Twitter Permanently Bans White Supremacist David Duke (cnet.com) 393
Twitter said on Friday it has permanently banned white supremacist David Duke from its platform for violating the platform's rules on hate speech. From a report: Duke's account "has been permanently suspended for Twitter Rules on hateful conduct," a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement. Twitter's policy, revised in March, prohibits posts that promote violence or threats of violence against people based on their religion, race or ethnic origin. It wasn't immediately clear what specific post or posts by Duke led to the account's ban. The verified account for Duke, the founder and former Grand Dragon of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, was blank Thursday, replaced with a message that the account had been "permanently suspended."
Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who decides what hate is?
Well, in this was Twitter does, because it's their platform and they are a non-public corporation.
Re: (Score:3)
Rules of a language, every word of English language has it's defined meaning, the vocabulary is not free for interpretation
Hello Bertrand Russell, your ideas have been shown false by Ludwig Wittgenstein.
yet when somebody writes - let's kill all those [thinking differently | ... ] - and it's an honest statement based on the context, that's already a hate speech.
I seriously can't tell if you're being ironic here. What if someone says, everyone disagreeing with me should be punished, is that hate speech, or does it need a death threat?
Re: Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with hate speech is that it is still speech. So companies like Twitter and Facebook didn't really want to prevent free and open speech. However lately hate speech as becoming a real problem, in which a lot of people are taking action on based on what a lot of these people have been saying. Often centered around violence.
Companies like Twitter are not bound by the first amendment they can block and kick off users for whatever reason they want. But they didn't necessarily want to be a though police, but because of the dangerous repercussions from such speech Twitter probably figures it is safer to block his account than hold some responsibilities for allowing them to be the soap box of such dangerous and evil activity.
In the years to come, when we look back at current events as history. We will be challenged to explain why we did what we did. So for many of us. We would want to explain that we did what we did was for the right reason, not because we just turned a blind eye to what is happening.
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk to trans people, who routinely get banned
I'd love to see some examples of the posts that got trans folks banned.
TBH it's a little hard to believe Twitter is banning trans folks for simply calling someone else a bigot. If I had to guess I'd say that came along with some call to violence.
while folks saying that trans people should be murdered skate on untouched.
Again, let's see some posts, links, data.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:3)
Please name these far leftists that are being censored by the right. I can name plenty of not even that far right people who have been prevented from even speaking on college campuses but I donâ(TM)t know a single far left person that has been denied a speaking venue for being too far left. Even Fox News and far right talk radio invite the far left on their shows for open debates.
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:4, Informative)
Twitter is clearly engaged in censorship. They don't like someone's ideas, so they prevent them from speaking on their platform. You may agree with their decision (in which case you support censorship), and they have the legal right to do so.
But what they've done is clearly censorship.
No, what they've done is exercise editorial restraint. Censorship is preventing someone from saying something. Exercising editorial restraint is telling someone that they can say whatever they want, but that you aren't going to pay for the cost of distributing it.
Re: (Score:3)
No, what they've done is exercise editorial restraint. Censorship is preventing someone from saying something. Exercising editorial restraint is telling someone that they can say whatever they want, but that you aren't going to pay for the cost of distributing it.
Censorship is still censorship regardless of what other labels you ascribe.
Re: (Score:3)
Editorial restraint is a form of censorship.
Look, why don't you be honest and say what you are really thinking, that you support censorship of ideas you don't like. You would prefer not to see them anywhere.
I am being honest. I am a strong advocate of free speech, and I would defend to the death the rights of anyone to say things that I don't like. My Facebook friends include people from all corners of the political spectrum. We have often vigorous debates. They're still my friends. Why? Because we are capable of agreeing to disagree.
But I also acknowledge the reality that those who pay the bills decide what gets published. If you're paying the bills, you get to decide. If somebody else is paying the b
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider a mall. You can go into a mall and talk about politics. Likely, you will not be hassled at all. You can even approach random strangers and try to engage them. Again, depending on your approach, you will not have any problems.
Now, if you were to go into the mall and start screaming about gassing the Jews at the top of your lungs, you would quickly be escorted off the premises. This is not "censorship" because no rights are being violated. You can still go scream whatever you like, in a public place, or on your own property.
All that has happened is that the owners have decided, they don't want you to use their property as a platform to amplify your voice and get it heard by more people.
It is very important to note: the owners have free speech rights too. If you were to force them to use their own property to amplify speech they don't agree with, you would be violating their free speech rights. You would be saying "This person's free speech rights are more important than the owners' free speech rights." And that is not supporting free speech at all. That is censoring one person in favor of another.
Forcing Twitter's owners to use their property to amplify speech they don't agree with is violating Twitter's free speech rights. You don't want that, do you?
Or perhaps you don't really care about free speech at all, and just want license to do as you please for yourself and those you agree with. Perhaps you agree with the only actual belief of conservatives everywhere and throughout all time: There should be an in-group that the laws protect, but do not bind, and an out-group that the laws bind, but do not protect.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you parsed my post correctly, because it seems we actually agree. I'm therefore unsure why you are being hostile in tone.
Censorship is the practice of suppressing information. Refusing to use my resources to amplify information is not the same thing. It's not just a matter of semantics, there are legal and constitutional definitions that are important here. I literally can not "censor" you under the law or the constitution, by definition.
If I can force you to use your property to amplify my sp
Re:Why didn't they do this earlier? (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't McCarthyism.
It is Twitter not offering someone the Venue to use their platform to talk about their topic.
If you go to a Church and advocate the Values of sinning, they will probably kick you out. If you go to a school, and tell the students they should start taking drugs, you will get kicked out.
Freedom of speech, is not avoiding responsibility for your speech. But just not getting arrested because of it. If I say harmful things, I am responsible for what I said and for the harm that I had caused. If I know someone will be using my property to say harmful things, I too am responsible for allowing them to use my platform to harm others.
Twitter will not get closed down by the government if they let Duke Tweet. However if what he tweets causes people harm Twitter will have some responsibility in it.
Re: (Score:3)
Words inspire actions, and actions can hurt you. So some types of speech actually are harmful — specifically the kinds of white supremacist speech that we're talking about here.
Re: (Score:3)
The real question is how he survived the prior purges? It's not like he's some random unknown person.
What purpose was served by leaving the account up until now?
Even David Duke has every right to post pictures of his cat, and talk about what he had for dinner, and all the things most people use Twitter for. They shouldn't ban him unless he violates their TOS, which presumably he recently did.
He's still around ?? (Score:2)
. . .last heard, he got utterly trounced in an election, years back. . . 2016?
Pretty UnAmerican (Score:3, Interesting)
The "greatest generation", whose members saved us from Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, and who included my parents as members, had a saying, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
I believe this sentiment as codified in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution is timeless and immutable.
So banning ANYONE for ANYTHING they say I consider unAmerican. Asshats can say what they want. Racists can say what they want. Even liberals can say what they want. The rest of us can say what we wish in opposition to those we believe to be wrong. No, nobody has the right to remain always unoffended. If you can't stand someone else's opinion, browse opinions in places where you won't get offended. Don't try to change the venues where the rest of us enjoy exchanging ideas, however unpopular they may be with some folks.
Re:Pretty UnAmerican (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The "greatest generation", whose members saved us from Nazis and the Imperial Japanese, and who included my parents as members, had a saying, "I don't agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
...and here I thought that quote came from the UK in 1903 and was used to illustrate a French philosopher's stance on free speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] .
Consistency (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not defending David Duke, he's too easy of a target because he actually is what they accuse him of. The problem is that he is the tip of the slippery slope and there is less room between someone like him and the average person to a zealot than is healthy for society. This is why the ACLU used to defend the KKK and Nazi's, even taking their censorship cases to the Supreme Court. They won both of their cases by the way.
The big tech companies like to talk about the David Duke's of the world as an act of virtue signalling. In reality it is just an example used to justify censoring or deplatforming an entire category of people. In reality most of these people are going to be nothing at all like the David Duke's of the world.
The other big issue is that these bans are often coordinated where someone will be banned from one platform and then several others all join in at once. That is blatant deplatforming and that cannot be justified for anything except for something extreme like terrorism or calls to violence.
Unfortunately Twitter doesn't have any consistency and they allow calls for violence or even genocide to stand. They only ban people based on their politics, their gender or their skin tone. Antisemitism and calls for the genocide of Jews are allowed, violence against whites is allowed, violence against men is allowed, racism is allowed. Twitter is completely incapable of having any type of consistency in their rules and standards and people from all over the world notice this.
Re: (Score:3)
They won both of their cases by the way.
Of course they did. The right to free speech is codified in the first amendment and cannot be taken away by the governement.
Now if that KKK member was shouting racist shit in your house and you threw him out, the Supreme Court would have just laughed at them, not that the ACLU would have taken their case since they have brains and know the difference between free speech infringement by the government and a private organisation not willing to put up with shit.
The big tech companies like to talk about the David Duke's of the world as an act of virtue signalling.
God when did people stop looking up virtue signal
interesting (Score:2)
I thought David Duke used to be racist as a... (Score:2)
... young man decades ago but grew up and became educated and is racist no longer (as happens when you get educated and mature).
Is this more about his criticism of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestinians perhaps?
Which posts? (Score:2)
It wasn't immediately clear what specific post or posts by Duke led to the account's ban.
I think it'd go a long way toward silencing opposition to this if they cited specific posts and what terms they violated. Not to mention giving precedent to help other users not go over the line.
Plus, it'd just be interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Past misdeeds are a bad example, but Twitter also allows folks like Ayatollah [twitter.com] to post their fresh and up-to-date hatred [nypost.com] (even if ordinary Iranians aren't allowed to access Twitter).
Racists like Farrakhan [twitter.com] are generally given a pass too, even if warned [thehill.com]. Not only are they not banned from the platform, Twitter is not even adding "warnings" to their drivel.
While the stance against Nazis may be commendable, the continuing tolerance of Marxism [nypost.com] in general and Communist Party(ies) [twitter.com] in particular is evidence of hypocrisy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, I can see where conservatives would have a real problem with Marxism. "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Who could could possibly tolerate that? Needs to be banned worldwide immediately. /s
Re:Yet (Score:4, Insightful)
This is quite intolerable indeed — for it implies, one is not merely entitled to pursuit of happiness (to use the Declaration of Independence language), one has a right to actual happiness itself.
Which means, other people owe you a living. Comfortable living.
And, of course, the practice of Marxism is even worse than the above theory may be suggesting — it is the single most-murderous school of thought known to humanity [reason.com]. Even Nazism — Hitler's peculiar branch of Fascism — is a distant second.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, no, religion in general and both Christianity and Islam are far and away worse when you adjust for percentage of population. That's even without adjusting the CIA's pulled-out-of-their-nether-regions numbers down closer to reality. The absolute worst though is capitalism and profit motive, which frequently deliberately starves entire populations simply because they're poor. An acquaintance grew up in western China (son of Methodist missionaries) in the 1930s. He saw three million people starved to d
Re: (Score:3)
Crap, the second and third sentences should be reversed.
Re: (Score:3)
Citations?
Bullshit. Capitalism is an economic mechanism, not a political regime. Communist China uses Capitalism today, as does Fascist Russia.
It works — for all — because "profit motive" is the most effective one there is. In the immortal words of Bill Clinton: "It is the economy, stupid". The world has largely el
Re: (Score:3)
The figure is from Wikipedia. I offer copious citations — a habit you need to acquire too.
For better or worse, we have actual data from experiments — when identical peoples lived for some decades under free Capitalism and Socialism:
Capitalism wins hands-down — which explains, why today it has been adopted even by the likes of China and Russia
You
Re: (Score:3)
According to whom?
Who is that benevolent and omniscient judge, that decides, whether a) you've really given all your abilities allow, and b) received everything you legitimately need?
And here we come immediately to the "Real Socialism hasn't been implemented yet"... Despite multiple attempts...
No. You gain access to the fruits of other people's labors by yourself laboring on something, other people want. As
Re: (Score:3)
While the stance against Nazis may be commendable, the continuing tolerance of Marxism [nypost.com] in general and Communist Party(ies) [twitter.com] in particular is evidence of hypocrisy.
and conflating marxism and communism with hate speech in particular is evidence of ignorance (willful or not), but nice try.
Re: (Score:2)
the continuing tolerance of Marxism [nypost.com] in general and Communist Party(ies) [twitter.com] in particular is evidence of hypocrisy.
Communism is a political theory. Why should that be banned?
Re:Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as you may not like their policies, the commies don't advocate exterminating entire races of people.
WTF? China is right now this very minute engaged in mass genocide, with death camps and everything. Need a heart transplant in China? No problem, here's a fresh one.
Re: (Score:3)
It's funny how none of the countries which call themselves communist are communist according to the apologists for communism.
Maybe instead, how communism works in practice is exactly what you see in China. If you're proposing something different, then you need to distinguish that and call it by a different name so people know it's something different.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, you apparently haven't heard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or China again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Just because Communism claims not to be trying to exterminate entire races, there's enough examples of their governments doing exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, you apparently haven't heard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or historically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Or China again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Just because Communism claims not to be trying to exterminate entire races, there's enough examples of their governments doing exactly that.
So by that argument, all democratic states want to drop nukes on people because the only state to ever actually use a nuke was a democracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Aww, the poor little racist twat has hurt feelings and has to resort to whataboutism.
Re:Yet (Score:4, Insightful)
I couldn't find any news story to support your statement. Do you have a reference?
Is this Russian disinformation/flamebait?
Re: (Score:2)
You simply are not looking. It's right there out in the open. Not hard to find at all....
Re: (Score:2)
You simply are not looking. It's right there out in the open. Not hard to find at all....
Should be easy for you to provide a link then.
Re:Yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What's shocking to me is that somebody just defended David Duke without posting AC!
You thought that, but you thought wrong. The person you are referring to [slashdot.org] was attacking Twitter, not defending David Duke. Learn to read or take a logic class, one of those two.
Re: (Score:2)
As do the BLM Marxists [politifact.com] — without so much as a warning...
We can play this game — you cite a statement by Duke, that you find objectionable, and I'll find you an essentially same statement with "White" replaced by "Black", that's considered righteous...
Re: (Score:2)
You may have missed that the Politifact.com article you referenced actually says that BLM is not a Marxist movement. Two of the three founders are Marxist (for some definition of the word), and probably some other members are as well (not surprising given the number of people involved).
Here's what they say about BLM being Marxist:
"I am fairly convinced these are mostly attempts to smear anti-racist activists. I think in some media, ‘Marxist’ is dog-whistle for something horrible, like ‘Nazi’, and thus enables to delegitimize/dehumanize them," Miriyam Aouragh, a lecturer at the London-based Westminster School of Media and Communication, told PolitiFact.
Re: (Score:2)
Strangely enough, they don't have the usual "Truth-O-Meter" on the article, do they? I linked to them for there to be no doubt, that BLM founders really are Marxists. The rest of the article on defending the movement is irrelevant — it is not surprise, that Left-leaning Politifact would try to make a far-Left organization seem more palatable.
What would make a movement Marxist, in your opi
Nice Link (Score:2)
You post a link as a citation as if it proves the BLM movement is Marxist but it most certainly does not do so. The article you post comes to no conclusion at all. It literally just provides the arguments for both sides of the accusation that BLM is Marxist. Nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference here is that Duke constantly tweets about racist nonsense.
How do you know? Are you constantly reading the David Duke twitter feed? If you're going to say you know what he tweets, you ought to really know what he tweets, not make things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Clinton doesn't promote others to do that, he is also not bragging that he did do that, if he actually did.
If Twitter is going to block everyone for their skeletons that are in the closet, they will probably shutdown.
If David Duke or any other racist, was able to do a feed that wasn't promoting their Racist ideas and encouraging others to fear and hate others. Then he may be able to keep his account.
Re: (Score:2)
Never. As the 7th most followed account on Twitter with over 84 million followers [wikipedia.org], Trump makes Twitter waaaaay too much money for them to ever ban him. His every Tweet and re-Tweet is literally monetized by them. On the contrary, Twitter execs probably live in fear of him actually leaving the platform.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess is that there's a half decent chance of that happening at noon on January 20th.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe. Twitter is run by a guy who may not always make the best business decisions. That's why his shareholders have tried to kick him out.
Banning him seems like a good idea though, both morally and for shareholder value.
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter better start acting like a business if they want to make it in this crazy world. With advertising revenue drying up they aren't long for this world. We should be congratulating them when they make profit-motivated decisions.
Instead people sneer at them no matter which way they go, yet 100s' of million of people use it. I'm guessing some of those people are huge fucking hypocrites.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, fuck Twitter and all social media -- the world will be better off when they're gone.
Just take the power back. Corporations have no room in social media. Fortunately we have ActivityPub and that's starting to gain traction. The internet's starting to recognize corporate social networking as damage and routing around it.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter better start acting like a business if they want to make it in this crazy world
Twitter has been profitable since 2017, and they are growing.
Re:Oh, how virtuous! (Score:5, Insightful)
That is correct. Hate does not sell products. The majority of the country soundly rejects white supremacy, and corporations do not want to offend them. The alt right and white supremacy are very unpopular with the majority of the country, and that is a reason for hope.
Re: Oh, how virtuous! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you describe is not a product, it's an ideology.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, hate against white people does not sell products, don't be daft.
Hate against police may sell products, but that is due entirely to the actions of police. If police took personal responsibility for their actions, and refused to protect criminals with a badge, people would not hate them. Until we reform our criminal justice system, cops need to get used to being disliked.
There's a difference between prejudice, and hatred that stems from personal experience with oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is all such bullshit and doesn't deserve a reasoned reply. How do you live with yourself, with that smell around you constantly?
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Remember kids, the state of Isreal is not the same thing as people of Jewish descent.
To give an example, I am an American. I hate many of the things my country does. This does not mean I hate Americans, who are, for the most part and just like people everywhere, good and decent folks.
People who despise Israel are not always anti-Semitic, in fact, plenty of Jewish Americans are appalled at what Isreal does. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bible says you should stone adulterers. Explain why you think that is not good practice. Then explain why you think modern Muslims feel any differently about the dogshit passages in their holy book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of Jews very much disliked the idea of a Jewish state in general, and in the Middle East in particular. If you lived there already it maybe sounded like a decent idea, but if you didn't, and you were the least bit practical, it probably sounded insane. The Brits tried it in World War I but it took the Holocaust to convince a critical mass to actually make it happen.
The UK: Hey, we're going to make a Jewish homeland in the middle east so you can all be safe.
Non-Middle Eastern Jews: So you're going to de
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck you fascist. You don't deserve any other response but that.
Re: Good! Ban his friends too! (Score:2)
Well, no, you've given in to the paranoia and delusions of Faux News and Breitbart.
Either put forward evidence or get used to being lumped with the supremacists. Because it's where evidence-free hatred goes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Twitter really cares one way or another. They're an advertising business, presumably, trying to turn a profit. Most mainstream companies are not going to want to risk having their ads seen beside David Duke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's up with /. lately? Well its not lately. Seriously, somebody defending David Duke got a +5 Insightful?
The person you replied to literally wrote, "David Duke is a complete asshat." Learn to read.
Re:Free Speech (as long as it agreess with the mob (Score:5, Informative)
He's still free to say whatever he wants. Just not on Twitter, a private platform.
That's still a dangerous precedent (Score:3)
"You colored people are still free to eat wherever you want. Just not at this diner, a private business."
For a democracy to function while retaining the wide variety of ideas and opinions which make it a democracy, there has to be some degree of indemnification for holding different opinions. Otherwise you get into a ridiculous and destructive cycle of politicizing everything. Someone doesn't want their music played by peo
Re: (Score:3)
I can see an exception for white supremacy, since it's complicit with the atrocities and genocide committed in WWII
The genocide in which Nazi Germany murdered 6 million white people?
Do try and differentiate Aryan supremacy from white supremacy, only a racist cunt would treat all white people the same.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but roll my eyes at the "businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone crowd" losing their minds when businesses choose to do so.
They're just below the "social media is garbage" crowd who suddenly crow about how Twitter et al are essential since they're the new public square.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help but roll my eyes at the "businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone crowd" losing their minds when businesses choose to do so.
You have to be careful, a lot of times they are not the same people. When there are millions in a party, sometimes a noisy sub-group opposes something, and another noisy sub-group favors it. Both groups are annoying but neither is hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
lefties hyperventilating to limit speech from people they disagree with
He is talking about the large contingent of people who state they can say and do things, even things that are illegal, because of "free speech" then turn around and say
Agree with me or I'll shut you up...violently if that's what it takes.
Re: (Score:3)
Well then next time don't hit the register before reading the TOS of a online service. Why not go to a service that will let you spew shit all day long and not ban you?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you don't understand what the first amendment is or allows for - it does not allow for hate speech. It just doesn't.
You misunderstand the first amendment as written, as it was intended in spirit, and as it has been interpreted by the courts. You have merely written what you wish the first amendment to be. Fail.
Re: (Score:2)
i will never stop laughing at the irony of dipshit racist garbage like you who can't grasp that bigotry *IS* violence and nobody is under any obligation to tolerate it.
In a free society tolerance is mandatory.
deplatform bigotry. punch nazis. laugh in their fat stupid faces when they cry about how i ought to be more accepting of their hatred. not sorry.
You are just another hypocrite advocating hatred and violence. Makes you no different than the people you hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Offense is now oppression
Criticism is now violence
Anyone who talks about subjects you wants to suppress is now a Russian troll or alt-right
Anyone who doesn't agree with your views is a racist/bigot/white supremacist/alt-right
Re: (Score:2)
nazi bigot. attacking blacks won't make you hate yourself any less.
it makes me endlessly happy to know you are destined to die frustrated, angry, confused, and utterly alone, completely abandoned by anyone who ever would have loved you had you not been such unlovable garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
BLM does not speak for all or even most Black people, but even if it did, my problem is with the organization, not with those it purports to represent. Most Black people are far, FAR better than the crappy party they have been taught to vote for, or the crappy leaders that pretend to "lead" them.
BTW, I've fought and risked my life to fight real racists (specifically, those in "Christian Identity"). What have you done?
Re: (Score:2)
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner for the dumbest comment on Slashdot today!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Have you been unable to obtain your meds because of the pandemic?
Re: (Score:2)
I appreciate what you said.
Many Americans root for their favorite politiball team the same way they root for their favorite football team, and go along with WHATEVER the leadership of a particular party says. I'm glad that you don't.
You can see this so clearly with the "main on the street" interviews that go something like this:
What do you think of Trump's tax plan?
It's horrible. It takes money from poor people and gives it to rich people. It's also racist.
What do you think o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but saying, "Black people are equal to white people" is not really the same as saying, "White people are superior to black people and we should do something about the inferiors."
IIRC Farrakhan's comments about Judaism were about the religion rather than the non-existent "race" of Jews. Face it, the Jewish religion is every bit as ridiculous as Christianity or Islam.
Re:Ok, so.... (Score:4, Informative)
Making excuses for Farrakhan? Seriously?
It's not an excuse if he didn't say what you thought he said. It's an explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
Advocating violence against the untermenchen. He's calling for people to "do something about" Jews, blacks, Catholics and others that he considers inferior.