It does to me, too.

Until I realize that some people are now defining silence as complicity with white supremacy. So let's hope that definition doesn't spread, right?

Mandatory posting? Count me in.

So you're agreeing that anyone who is silent on racial issues should be purged from the internet?

That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth.

I said, silence -is- complicity with white supremacy. If you, after all of the injustices demonstrated in enormous detail over the last 400 years, are still silent when white supremacists continue to oppress the oppressed, you are complicit in white supremacy.

> That's not what I said. Do not put words into my digital mouth.

So white supremacists should be purged, but those who are complicit with them should not?

We are talking about two different things. I claimed that purging white supremacists from platforms is a good thing. I also claimed that silence is complicity. These are orthogonal. I am not a decision maker for one of these platforms, and don't feel the need to draw a specific line in the sand. Your attempt at a "gotcha" is fruitless, I'm afraid.

Let me turn it around, do you think that white supremacists deserve a platform?

It wasn't supposed to be a "gotcha" at all. Any reasonable person would have agreed that silence isn't an expression of complicity with white supremacy, or of sexual consent, or a love of progressive metal.

However, since you insist upon evading the obvious logical conclusion that your own freely-offered premises suggest, there is no turning anything around. This thread is over.

Do you mind explaining that statement, as I’m sure you can understand that at face value it sounds pretty extreme. Actions in silence are more impactful than being loud but doing nothing.

sounds great to me to until I turned my brain on and realized that if you can purge one ideology, you can justify purging any other ideology.

This is a fallacy, I'm sorry. It's true that it can be impossible to determine what the specific characteristics of a belief that make it okay to silence, but that _doesn't mean there aren't differences_. We don't know when an acorn becomes a tree, but we know there is a difference. We can safely say that a tree is not an acorn, even though we don't know when that transition occurs.

We _know_ it's wrong to advocate for the ethnic cleansing of people. We _know_ it's wrong to talk about how Blacks are genetically inferior. We _know_ it's wrong to spread lies about how Jews control mass media. We can silence these evil, ignorant beliefs without being afraid that all other beliefs are at risk of being silenced.

The German state has been banning and imprisoning sympathizers of white supremacist groups for a few decades by now. I'm not seeing a mass censorship of non-hate-based ideologies there.

I'm not seeing the slippery slope. To say that purging one ideology is the same as all means that you see no difference between hateful supremacist positions and any other types of ideas. Which is ridiculous.

if you can justify one argument, then you can justify any argument, so all arguments are wrong

This is total slippery slope. Zooming out to the point that you ignore all the specifics isn't useful.

A "purge" sounds so scary.

But this is a purge like being asked not to come back to target is a purge.

And it's just as much of an infringement on your rights: none.

I can't argue in good faith with someone who believes that white supremacists should continue to have a platform. I hope you do some research and look back on this comment with shame. White supremacists do not deserve a platform, flat out. Disagreeing with this is explicitly agreeing with white supremacy.

You don't have to agree with someone to think it's wrong to censor them.

Do you think it is correct or incorrect to deplatform white supremacists? Do you think white supremacists deserve a platform?

Edit: I've asked variants of this question several times in this thread, all without response. I can safely assume that those who won't freely answer this question are (attempting) to hide their bias.

I think crappy ideas (like white supremacy) should be fought with better ideas (like treating everyone equally regardless of their race).

Censoring/deplatforming will not have the effect you think it will. Nor is it ethically palpable.

This kind of half-measure response is exactly why white supremacy continues to thrive in America. You cannot argue with a white supremacist on reasonable ground, their world view is intrinsically incorrect, and I am convinced that you cannot convince a white supremacist they are wrong through debate.

> Nor is it ethically palpable.

Do not ascribe your ethics onto me. I think it is extremely ethical to deny white supremacists a platform. In fact, it is the most ethical choice. Those who refuse to interact with our society in good faith do not deserve the stage.

White supremacy does not thrive in America. That is a fantasy.

I'd love to link you to a Scott Alexander essay at this point which examined that very question and concluded, based on evidence and data, that there might be a few thousand genuine white supremacists in America. But of course he deleted his blog so I can't.

This is why so many people are arguing with you. The statements by the left and the observable reality are so out of whack it's clear it's a "dog whistle", as they like to say. The revolutionary left are using the word white to mean something quite different to its normal definition. It seems rather to be used to mean "anyone who isn't black" or more perniciously, "anyone conservative". Alexander had a great essay on this redefinition of whiteness as well, but alas ...

Germany has a strong handed approach and white supremacy continues to thrive in Germany.

Yeah it's kind of shocking to see people defend white nationalist speech on private platforms. Of all the marginalized groups out there why does the group that advocates for the discrimination, removal, or even genocide of historically discriminated and murdered people (black people, indigenous people, Jewish people) need defending?

people aren't defending these things. they are defending this 'slippery slope' idea that if you give companies the power and support them in banning content based off of ideological stuff, then you risk that 'bannable' content threshold slowly growing.

it's literally a straw man to imply people are focused on individuals in this situation, they are just worried about precedent and the future.

No private platform, even those that claimed to be a "bastion of free speech" [1] when they were first created has ever not banned for ideological stuff. Back in 2015 this same discussion came up [2]. 5 years later we're still worried about sliding down the slope. What is too far? Hating fat people? Hating trans people? Hating black people? Should a private platform allow it all even though people supporting those views actively harm people?

And we can even see what happens when platforms try to truly allow all speech. Voat [3 NSFW] is a good example, Gab is another example. The worst content takes over and your platform gets rejected by most of the world. Way before reddit banned the_donald they had to specifically delist it from the front page because awful content would end up being the first thing people saw. [4]

I also don't expect that Youtube or reddit or Twitter would end up banning all ideological content, religious videos will not get banned one day, discussing electoral politics will not get banned one day, we're not going to slide off the slope because the slope isn't there.

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/02/reddit-c... 2. https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/15/8964995/reddit-free-speec... 3. NSFW: https://voat.co/ 4: https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/30/13797712/reddit-trump-th...

While those who defend them may disagree, defending white supremacy is in itself white supremacy. They defend it because they believe it.

The thing that still continues to shock me is that there are people here that argue on behalf of white supremacists but still argue that they themselves are not, instead they are playing "devils advocate". At some point, let's call a duck a duck.

Are you seriously comparing the struggle of Jews in Nazi Germany to white supremacists being deplatformed in America?

If you are, you should really take a step back and evaluate the gravity of that statement.

Edit: Saw your edit. You can usually click the timestamp to reply when there is no reply button.

Thank you for the clarification. I'll repeat my previous statement because it still applies, I can tell that you simply don't grasp the gravity of your statement. It is -hilarious- to be called a nazi for calling for white supremacists to be deplatformed. I think I might print this out and put it in my cube (when I eventually get back into the office). Turns out, I was the Nazi the whole time, not the white supremacists! /s

Edit, again: For the readers, he edited-in, and then edited-out, calling me a Nazi for saying that white supremacists shouldn't have a platform. Just wanted to make that clear.

Edit, again, again: I did understand your point, I just refuse to engage with it, because it is ridiculous.

Edit, again, again, again. This edit-back-and-forth is funny, but I have to go now. I sincerely hope that you do some research and realize that your defense of white supremacists only entrenches them into our culture further. I hope that one day, you look back on your views here, and realize that you truly did not have to defend them, but chose to anyway.

Do you make a difference between people who self-identity as that and people labelled by external entites?

What was the problem with /r/ConsumeProduct exactly?

Not advertiser friendly.

Probably all of the white supremacy in it.

And the 50+ Chapo Traphouse related subs?

No white supremacists on them.