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

I think it is a testament to how far we have come as a species that the next great genocide we commit will be based on your ideology and not your race.

Do you know how proud I will be to keep the industrial death camps running knowing that it is inclusive to all? Very.

freeze peach

Basically, the right to free speech does not give one the right to free platform. YouTube has the right to remove anyone from their platform who doesn't follow their rules and regulations. Their site, their rules.

Trump’s Immigration Two-Step: From ‘Softening’ To Concentration Camps

NYT’s Julia Preston wrote “Trump is talking about detaining as many as 300,000 migrants at the border, a big expansion of border detention centers.” For comparison, at the end of WWII, the number of Jews kept as refugees in the same death camps they were “liberated” from was 600,000. Essentially Trump wants concentration camps on our borders, just north of the beautiful wall.

Trump Camp’s Talk of Registry and Japanese Internment Raises Muslims’ Fears

A prominent supporter of Donald J. Trump drew concern and condemnation from advocates for Muslims’ rights on Wednesday after he cited World War II-era Japanese-American internment camps as a “precedent” for an immigrant registry suggested by a member of the president-elect’s transition team.

The horror of stopping people from illegally entering the U.S.A. and upon finding them, detaining them. Oh the almighty horror! To top it off, detaining ILLEGALS is now being compared to concentration camps?

Concentration camp:

"a guarded compound for the detention or imprisonment of aliens, members of ethnic minorities, political opponents, etc."

"a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities"

Yeah, that's sort of my point.

Regardless of the merits of the TC's arguments, or if it's a silly thing to spend one's time tracking down Youtube videos just to complain about them, he's essentially just a dude filing a complaint with the house and asking others to do the same. I fail to see the issue.

Though one might have a problem with Youtube's policy of removing videos just because some dude complained, A) that's not an issue of free speech since it's Youtube's site to run as they wish and B) Youtube is the only one who actually has the ability to do anything about such complaints.

So this is essentially just a case of people complaining that another dude is complaining. Looks to me like another big bag of "so what?" Not to say that people don't have a legitimate reason to care about the way that youtube handles content on their site. But if they consider that a problem, shouldn't they be taking that up with Youtube rather than with some random guy going around complaining about videos? You know, seeing as how it's Youtube that actually set the rules and is actually removing videos.

@MrGeezer: You seem not to understand what I am saying.. Flagging a video isn't doing anything outside of your wish to remove it.. Seeing as it has 400k views and he is providing them more views by going to it, its not going to get taken down.. In fact HIS FREAKING COVERAGE of it is giving even MORE VIEWS to the video. Yeah but why do you flag a video? Because you're either offended or you think it violates some terms of service and its taken down..

You seem not to understand what I am trying to say, my complaint is it's this kind of behavior that has made the alt right to grow so large as it is now.. No where did I say you are obligated to debate them, but don't come crying when the alt right gains even more power and coverage due to this bullshitery.. Its like you have no concept why Trump won, and why the ALT right is suddenly a thing after 2 years.. If you want this shit to stop you debate it and directly go after their points, you don't scream that's racist and try to silence them.. So to start what we got here is a limp wristed thread in which some one brings up a video ABOUT bullshit, giving them even MORE coverage, while trying to claim that this shouldn't spread when it is doing BASICALLY THAT by showing it.

I really don't care what youtube will do or not.. But this kind of mentality the OP is pushing is the reason why the alt right and Trump has gotten so big.. SO by all means go flag it, Idgaf what happens to the video, just don't be shocked that this kind of mentality grows even further due to blowback to bullshit like this. I would love nothing better to see the alt right implode, but this isn't doing it, in fact it is doing the exact opposite.

And no where was I talking about that.. I am specifically being critical of the OP's mentality which has shown has the exact opposite affect.. In fact I literally said nothing about free speech here.

@sSubZerOo: Okay...

If you think that's why the alt right is such a thing now, then fine, but I suspect you're drastically oversimplifying things. People screaming racism over youtube videos is a NON-ISSUE, and I like to give the alt right enough credit to think that they aren't basing their entire position as a reaction to something as trivial as people getting offended about stuff.

Case in point, voting for Donald trump isn't actually going to DO anything about these PC whiners, considering the whole first amendment thing we have. It's not as if electing donald trump is somehow going to STOP people from making these kinds of complaints, so the fact that people are making these kinds of complaints is a really stupid and shitty reason to vote for Trump. The people who did vote for Trump, I'm pretty sure that most of them did so because of more substantial reasons. The Alt Right sucks, but give them a little bit of credit.

1) As you said, Clinton was a shitty candidate. Like, overall, a shitty candidate. I don't know if you recall, but people's criticisms of Hillary Clinton extended FAR beyond that comment (which was taken out of context, btw, she didn't call half the country deplorables).

2) Again, anyone who is going to be "defranchised" and change their entire political stance just because they got called a racist, is a f***ing idiot. I like to give people more credit.

3) Yeah, he won, and the left is still free to go on calling everyone else racists regardless of who's in charge.

4) Oh, so now people are going to vote for Trump a second term because I am calling people racists? People are going to elect Trump for a second term because of some random jerk going around flagging youtube videos for being racist? Again, Clinton lost because she was a shitty candidate who ran a bad campaign. If the Democrats come back next term with a GOOD candidate who runs a GOOD campaign, and Trump still wins simply because voters are pissed off at random assholes online calling them racists, then yes they are f***ing idiots.

5) You're the one shitting on the voter base, dude. You're the one saying that they're so short-sighted and petty that they'll vote against a candidate solely because some random asshole online says that it's racist to vote against that candidate. I'm the one giving people enough credit to say that most people generally base their political leanings on more than what assholes are saying online.

6) Or you know, it could have something to do with the fact that the Democrats picked such a shitty candidate to run against Trump, and that Hillary Clinton then ran a horrible campaign.

Again, there are a LOT of reasons why Trump beat Clinton, most of which fall under the category of "Clinton was a shitty candidate who ran a shitty campaign." Guys like the TC going around flagging youtube videos have jack shit to do with why Trump won, in the same reason that the KKK's support of Trump didn't suddenly make people go out and vote for Clinton. You have an INCREDIBLY low opinion of voters in general if you think they're gonna vote against a candidate solely because that's the candidate that some other asshole likes. Clinton lost because Clinton sucks, end of story.

Is it your opinion that Jews were merely detained in places like Buchenwald, Sobibor, Treblinka, etc..,? They somehow made a mistake and walked into the extermination "shower" rather than a normal shower? The Nazi's merely wanted to find out who these people were rather than imprisoning them into slave labor, death, experimentation, etc..? Jesus Christ you people are bat shit crazy.

While we are discussing, is it your assertion that immigration detention centers (which we currently have) are also concentration camps?

@MarcRecon: "Heck, Arabs where considered white at one time,"

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

I don't know that it's our responsibility to STOP them from promoting that ideology nor that we should. I think it's more important and effective to engage their target audience and change the susceptibility of a racist message in those people. No matter what, censorship is never the real answer.

Also I noticed the women in the video all had southern accents. Hmmm...

The Polish, Italian, Irish, and Jewish immigrants of the earlier 19th century that you speak of weren't poisoned with Islam.

Why should we tolerate a massively intolerant culture?

Another word for concentration camps is "internment" which is a better word for it. That being said, look at Jag's comment then ask yourself is detainment of millions of illegals will be a good idea. Look at it an individual perspective. Are you willing to divide families and loved ones? Are you willing to use force to accomplish your goals? Are you willing to deal with the consequences of those actions? Will the local populace (legal/illegal) support your measures? How much is it going to cost our nation? Is it worth it? Basically it's a logistical nightmare that will result in violations of the Constitutions and rights of all Americans.

The U.S. did something like this with the Japanese population during WW2 and resulted in numerous human rights violations. It was a blight on American history. If you want to go on with it, good luck. It won't work and will backfire. I understand the sentiment that we want them here legally but it's not plausible.

What you're describing is an extermination camp. Holocaust scholars make a distinction between concentration camps and extermination camps. Roughly half of the Jewish victims were directly killed in extermination camps, while the other half were indirectly killed from harsh living conditions in concentration camps. When you detain millions of people into concentrated spaces, and then refuse to provide the food, medicine, clothing and facilities they need to survive, that's genocide.

What about the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants already in the United States? What do you plan to do about them? Detain all those millions of people into concentration camps detention centers?

LOL what the ****? Concentration camps WERE extermination camps.

Nazi concentration camps

Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) and extermination camps

Learn something new every day! Even though the way they determined the difference is kind of shady. (During Nuremberg trials).

Whether or not such a concept would be a good idea is not germane to the discussion. The bleeding heart card does not work with me. If illegals did not care enough about the possible ramifications from their illegal activity, why should I have a concern over their feelings?

Your last paragraph shocks me, to be honest, because regardless of what opinion you tend to hold among the various discussions we've had on this board, you don't strike me as someone who makes such a simplistic error. What the United States did to AMERICANS during WWII was a travesty. Detaining people because of Japanese heritage was a disgrace. That event in our history is not comparable to detaining those who have illegally violated our sovereignty and such a comparison is outrageous.

@Jag85

Whether or not the Jews went to a camp and took a "shower", had scientific experimentation done on them, were starved, were put into slave labor, etc.., I doubt many are going to tell you wonderful things about their stay. The point is: Concentration Camp or Extermination Camp, the poor bastard with the numbers on his wrist will tell you he/she wasn't at the Hilton. You really should get an understanding why Jews, homosexuals, etc.., were put in such camps. It wasn't because they entered Germany or Poland illegally. I'm embarrassed for anyone trying to make the detainment of ILLEGALS into the modern day equal of the Reich.

Illegals should not be given a pass. If the United States could put a man on the moon, the government could certainly deport illegals. Every last one? Nah. A significant number? Absolutely.

What many people do not know about the internment camps the US had is that most of our arms industry was situated on the west coast and much of it in the LA/Long Beach area and that there were a couple of Japanese-Americans who were convicted of spying for Japan after the start of WWII. Moving to the camps were needed to keep such from happening.

It was bad enough that a Japanese naval officer, disguised as a diplomat, at the Japanese consulate in Hawaii was tasked with creating a bomb plot as to which ships where anchored where in Pearl Harbor and the type of ships they were. The Japanese freely spied on the US prior to attacking the US, but naval attaches in Japan were forbidden to do such and the Japanese even blocked off, or made in accessible, large areas around their bases unlike in the US. After Pearl, there was plenty to be jittery about when it concerned the Japanese.

@WhiteKnight77: So you're okay with racial profiling?

Because those feelings can translate to resistance. I'm not talking about just illegals, I'm talking about legal citizens, small businesses, large corporations, farms, local and state governments that might not take kindly to federal intrusion. It's also a matter of logistics. You put them into camps. You have to feed them and care for them until they're deported. That costs money. It's a drain on taxpayer money and resources.

Basically instead of those illegals working and paying taxes, who are actually contributing to society, you're now placing them into camps. Great job. You know those farm hands, construction workers, or whatever doing work? Gone. Are they being replaced? lol no because Americans aren't willing to work those jobs. At this point you can argue about the principles of illegality, breaking the law or whatever but when the policies on principle begin to have negative ramifications on society, is it worth it?

Ask yourself this: Why are they illegal? It's because most overstay their Visas while applying for citizenship. The citizenship process takes at most a decade. It's a long process. So for a person who's trying to apply for citizenship but is an "illegal," you want to deport them even though one of the requirements is to live in the U.S. for a certain time span.

You're generalizing an entire group. Most are willing to work. Most are willing to immigrate legally. Deporting them is a logistical nightmare. Deporting them carries severe ramifications. It's not about feelings, it's whether or not it's worth it and, in this case, it's not.

I suggest taking a look into the following links:

LA Times

ACLU Myths and Facts

WAPost

Mother Jones

As for your comments on the Japanese interment camps, I don't care what you or anyone thinks because we already know what happens in the end. We have hindsight now and that's all we can benefit from now. And I can tell you from hindsight that detaining and deporting 11 million illegal citizens is a logistical nightmare that will carry severe ramifications on society and economics. But if you want a larger federal government snooping around and asking people for their citizenship, go right ahead. What can go wrong with that federal agents breaking down doors, shooting at illegals only to realize that none of them were actually illegals? What can go wrong with a federal agent spots a Hispanic kid playing only to be harassed because he's probably an illegal only for that agent to realize that he was born in Florida? What can go wrong with a legal citizen sees her parents deported and is now in a foster home? An action leads to a reaction. Hispanics are often targeted without much evidence. Deportations suddenly become unpopular. States start to resist. Domestic terrorism and civil disturbance on the rise. Those are all possibilities. It might not happen but it could.

It's a waste of resources. It's a waste of time. At this point, I'd rather see those illegal immigrants become automatic citizens and would rather see our immigration process streamlined to provide efficiency within a reasonable time period. But it won't happen. If you want illegal immigration to stop, it won't. It'll never stop unless open borders becomes a possibility and even that's far-fetched considering the political climate in certain Latin-American states.

AAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Well that backfired.

The problem here and with many of these people is they dont quite understand that they are promoting or suggesting racist things. They think to themselves "I dont dislike someone because of their race, thus im not racist, thus nothing i support or do would be racist or driven by racial motives". Because of this thought process, they tend to latch on to ideas that are generally racist or have racist connotations to them, but have convinced themselves that its not because of this.

Immigration is the PERFECT example. This is a topic used every four years (only 4 years, notice how its almost completely dropped after election time) by the republicans to help ensure the group of voters who like hearing this stuff, which includes white nationalists and those who are actually racist. Its literally the strategy of the republicans to ensure the racist voter base.... which should tell you something. It might not tell you that everyone supporting this is racist, but it should say something. But furthering the issue, when we really start examining the suggestions and "problem", its always a constant issue with Mexicans. Never french, Italian (not nit he 21st century at least), not Canadian, but Mexican. Always. No exceptions. It always has to do with the border, and its always brought up even in the past two elections when our immigration has been at a net zero, meaning we are losing more immigrants than gaining. Add what pretty much all economists say on this issue and of course how many of these people claim to also be constitionalists....

.....when you put all this together its a bit stupid to try to claim that race is not a motivating factor here. and if this is something you latch on to and think youre not racist, then maybe you need to reevaluate where you stand on things OR, youre just not that much of a thinker...... which could very well be the case with the average right wing voter as well.

On a personal note, i dont find it coincidence that the people i do know who take these stances on immigration, are also the often grown men who will make fairly racist jokes where the punchline is often no more thought provoking than the word "ni**er", view race as some kind of big deal, and generally point out thing and then connect them to race even when it should not be applied. They tend to not be able to grasp, most likely because of how or where they were raised, that people who are not actually racist, dont view situations in terms of the race of the person unless its necessary to the event, situation or story. So when two stories come up about a couple racist white people burning down black churches, this thing in our mind that says "hey lets counter this by looking up some crimes committed by black people against white people" does not happen.

Did I say I was? While I approve of profiling as far as a way to determine if someone may be up to something illegal, just because someone is a certain skin color plays no part in that. I pointed out why the US did something and why. While it is a stain on our history, it was needed as seen by said convictions.

Although you might find it troubling, we have laws needing to be followed regardless if one finds approval or not. The country has a sizeable problem when it comes to illegals and the defugalty needs to be addressed logically and appropriately rather than basing everything on emotion as one with your position tends to do. Ignoring it and rewarding those involved in it doesn't solve the problem. If you don't like being called out on such a mockery of a comparison, offer one that is genuinely comparable. Detaining and deporting those who have broken our laws can not and should not ever be mentioned in the same sentence as what happened some seventy plus years ago as it is an insult to those Americans who were victims of a witch hunt.

The entire illegal alien infestation/problem is difficult to remedy but that doesn't mean you ignore the problem and hope it doesn't happen again. A lot of tough choices need to be made.

Let these white nationalists come out into the open and show themselves. It wasn't long ago that I had to argue with people here that racism even existed at all. Let these people demonstrate clearly what a problem it is and how prevalent. Then maybe after we have recognized that there is actually a problem we can do something about it.

So these people don't eat any foreign food?

And what if they had entered Germany illegally? Would you then support their detainment in internment/concentration camps?

That's what they said about the Japanese.

There's a saying: "History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes."

You won't justify the internment of Japanese but you will justify the internment of illegal immigrants. It's obvious in your language when you referred them as "The entire illegal alien infestation" as if it was a pest problem.

Dude, I've made my point across. If anything, you're arguing on an emotional level, citing enforcing the law as a rationale to divide families and disrupt society just because it's the "law." I get it but it's not realistic. I've made my point across with the links provided as well as the social and economic ramifications of active targeting of illegals, internment camps, and deportations. You can enforce the law but it will be unpopular and it will be met with resistance. It will be counterproductive and disrupt communities.

@Solaryellow: Jag ITT in a nutshell:

The problem is not white nationalism. Or racism. Or people speaking their minds. These pricks will always exist. And calling people on it solves nothing.

The problem is that we keep giving people these platforms to speak from. Youtube, the media, news (both false and sensationalized), etc.

There are so many ways to make bad ideas known these days.

So free speech is a problem?

Lol

Disgustingly fascist people on GS these days

Why doesn't anyone ever focus on black racism? Remember the last time the KKK kidnapped and tortured someone on Facebook Live Feed? I sure don't.

What about Mexico gunning down people who attempt to enter their southern border? What about Iran executing gays? What about Japanese racism? What about China taking over the continent of Africa, being so racist that African leaders are begging for whites to return (That they raped and killed out of the continent).

I agree all racism is bad but it seems like white people get an intense amount extra scrutiny.

On the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, the Mexican one stated that stereotyping Jews is ok because "only white people can be racist." I think everyone on this planet is convinced only white people are racist. They are the source of all problems. Without white people, zero crime would exist. Everything would be fair.

Lets focus on the United States for a minute here: Who here is the majority in this country? White people. Who here has benefited from social, economic, and political institutions? White people (specifically middle and upper class). Who here has suffered years of racism? Black people and minorities in general including white people who happen to be Jews, Irish, German, whatever. Remember Charleston? Remember Walter Scott?

Oh but wait! that incident on Facebook Live Feed! Well you're right. Unfortunately there is prejudice shown from minority communities against white people. But going back to what I just said, white people have control over the institutions that have benefited them for years. It does excuse the racism but the thread makes a valid point regarding white supremacy and its dangers especially when white supremacy was a thing during Jim Crow, Reconstruction, and during Nazi Germany.

But wait, we have a black president! That is true. And we did treat him with the utmost respect. We never made accusations that he was a Muslim socialist born in Kenya whose wife is secretly a man mooching on welfare. No sir!

As for racism worldwide, yes, anyone can be racist. It's not okay. Want a cookie?

knew someone would misinterpret that. Tempted to make a joke about sensitive feelings and needing a safe space, but whatever.

No, free speech is not a problem. Having it get unwarranted, widespread, easily made, worldwide notice is a problem.

Shouting from a literal mountain top that you think the world is flat, a certain ethnic minority controls the worlds helium supply, and Purple People should run the government is fine. Get a loudspeaker and march downtown and do it. Apply for a permit and do a rally if you can muster the numbers.

Doing it in a basement with a smartphone, a blog account, and then just happening to find your way onto the literally thousands of pieces of clickbait out there is what I object to. Getting filmed while you march down the street and then being posted on youtube for a laugh and then being taken seriously is what I have a problem with. A dipshit stupid rally about nothing being turned into a national debate on hypothetical nonsense simply because we know about it because it's on the internet is what I have a problem with.

Let them talk, let them march, let them rally. Just don't make them a big deal!

I really can't find a coherent point in this post. Want to elaborate a bit? Give a few good examples of what I bolded, for example.

Removing platforms for people to speak on is completely different from unifying to stop giving these people attention, which is now what you're claiming to mean. If you don't want people to misinterpret your posts, you should probably write what you actually mean or keep a consistent stance from post to post.

Murder rates are down, but fear is up. Gun crime is down, but gun legislation a priority. Cop deaths are at an all time low, but people think it's a war out there.

Some racist saying something is no big deal. People taking that information and making it a big deal is the problem.

The topic of the thread is how about we stop promoting the ideas of white nationals or something like that. I am sort-of-not-really-but-ultimately agreeing with that in saying "Hey, they have a right to say it, but the problem isn't really what they're saying, but how irresponsible we are with the information"

So really, I agree with you in that people should say what they want, but I don't think we need to hear about it, either. I mean WTF is that? Rule 173? "If it exist, people obviously want to and must be told about it"?

Here's the simple way to do away with white nationalism: Give it's proponents as much free speech as everyone else. No more, no less. Their ideas are garbage, and will get destroyed within a true marketplace of ideas. Attempt to silence it, and it will grow more insidious.

You do realise that free speech does not mean other people must provide you a platform to speak on?

This is probably the most succinct articulation of a solution. To paraphrase a verse from the Bible "What has been done in the dark will be brought to light." I know I use this excerpt out of context from it's original meaning but it still applies. Let them speak, loud and proud, so that we might identify them and understand their true intentions. A snake in the grass can be a much greater danger than an obvious, even more ferocious one.

If the Bible had more flavor, it would read "Thou doth protest? Out with it, Assholeth!!"

@toast_burner: Free speech means allowing people to freely express their ideas and opinions. No one has to provide them a platform on which to speak. By that same token, no one has the right to prevent someone from finding a platform. The free exchange of ideas is the foundation of democracy and that freedom does not end where your (not you, specifically, of course) feelings begin.

No it wasn't needed. Those interred were Americans. And it's a shame anyone like yourself would defend this.

Why is free speech always misunderstood. It's freedom to speak against the government. Private entities do NOT have to provide you a means to spew whatever garbage one wants to spew. Everyone can, however, spew whatever they want against the government. At least now they can. Trump does want to remove that.

@LJS9502_basic: That's one of the more absurd things I've ever read. Of course free speech extends to issues beyond the government. Civil action is a different story. Preventin an individual from organizing an assembly to express his or her opinion is still illegal. A great example of this would be the efforts made to no platform Milo Yiannopoulos at universities here in the US. If were talking about public schools, he has just as much of a right to speak as anyone else. If private entities like FB and Twitter choose to silence someone based on their opinions that's their business but I would argue it's discrimination and a violation of the first Amendment:

"Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through mediums including various electronic media and published materials."

It seems I have opened Pandora's box while doing a little research to back up my stance. The question of whether or not use of social media as a means of free speech is completely protected by the first Amendment is still up for debate. There seems to be a few cases in which an individual has been tried and convicted for something posted on social media but in those cases it was credible, realistic threats that were made. Setting aside the issue of social media, free speech definitely extends beyond what can be said about the government and certainly covers interaction between two private parties. As stated above, civil action is a different issue.

I honestly can't stand the term "hate speech" because it can be stretched so broadly as to mean almost anything. Who's the authority on what is and isn't hate speech? Could I not claim that damn near anything you say is hate speech?

Hell, simply quoting crime stats that relate to particular races has been called hate speech. Dem facts be racist, man.

@22Toothpicks: No freedom of speech is a freedom provided by the government.

@LJS9502_basic: You're...you're an idiot.

No the idiot is the one that doesn't know free speech is from the government.