How about we stop white nationalists from promoting their views unto the general population.

I've seen the rise of the alt-right and many people that think like them. Especially white nationalists that think that there is a crusade and conspiracy to wipe out the white "race" by promoting their divisive and sometimes hateful views of multicultarism and immigration into "white" nations. They think that Add to dictionary will be the downfall of Western civilization, and that foreign immigrants or cultures can't properly assimilate into Western societies as if recent past "white" immigrants didn't face the same challenges as modern immigrants. The Polish, Italian, Irish, and Jewish immigrants of the earlier 19th century faced the same discrimination and demonization as modern immigrants to the extent that they were beaten, refused service and discriminated against. Let's do the right thing and flag and report as many "white genocide" videos on YouTube as we can. I'll start first by downvoting, flagging and reporting this 400,000 view "white genocide" video on YouTube.

... Yeah stop giving them a platform and spewing racist rhetoric in reverse.. Notice this shit didn't start taking full steam until the regressive left went off to the full deep end a few years back.. This is blowback from the racism and insanity the left has been spewing for years now through the social justice movement targeting whites.. Stop demonizing white people.. Stop excusing racism from other groups.. A clear example of this is the recent shit with the facebook torture where Chicago police was saying "they were just kids".. Or that CNN contributors bringing up shit like slavery some how excuses the shit that went down here.. There is a clear double standard, and it is only fueling the alt right and was a big reason why Trump won.. Going after and flagging these videos is a limp wristed attempt to ensure your echo chamber, yet these are hardly the only racist and or offensive shit on youtube.. Why aren't you going after those? Its like the people who are so adamantly against the alt right don't realize they are the freaking cause of it, its sad and hilarious.

TL;DR

While I think white nationalism is rediculous, what do you propose to do about it? Wipe out the first ammendment?

Telling someone they are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.., for not supporting a lifestyle, a mass immigration, an act, etc.., eventually ends up pushing people too far and these people can only take so much before they push back and the saying about you reap what you sew is coming back to bite the left. Of course though, it's the fault of everyone else.

White genocide? These people are such a joke. I sometimes worry about humanity's future.

Agreed, even though I'm not Caucasian( because white isn't a race) I have no problem with any group that expresses their beliefs non-violently. All races have their percentage of radicals who believe that their group is endangered. To be honest, I feel like these conversations need to be had, even if I don't agree, as long as the dialog is respectful, I will respect that at least.

@MarcRecon: "even though I'm not Caucasian( because white isn't a race)"

Explain? =(

@sSubZerOo: Yeah because fighting for equal rights, protesting for Civil Rights, fairness in the criminal justice system, better more prepared police and so on is being anti-white. People are just afraid of change and the anti-immigrant sentiment has always been an issue in America. Nobody is attacking white people get off your high horse with that BS. White people still live in better neighborhoods, have better prepared and quality schooling, are incarcerated 7x times less than blacks for drug possession even though all races pretty much do the same amount of drugs, have less harsh sentences, are more likely to get hired because they have a "white" name, and so on. The average white family has a wealth of $105,000, while the average black family has a wealth of $5,000 etc.

Pointing out the inequality in America isn't anti-white or attacking white people unless you want to keep it that way.

Everyone is sick of vapid virtue signaling ideologues wrapping themselves in the cloak of superior morality to spew bullshit.

Stop it or the current populist revolt and culture swing to the right will never stop.

Everyone is sick of you. Learn the lesson or keep painting yourself into an ever smaller and more irrelevant corner. It is your choice.

This is what everyone thinks of you that is not swigging the kool-aid and you are the only ones not in on the joke.

The GOP has been cultivating this group of individuals since Nixon's Southern strategy. People like George Wallace and Pat Buchnan were merely prototypes of Donald Trump. A black man being elected President emboldened the racists even further coupled with far-right talk radio has created a nasty environment.

Also, most of these "alt-right" people are just internet trolls with no political organization or public image. Neo-nazis and "white nationalists" have always existed but their views haven't been mainstream until now.

The bad herb has to grow with the good herb.

In an article in the Washington Free Beacon today Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dycon called on white people to maintain an " Individual Reparation Account" to make donations as retribution for racism in America.

George Wallace was a Democrat. I doubt the GOP would be cultivating him. Lets hear about the Groups the Far Left has been cultivating like the Black Panthers, Weathermen Underground.

Those two sentences are unrelated, and Democrats pre-Nixon are a different party altogether. The fact of the matter is the racists and deplorables coming out of the woodwork for the past year has been a long time coming.

i will not help you take others freedom of speech away

It always comes from the left to explain all their failures.

Most people are laughing at them, as they should. Let them whine and say what they have to say. Attempting to silence a group isn't the way to go about it. And if that's the case why don't we silence all the other hate groups while we're at it?

If a group of people threaten the foundation of our Republic with their speech, should we protect their first amendment rights?

Tricky question. Prior to Hitler's Germany, the Weimer Republic had pretty liberal freedom of speech laws (and they also had hate speech laws as well) and Hitler was allowed to spew his nonsense to the masses. As a result... well you know what happened.

The alternative is to have hate speech laws to counteract people saying prejudiced things. Of course, that's not guaranteed to work and can backfire. If you really want to destroy racial supremacy of any kind, get those people around the people they hate. White, black, Jew, Muslim, Christian, yellow, red, gay, straight, trans, furry, whatever, we all bleed red.

Theyre just angry cry babies. Well defeat them with love and laughter.

But no keep on fighting with this exclusionary and divisive rhetoric.. Its not like we saw the alt right go from obscurity 2 years ago to being hugely well known, and its not like we saw massive right wing uprisings like Trump winning or Brexit.. But this is your problem, you don't want to debate as shown with what you want to do with that video.. You want to silence them and tell them to screw off.. How about make something CONSTRUCTIVE such as a response video to why that is absurd? If you can't handle civil discourse in a debate setting, please kindly go to your safe space and reflect that you are the cause for all of this.

Giving that power to the government, regardless of your politics, is painfully myopic. It doesn't matter how you voted this election, or how you voted in every election. Sooner or later your side will be completely out of power, and those you vote again will be in across the board. If the government has the power to shut down speech it doesn't like then soon that power will be used again you. I mean seriously, you really want to hand trump the power to say "Happy Holidays belittles of the beliefs of a historically oppressed people that are still being oppressed in parts of the world and serves to appropriate the culture of hundreds of millions of Americans for commercial blah blah blah."

It is super easy to frame just about any position in "enlightened liberal" language. Just like making the head of the EPA a political appointment, that blade cuts both ways. You want to make the arbiter of acceptable speech a political appointment? Great, trump gets to appoint the first. I am sure he will choose that Milo guy from brightbert or whatever that "paper" is called.

To top it off. restricting speech in the name of the marginalized is just asinine. Are there successful efforts to deny basic human rights to minorities or women? Well, if they are successful, giving the people behind those efforts new tools like the ability to restrict speech they dislike isn't going to help those you perceive as victims of systemic oppression.

Although it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote that. But seriously, you cannot use your first amendment right to silence someone else's first amendment right unless what they're saying are actually breaking laws. (Death threats, libel, inciting riots, etc.) Sorry, but let them have their voice. Point out why they're wrong, but let them have their voice.

@JustPlainLucas said:

Although it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote that. But seriously, you cannot use your first amendment right to silence someone else's first amendment right unless what they're saying are actually breaking laws. (Death threats, libel, inciting riots, etc.) Sorry, but let them have their voice. Point out why they're wrong, but let them have their voice.

Except that was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said that. Memes aren't really a great source for information.

-Byshop

@Byshop said:

@JustPlainLucas said:

Although it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote that. But seriously, you cannot use your first amendment right to silence someone else's first amendment right unless what they're saying are actually breaking laws. (Death threats, libel, inciting riots, etc.) Sorry, but let them have their voice. Point out why they're wrong, but let them have their voice.

Except that was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who said that. Memes aren't really a great source for information.

-Byshop

Disagree. Next time do your research.

@n64dd said:

Disagree. Next time do your research.

Old but cute.

-Byshop

Its good to have dialogue, but I will never respect white nationalism or black nationalism of any sort.

The alt-right needs to be called out for the racist bastion of fools they are.

This, a million times this

There used to be this KKK rally in my town every year. About 3 to 5 people would show up, dress like buffoons, walk around a bit and be essentially ignored by the entire town, then give up and head to Denny's for lunch. At some point, the media decided to cover it and built up all this hype and rhetoric around it. Suddenly, this rally had hundreds of people attending it either to support or protest. Violent protests and confrontations erupted. It went from some negligible backyard event to a media circus. In a sense, these self righteous morons played exactly into the hands of the KKK - giving them free publicity and spreading hatred and discord. Be smart how you combat ignorance. If you want to fight hatred and ignorance, do not use hatred and ignorance as your weapon.

Actually, ignorance can be used as a weapon... simply ignoring them would've been the best course of action. But instead, the media kept feeding the trolls, after realizing how much money they could make from it.

Did you ever eat with them and ask what was up?

I would love to do that. The thing is that you always see groups of people like 30 or more. I would love to sit down with 3 or 4 at a diner and be like "Ok what's the deal?"

How about let's not? Shutting people down because you disagree with them is a fascist, totalitarian mentality. If you disagree with their points, debate them or ignore them. People can make up their own minds about ideology. Personally I see no problem with white nationalists, similarly how I see no problem with black nationalists. Most people I noticed who claim to just hate "white nationalism" really seem to have no idea what they are, most the time these haters are just uneducated and were tricked by their political party into thinking they are the same thing as the KKK.

In fact, what's racist to me, is viewing "grouping of whites" as racist. It's a 2-dimensional world view lacking nuance or really any thought whatsoever. It's fine for anyone to group to together, but as soon as these people are white, "teh evil racistsss!". White nationalism is a good Rorschach test to see how many people really are racist (tip: ain't the people in the movement, but the people interpreting the movement).

White supremacy? Now that's entirely different. These individuals actually do want white people to prevail over other races. So if you were going to target a racist group, maybe try targeting the group that's actually racist. The thing is, there aren't that many white supremacists and they aren't much of a threat.

Some aspects of the situation reminds me of WW2, except instead of the Jews being disproportionately and unrealistically made out to be a threat (a scapegoat group used to induce fear mongering for political motivations), it's the white nationalists. Humans (in this case leftists) are easily manipulated into political agenda's when a "threat" is deemed. Then they de-humanize the threat and then say "get them!".

I mentioned something about getting rid of the 2nd Amendment in the gun thread the other day and what could happen with the rest of them. This is an example of that very thing.

The hypocrisy of those on the left is that people can say anything they want, as long as it agrees with them. No one else is allowed to say anything that does not do so. This thread is a classic example of that very thing.

@WhiteKnight77: They're called "amendments" for a reason. The constitution, bill of rights, and the now-mythical founding fathers were imperfect and the constitution requires periodic amending.

See you proved my point. By giving these people the attention and coverage more minded like people like them have the courage to go out and express their views publicly, and support their cause. The dangerous part is that when it becomes socially acceptable to be racist, to discriminate, be mysogyst etc. open in public again in the United States and Western world is when it becomes a problem. Why give these people the chance to express their views? Best is to either silence them or ignore them. And taking down their YouTube videos is the perfect way to silence them.

So you would have no objection to the repeal of all of them? I would.

I don't care how much I disagree with someone, if they aren't inciting violence then they can have whatever opinion they want and have a right to voice it no matter how shitty it may be.

White genocide already happened.

It's called Jews and Armenians.

You're advocating silencing people you dont agree with. I don't agree with that. It's fine to ignore something you don't like, but I don't believe in arbitrarily restricting the ability of people to express themself. What if someday, someone determines that your point of view is outside the norm and prevents you from using the internet, speaking in public, publishing, etc. There are better ways to fight ignorance and hatred than resorting to similar tactics. "Silencing" people you disagree with is an extremely dangerous and disenfranchising tactic. That's what totalatarian regimes do - sure you can justify it, but so can they.

If we stop dumb bigots from expressing their opinions, how will we identify the dumb bigots? :-P

Although you are partly in jest, that's actually a good point. I'd rather people express themselves. Would you rather have a bigot out in the open or one in secret? Those in the open can be addressed and their points argued. Many bigots can change their opinions when presented with countering arguments.

I said it in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but yes, I 100% agree with the sentiment I wrote.

False equivalence. Jews are a group of people. White nationalism is a political ideology. A far more accurate analogy would be the scapegoating and fear-mongering of minorities and immigrants, which is something both white-nationalists and Nazis have in common.

This has been my stance all along.

I want the bigots to come out in the open. That way I can find them and argue them.

So wait, either flag everything or don't flag anything?

"But seriously, you cannot use your first amendment right to silence someone else's first amendment right unless what they're saying are actually breaking laws. (Death threats, libel, inciting riots, etc.) Sorry, but let them have their voice. Point out why they're wrong, but let them have their voice."

Just gonna point out that the TC was talking about flagging peoples' youtube videos, not passing any laws against what they're saying, or throwing people in jail for saying such things. Regardless of whether or not it's stupid and pointless to spend all day on Youtube flagging videos that he doesn't like, I fail to see how he/she is "silencing someone else's first amendment rights" or "not letting them have their voice."

What is the ultimate goal for flagging videos? To get them removed.. Another words he doesn't want to debate them, he wants to shut them down.. This is basically the SJW motto.. I wasn't talking about the first amendment because this is youtube it doesn't apply, I was talking about the fact that it's this very dismissive and antagonistic behavior that has helped these movements grow not shrink.. We saw this with the left in how they treated Trump supporters.. Instead of actually look at the issues why people supported Trump they screamed out they were deplorable racists, and we all know the outcome of that election cycle..

Ok, I have to correct myself, it is considered a race now, but technically it is not. Prior to the 1600's the early European and colonist didn't call themselves white. As to what they called themselves racially, it's a matter of opinion, but it wasn't white. There is no historical documentation of a white race existing before the establishment of the U.S. Heck, Arabs where considered white at one time, so can you really take that term seriously. I mean, I have no problem with someone who does because you have a right to identify with whatever you want.

I feel ya man, but as I said before, I don't have to respect their belief, but I do respect their right to express themselves RESPECTFULLY.

Wait...so you want Person A to NOT call out Person B for being racist, even when Person A thinks that Person B is being racist?

Regardless of whether or not Person B is actually being racist, how is it not entirely valid to point out racism when one sees it? Person B essentially gets a pass to say whatever they want, and Person A can "debate" the issue all he likes as long as he doesn't point out that Person B is being racist. How is that not an unfair double standard?

Regardless, that's beside the point. It's still utterly silly to pull the "why aren't you going after THOSE videos" argument. Like you said, there are LOTS of offensive videos on youtube and I seriously doubt that anyone has the time to track down ALL of them. The fact that one can't watch and flag ALL offensive videos most certainly doesn't require one to avoid flagging ANY offensive videos just to be fair. There's an obvious middle ground which is, "flag the offensive videos that you happen to see."

I mean, otherwise, why even have the ability to flag videos in the first place?

If you want to argue that a specific video makes an interesting or valid point even though it's "offensive", and therefore shouldn't be removed, then fine. But I fail to see how that equates to some notion that ALL ideas are actually worthy of debate and that therefore NOTHING should be flagged or removed regardless of the actual merits of the content. It's Youtube's house, Youtube's rules. Youtube chose to allow people the ability to flag videos. And in the event that a video gets flagged, Youtube can make a judgement call and determine whether to leave the video or remove it. I fail to see the problem. If I'm at a restaurant and the people at the next table start loudly saying offensive and/or racist shit, no I am not somehow obligated to debate them. I complain to management, and then management makes the decision to either ignore my complaint or tell the offending party to cool it.

Also, I didn't say that YOU were talking about the first amendment, that was a quote by someone else.

In any case, this is a Youtube thing, not a problem with some random dude going around flagging videos. Random Dude didn't include a flag button, and Random Dude isn't the one reviewing flagged videos and determining whether or not to remove them. That's ALL on Youtube. If videos get removed that shouldn't have been removed, then take that up with Youtube. It's not Random Dude's fault for using the flag function exactly how it's supposed to be used. If I go to the art museum and complain about a painting that offends me, it's not MY fault when the painting gets taken down. It's the museum's fault for deciding that they're gonna pull down art just because some random asshole made a complaint. Random people going around flagging videos don't actually have the ability to get those videos taken down, Youtube takes them down. You'd be better off taking up your complaints with the entity that is actually DOING SOMETHING.