91–96 of 96 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wanting racially homegeneous societies is an "evil idea" because to create one, you have to remove groups of people from a society based on their race.
Eastern Europe is still homogeneous and they are being vilified for wanting to keep it that way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're baffled that the person suggesting that creating a racially pure ethnostate is a reasonable idea worthy of discussion is being downvoted? Really? This was literally, not in any sense being hyperbolic, the goal of Hitler and the Nazis. What baffles me is how this talking point has apparently become normalized enough not to be immediately shouted down by every user on this website.
They've suggested that there's a variety of ideas that are no longer discussable for fear of being seen as hateful or evil. You've chosen just one of their many examples and immediately jumped to Nazism and Hitler, in doing so you're proving the parents point.
It's not exactly a jump to get from "wanting racially homogenous societies" to Nazism; it's more like a short shuffle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> because otherwise their moat (engagement, which is what advertisers pay for) will collapse by the time COVID is done. What makes you say this? I don’t quite follow.
I read that small businesses' ad spending account for over 90% of Facebook revenue. If there is one thing you don't want to be right now, it is a small business owner fighting to bring employees back to work in an unsafe environment while operating at reduced capacity. What's the incentive for the employee to return to work? Jim Cramer said it well on CNBC when he asked how he can compete with the federal government…
And while I agree that ad budgets are probably about get slashed across the board, I see more companies shifting from older, more expensive ad spending strategies towards online and Facebook. They’re in the most competitive position in the aggregate advertising market, way cheaper and more effective than traditional advertising channels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the basic work of fact-checking itself justifies removing right wing content the problem isn't the fact checkers.
What about the fact checkers who rated the EFF as wrong on the warrantless surveillance issues?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eastern Europe is still homogeneous and they are being vilified for wanting to keep it that way.
Eastern Europe has never been homogeneous, except in myth. There have been waves of different peoples coming through since the ice ages, and there has been mingling all along.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the fact checkers who rated the EFF as wrong on the warrantless surveillance issues?
I don't care enough to have a horse in this particular comment race, but your comment is an obvious example of whataboutism. Not a solid foundation for any argument, regardless of the content. Something to consider. Plus the op specifically mentioned falability in fact checkers.
I'm directly providing a counter example. Most people here are very well equipped to understand the nuance of the warrantless surveillance issue and why the fact checker was quite wrong - part of why it's a meaningful case.
Funny enough, your first statement is an example of the bandwagon fallacy. "Well I'm just a neutral party but..."