Is Facebook killing freedom and liberty?

[Brian Peacock]

If you believe things like; that some people are naturally smarter, more authoritative, socially superior, deserving, important, or just better than most others, or that people's basic human rights should be diminished, enhanced, suppressed, protected, or ignored unequally, on the basis of class, religion, ethnicity, geography, or some vague ideas about the so-called 'purity' of a particular group's genetic antecedence, or; that the government should (or does) represent an absolute authority in which state power should be (or is) harnessed in an over-arching duty specifically aiming to promote the interests of one group of people as dominant; that so-called 'true patriotism' is bound to personal membership of a particular religious, ethnicity, or social group as a birthright, and as such is therefore impossible for non-group members to attain, and; that these ideas and values embody a normative standard to which everybody must be measured by or held account to, then you're probably far-right.

We talked last time about how the term 'far-right' is not an obscure or ambiguous term, how it is an umbrella term which encompasses the kinds of political thought and action which are more extreme or hardline than those on the centre-right of the spectrum, primarily coagulating around issues such as race, ethnicity, culture, immigration, and/or identity.

I also understand that you consider 'far-right' is a rather toxic--and as such, derogatory--term, which is why you may have trouble accepting that people like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (Tommy Robinson) are far-right. If you can show how the items on the list in the first paragraph do not apply to or reflect Mr Robinson's political views then I'll be more than happy to revise my categorisation of him as a far-right, anti-democratic bully boy. The ball's in your court Cunt.

[Cunt]

Maybe it would be more enlightening to have you say who is on the 'moderate right', who speaks about the rape gangs, which I can then contrast against Tommy Robinson.

The fact that you keep insisting on showing his other name is interesting. I don't dispute he might be a fucker. It's the actions of facebook I was criticising, when the official claimed there was a certain thing he said, then failed to produce evidence.

Heck, there probably have been plenty of people criticising the police for it, now that it is more in the public eye. Should be easy to find critics from far right to far left.

Where does 'Sargon of Akkad' fall? Far right? Left? Centrist?

[Brian Peacock]

Sargon is just a bit bonkers.

Look, I've outlined the kind of things that consentrate someone's political ideas and action in the 'far-right' camp. If you want to argue that the things on that list are actually moderate or centre-right then please have at it.

[Cunt]

I was just pointing out an easy example to see facebook applying political pressure. It is moral policing of what has become the public square.

It will settle to the most bland possible set of rules, in order to be inclusive to everyone who may be offended.

As to Sargon being a bit bonkers, I am going to guess that is a clinical term I don't understand. Must mean something leftie then. They are always adding 'language'.

How about Tim Pool? Right? Left? Centre? He points out a lot of the tech censorship issues.

[pErvinalia]

Never heard of him. Why don't you quote something of his you feel is of worth?

[L'Emmerdeur]

I hope you don't mind too much, but I'm going to cherry pick here for a moment.

... some people are naturally smarter, more authoritative, socially superior, deserving, important, or just better than most others ...

I think it's self evident that some of the above is true in regard to the relative natural strengths of individuals.

Some individuals are naturally smarter than some or most other individuals.

Some naturally seem to have an authoritative bearing, whether they're in positions of authority or not. However, the quality of being genuinely authoritative is something that is earned, in my opinion.

There is an undeniable hierarchy in human societies; some individuals have been born into or have attained a superior social standing and both of those routes appear to me to be natural ones. Our closest biological relatives have similar social hierarchies. An infant chimp born to the dominant female is indeed naturally of higher social standing than an infant born to the female that nearly everybody else in the troupe gives a hard time. I think that we intelligent apes are just naturally shitty that way.

I would require some elaboration on the concept of 'deserving' here and what it applies to, but in general I don't think that some individuals are naturally more deserving than others.

Regarding 'importance', I would not agree that some people are naturally more important than others, though if this intersects with social hierarchy, see above.

'Better than' is again somewhat undefined. I think that some individuals are naturally inclined to being shitheels, and some are naturally inclined to being empathetic and helpful to others. Perhaps that belief is incorrect, but if it's accurate, then I would say that the 'helpful' are naturally 'better' people than the 'shitheels'.

I'm not sure that one's opinion on any of these is necessarily diagnostic of a far right orientation.

Notwithstanding, extrapolating from the above to a claim that some groups of people are naturally smarter, etc. is highly dubious at best and indicative of a far right orientation. As for the rest of the paragraph, I think your analysis of what constitute some of the basic themes of 'far right' belief and political orientation is accurate. The far left (as in Communism in pretty much all its manifestations, rather than social anarchists) has its own brand of what I would call dysfunction that parallels the far right. So I think that some aspects of your description can apply there as well.

[Brian Peacock]

I hope you don't mind too much, but I'm going to cherry pick here for a moment.

... some people are naturally smarter, more authoritative, socially superior, deserving, important, or just better than most others ...

I think it's self evident that some of the above is true in regard to the relative natural strengths of individuals.

Some individuals are naturally smarter than some or most other individuals.

Some naturally seem to have an authoritative bearing, whether they're in positions of authority or not. However, the quality of being genuinely authoritative is something that is earned, in my opinion.

There is an undeniable hierarchy in human societies; some individuals have been born into or have attained a superior social standing and both of those routes appear to me to be natural ones. Our closest biological relatives have similar social hierarchies. An infant chimp born to the dominant female is indeed naturally of higher social standing than an infant born to the female that nearly everybody else in the troupe gives a hard time. I think that we intelligent apes are just naturally shitty that way.

I would require some elaboration on the concept of 'deserving' here and what it applies to, but in general I don't think that some individuals are naturally more deserving than others.

Regarding 'importance', I would not agree that some people are naturally more important than others, though if this intersects with social hierarchy, see above.

'Better than' is again somewhat undefined. I think that some individuals are naturally inclined to being shitheels, and some are naturally inclined to being empathetic and helpful to others. Perhaps that belief is incorrect, but if it's accurate, then I would say that the 'helpful' are naturally 'better' people than the 'shitheels'.

I'm not sure that one's opinion on any of these is necessarily diagnostic of a far right orientation.

Notwithstanding, extrapolating from the above to a claim that some groups of people are naturally smarter, etc. is highly dubious at best and indicative of a far right orientation. As for the rest of the paragraph, I think your analysis of what constitute some of the basic themes of 'far right' belief and political orientation is accurate. The far left (as in Communism in pretty much all its manifestations, rather than social anarchists) has its own brand of what I would call dysfunction that parallels the far right. So I think that some aspects of your description can apply there as well.

Broadly, I don't disagree, but (!) the quote was a dependent clause of a longer sentence that rested on: "on the basis of..." Which, when fleshed out, would mean I was saying things like; when some people believe that they're naturally smarter because of their class, or believe that they have more authority because of their religion, or are socially superior by default due to their ethnicity or skin tone, or more deserving due to geography, or just more privileged, entitled, important or better as a result of the so-called 'purity' of their genes, then they're probably far-right.

What I categorised were a spectrum of ideals which seek to claim and assert the superiority and/or dominance of one group over others. Their individual or group justifications for that are flexible and shifting but don't change or soften the ramifications of those ideals. If you want a white ethno-state then you're probably far-right, and white, even if you don't like being called that.

And it's not that I don't know how that works, what with being a bit of leftie myself and having to deal with those fuzzy lines between between centre-left, left, and far-left etc in relation to my own views. It's a matter of perspective isn't it(?), and positions and perspectives change depending on the issues. I mean, I'll argue for Socialism all day long, but I don't see myself as 'far-left' in either the pejorative or the ideological sense as my idea of Socialism is rooted in an acknowledgement of everyone's common humanity and focuses on alleviating unnecessary suffering and improvimg the material conditions of the vast majority by meeting everyone's basic needs.

Wanting fewer children to go to bed hungry, wanting sick and disabled people get the treatment and support they need, finding homes for rough sleepers, enhancing people's opportunities through open access to free education and training are not, imo, extremist ideals - whereas appointing myself and my mates as some kind of local/national authority in order ethnically cleanse all Muslims from the community would be.

[pErvinalia]

[

And it's not that I don't know how that works, what with being a bit of leftie myself and having to deal with those fuzzy lines between between centre-left, left, and far-left etc in relation to my own views. It's a matter of perspective isn't it(?), and positions and perspectives change depending on the issues. I mean, I'll argue for Socialism all day long, but I don't see myself as 'far-left' in either the pejorative or the ideological sense as my idea of Socialism is rooted in an acknowledgement of everyone's common humanity and focuses on alleviating unnecessary suffering and improvimg the material conditions of the vast majority by meeting everyone's basic needs.

Wanting fewer children to go to bed hungry, wanting sick and disabled people get the treatment and support they need, finding homes for rough sleepers, enhancing people's opportunities through open access to free education and training are not, imo, extremist ideals -

These are left ideals. Embrace the label, bro! I know the trendy postmodern kids want to pretend that left/right labels are too narrow to encompass their precious beliefs, but they fit pretty fucking nicely.

[Brian Peacock]

I have no trouble saying I'm a leftie. Look: "I'm a leftie."

[L'Emmerdeur]

I hope you don't mind too much, but I'm going to cherry pick here for a moment.

... some people are naturally smarter, more authoritative, socially superior, deserving, important, or just better than most others ...

I think it's self evident that some of the above is true in regard to the relative natural strengths of individuals.

Some individuals are naturally smarter than some or most other individuals.

Some naturally seem to have an authoritative bearing, whether they're in positions of authority or not. However, the quality of being genuinely authoritative is something that is earned, in my opinion.

There is an undeniable hierarchy in human societies; some individuals have been born into or have attained a superior social standing and both of those routes appear to me to be natural ones. Our closest biological relatives have similar social hierarchies. An infant chimp born to the dominant female is indeed naturally of higher social standing than an infant born to the female that nearly everybody else in the troupe gives a hard time. I think that we intelligent apes are just naturally shitty that way.

I would require some elaboration on the concept of 'deserving' here and what it applies to, but in general I don't think that some individuals are naturally more deserving than others.

Regarding 'importance', I would not agree that some people are naturally more important than others, though if this intersects with social hierarchy, see above.

'Better than' is again somewhat undefined. I think that some individuals are naturally inclined to being shitheels, and some are naturally inclined to being empathetic and helpful to others. Perhaps that belief is incorrect, but if it's accurate, then I would say that the 'helpful' are naturally 'better' people than the 'shitheels'.

I'm not sure that one's opinion on any of these is necessarily diagnostic of a far right orientation.

Notwithstanding, extrapolating from the above to a claim that some groups of people are naturally smarter, etc. is highly dubious at best and indicative of a far right orientation. As for the rest of the paragraph, I think your analysis of what constitute some of the basic themes of 'far right' belief and political orientation is accurate. The far left (as in Communism in pretty much all its manifestations, rather than social anarchists) has its own brand of what I would call dysfunction that parallels the far right. So I think that some aspects of your description can apply there as well.

Broadly, I don't disagree, but (!) the quote was a dependent clause of a longer sentence that rested on: "on the basis of..." Which, when fleshed out, would mean I was saying things like; when some people believe that they're naturally smarter because of their class, or believe that they have more authority because of their religion, or are socially superior by default due to their ethnicity or skin tone, or more deserving due to geography, or just more privileged, entitled, important or better as a result of the so-called 'purity' of their genes, then they're probably far-right.

What I categorised were a spectrum of ideals which seek to claim and assert the superiority and/or dominance of one group over others. Their individual or group justifications for that are flexible and shifting but don't change or soften the ramifications of those ideals. If you want a white ethno-state then you're probably far-right, and white, even if you don't like being called that.

And it's not that I don't know how that works, what with being a bit of leftie myself and having to deal with those fuzzy lines between between centre-left, left, and far-left etc in relation to my own views. It's a matter of perspective isn't it(?), and positions and perspectives change depending on the issues. I mean, I'll argue for Socialism all day long, but I don't see myself as 'far-left' in either the pejorative or the ideological sense as my idea of Socialism is rooted in an acknowledgement of everyone's common humanity and focuses on alleviating unnecessary suffering and improvimg the material conditions of the vast majority by meeting everyone's basic needs.

Wanting fewer children to go to bed hungry, wanting sick and disabled people get the treatment and support they need, finding homes for rough sleepers, enhancing people's opportunities through open access to free education and training are not, imo, extremist ideals - whereas appointing myself and my mates as some kind of local/national authority in order ethnically cleanse all Muslims from the community would be.

Yes, a lot hinges on whether somebody is making claims about a group of people rather than claims about individuals. I'd agree that the far right is at least partly defined by their chest-thumping chauvinism, whatever characteristic or suite of characteristics they believe important. A strong inclination to authoritarianism is in the mix as well.

[Cunt]

Authororitarianism like de-platforming and gulags?

Plenty of that on both sides of the 'political aisle', whether collectivists or individualists.

[pErvinalia]

De-platforming is libertarianism in action! Organisations with the freedom of action to decide who they give a platform to.

[Cunt]

There are legal complications, obligations and tangles to sort. Facebook will have international law to skirt around, so it should get pretty homogonized.

[Brian Peacock]

Legal complications my armpit. Facebook's legal jurisdiction is California. The issue isn't the law, it's whether you think people who advocate a white ethno-state have a right to organise and publicise their politics on Facebook. So do you?

[Cunt]

Legal complications my armpit. Facebook's legal jurisdiction is California. The issue isn't the law, it's whether you think people who advocate a white ethno-state have a right to organise and publicise their politics on Facebook. So do you?

I don't even know what a 'white ethno-state' is, or who is advocating for it.

Facebook is subject to laws ONLY where it does business. My guess is that your claim about it's legal jurisdiction has very little to do with the reality of the business.

I think if facebook is going to adhere to britains 'hate-speech' laws, it would conflict with their US based '2nd amendment' laws, and things will simply boil down to the most acceptable pap to all. Add another country, say, Pakistan, and the restrictions tighten just a little more. The pap gets just a bit less flavourful.

As more diverse opinions constrain what they allow on their service, I suspect it will get more and more homogenized.

I quit facebook, then dropped a hundred pounds of bodyfat, gained a bunch of strength, started loving running, and I don't think I'm missing much. It's MUCH clearer how shitty it is, when I don't rely on it.

One of the dangerous things I saw that made me avoid it, was the way it insisted on trying to install facebook messenger at every opportunity. This binds people to their platform subtly, and I know folks now who say they HAVE to have fb messenger on their phone, for their work group (or school group etc.) This puts facebook in a position where they seem more important than they (in my opinion) ought to.