# Twitter's Misbegotten Censorship



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 16, 2016)

I really liked the message of this article - 

_The right way to deal with social media’s neo-Nazis is not by taking away their platforms, but by taking away their audiences._

Why Twitter's Censorship Will Only Empower the Alt-Right


----------



## Lefty375 (Nov 16, 2016)

Thanks for posting this article.

This issue is conflicting, and I'm unsure what to think, so maybe someone will reply with a comment to sway me. 

It _seems_ to me that the same people who don't want WN/Alt-Right figures banned would want ISIS accounts banned (this may be untrue). Should we permit ISIS or other extremist groups to recruit on these platforms and instead just focus on providing education to "take away their audience"? If an Alt-Right figure is calling for violence, then that could be the line drawn on where to ban an account, which seems reasonable to me. If it's just "we hate X group," that seems different. The movement (looking at some alt-right places on Reddit) appears to gain a lot of power from being anti-MSM...so it does seem logical that when Twitter bans them, they get stronger.

I subscribe to places like stormfront to remind myself of what real hate is. I think it's healthy to know your enemy, unlike a lot of more sensitive college liberal friends. Any actual WN/Alt-Right person should be aware they have plenty of platforms to organize and communicate. Especially if I as a regular black dude can find them...


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 16, 2016)

What exactly defines Alt-Right? To the left, it means a bunch of racists and anyone who disagrees with standard conservative or liberal ideology. For the right, it is a bunch of non standard conservatives that don't want to accept the standard conservative dogma. For those who want to distance themselves from the standard lunacy of the left or right, it is a place for more unconventional wisdom. The definitions are too broad and too hazy. You have to be careful with broad stroke brushes that speak to a completely liberal or conservative interpretation.

For example, most white/black supremacists are white/black, but not all whites/blacks are white/black supremacists (done that way to cover the most ground in the easiest way necessary). Just like not all alt-right are hate screamers.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 16, 2016)

The "most not all" argument is one I am guilty of consistently falling victim to. It is easy to generalize, it is a natural thing to do. I read an interesting write up on the alt-right on Breotbart of all places recently. I'm not commenting on if I agree with this at all. Just that it was an interesting read:


An Establishment Conservative's Guide To The Alt-Right


----------



## Lefty375 (Nov 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> What exactly defines Alt-Right? To the left, it means a bunch of racists and anyone who disagrees with standard conservative or liberal ideology. For the right, it is a bunch of non standard conservatives that don't want to accept the standard conservative dogma. For those who want to distance themselves from the standard lunacy of the left or right, it is a place for more unconventional wisdom. The definitions are too broad and too hazy. You have to be careful with broad stroke brushes that speak to a completely liberal or conservative interpretation.
> 
> For example, most white/black supremacists are white/black, but not all whites/blacks are white/black supremacists (done that way to cover the most ground in the easiest way necessary). Just like not all alt-right are hate screamers.



When they define _themselves_ as WN, I believe them. They make fun of most Donald supporters for being cuckservatives and _not _a part of the Alt-Right movement. Even though I happen to be black, I have no issue with them but just like jihadists if they say "we don't like you because of our ideology", I find it hard to listen to apologists tell me I don't _really_ understand what they mean.

From the Alt-Right themselves....

"If you only know of the alt right from The_Donald, then do not know what the alt right is. You probably think it means something along the lines of cultural libertarianism or just being "more conservative". It doesn't. It doesn't mean anti-establishment right leaning politics either. We do not agree with Conservatives ideologically and we are not people who are just trying to do conservativism "better".

The Alt Right is a racial movement and has always been a racial movement. Race is at the very core of the alt right and there is absolutely no way to be alt right without discussing racial realism, especially from a white perspective. The mainstream media was not lying to you when they said we are full of white nationalists, racial realists, and fascists. That is what we are and we really do not give a shit about tax cuts or other policy issues.

*Here is our policy on The_Donald:*

First: We're going to ban all cuckoldry, using the meme's actual meaning. This movement may be a big tent movement but this tent is nowhere near big enough for people who are going to run and hide because the scary MSM thinks race is too triggering to discuss. Sorry, but "cuck" is a racial term and you guys are the only platform of any kind anywhere on the internet who doesn't realize that.


Second: We're going to ban all attempts to subvert. The_Donald is the largest existential threat to the alt right. It's inherited the reputation of an edgy culture that hasn't existed there since before it hit 100,000, so the subscribers think they're hardcore redpilled edgy shitlords even when they spam the front page with claims that "the left are the racists."
To the new subscribers coming from /r/The_Donald, The Alt Right is a racial movement and if you've heard otherwise then you've heard wrong. • /r/altright

Further about Milo....

Imgur: The most awesome images on the Internet

Also, this isn't a small thing. With Stormfront and r/altright they are a couple hundred thousand strong.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 17, 2016)

Lefty375 said:


> post


Wow, so you're using Reddit as a credible source for an entire movement? Nice. Why don't we just use Wikipedia in future discussions? I am not identifying with the alt-right mind you, but to blanket the entire movement on what is said on a site that anyone can comment on in anonymity is weak. I am arguing for the sake of accuracy. The internets are ablaze with trolls that love to stir shit up, especially on Reddit. 

There is a stark difference between nationalism and white nationalism. Nationalism is where someone is loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries. Whereas White Nationalism is another way of saying supremacist. It is a common tactic of the media to mislabel a group or individual with a race tag to elicit fear and loathing in a target. Such as Trump's chief strategist. I am not denying that WNs exsist, or have considerable numbers for a small group. However, to apply that term to anyone that wants to put their country first is disingenuous at best.  

As for the definition of cuck, it has always been a term to describe a man who likes to watch his wife have sex with other men, irrespective of race. Moreover, if a couple decides that is what brings them pleasure, then who are we to criticize or demean a couple that chooses their form of intimacy? Like many internet memes and slang, it has been co-opted for another (usually inaccurate) use.

Milo never originally identified as an Alt-Right member. It was bestowed on him by several liberal media outlets, and he chose to ignore them and eventually go with it in order to troll those outlets. In any event, in a country with over 300 million inhabitants, 100k is a drop in the bucket. This constant reversion to race is doing nothing but furthering the divide in this country. Myself, and many others, don't judge someone by their race. We don't care. We see fellow humans that are judged by their character and actions. I refuse to pay the price for the sins of previous generations and further the divide. It isn't that we don't acknowledge that racism exists, it is that we choose a better path of equality by treating everyone the same. Frankly, I am sick of race being used in virtually every argument. We as a nation have more pressing threats to contend with than fighting over the pigmentation in our skin.

ETA: sorry if it sounds a little preachy at the end. It is a contentious topic I have had to discuss frequently over the past few months and it gets tiring listening to an otherwise logical discussion devolve into a racial issue.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 17, 2016)

The guy who coined the term "Alternative Right", Richard Spencer, explicitly points out that the movement is white nationalist, anti-immigration, anti-semitic, and to some extent anti-capitalist.
Just read this handy primer on his current website, Radix Journal Race—Stalking the Wild Taboo

There's no way of getting around it: if someone identifies with the alt-right, they identify with racism.  Full stop.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 17, 2016)

Full of shit. Using your metric, Al Gore created the internet. The source you quoted is owned by Spencer. The movement itself is a loose collection of ideology with no clear leader. Until one emerges, with a clear ideology and goal, you are painting everyone with the same brush. Otherwise, the same could be said for the liberal/progressive movement which encompasses several different ideologies into one umbrella. Afterall, liberalism is not a political party, but a collection of ideas and beliefs. Some fantastic, and some that are down right harmful. It would be unfair to label all liberals/progressives as race baiting anarchists. Now you can come to a full stop.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 17, 2016)

I was listening to the Waking Up podcast with Sam Harris, and he had Neil DeGrasse Tyson on. One of the things he said that made so much sense was that in any group there are those who will point out the exception to generalization. Even if for example "on average men are taller than women"  if even one person says "but I know lots of tall women" that person is correct and incapable of moving past that argument.

I think that this may be one of those cases. I'm sure all people who identify themselves as alt right do not consider themselves "white nationalists". In this case I'm not quite sure the most,not all phrase applies. However there is a sizable portion that does. So @ke4gde how about you admit that some are, and @Deathy McDeath also agree that many aren't.

There isn't a world in which a bunch of alt-right folks aren't white nationalists. That doesn't mean all are though either.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 17, 2016)

I've read articles from both NPR and WaPo and neither classified him as a leader or founder of the movement, only a participant. Granted a well known participant and proponent, but not a leader or founder. Regardless, the issue at hand is that the movement itself is in its early stages and encompasses many ideas. You, and many others are trying to tie a stigma to something that has not finished forming and villainize it early on. 

Anti-immigration is not the same as racism. Additionally, as I mentioned previously, the term "cucks" is something co-opted online that in reality does not mean what they think it means. Just because you assign a value to a word, does not mean it is the original intent or meaning of the word. Granted, the WNs are using it in a derogatory manner, but that does not mean that is the actual definition. Which may seem like semantics, but is an important distinction when attempting to discuss the topic accurately. In any event, call it what you like, every movement, ideology, and political party has its fringe elements that spew hate and discontent. If you want to participate in that game then I am not going to stand in your way. Free country and all that.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So @ke4gde how about you admit that some are, and @Deathy McDeath also agree that many aren't.
> 
> There isn't a world in which a bunch of alt-right folks aren't white nationalists. That doesn't mean all are though either.


 Was just writing that up when you posted that. I cannot deny that is a fair and accurate statement. It just struck me as odd that as an example, many on the left are proud to make the statement that not all Muslims are like their extremist cousins, but all alt-right are racists? As I am sure we have all learned, life is rarely so black and white (pun intended lol).


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Full of shit. Using your metric, Al Gore created the internet. The source you quoted is owned by Spencer. The movement itself is a loose collection of ideology with no clear leader. Until one emerges, with a clear ideology and goal, you are painting everyone with the same brush. Otherwise, the same could be said for the liberal/progressive movement which encompasses several different ideologies into one umbrella. Afterall, liberalism is not a political party, but a collection of ideas and beliefs. Some fantastic, and some that are down right harmful. It would be unfair to label all liberals/progressives as race baiting anarchists. Now you can come to a full stop.


So, first of all, out of line.

Friendly discussion? Great. Feel that the other person is absolutely wrong, great.  Starting out your post with "full of shit" is a foul and unneeded, IMO. The only thing that does is further the divide between warring factions. 

Let's have very contentious discussions. Let's have discourse. But let's try to actually learn form the multiple threads in the last couple days that have shown us that we need to get better. Starting off with "FUCK YOU DUDE" is the status quo, not moving forward.

@Deathy McDeath , brother, I think you're a part of this too.

You made a generalization that sort of eats itself. I am a liberal/libertarian, and I know you are too (at least to some degree). Just like you and I can/do identify with the left, it doesn't mean that we own every SJW and the like that align to our postion. It also means that not everyone aligns to the alt-right is an outright white nationalist.

The overt problem on this board at the moment is that we are so charged with passion that we immediately look to "win" with every comment. I am guilty of the same.

The "win" is when we continue to have these discussions and state our positions without looking for a "drop the mic/slam the laptop" sort of scenario.

Moving on, let's keep it to the OP's post.

Is Twitter's censorship enabling a singular viewpoint, or is it supporting full discussions? Is it appropriate to censor it's members at all, but if it does, are there situations (for instance in recuriting for terrorist networks) that it _should be _censored, and if so, where is that line?


----------



## x SF med (Nov 17, 2016)

Lefty375 said:


> Especially if I as a regular black dude can find them...




Dude...  you are not black, you are OD Green and Ranger Black and Gold...  with a killer suntan...


----------



## x SF med (Nov 17, 2016)

Now into the fray of the post.

As an avowed individualist/independent/issues driven individual, I can not say that I lean either truly left or truly right politically or socially.  I have a moral and ethical code that guides my decisions in all things political, and then I temper my process with common sense and the financial responsibility I would use if it were my own yard I was fixing.

The Left/ SJW crowd wants equality, kindness, tolerance, and stuff for free... as long as they are more equal, the kindness is directed at them, you are tolerant of their rants and don't disagree (in which case you are a greedy,homophobic, misogynistic, racist, xenophobic white European male war monger with no conscience) and they are the recipients of the free stuff as long as those that work harder pay their taxes.  That's fine until you get the far right that wants to keep what they make, but are offered the protections of the Constitution even if their actions are wholly anti-Constitutional, disagree and you are a commie sympathizer.

Both extremes, IMHO, suck moose balls.  Morality, self respect, personal responsibility, and a solid moral and ethical stance, while reviewing facts from both sides of the argument/issue, with a mind open enough to change or temper your viewpoint is the true center.  We have very few in the true center with enough moxie to lead, they're too busy surviving between the extremes, protecting themselves from one side, while paying for the other's entitlements.

Falling in and wholly aligning with the pundits on either extreme of any spectrum is sheer laziness and dangerously stupid.  "because x said..."  is seriously weak minded, if it's not questioned, pondered and analyzed against "because y said, and I did some further looking into the issue, they're both partly right, but both mostly wrong too because there are these other factors discussed by a, b and c that come into play."

Let the issues be discussed, calmly, with facts...  emotionally charged argument from anyone who is unchangeable in theology or ideology or politics or dogma or action is dangerous.

I learned more about tolerance and diversity in a WWII barracks in the middle of the summer at Ft. Benning/Bragg/etc. or winter in the field... than any of the so-called SJWs or alt-righters could ever imagine.  this is why I don't tweet, instagram, snapchat, yada yada...  hell I have a hard time with the fools on facebook when I bother to sign in, I don't need a friggin direct feed of that crap to my phone.


----------



## Lefty375 (Nov 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Wow, so you're using Reddit as a credible source for an entire movement? Nice. Why don't we just use Wikipedia in future discussions? I am not identifying with the alt-right mind you, but to blanket the entire movement on what is said on a site that anyone can comment on in anonymity is weak. I am arguing for the sake of accuracy. The internets are ablaze with trolls that love to stir shit up, especially on Reddit.
> 
> There is a stark difference between nationalism and white nationalism. Nationalism is where someone is loyal to and proud of their country often with the belief that it is better and more important than other countries. Whereas White Nationalism is another way of saying supremacist. It is a common tactic of the media to mislabel a group or individual with a race tag to elicit fear and loathing in a target. Such as Trump's chief strategist. I am not denying that WNs exsist, or have considerable numbers for a small group. However, to apply that term to anyone that wants to put their country first is disingenuous at best.
> 
> ...



I think being one of the communities in a movement gives it quite a bit of legitimacy, yes. Just because places like /pol/, StormFront, or r/altright allow you to post anonymously doesn't remove the fact these people are real. Again, I'm not blanketing anything. 

WN doesn't necessarily say anything about being a supremacist. WN is a movement for everyone to have their own lands. It seems you are doing the exact same thing to a group that you accuse me of. Talk to some WN and they will tell you the same thing. Some _are_ racist, but it's not a requirement. 

I think you should visit /pol/ or /b/ more often if you think that's what cuck means. I 100% could be wrong, but that's where the usage started and other crowds (tumblr,reddit etc) started picking it up. It's very interesting that people who don't visit where the meme's originate use the book definition for these things. 

100% agree about race. I have told people here at Dartmouth they are more racist than people on /pol/ or 4chan half the time. They separate themselves into tiny groups, and there is plenty of in-fighting to become the biggest victim. My only point here was to say that for the same reason I don't associate with BLM, the alt-right is turning into the same type of thing. Did it possibly have a good message at one time? Sure, stopping police brutality against all US citizens seems reasonable. However, that's not how it is viewed. BLM or people in the alt-right can cry about their dictionary definition, but it's too tainted for reasonable people to join now, in my opinion. Just like when Johnny Jihad believes Islam says I must be destroyed, I believe him. I don't go "not all Muslims" and think he is misguided. If multiple cornerstones of a movement say they hate Jews, Blacks, Mexicans...well I start to believe them.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 17, 2016)

Lefty375 said:


> I think being one of the communities in a movement gives it quite a bit of legitimacy, yes. Just because places like /pol/, StormFront, or r/altright allow you to post anonymously doesn't remove the fact these people are real. Again, I'm not blanketing anything.
> 
> WN doesn't necessarily say anything about being a supremacist. WN is a movement for everyone to have their own lands. It seems you are doing the exact same thing to a group that you accuse me of. Talk to some WN and they will tell you the same thing. Some _are_ racist, but it's not a requirement.
> 
> ...


To be clear, I never said or implied that they were not real. However, the fact that they like to rabblerouse on 4chan or reddit also does not grant them legitimacy. The open nature of reddit and 4chan typically preclude them from being seen as reliable sources of information, much like wikipedia is frowned upon in academic settings. 

The definition of cuck is exactly as I have stated. Again, I mentioned that it has been co-opted by others to fit their agenda, but that doesn't make it right or accurate. The negative racial connotations may have started where you mentioned, but cuckolding has been around much longer within the fetish community. However, I won't deny that they are trying to use it with a negative context to further their agenda. 

I can agree with your BLM comparison. It is a good one and explains your position better. However, until the movement solidifies, it is difficult to pin down any one group or specific ideology at the moment. It may turn out as you said, then again it may not.


----------

