You're right that some of these terms have ambiguity, but your example is silly - it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist."

But even setting aside your specific example, I don't believe that ambiguity should paralyze us into inaction. I think it's fair to say "OK, we'll ban anyone who advocates distributing political power based on race, with the white 'race' getting the most power... when people cross that line won't always be clear, but we'll do our best." For private action especially, we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

> You're right that some of these terms have ambiguity, but your example is silly - it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist."

Stephen Colbert would disagree: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nk0dUjYUNI

"You know why you're not supposed to use that word [nationalist]? Because it's the second half of 'white nationalist'. Chopping off the first word doesn't change what it means in our minds."

Stephen Colbert is also a comedian and not a linguist.

Good thing Facebook moderators are linguists. It was high time they get a real job.

> it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist."

Is it?

Or is this a deliberately conflated term promoted as an 'official' label in public discourse in order to dissuade association with those favoring the more benign meaning?

Agreed that ambiguity shouldn't create inaction - but it just as well shouldn't promote incorrect action either

> Or is this a deliberately conflated term promoted as an 'official' label in public discourse in order to dissuade association with those favoring the more benign meaning?

Why would you use the term white and nationalist together? Being white has very little to do with being a nationalist unless you believe it has everything to do with it, in which case you would be racist.

Maybe you wouldn't, but if you happen to be white, and taking an (inclusive, not race based) nationalist ideology, you can now conveniently be smeared by describing these two facts..

Oh her? don't listen to her, shes a 'white nationalist'.

Also, if, assuming this confusion to be true, having the term 'white nationalist' existing in the discourse as a negative, those who are not aware of the nuances between 'whites who happen to be nationalist' and 'those promoting a white nation' are pre-biased via faulty discourse to discount the words of 'whites who happen to be nationalist'.

Any popular terminology which deliberately overlooks subtlety and dismisses it when it is pointed out in the discourse is problematic. It's effectively a subtle smear campaign against the non-problematic nuances.

See also the strangely similar situation with the term 'skinhead' -

Initially this was a mostly apolitical working class subculture, most listened to soul music and smoked pot and listened to reggae, and many were apolitical or left/socialist leaning. Genearlly mildly populist, mostly white, but yes somewhat 'dangerous' in that it was a popular social movement of unconventional rowdy people of all stripes. (much like the 'disenfranchised trumpians' that the media is happy to highlight as contributing to the rise of the so-called 'white nationalism' we're talking about here)

Cue one politically motivated overtly racist subgroup acting up and stealing all the headlines, and now the entire term/culture is essentially taboo..

One can argue that this group just got the press and 'messed up the term', but at some point editorial bias is a factor.

For god sakes this is 'hacker news' I shouldn't need to explain this.

> it's well-accepted that the term "white nationalist" stands on its own and means something different from "white and a nationalist."

Many right-wing people claim that in practice, there's not: they're accused of being "white nationalists" for being "white and a nationalist".

Edit:

If people downvoting me think I'm wrong, explain why people like Jordan Peterson, who merely espouse non-leftist positions and happen to be white, routinely get accused of supporting the alt-right and neo-Nazis.

For the people who doubt what I'm saying -- here's a video of Jordan Peterson. This is who the leftists routinely call "neo-Nazis" or "alt-right": moderates who refute their positions and calmly assert values like personal responsibility over collectivist victimhood culture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2bFzK2EdIo

Edit 2:

I'd originally written "conservative"; I'm not sure Mr Peterson would describe himself in such terms. I've made it more neutral.

I concur that terms like "Nazi", "white nationalist", "alt-right" and similar have essentially morphed into "person I don't like".

And this applies to both ends of the political spectrum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8

> have essentially morphed into "person I don't like"

I’d say it’s even closer to “people I disagree with”.

For many people the latter implies the former.

"White nationalism" is an overloaded term and until tonight I'd never heard the official definition of white nationalism until GPs comments.

I've just assumed it was a vague insult aimed at non-nominal conservatives.

Not sure how you reached the conclusion that white nationalism doesn't have a real meaning. Googling "white nationalism" gives plenty of results that indicate "white nationalism" is an ideology that promotes white supremacy and/or a whites-only nation/racial segregation.

To quote Merriam Webster:

"one of a group of militant whites who espouse white supremacy and advocate enforced racial segregation"

To be clear, I stated that I'd never heard the official definition and used context clues to come up with a running (incorrect) definition.

I am not of the opinion that white nationalism has no real meaning.

Words have meaning, and people know what those meanings are. "White nationalist" does not mean "white people who like their country" and it's disingenuous to pretend it does.

It's much more disingenuous to pretend that words and phrases have universal meanings.

Universal isn't necessary. Well-understood in the American political context is sufficient.

There is an infinite number of definitions for “like their country”.

Nazis in Greece like their country or what they perceive as “their country”.

Wrong. It's a deliberate attempt to language engineer the idea that loving your country is bad. This is not new, the power structures that benefit from centralization (correctly) see national sovereignty as an obstacle.

Note how you will never hear the term "ethnic supremacists" used by conventional media. It's too accurate and does not push the borderless agenda.

I don’t think anyone’s mentioned policing patriotism. You can be as patriotic as you want. America’s great, I love our nation, it’s people, culture, and ideals.

That’s different from saying things like “get that Spanish off the menu, this is America”, “go home foreigners”, and “immigrants are criminals”.

I’m sure you can see the difference.

There will always be some junk quotes people can find (or make up!) to support their agenda.

I don't really care what FB does, I prefer it to have all the rope it needs, but this normalization of taking and modifying the meaning of terms to fit the anti-borders narrative is dishonest and manipulative. Again, it's not even remotely a new thing, the anti-borders crowd has been gunning against nationalism time eternal.

"Loving your country" is not "white nationalism." You're the one trying to redefine terms if you believe it is.

It's an inherently dishonest frame. I cant imagine running around talking about "(insert color) nationalists" when actually referring to people promoting segregation of citizens.

“White nationalism” has been synonymous with segregation and genocide essentially since the inception of the term. I guess if you care really hard about that particular phrase this is a tragedy. But there are ample other, less fraught ways to express that you’re an American patriot. Bemoaning that you can’t say “white nationalist” to mean that seems a strange (or disingenuous) stance to take.

I called the phrase inherently dishonest... and somehow that indicates I wanted to use it for some other context? Like I had positive use for it?

Your comment suggests you have internalized the idea that nationalist and racist are the same thing. Or were you really thinking I wanted to use "white nationalist" (or any color) in some other context?

Isn't the phrase intentionally self selected by these groups? Then what makes it dishonest to use it to refer to their beliefs?

So totally ignore what "inherently dishonest frame" means, and attempt to change the subject. Fine.

Lets take your question as true for the sake of discussion. Do you take your language cues from these people? I don't. I don't see why you would let people you strongly disagree with decide what language to use. Are you concerned you might offend them by not using their preferred terms?

Might you be opening yourself up to some rather trivial social engineering opportunities?

Anyway... def don't talk about frames.

Are you implying outsiders won't find it completely obvious what they really are because of the name? Because it is obvious.

Why take language cues from people so eager to describe things in terms of skin color?

“White nationalism” is an inherently racist concept. Not all nationalism is though. You seem confused that adding the word “white” to nationalism makes the whole phrase mean something else entirely. Maybe consider the context of who uses that phrase now and how it’s been used historically to understand why that particular construction is broadly (and correctly) considered racist and genocidal. Or why other uses of nationalism with other nationalities or colors aren’t.

First you assumed I was "Bemoaning that you can’t say “white nationalist”" and now you are assuming I am confused and don't know what the colloquial use of the term is.

What do you think "it's an inherently dishonest frame" means?

Frames are important, it's why I asked why you thought I was bemoaning the loss of a phrase when I was really describing how the phrase itself is dishonest.

That depends. When you say 'Keep Poland Polish', what exactly do you mean?

Yes. Because history demonstrates our ability to do that - not to allow factions like the KKK to triumph.

We’ve done this kind of thing before, and we’ll do it again. Facebook responding like this IS the marketplace of ideas reacting.

I've noticed this tendency among a lot of right wingers. Lately I've seen it a lot in metalhead circles, particularly black metal, which does have a bit of a nazi problem in some parts.

They'll crow and gloat about how the scene isn't a safe space, that it's founded in hate and intolerance. But as soon as well-known nazi/NSBM-related bands or members of the scene are deplatformed and antagonized for their views, the tone goes straight to "get these leftists out, this is a right wing scene! This is censorship!" and so on.

Apparently only right wing radicals should be allowed to have safe spaces... /s

We know, for sure, the dictionary definition. Consider looking it up & assessing whether you wish to apply the label to yourself.

>Consider looking it up & assessing whether you wish to apply the label to yourself.

But this isn't what will happen. Expressing skepticism about immigration - a fairly normal and mainstream opinion in the 1990s and early 2000s - can easily be construed today as "white nationalism" by many on the political left. It's not you who gets to define what your views are on these platforms, it's the "moderators".

Openly questioning the validity of the capitalist system has been construed as hardcore hunger and famine bread lines planned economy USSR-style communism for decades.

Welcome to not having a safe space anymore.

Openly questioning the validity of the capitalist system is fine. Facebook shouldn't be banning people who don't like capitalism from their platform either.

you are a complaining about your ideology being ridiculed because its bad and leads to awful results, your interlocutor complains about not being able to voice his opinion without actual persecution.

will neo-nazis be able to side-step appropriate regulation by framing hate statements as questions?

Yeah it means neo-Nazis who believe in the innate supremacy of the white race. If you’re one of them I want you to be deplatformed immediately and without sentimental hand-wringing about liberal platitudes.

This will be an ongoing project and will require constant tweaking and adjustment, but I’m all for their removal from the public sphere.

There are underlying economic and social issues leading to the reemergence of this worldview that need to be dealt with urgently and with peacemaking intention. Still, in the meantime this kind of thought if unchecked leads to genocide and must be stopped.

In Sweden perhaps not since white and nation is analogous but in US you are going have a problem.