1884

Actually, my analogies are not bad at all, it is just that you are uninformed. It seems to me that some people in this thread really never took a logic class, like ever.

  1. When you are using a social media account, you are buying this account through indirect means. You don’t pay with money, but the network makes money by studying your usage data and/or displaying advertisements. Without users, no one would want to place ads there, or have access to that data. So in a sense, i am contributing to a social network’s income, just by participating. In effect, i am buying my materials…

  2. As for the “paint stuff on the side of a house then own the house”, NOW THAT IS A BAD ANALOGY. I never claimed i owned the entirety of facebook because i made an account, i only claimed i should have the right to own the particular content i made on facebook. And if you pull the retarded-completely illogical falacy “oh welllllll you should own the stuff you painted on a house wall then”, the answer is that unless you have permision to paint stuff on the side of my house, then doing so is illegal, since it is my private property. But when i added stuff on Facebook, i did it with Facebook’s permission and dare i say encouragement. Not the same thing.

No one is forcing someone to become a white supremacist or nazist. Just because a nazist is allowed to speak, within the limits of law, doesn’t mean he is forcing his ideas upon you. You are not obligated to listen to him, but you have no right to discriminate against him. You are restricting his rights in the name of him supposedly not restricting your rights? Talking about hypocricy.

You wish. Only a few media conglomerates exist and own everything.

Twitter is using the internet, which was created using US state funding that every citizen contributed on. Also, information technologies aren’t private, most were developed on state-funded instutitions and based on previous state-owned tech and science.

Also, owning something doesn’t mean you can override human rights. Here we go again, running in circles, because you are wasting my time. Just say “hey i am a leftist-fascist and want a corporate dictatorship and i am not willing to understand your arguments”, it is more honest. Because quite frankly, most things you say, i have already replied to. It is getting boring. But i will say it again:

Let’s say i own a sniper rifle, and i own a bullet for it. My private property. Let’s say i set it up on the roof of my house, and intend to make my private property, the bullet, to propel at the coordinates near your house and hit the street. Too bad you happened to walk at that place, and you came in front of my bullet’s way and it went through your brains and you got killed.

Would i be held responsible? Why? It is my bullet and rifle, i can do as i please. It is MUH PROPERTEY. Just because you excercised your free will and walked in front of my bullet’s way, doesn’t mean i am a murderer. you should have just walked away dude…

This is the type of argument you are making when you say “fck human rights, fck freedom of speech, f*ck democracy, i own the site i can do as i please”. You are no different than the Nazis

  1. Well, imagine if you tell him he is a dickhead while traveling @ 100mph over a bridge. Since you are in his property (his car), does he have the right to open the door while on movement, and throw you out to certain death? After all, you are in his property, it is HIS car, right? Every second you are inside his car without his permission you are violating his property rights, isn’t that so? Obviously, he has no right to do that. Why? Because you have the human right to live. Just like i said time and time again, human rights should always trump property rights. Property is not a sacred cow. Oh you own something, big f*cking deal. Society’s and human rights come first, your property second. After all, it is society who accepts that you own this property… Without society’s acceptance, you have no property, no money, nothing.

  2. A guy’s car is his private property. He can refuse to drive you to work. But if this guy drove a BUS, and you paid your ticket, he would have no right to deny driving you to work. Not unless you harassed other passengers or you violated some other rule. Just because he holds a personal grudge, doesn’t mean he can discriminate against you. You could sue him if he did.

1885

He says while ignoring all actual laws and reality.

1886

Is passing through a wardrobe required to get to wherever you live?

1887

I am not ignoring anything. human rights have been signed by almost all countries in the world. There are international courts. Human rights trump state rights. Sadam and Milosevits were within their own countries laws when they suppressed their populations, yet the US wanted to send them to trial for human right violations, you know.

But according to your fascist logic, Iraqi and Serbian law allowed for what they did, so they shouldn’t be held accountable, since they violated no law…

This is so, so ignorant and wrong.

There are many instances were international law has ruled over state law in various countries, when said countries violated human rights. It should happen in US as well, because there are many instances were US law is against human rights ( Guantanamo bay anyone?), yet no one dares do it because US is the world bully with nukes, aircraft carriers, and the FED/Goldman Sachs gang.

EDIT: According to Hitler’s law, putting Jews on concentration camps was legal. Why people were outraged? It was Germany’s law, wasn’t it? Why Hitler’s associates were put on trial? They didn’t violate Nazi Germany law…

1888

No, just having a brain and good morals.

1889

Except the laws that we’re talking about.

That have next to no power.

He says while comparing free speech to genocide and crimes against humanity.

Guess where none of those instances have happened? And getting kicked off Twitter or saying something mean on Twitter is not a violation of human rights.

Maybe you should bring charges against the US in one of your international courts so we can ignore it and then you can tell us how that’s impossible while we keep doing it (mind you I’m not at all a fan of Gitmo, but that’s an irrelevant tanget, like most of what you’ve been talking about).

If you think the International Community is going to dictate to Americans what their rights are… yeah. Good luck with that. Maybe you guys can go back to protecting the feels of violent dictators when people speak out against them.

1890

The fact you are demanding that a private entity be disalowed from choosing not to associate with Nazis makes me question this sentiment.

1891

While also saying that those people are guilty of crimes against humanity. So I guess Twitter should be required to be an accessory to war crimes or something. Because… reasons?

I can’t even follow the supposed logic at this point.

1892

Yes. In a very real sense, you are a product sold to other companies. You are certainly not a customer.

Once again, you fail to understand the fundamental difference between violence and ostracism. The former is prohibited, the latter is not. In fact, the latter is inextricable from freedom of association, which is another constitutional right.

It’s pretty clear that in your eyes big companies have no rights, but your arguments are going nowhere here because there aren’t really any Marxists here. Go ahead and call us fascists merely because we are not Marxists, but honestly that’s a pretty juvenile tactic.

1893

They are not associating with Nazis just because some people with those ideas are using their services, for the same reason AT&T isn’t associated with Nazis because Nazi people are using their phones or subway train companies don’t associate with Nazism because nazists are taking the subway to go to work.

Everytime someone posts on any forum or site or magazine or whatever, there are disclaimers put in place that state that the user contributed content doesn’t necesserily reflect the opinions of the owners of the publication. It is quite commonplace, you have definitely seen it, and if it isn’t explicity written, it is implied. Facebook, Twitter, or Youtube, cannot be held responsible for user content. This defence is so strong that even torrent sites have used it in courts to defend against piracy claims, and courts have defended my point of view, that sites which allow user created content are MEDIUMS and shouldn’t be held responsible for what users upload there.

So no, if i decide to post a video saying Hitler was a saint on Facebook, that doesn’t mean Zuckerberg and the facebook employees adorse my message. Why the need to censor me?(not saying i would ever post a video like that, for all the trolls trying to call me a nazi)

1894

Believe it or not, a lot of people feel that deifying the guy who tried to systematically wipe out their ancestors is hate speech and harassment (and hey, these are against the rules). By your own argument, Facebook has the right to deny you use of the service.

1895

Would you want to post a video like that if you could add a disclaimer that it does not reflect your opinion?

I wouldn’t. Because I don’t want to see that crap on my website even with a disclaimer. And if Zuckerberg feels the same way, that’s his prerogative.

1896

  1. Doesn’t matter what people “feel”. When we are discussing principles and law and rights, we aren’t talking about “feelings”. Feelings are fleeting and illogical. Facts and logic are what matters. So i hate when americans say “i feel X”. No dummy, i don’t care about what you feel, tell me what you THINK. I THINK X

  2. Humans are complex creatures, aren’t black and white. Hitler wasn’t just “the guy who put Jews into ovens”. He had good sides as well, as all people do. Yeah, even tyrrants. Or perhaps, some people may like his ideology and political ideals but disagree with his Jew hatred and warcrimes. Are they spreading hate speech and commiting harrasment as well? Some other people may wish to discuss Hitler objectively and not just parrot US war propaganda against Germany. Does that make them haters as well?

Unless someone says in a video “burn all jews”, or “Hitler was so cool for burning the jews, he should have burned some more”, or something of the like, then it is not hate speech. Sorry. Don’t care about how you or any other feel about it, liking a historical figure or sharing his ideology doesn’t mean you endorse everything he did. I liked some of Roman Polanski’s work, doesn’t mean i endorse his pedophilia.

1897

Ok. If you want to know what I think, I think you’re an idiot.

1898

True. But LAWS DO MATTER.

And I don’t know what nation you live in, but saying much less than this is very illegal in much of the first world.

Again, companies, like people, have Freedom of Association. You can not force a private company to do business or provide a service to you, no matter how big they are. Their size is irrelevant to the discussion. Full stop. If I go to the local bakery and start espousing the tenants of National Socialism and they tell me to leave, I have to leave. If I want to post stuff in their windows, they can take them down, they don’t have to let me.

1899

It’s ok. Many people denounce things they can’t comprehend because of their inferior intellects. It is easier to dismiss someone than to actually put your brain to use.

1900

Don’t resort to personal insults. It’s the fastest way to find out how freedom of association works and no one will miss you afterwards.

1901

Twitter, or any social media platform, has certain guidelines and standards they enforece. They may be inefficiently, inconsistently, or even poorly enforced, but they exist. As soon as Twitter, Facebook, Google Plus (snort), QQ, or any social media platform du jour decides to enforce action against any group, they have made a choice. If someone sends death threats, harasses some celebrity, attacks some sponsor, or repeatedly goes after some head of state with violent, or even merely crude, comments and the platform takes action against said person they can no longer claim they don’t support or allow some idea by not taking action.

If you want to not moderate such things, then you get every platform becomes 4chan. Nothing is prohibited. But if you decide to enforce any action for any reason, then you decline to go after Nazis for inciting hatred, violence, and generally being the shittiest people on earth? Then you have decided to side with Nazis, full stop.

There is either no line, or the line is drawn somewhere. Nobody is calling for banishing American Conservative, the Federalist, National Review, Fox News, or even Breitbart to the dark web for political beliefs. This isn’t trying to banish right wing political thought. That would be bad. Instead we are talking actual fucking Nazis, whose platform advocates literal genocide, criminalizing people for their race, and generally being people the world would be better off without. If you draw the line where a registrar choosing not to do business with groups whose sole purpose is pushing Nazi ideology, when they can, and will, choose not to do business for a whole host of other reasons, you are indeed saying they should support those Nazis.

And if you decide that, what of those who are in the crosshairs of such hate groups? Do you not think that, because of their race, that their rights might not be infringed by allowing Nazis unfettered access to public spaces?

And how would you propose countering Nazis? If shouting them out of the public sphere (hey, they were there for a long time until public pressure got them forced out) isn’t ok, and punching them isn’t ok, then what? Simply politely ask them to stop being racist would be genociders? How well did that work in the 30’s.

And if the answer to bad speech is more speech, and people voicing their opinions and voting with their wallets (after all, why did the registrars drop Stormfront now? Hint: it has to do with people saying they would not use their business if they associated with Stormfront) is the public using speech to counter Nazis, then this is a good solution, no? Boston basically cowing their little crying Nazi party by showing up en masse was pretty damn encouraging. People pressuring companies to enforce their rules and pushing Nazis out of the public sphere is equally so.

In short if the question is do we push them out of the public, or sit by politely while they spread hate as you suggest? I’m gonna say FUCK THAT.

1902

Not to mention that sites like Stormfront are chock full of people saying EXACTLY THAT!

1903

This isn’t “He Who Shall Not Be Named #2,” is it?