far from it. The Jewish people don't control "the media" or facebook, there may be a person that happen to be Jewish that have a role or a job somewhere. Mentioning the "Jewish people" in this context does not make any sense beyond perpetuating stereotypes and the fact that you don't even seem to understand this makes Facebook's decision even more obvious.
Funny enough is that the very term "stereotype" was invented by a Jewish person as a trigger word to gaslight in the very same way. The very word "stereotype" is an abusive gaslighting ... "don't trust reality, believe what I am telling you".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Etymology
To suggest that a disproportionate number of executives at CNN have German descent (just to be clear, I have no idea what is the descent of executives in FB or CNN, nor do I care).
So talking about the German-controlled CNN is just an important relevant fact for every discussion. Now, every time don't like an article I can just reference this "fact" that CNN are controlled by the people that also tried to commit a genocide and if someone argues, I'll just gaslight about gaslight.
But I'd like to go a bit further. Let's imagine than 10 years from now all media is under their control. Would we be able to mention it or we should be censored because it's a stereotype? This is an extreme example but it shows how stupid is censorship. What about new stereotypes? Do we need a ministry of stereotypes to tell us which speech is allowed and which one is not?
We're supposed to have free speech and to be critical with everything. Every time in history when we went down this path of censorship we ended up worse. And every time the censors did it because they thought they were right and had a moral obligation to do it.
Replace <statement> with: "German are Nazis" "Arabs f#@3 goats" "Blacks are stupid" ...
Those are terrible things to say, your statement is no different. It is ignorant. It is a generalization. It is irrelevant. It is a stereotype. Moreover, it effectively played a key part in getting MILLIONS killed over the years.
I find it alarming that people are still debating whether this is a legitimate thing to say.
If you find more alarming a stereotype than censorship, you have a real problem. Actually we all have a problem.
If you're that worried about stereotypes, you should know that censoring them makes them true in the eyes of the people. Or do you think that people who are stupid enough to hate other because some stereotypes will change their minds once they see they can no longer talk about it?
I agree that there are unfortunately stupid people that this will make them strengthen their misconceptions. But IMO there are more stupid people who are going find legitimacy in reading such views in FB and mainstream media and that such legitimacy always translates to physical violence.
To me this looks more like "I'm going to censor only what my rivals say". Do you think they'll remove content that says "white people <insert stereotype here>"?
This is stupid no matter how you look at it. You can't censor. You cannot fight stupidity with more stupidity. And please, don't say again that stereotypes can end up with millions dead. What happened in the nazi Germany goes beyond that. You can't just synthesize hundreds of years of religious and ethnic problems into "stereotypes".
For a small glimpse, read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#20th-cen...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism_in_th...
Also while I can't quantify the stereotype's influence and subsequent effects on political bias, Islam antisemitism, etc., I believe it is as meaningful as it was in Nazi Germany and the death count could easily increase.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_antisemitism#Nazi_Ger...
There is a literal difference between saying "German people are Nazis" and saying "Hitler was a Nazi", the latter shouldn't be censored, but context matter.
Given a specific German person that happen to be a Nazi and using that fact to insinuate that Germans are Nazis, would not be OK.
It is unfortunately extremely abusive gaslighting behavior.
So, what gives?
They don't care much about security (evident by the recent twitter hack). They don't care much about privacy. They don't care much about functionality.
Increasingly, I don't think people even care about the content or relationship/social aspect of the social media. My dad has like maximum number of friends on Facebook and I really doubt he actually engages with them. His feed is full of bullshit that he sometimes tell me about and is even self aware of a lot.
Why do you use facebook despite that?
He doesn't have an answer. I fear he is just addicted to scrolling when he has nothing to do.
He is also using Facebook and whatsapp because of peer pressure.
A weird phenomenon in india is how easily bullshit spreads on whatsapp. The reason is most people forward without even consuming the content. It's almost like they are getting rewarded for a completely different thing than the intended or well communicative purpose of the medium.
I suspect they find the engagement sufficient. They forward and someone comments. The dinging of the phone itself is exciting.
What gives is that the VP of Content Policy at a multi-billion dollar company has fallen victim to the rhetoric of a post-modernist black power cult. Abstractly, a business executive is leveraging their position of power to play activist for a political-social agenda rather than set policy shaped by a desire to build a neutral and open social platform. This is at best ethically shady and at worst an abuse of power. How this prevents the spread of misinformation and counters bubble-think, I fail to see.
On top of that, if you actually examine the rhetoric it's 100% inconsistent. Critical thinking has fallen by the wayside in favor of the virtuous critical race theory. Nobody is thinking anymore and we're literally electing to censor truths, ugly as they may be, in order to push a totalitarian narrative. This should piss you off, fundamentally, not only because it's certifiably a bad idea, but because it is working to unravel our sense of objectivity which is required in most disciplines outside of sociology. We've seen it before. History will not look kindly back upon the movement we're experiencing. It's rather unsettling to see it play out if you ask me.
Am I a conspiracy theorist if I dare to read what they put right in front of my face? Is observing the world around me now tantamount to hate speech?
It's a matter of how you define "control" and "Jews", I suppose. "Jews" as in "all jewish people"? Obviously not. "Control" as in "total control over all media companies" also obviously not.
Individual Jews in powerful positions of plenty of powerful companies at disproportionate rates? Probably yes, at least for the US, less so in Europe for obvious reasons.
In the end, I guess Facebook should simply outlaw all blanket statements. None of them are true, all of them are oversimplifying complex issues and are, if believed, harmful. But then again, what would remain if they did so?
I don't accept that I have a moral obligation to ignore reality (or worse, deny it).
I have personally ancestors that died during the Shoah so I am especially sensible to the damage antisemitism can do but it’s getting downright absurd at this point
Edit: more precisely I do not believe that censoring such speeches can do any good. If the content of the speech is false there will be reactance and a Streisand like effect and if’s true it will only lead to more comptent and resentment.
And here is exactly why it's a stupid idea, different countries have different culture and history.
We also celebrate the exact same event in my place and it's just a part of kindergarten, nothing related about US culture. People needs to be less stubborn and understand that not everywhere is the same as the place they grew up.
Edit: Although I've just learned that the Dutch & German versions look indeed different compared to my place. The massive black-beard ones we have in my place would still be okay for Facebook I believe, but it's the same concept really.
Nobody had any problems with the word neger. "Of course I am a neger they said, and you are a white guy. So what, just don't call me zwarte ( black ).".
This is in NL.
[0]: https://www.ad.nl/tilburg/braboneger-laat-bijnaam-vallen-en-...
Its root is in mythology rather than anything else.
They are turned away by the organizing committee ... tada, because they are black.
This is the kind of representation of this man you have in my place. So yeah while this one is probably okay for Facebook, I understand the point of view of the Dutch and the German ones which are basically the exact same concept but with different visual choices.
What people do not realize is that this is part of a plan to establish a new kind of aristocracy and feudalistic system the globe over. You will soon enough only be allowed to have approved thoughts and approved culture and own approved things … as decreed by our masters. And you will be swiftly dealt with if you disagree or even dare question your masters.
THAT is the point of all this racism stuff, denigration of the enemy to spread demoralization and deracinate European culture … a cultural, psychological, ethnic, and eventually genetic and physical genocide that is being perpetrated right under your nose.
Also note the BLM movement that spread through our country as well, which I think will definitely impact the public opinion for about black pete.
Not saying I agree or disagree; not going to touch that dumpster fire with my opinions.
Even culture can negatively affect certain groups. Apparently the Zwarte Piet thing is negatively affecting and causing some racism.
There's the entirely ridiculous "Kick Out Zwarte Piet" group, whose behaviour initially made me against whatever they wanted to happen. There's also some practicalities. Normally kids wouldn't recognize the people playing "Sinterklaas" or "Zwarte Piet". The initial proposed alternatives were bad.
Still, saying "culture" as the only reason for being against something? It's not good enough!
I'm Dutch btw.
For instance: in Iran there is a festivity in which a person with a black face plays a huge role, and it has been declared world cultural heritage. I wonder why there is no discussion about that.
Is that because the Dutch are white and the past is the VOC and slavery? Or because the Dutch are white?
As a Dutch person I will answer: the first.
The great grandfather's of the black kids getting name called 'Zwarte Piet' because of this tradition were literally slaves. Their grandparents were free but did not have remotely the same chances in life. Often couldn't read/write. Any original culture or family ties they had were completely erased. It wasn't like we allowed them to 'raise their kids' when they were slaves. Their parents had it much better. Went to the same schools, etc. Still had to deal with racism when going out or trying to get a nice job, but not at all with persecution. They still did not having a lot of good role models within their own community yet. And don't think about trying to go to a club or join a fraternity.
The current generation is the first one performing on par with native people within society. With more good role models and succesfull entrepeneurs.
Honestly. Decent folks in the Netherlands already changed the tradition to the chimney style. Small subtle change. Doesn't harm anyone.
The people at this moment who still strongly hold on to Zwarte Piet .. are racist. But the tradition wasn't intended to be. And before the discussions started it wasn't. It is now. Because it's impossible to claim that minor changes to traditions are this important to someone unless the intend is racist. Traditions that were always changing. That have changed over and over again. And the only change that is a discussion is this one.
Or are they portrayed as well as they where when the tradition started?
Also, what's is bad about big lips? Or earrings?
> Enter the modern day Sinterklaas and Zwarte Piet. Leading up to W.W.II, Black Pete’s job was to investigate which children had been “bad,” and to take them away in his sack and/or whip them for discipline. Today, the dominating image of Black Pete is more one of entertainment for others’ enjoyment: He helps Sinterklaas deliver the presents and no longer acts as the one who brings punishment to the bad children. But the old task of Black Pete is still referred to in a funny matter. Many parents joke and say “I will tell Black Pete to take you with him to Spain!”. Sinterklaas will ask Black Pete to see ‘The Book’, which lists all the right and wrong things a child did. Over time, Zwarte Piet’s character morphed into a group of Black Petes; all considered a Zwarte Piet, but each with different characteristics.
> In the celebrations, Sinterklaas, who is white, is played by a white person. Black Pete is played in full blackface, usually by a white person as well, or by a black person also in blackface. The actors paint their faces black with huge red lips, wear a curly wig and Moorish dress. “They are portrayed as young, and agile, and do much running and jumping around and acting like acrobats,” says Leyla Hamidi of the National Bureau Against Racial Discrimination. Sinterklaas is portrayed as old, wise, mature, calm, and in control. In celebrations and the media, Black Pete is overwhelmingly viewed by children and adults as unintelligent and clownish. These and other characteristics were found to be typical characteristics of Black Pete as well as black characters in general in Dutch children’s books. Berend’s research found them portrayed as dumb, childish, idle, foolish, and strict (for the old version of Black Pete). Berends further showed similar results for the main physical depictions of black people in children’s books and Black Pete imagery – including enlarged red lips, enlarged white teeth, and enlarged and bulging eyes.
I agree that Zwarte Piet is portrayed as a great person/character. Despite that, the way it's shown is nowadays outdated and is actually harmful. So despite everything being done in a way that is NOT racist at all, in practice it does cause some harm.
IMO the easy way out would still be to paint people, but to paint them in some weird colour.
Note: it took me a long time to get to this, this as "Kick Out Zwarte Piet" is one of the most stupid advocacy groups that I've seen. It almost seems like a hidden advocacy group IMO.
This is what some English / Welsh "Border Morris" dancers do. This page shows a wide mix. There's full black, half black or black shapes, soot-like smudges[1], mixed black and colour, or full non-black colour.
http://projectbritain.com/mayday/morrisdancing.html
Racism is awful, but going around with US-shaped visors and using that as the sole/primary criterion of it is not good.
For another example: there is no association between Blackface and racism in Poland. Sure, there is plenty of racism on other grounds, but e.g. a white person putting on black make-up isn't part of it.
When the news broke out that FB would start removing these kind of images from there platform both sides of the discussion mostly reacted here in the Netherlands that removing it completely is not the way to go. So i'm wondering how this news is received everywhere else in the world? Here is was the headline of most newspapers and our national television news yesterday.
Of course if you happen to be black, your role is determined if the story gets performed. Such is the weight of oppression...
They are in control of us and our lives the world over and they are our masters and we are their slaves. We also have no means for changing that as we slide ever deeper into their control through a kind of new aristocratic feudalism, where you are not allowed to even look at, let alone question the lord, queen, king, emperor … or you will swiftly be dealt with through immense violence that will shock others around you to subjugate themselves. They are now also using the African as their enforcer, as a type of mercenary in this war, that is motivated by promises of spoils and plunder for serving their masters.
As a German, you will be well aware of that fact that you are not allowed to even think, let alone question your lords that command you to believe what they authorize you to believe and any deviation from that will result in your being made an example of in front of your fellow peasants, lest they too think they can question their masters.
I also don't think anyone manipulates pupils in the public educational system, there might be extensive peer pressure through social media however and cases of neglected parenting.
That said, I defend people expressing themselves, even if I think the content to be bollocks. Facebook doesn't have to allow any content, but I think it would be the better approach.
What are the opinions the "new aristocratic feudalism"/"masters" do not "authorize" the "peasants"/"slaves" to "even think"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris
https://www.facebook.com/silurianbordermorrismen/
"An event which took place in the autumn of 1450 illustrates well the way in which the often separate activities of poaching and protest could on occasion conflate. On October 1450 a large group of men entered the duke of Buckingham's park at Penshurst in Kent and carried off eighty-two deer. Thirty-two men, nineteen of them yeomen, were named in subsequent indictment which made clear that a good number had escaped by its claim that there had been a total of a hundred present (not a figure to be taken too literally). These armed men had charcoaled faces, wore long false beards and withheld their names, calling themselves servants of the Queen of the Fairies."
Whatever the origin of blackface in border morris it ended up as pretty racist, with direct links to minstrelsy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Morris#19th-century_min...
I can perfectly understand Facebook’s decision in the context of blackface being racist.
On the other hand, I have fond memories of watching a show for kids (on the public TV station) called “Dag Sinterklaasje”, which featured “Zwarte Piet” (Black Pete) in each of its episodes. This show invariably had a warm, charming and cosy atmosphere.
I completely agree with the decision, it’s just bewildering to realise that progress in social justice (if only symbolic progress) can catch you off-guard and forces you to reconsider parts of your youth.
Especially in the context of an event where everybody is wearing a costume.
I lived (among some other continents) in Africa for some years, and you have tribes where people use a "whiteface" in some celebrations. Are we supposed to get upset about their "racism" as well?
Also, how will this in any way help socially disadvantages people, regardless their skin tone, anywhere in the world?
To me, this seems like just another made-up topic, so that people can yell and hate each other.
But sometimes you have to wonder about the validity of the outrage when a case has no links to this whatsoever, and where it is done out of pure admiration and celebration of a person of color.
A few years ago in Australia, a young kid and his mother were nationally shamed when the kid went to a school dress-up day as his favourite footballer, who is a dark-skinned man of Fijian descent [1].
He wore dark skin paint and a dreadlock wig, obviously because he idolises this footballer and wanted to look as much like him as possible.
The footballer then had to comment on the matter, and admitted that he himself had endorsed people dressing up this way in the past, and that even he had to be educated that it was not a cool thing to do.
[1] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/its-a-shame-nic-...
Well, it does distract a bit from the real issues like systematic racism, COVID-19 and global climate chance.
"Look here we are banning black face!" Don't get me wrong, symbols matter. But this is not even remotely the most consequential thing that Facebook can do to fight disinformation and racism.
They should make a fix for their echo chambers.
https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5af...
The logical extreme for this sort of thing would be the censoring of anything that isn't as bland and boring as a history textbook (for exactly the same reasons). I expect there will be stronger and stronger pushback before it goes this far into the ridiculous, but this will be the general direction that every offence-taking group pushes things in.
The left can't take a joke. The right can't take criticism of orthodoxy.
The infamous photo shows him in blackface, with his then-girlfriend beside him in full KKK gear. (and uh, did they just have KKK gear lying around the house???)
It doesn't get covered much in the news. He is being protected because of his party affiliation as a democrat. He is still in office to this day. Imagine if such a photo had been discovered with a republican. It would be headline news for months.