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.

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.

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.

Its root is in mythology rather than anything else.

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.

They are turned away by the organizing committee ... tada, because they are black.

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.

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

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.

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-...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

https://static.deon.pl/storage/image/core_files/2012/1/5/5af...

"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.

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.

I don't accept that I have a moral obligation to ignore reality (or worse, deny it).

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 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.

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

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.

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...

[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.

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.

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."

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.