Another wave of unpleasantness heading over to Voat. At a certain point you just write people off.

"They are literally censoring the truth"

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.

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".

This specific stereotype still plays a part in getting people killed. The death count didn't end with the millions that died during world war II.

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...

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.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype#Etymology

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.

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.

Please don't use sockpuppet accounts like this.

> 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.

Goes to a neighborhood with many XXX

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."

We've banned this account. Breaking HN's rules like you've been doing will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.