OkCupid kicks out white supremacist Chris Cantwell: ‘There is no room for hate’ - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=bob4life;52586613]You fail to see the point.[/QUOTE] Hey, yo. I've kinda asked you a question twice now. It's not a rhetorical one and it's pretty important to know the answer to. Why should someone be expected to tolerate someone whose beliefs dictate that they should die? What valid reason is there for that?

While I couldn't care any less if Nazis start getting banned in droves from social media sites, I can't help but feel like as though many of these companies are just doing this for the free publicity they'll get from journalists. It's reminescent of that "selling your product in rainbow colours" fad which was pretty popular with food companies last year but with even less effort involved. Wouldn't they have banned them earlier if they actually cared?

[QUOTE=bob4life;52586485]This is turning into a modern day McCarthy commie hunt except its just doxxing and publicly ousting people's personal lives on social media like throwing someone to the wolves. Is this normal now?[/QUOTE] The difference is they were going after innocent people. There is no such thing as an innocent Nazi outside of the law, and even that's blurry.

[QUOTE=Megadave;52586689]The difference is they were going after innocent people. There is no such thing as an innocent Nazi outside of the law, and even that's blurry.[/QUOTE] They also went after actual commies. And incidentally, not every person ever accused of being a white supremacist turned out to be a white supremacist. So frankly, I don't really see the difference in that regard. Are we suppose to subscribe to the "guilty until proven innocent" approach for anyone who might be a white supremacist because "white supremacists are just [I]that[/I] evil" or something?

[QUOTE=bob4life;52586548]They're also people. And we're also people too. Now, some people can think bad things, and thats okay. No one is perfect. People do bad things too, which is sad. Its unfortunate, and unnecessary. But its something we have to deal with as a society. But is this how we choose to deal with it? Outting each other on the internet to solve our problems?[/QUOTE] Do you defend ISIS when they get kicked off social media?

[QUOTE=mak13two;52586558]"We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life." I like how thats been typed as some kind of brag about how efficient and fast they are at banning users, haha.[/QUOTE] I'll play devil's advocate and say that ban response time is probably very important (and reason to brag) for a dating site. With that kind of purpose and audience, the worst can happen to you is not a shitty troll anymore, but much much worse. Shit can get real creepy real fast, and being able to police correctly is important.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;52586707]Do you defend ISIS when they get kicked off social media?[/QUOTE] One is an established terrorist organization. The other is an ideology. They aren't even remotely equivalent since, last I checked, we weren't thought policing. This discussion is going to open up a huge can of worms by the way.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;52586729]One is an established terrorist organization. The other is an ideology. They aren't even remotely equivalent since, last I checked, we weren't thought policing. This discussion is going to open up a huge can of worms by the way.[/QUOTE] Yes, I know. But there are still members of ISIS that do not cause actual acts of violence, but will be banned from social media by association / following the ideologies of ISIS. There are followers Nazism that have done the same, just because these Nazi's / Neo-Nazi's have not been "officially established as a terrorist organisation" does not change my question.

[QUOTE=TheHydra;52586479]doesn't okcupid literally have a question that says "would you consider dating someone who has a strong negative bias against a certain race of people" and one of the answers is "it depends on which race"[/QUOTE] while an awful question, it's extremely useful because it instantly filters out racists

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;52586670]While I couldn't care any less if Nazis start getting banned in droves from social media sites, I can't help but feel like as though many of these companies are just doing this for the free publicity they'll get from journalists. It's reminescent of that "selling your product in rainbow colours" fad which was pretty popular with food companies last year but with even less effort involved. Wouldn't they have banned them earlier if they actually cared?[/QUOTE]It's fairly obvious companies don't care in general imo. Any philanthropist motives exhibited by a corporation is strictly for PR or other benefits, but so long as they do end up doing good I don't really mind.

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;52586739]Yes, I know. But there are still members of ISIS that do not cause actual acts of violence, but will be banned from social media by association / following the ideologies of ISIS. There are followers Nazism that have done the same, just because these Nazi's / Neo-Nazi's have not been "officially established as a terrorist organisation" does not change my question.[/QUOTE] Again, the difference here with your comparison is that ISIS is an organization, white supremacy is not. ISIS didn't become terrorists because they believed in certain something(s), they ended up terrorists because they committed a huge list of crimes (and even those ISIS individuals who have not done anything criminal personally are still guilty of supporting those who do). The white supremacists "collective" can't really be attributed similarly. It's not in the belief, it's in their actions (or lack thereof) that differentiate these two things.

Having a white supremacist on OkCupid is potentially dangerous imo. People are setting up dates on there all the time. If I got paired with someone who, y'know, at best believed that I was racially inferior, and at worst, wanted me dead, that could present some problems I think!!!

[QUOTE=Worstcase;52586761]Again, the difference here with your comparison is that ISIS is an organization, white supremacy is not. [B]ISIS didn't become terrorists because they believed in certain something(s)[/B], they ended up terrorists because they committed a huge list of crimes (and even those ISIS individuals who have not done anything criminal personally are still guilty of supporting those who do). The white supremacists "collective" can't really be attributed similarly. It's not in the belief, it's in their actions (or lack thereof) that differentiate these two things.[/QUOTE] Uhmmm, Yes they do? ISIS believe and are driven by the need for a woldwide caliphate. They want the all of humankind to live under Muslim rule, and will stop at nothing to get that. Remember WWII? Only difference with Nazi's, is they want the world run by pure-whites.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;52586698]They also went after actual commies. And incidentally, not every person ever accused of being a white supremacist turned out to be a white supremacist. So frankly, I don't really see the difference in that regard. Are we suppose to subscribe to the "guilty until proven innocent" approach for anyone who might be a white supremacist because "white supremacists are just [I]that[/I] evil" or something?[/QUOTE] White supremacy is an ideology built upon an unshakable hatred of non-whites so yes I'd dare say that anyone who is willingly subscribing to the Nazi ideology is a bit of a cunt, and if they aren't then they need to seriously wake up. Whilst the Nazi protestors are not committing the same acts as ISIS, their ideology is an exact parallel ("kill non-whites" vs "kill infidels") yet Nazis are given a free pass while anti-west Muslim extremists are struck down with maximum prejudice :thinking:

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;52586670]While I couldn't care any less if Nazis start getting banned in droves from social media sites, I can't help but feel like as though many of these companies are just doing this for the free publicity they'll get from journalists. It's reminescent of that "selling your product in rainbow colours" fad which was pretty popular with food companies last year but with even less effort involved. Wouldn't they have banned them earlier if they actually cared?[/QUOTE] I'm completely with you that companies want to cash in on publicity, and I also kinda think it's good anyway. Though it still tells the Nazis that they need to fuck off. And when all companies start doing it at the same time, then great. Also, there are [URL="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1103368.1340823571!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_1200/oreo28n-1-web.jpg"]several things[/URL] that I would like to have in rainbow colours just because

[QUOTE=D3vils Buddy;52586781]Uhmmm, Yes they do? ISIS believe and are driven by the need for a woldwide caliphate. They want the all of humankind to live under Muslim rule, and will stop at nothing to get that. Remember WWII? Only difference with Nazi's, is they want the world run by pure-whites.[/QUOTE] They aren't terrorists because they believed in the Wahhabi doctrine, that isn't how this works. They ended up terrorists when they started butchering Shiites, indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians and military forces, military personnel of other countries, etc. And throughout the years they've only escalated that level of violence. At no point in U.S. history has neo-nazis done anything even [I]remotely[/I] close. I'll say it again, the most important thing here is not the beliefs but how they act upon them.

I feel like I'm the odd one out for being more disgusted about the hand-over-fist corporate attempts to cash in on publicity by banning the "bad people" off their website and the precedent it sets regardless of TOS. Yes, someone can write in bold italic font for me that "they're [I][B]Nazis[/B][/I]" because that's a scary label, while ignoring the fact that any future group the public is told to angry about is going to be plopped right into that bucket with more corporate chest-beating of banning peeps just for PR.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;52586698]Are we suppose to subscribe to the "guilty until proven innocent" approach for anyone who might be a white supremacist because "white supremacists are just [I]that[/I] evil" or something?[/QUOTE] Are we to yell 'No, no! They didn't [B]mean it[/B]!' when someone yells 'I am going to murder everyone in this god-damn theater' and stands up with the rifle that they intend to do so with as they proclaim their allegiance to mass murderers? These people confess their desire to commit violence nakedly and openly. They enthusiastically embrace it. They are actual Nazis not just because they call themselves the Nazis they are, but because they subscribe to Nazi ideology, go to Nazi rallies, and wish death on all those who aren't exactly like them. You have the right to say whatever you like. That does not mean whatever you say is always and automatically and forever protected speech and shouldn't immediately land you in the crosshairs of legal, federal, and state inquiry nor must be tolerated by corporations and employers. They might as well be yelling 'I'm going to make a bomb to kill everyone in the US' as they join a group called 'People-who-make-bombs-to-kill-everyone-in-the-US' whose group mission statement is 'Build a [I]bomb[/I] to [I]kill everyone in the US[/I].' That's the sort of person you're talking about when you say 'but they're not guilty of actually believing in what they say until they're proven to be mass-murderers who build bombs by them setting off said bombs and killing thousands to millions of people.' If someone says they're going to commit murder, seeks out the means to commit murder, joins a murder-cult, declares allegiance to said murder-cult, joins up with the murder-cult at rallies where they beat and kill people, and starts telling people 'You're going to die and I'm going to kill you' that's not someone who is 'innocent'. They are already guilty of a number of things.

[QUOTE=Doom14;52586835]I feel like I'm the odd one out for being more disgusted about the hand-over-fist corporate attempts to cash in on publicity by banning the "bad people" off their website and the precedent it sets regardless of TOS. Yes, someone can write in bold italic font for me that "they're [I][B]Nazis[/B][/I]" because that's a scary label, while ignoring the fact that any future group the public is told to angry about is going to be plopped right into that bucket with more corporate chest-beating of banning peeps just for PR.[/QUOTE] We're talking about Nazis. An ideology whose core tenants include the extermination of non-whites. If another group lands themselves in that same realm of being dickheads, then I wholeheartedly support the banning of their ideology. If you think the public has had to be told to be pissed about people who want to murder 40% of our population, you need to go back under whatever rock you live under.

[quote]about people who want to murder 40% of our population[/quote] The number is actually far higher. It's not just nonwhites they want to kill, its undesirables. Are you not the most vanilla and flavorless person as goes sexual fetishes? That's a death sentence. Do you go out clubbing or raving? Death sentence. Do drugs of any sort? Death sentence. Have ever tried to call people to action against the Nazis? Death sentence. Tolerate the existence of Jews? Death sentence. Believe people should have the freedom to believe in whatever they like? Death sentence. Had sex before marriage or advocate for it? Death sentence. Ever been to Pornhub? Death sentence. Homosexual? Death sentence. Transsexual? Death sentence. Bisexual? Death sentence. Commit loud profanities? Death sentence. Abortion? Death sentence. Own sex toys of any sort? Death sentence. Retarded or Autistic? Death sentence. Learning Disability? Death sentence. Watch any sort of news or media that casts humor at or otherwise 'distorts' Nazi values? Death sentence. Aren't a member of the state religion? Death sentence. Refuse to salute Hitler? Death sentence. Don't believe that there's a 'rising tide of color' that's being orchestrated by the Jews to ensure the death of the white race? [I]Death sentence.[/I] [I]Refuse to personally kill, in public, with a gun placed in your hand your family, friends, and neighbors - including pregnant mothers, children, [U]infants[/U], and the old, infirm, or disabled - for committing, aiding in, allowing, or even just not reporting to the state any combination of, even if just one, of the above things that warrant a Death Sentence?[/I] Death sentence.

[QUOTE=Worstcase;52586800]They aren't terrorists because they believed in the Wahhabi doctrine, that isn't how this works. They ended up terrorists when they started butchering Shiites, indiscriminate killings of Iraqi civilians and military forces, military personnel of other countries, etc. And throughout the years they've only escalated that level of violence. At no point in U.S. history has neo-nazis done anything even [I]remotely[/I] close. I'll say it again, the most important thing here is not the beliefs but how they act upon them.[/QUOTE] This is nonsense, white supremacists have always been violent. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#1940s.E2.80.931960s:_post-war_opposition_to_civil_rights[/url]

[QUOTE=Worstcase;52586761]Again, the difference here with your comparison is that ISIS is an organization, white supremacy is not. ISIS didn't become terrorists because they believed in certain something(s), they ended up terrorists because they committed a huge list of crimes (and even those ISIS individuals who have not done anything criminal personally are still guilty of supporting those who do). The white supremacists "collective" can't really be attributed similarly. It's not in the belief, it's in their actions (or lack thereof) that differentiate these two things.[/QUOTE] no, being a white supremacist is not just having an opinion.

Can all racial/cultural supremacists be ostracized equally? Or is it just the whites

[QUOTE=Talishmar;52586923]Can all racial/cultural supremacists be ostracized equally? Or is it just the whites[/QUOTE] White nationalists are generally the ones murdering people over it? Why does everyone always pull this "Well what about X?" shit. Well what about the other candidate? Well what about the communists? Well what about the other races? There are black panthers and pan-african nationalists in America but they very rarely do shit on the level that neo-nazis do. Last I can remember is that guy who was shooting cops in Dallas last year and was blown up with a police bomb robot when he hid in a school.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52586880]Are we to yell 'No, no! They didn't [B]mean it[/B]!' when someone yells 'I am going to murder everyone in this god-damn theater' and stands up with the rifle that they intend to do so with as they proclaim their allegiance to mass murderers? These people confess their desire to commit violence nakedly and openly. They enthusiastically embrace it. They are actual Nazis not just because they call themselves the Nazis they are, but because they subscribe to Nazi ideology, go to Nazi rallies, and wish death on all those who aren't exactly like them. You have the right to say whatever you like. That does not mean whatever you say is always and automatically and forever protected speech and shouldn't immediately land you in the crosshairs of legal, federal, and state inquiry nor must be tolerated by corporations and employers. They might as well be yelling 'I'm going to make a bomb to kill everyone in the US' as they join a group called 'People-who-make-bombs-to-kill-everyone-in-the-US' whose group mission statement is 'Build a [I]bomb[/I] to [I]kill everyone in the US[/I].' That's the sort of person you're talking about when you say 'but they're not guilty of actually believing in what they say until they're proven to be mass-murderers who build bombs by them setting off said bombs and killing thousands to millions of people.' If someone says they're going to commit murder, seeks out the means to commit murder, joins a murder-cult, declares allegiance to said murder-cult, joins up with the murder-cult at rallies where they beat and kill people, and starts telling people 'You're going to die and I'm going to kill you' that's not someone who is 'innocent'. They are already guilty of a number of things.[/QUOTE] When on Earth did I say we should apologize on these people's behalf? Absolutely condemn them when they commit evil. I mean, all I said was that a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach is a terrible idea. [QUOTE=Lambeth;52586911]This is nonsense, white supremacists have always been violent. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_church_shooting[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#1940s.E2.80.931960s:_post-war_opposition_to_civil_rights[/url][/QUOTE] I'm not saying they haven't done anything, I should have been more clear on that. What I'm saying is, claiming white supremacists to be comparably similar to ISIS is wrong. ISIS is an established organization with known beliefs while your neo-nazis are a bunch of scattered groups with a relatively similar ideology. Which is precisely why "white supramacists" are not a recorded terrorist organization, cause they aren't a singular organization. And no, lumping groups together based on beliefs is a pretty sketchy idea as well. Consider that Saudi Arabia is predominantly Wahhabi as well, yet I don't think anyone here would advocate calling the Saudi collective "terrorists" unlike ISIS. It's all in their actions. I hope that makes sense? [QUOTE=elowin;52586921]no, being a white supremacist is not just having an opinion.[/QUOTE] It is until they commit a crime. Believing something morally reprehensible is not a crime.

[quote]All I said was that a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach is a terrible idea.[/quote] To claim that they're innocent when they're yelling that they are guilty means you are either apologizing for them or refuse to believe them. It isn't 'guilty until proven innocent'. They're yelling 'I'm guilty!' and you feel like you must therefore yell 'No, they're innocent!' since you think this even enters into the realm of 'guilty-until-proven-innocent'. There's no proof required when someone yells that they're part of a mass conspiracy to commit genocide - arrest them first, sort it out, and if they're joking let them go. They put themselves into that pot when they claimed to be conspiring to commit a crime. [quote]Believing something morally reprehensible is not a crime.[/quote] When you tell someone that you're going to kill them, their family, and everyone they know and love that isn't a belief - you're threatening their lives. Some beliefs are inherently crimes because some beliefs are beliefs that they should be allowed to commit crimes.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52586976]To claim that they're innocent when they're yelling that they are guilty means you are either apologizing for them or refuse to believe them. It isn't 'guilty until proven innocent'. They're yelling 'I'm guilty!' and you feel like you must therefore yell 'No, they're innocent!' since you think this even enters into the realm of 'guilty-until-proven-innocent'.[/QUOTE] Ok I understand what you mean, and I agree with your point. But I think you misunderstand me as well. I'm not saying we should consider them innocent while they are in the midst of attacking someone, for example, because clearly they aren't. But not every white supremacist is going to go out of their way to commit a crime (such as threaten someone's life) so we can conveniently categorize them. And it's those people I'm saying should be treated as innocent-until-proven-guilty, because that's precisely what they are.

[quote]But not every white supremacist is going to go out of their way to commit a crime so we can conveniently categorize them. And it's those people I'm saying should be treated as innocent-until-proven-guilty, because that's precisely what they are.[/quote] Did you know that if you drive a bunch of murderous robbers around as they commit their crimes, whoever they murder will also be considered people you murdered? You may not have ever harmed a fly in your life - but the blood on their hands will spread to yours and you'll be charged with their crimes all the same. You are not blameless for blood spilled by those who act in part thanks to your support, so long as you knew what they were about and what they wanted to do and decided to stand by them you are just as at fault as they are. Conspiracy to commit murder is still a crime.

[QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52586976]When you tell someone that you're going to kill them, their family, and everyone they know and love that isn't a belief - you're threatening their lives. Some beliefs are inherently crimes because some beliefs are beliefs that they should be allowed to commit crimes.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but you're putting words in my mouth. I said belief while you're talking about someone taking action. Namely someone going around threatening other people's livelihoods. That's two completely separate things. You have the right to believe whatever you want but it is not necessarily legal to act on those beliefs. [QUOTE=Firgof Umbra;52586983]Did you know that if you drive a bunch of murderous robbers around as they commit their crimes, whoever they murder will also be considered people you murdered? You may not have ever harmed a fly in your life - but you specifically and knowingly aided and abetted murders and so you will be judged a murderer all the same. You are not blameless for blood spilled by others who you allowed and facilitated the violence of.[/QUOTE] And I agree with this point but I don't understand why you bring it up. I didn't say that people who actively support and assist criminal groups aren't guilty of the same crime?

[quote]I said belief while you're talking someone taking action.[/quote] Threatening someone's life is a crime. Their belief is that they should be allowed to not only threaten but to actually end people's lives just as they have done in the past and which, if you ask, they'll happily admit is a time they're trying to get back to. I didn't put words in your mouth, I clarified that their belief is a belief that they should be allowed to commit mass violence. In that way: It isn't a belief. "Kill everyone in the United States" isn't a belief, it's a threat. "I think Strawberry Jam is superior to all other Jams" is a belief. "I think White-colored people are smarter than other races" is hate speech but is nonetheless a belief. "Immigrants done took my jobs!" is an oft unsourced claim that's usually more xenophobic than statistical - but is nonetheless categorizable as a belief. "Kill all nonwhites and undesirables" isn't a belief - it's a threat and a command. [quote]I didn't say that people who actively support and assist criminal groups aren't guilty?[/quote] Passive support can be just the same as active support. If you stood passively, knowing someone was being beaten to death, because you agree they should be beaten to death, then you are aiding in the committal of a crime passively even if you did nothing but stand there. Sometimes all a person needs to commit violence is the passive support of those around them; that doesn't make those who didn't engage in the violence themselves less guilty of the crime that was committed. Those who publicly and actively support the mass murder of near-everyone on the planet are those who are declaring their passive support of such crimes. They are bullets in search of a gun to use them.