That seems reasonable to censor. Regardless of intent, that language clearly does promote hate. I don’t see why it matters if you’re white yourself.

You miss the point. How hard is to find hate speech which isn't censored?

Out of interest I searched for "alt right" on Facebook, and it took about a minute to find a post that said "Social media has made too many of you comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the mouth for it."

The post is dated Feb 9, so it's been there a while. It's not unusual for that group.

And so on. It's one thing to have community standards, it's another to prove you're applying them fairly.

I see no evidence that Facebook is interested in doing that.

I think that's a separate discussion altogether. I'm sure there are instances of hateful speech that should've been removed but nevertheless weren't or haven't been. That doesn't mean that the instances that were removed shouldn't have been.

I think the context backs up my position. There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages. The image made its own point and didn't need to be coupled with hate speech. That definitely promotes hate and should've been removed, and you should've been (temporarily) banned, just as you were.

Everyone who promotes hate speech thinks they're just being misunderstood. You're not the first.

> There was no justification for calling an entire race of people savages.

I don't hate white people. Saying they "suck" is not promoting hate.

I think you suck at understanding what I'm saying, but I don't hate you.

You called them savages. In addition to making wild accusations against me in your latest edit of your previous comment, you are now being disingenuous about what you wrote in order to make yourself seem more innocent.

> You called them savages.

Yeah, I did. Please connect the dots from that comment in that specific context to where actual hate comes into play, and more importantly, where that supposed hate translates into a pathway to discrimination, violence, or other ramification of real hate speech.

I'm not trying to be innocent. I make mistakes all the time. If I do an edit, I append and keep the original content intact (save for typos) because I try my damndest to own my words.

My accusations against you are my guesses about you. You are very comfortable in judging me, so I'm not sure why you feel so hurt when I share my tentative assessment of you.

One more datapoint: that within the private group that the original comments were made, the feedback I got on this issue was aligned with my perspective. Something tells me that in your social circle it would never happen.

Your hate speech is ok. Theirs is bad. Got it.

Yes, you got exactly what you wanted. Have a nice day!

> One more datapoint: that within the private group that the original comments were made, the feedback I got on this issue was aligned with my perspective. Something tells me that in your social circle it would never happen.

Your one data point is pretty funny. I bet within any racist group, hate against another race would also get postive feedback.

It just seems hard to believe that calling people savages isn’t intended to promote hatred of them.

It's a play on the fact that native americans have traditionally been referred to as savages, and this was my commentary on "the pot calling the kettle black".

You are ascribing intent when I've repeated that was not my intent.

I believe that you intend to promote white nationalism by your disingenuous engagement.

Do you find that agreeable? If not, why?

edit: It looks like you don't find it agreeable but can't articulate why. Shall I ascribe intent there as well?

Facebook's page on hate speech: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech

I think that the standard I broke was attacking a protected class: "white people".

Replying to myself because the edit window closed.

I posted this scenario (the background of my original post, as well as the response here) to FB to ask for feedback. I specifically asked for criticism if they saw it (not just for echochamber validation).

All 10 respondents thus far saw no issue with what I said, with the most telling comment to when I asked again:

Q: Do you think I was promoting hate speech in the given contexts?

A: possibly, In the eyes of someone threatened by your opinion.

I stand by my words. I will correct them when the correction is valid, however, I've not seen that here in this dialog.