3 hours ago, stevenl said:

Which is exactly what black lives matter expresses.

Logical proof please

42 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

It fits the definition. 

My apologies...my comment was intended for StevenL. I quoted your comment by mistake.

I would be pleased to see Face Book go bankrupt. I see little merit in this phenomenon where everybody stares at their phones all day long. In fairness looking at your phone 24/7 in lockdown probably helped to pass the time, but can we not have something more edifying that this narcissistic nonsense?

Let's face it any ad coming from any politician is going to based on lies and should not be shown.

4 hours ago, crobe said:

Because Black Lives Matter" is a slogan for anti-racism, if you change it to the opposite "White Lives Matter" you change it from anti-racism to the opposite...which is?

Now do you get it?

No I don't get it at all.

 

The non racial slogan IMHO should be 

 

ALL lives matter.

 

4 hours ago, crobe said:

Anyone who really believed that all lives matter would support the BLM movement as it tries to ensure that ALL people are treated fairly in terms of authorities, opportunities etc.

Some people hide behind "All lives matter" slogans when they really mean they do not want to see change and feel threatened by people actually being equal

 

Rubbish.

 

ALL lives DO matter.

 

What DOESN'T  matter is race, colour, religion, man, woman or child and anything in between

 

5 hours ago, DoctorG said:

The problem with the term "hate speech" is that it is too subjective.

If someone says: "People like X should be punched in the face."  That is hate speech and asks for action to use violence.

It does not matter if X are left-wing protesters or right-wing protesters or white or brown or black or yellow skinned people.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

No I don't get it at all.

 

The non racial slogan IMHO should be 

 

ALL lives matter.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

ALL lives DO matter.

 

What DOESN'T  matter is race, colour, religion, man, woman or child and anything in between

 

Don’t pretend to be so naive. White people don‘t have a reason to put out this slogan. Now guess why they do put it out exactly in the moment when black people protest against the racism they encounter? Now if you really can’t see what’s wrong with that then I understand even more why people protest against racism. 

6 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Then why do terms such as "White Lives Matter" and "It's OK to be White" evoke such vehement reactions and have posts taken down?

Neither of these terms are against any protected class, yet are labelled as hate speech.

I use these merely as examples.

And, of course, it is FAKE NEWS! ????????????????

 

I just checked on Facebook, there are several whitelivesmatter accounts (WLM movement, WLM official, etc...).  There is also a WLM hashtag on Twitter. So the term WLM is not banned.

If posts have been taken down, there must have been more than WLM written  on them.

Edited June 27, 20206 yr by candide

5 hours ago, cyril sneer said:

what are your thought's on the Cambridge University professor that said 'white lives don't matter' that was defended by the university, and got promoted the following day? 

Her tweet has been deleted by Twitter. Why don't you complain about this free speech restriction by the left wing Twitter?

1 minute ago, candide said:

Her tweet has been deleted by Twitter. Why don't you complain about this free speech restriction by the left wing Twitter?

i'm talking about the prestigious Cambridge University, not Twitter

11 minutes ago, cyril sneer said:

i'm talking about the prestigious Cambridge University, not Twitter

Well, it was worth mentioning in a thread where some posters are accusing social media of only deleting right wing posts.

 

So I guess your post was about her being promoted. In Universities, promotion is a long process that lasts several months. The candidate must submit a file showing his/her achievements, publications, etc... The file is then assessed by external reviewers. A committee meeting is organised months in advance to make the final decision. Two comments can be made. (1) the date of the decision was set independently from the date of the tweet (2) as academic promotions are decided according to academic merit, there is no reason to challenge/delay this decision because of a tweet.

 

PS I think her tweet was stupid. However, it's usefull to read the full quote: 'll say it again. White Lives Don't Matter. As white lives'

And her explanations: 

She added: 'I would also like to make clear I stand by my tweets, now deleted by Twitter, not me.

'They were very clearly speaking to a structure and ideology, not about people.

'My Tweet said whiteness is not special, not a criterion for making lives matter. I stand by that.'        

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Don’t pretend to be so naive. White people don‘t have a reason to put out this slogan. Now guess why they do put it out exactly in the moment when black people protest against the racism they encounter? Now if you really can’t see what’s wrong with that then I understand even more why people protest against racism. 

Nope, there is an alternative to that argument. One could say that white people didn't find it necessary to use the WLM slogan because they already understood ALM regardless. So as BLM was publicised WLM is publicised simply to imply BLM+WLM = ALM. WLM has the same right to publicise at any time as does BLM.

I am not saying this alternative is correct, just is an alternative.

49 minutes ago, candide said:

Well, it was worth mentioning in a thread where some posters are accusing social media of only deleting right wing posts.

 

So I guess your post was about her being promoted. In Universities, promotion is a long process that lasts several months. The candidate must submit a file showing his/her achievements, publications, etc... The file is then assessed by external reviewers. A committee meeting is organised months in advance to make the final decision. Two comments can be made. (1) the date of the decision was set independently from the date of the tweet (2) as academic promotions are decided according to academic merit, there is no reason to challenge/delay this decision because of a tweet.

 

PS I think her tweet was stupid. However, it's usefull to read the full quote: 'll say it again. White Lives Don't Matter. As white lives'

And her explanations: 

She added: 'I would also like to make clear I stand by my tweets, now deleted by Twitter, not me.

'They were very clearly speaking to a structure and ideology, not about people.

'My Tweet said whiteness is not special, not a criterion for making lives matter. I stand by that.'        

 

Her explanations are just about what one might expect from an "expert in postcolonial literature".

Edited June 27, 20206 yr by Morch

3 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

Let's face it any ad coming from any politician is going to based on lies and should not be shown.

 

Let's face it, any post coming from some posters is going to based on nonsense and should not be shown.

5 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

Stating the obvious here. Saying "black life's matter" is not saying all other life's don't matter. Yes, all life's matter, but to some, some life's do not not seem to matter as much. When some one comes into a discussion about "black life's matter" saying over and over again that "all life's matter", they are trying to negate the point of the first statement by using a fact. I is like when children hold their finger an inch in front of another child and keep repeating "I'm not touching you!, I'm not touching you!"

 

When the "black lives matter" slogan takes precedence to any other comment not replicating it, then what force the original notion held is diminished. If the only acceptable phrase for discussion and commentary is "black lives matter", then by default, it matters more than others.

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

When the "black lives matter" slogan takes precedence to any other comment not replicating it, then what force the original notion held is diminished. If the only acceptable phrase for discussion and commentary is "black lives matter", then by default, it matters more than others.

No .........no phrase is "the only acceptable phrase for discussion and commentary". Right now events have brought this one to the fore, and you could argue that  "by default, it matters more than others."  At a different time it will be something else that people focus on - such is life.

7 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

No .........no phrase is "the only acceptable phrase for discussion and commentary". Right now events have brought this one to the fore, and you could argue that  "by default, it matters more than others."  At a different time it will be something else that people focus on - such is life.

 

Currently, and for some time now, it is pretty much the only phrase. Disagreements, challenges, doubts or criticism aren't generally well received. Sure, it will be changed with another flavor, in time. But the same applies - nowadays, whenever there's a "thing", it tends to shut out (almost by default) views that fail to be fully aligned with the narrative.

 

Such if life? Maybe. But does it matter?

5 hours ago, TKDfella said:

Logical proof please

Just do a search what black lives matter stands for.

 

Posts like yours show one thing very clearly, the blm message is not coming through.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Just do a search what black lives matter stands for.

 

Posts like yours show one thing very clearly, the blm message is not coming through.

I have done more than you'll know, in person too. Just like you, they are illogical and that's being polite.

15 hours ago, lupin said:

and what do they deem authoritative sources to correct your wrongthink... CNN?

This seems fairly objective:

"...ads that claim people from groups based on race, religion, sexual orientation or immigration status are a threat to physical safety or health."

13 hours ago, crobe said:

as has just happened with the British racist Katie Hopkins

Never had Katie Hopkins down as a racist.  

8 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

White people don‘t have a reason to put out this slogan.

Really?  Can you elaborate as to why white people don't have reason to extol WLM.

15 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t know who those “lefties” are but if you had read the article you would know that it’s Facebook “creating their own definitions for bannable and moderated offenses”. And that’s why big corporates are now pulling their ads, which is good. 

 

As a shareholder I follow FB and news about it quite avidly. I don't care what Reuters says they have gotten so many things factually wrong and are especially biased when they report corporate or financial news. 

 

Zuckerberg first said they aren't the arbiter of truth on what is simply a platform. Then Trump made some posts and people got outraged by them. Then the boycott started because Zuckerberg did not want to create definitions and rules. 

 

He did a sudden about face on that as the boycott went on. Zuckerberg had a pro free speech position when this all began. The stock got hammered last Friday because the market realized they bent Mark over and made him change positions on this. 

 

The problem for FB is that this could create a rift where as if the left have their way the conservatives leave and ad revenue towards them goes down. Conversely the left could boycott and the same thing. The demand is that FB take a clear side in the cultural divide and that's not good for business. Not that you care but explaining to you how it actually is as your post was misinformed.

 

FB started off defending the right of people to say what they want and I liked that. However come Monday morning I am out. The thought police having this big of an influence on what was meant to be a platform is a bad omen.

14 hours ago, Susco said:

If Facebook and Twitter didn't exist, most of the s*it that is currently going on in the world, would not be happening.

 

No most of it would still be centered here.

14 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Because they claim to be 'platforms' instead of what they really are, which are 'publishers' 

 

Thats the issue, I recommend you read up on the subject before barfing up your comments without knowing what you're talking about and then having to edit after the fact. 

 

Zuckerberg was trying to be a platform and remain neutral. However the angry mob cornered him and got out the thumbscrews. Loads of internal pressure from mostly leftists that work there and then the boycott. 

 

 

11 hours ago, Pedrogaz said:

I would be pleased to see Face Book go bankrupt. I see little merit in this phenomenon where everybody stares at their phones all day long. In fairness looking at your phone 24/7 in lockdown probably helped to pass the time, but can we not have something more edifying that this narcissistic nonsense?

 

Well put especially typing it on a social media platform. 

Edited June 27, 20206 yr by Cryingdick

My problem with the black lives matters movement is that black lives matters is an obvious statement and by pointing it out they insinuate other groups do not feel this is true. They are being racist by this projection.

instead of burning down neighborhoods and rewriting history, perhaps BLM should be looking into how they can get behind social values that foster more harmonious social interactions.

2 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

My problem with the black lives matters movement is that black lives matters is an obvious statement and by pointing it out they insinuate other groups do not feel this is true. They are being racist by this projection.

instead of burning down neighborhoods and rewriting history, perhaps BLM should be looking into how they can get behind social values that foster more harmonious social interactions.

No, I think "Black Lives Matter" is in response to many incidents which indicate that some police don't think black lives matter very much. 

23 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

Gotta love lefties creating their own definitions for bannable and moderated offenses.

 

It would be like having "The Squad" moderate the largest social media platform on the planet. 

Hardly ‘lefties’.

 

Consumer brands identifying with their demographic and putting their advertising money where they see fit. 
 

I don’t see the evil hand of government getting in the way here. 
 

If the wingnuts want to go and start up their own ubiquitous social media platform on which to air their views, no one is stopping them.

 

This is capitalism at its finest. 

24 minutes ago, samran said:

 

<SNIP>

If the wingnuts want to go and start up their own ubiquitous social media platform on which to air their views, no one is stopping them.

 

This is capitalism at its finest. 

Already in-place for a number of years and look at the evil that pervades such platforms e.g. 4chan. Wonder how many TV members use such platforms...