{Gun Control} Facebook bans Gandhi quote as part of revisionist history purge

page: 6
40
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jaguarsky
FB is banning these accounts because of a well organized bloc of trolls. (This works on both sides of the issue.) Once enough "complaints" are received the FB banning hammer algorithm kicks in. Once the matter is actually brought before a honest to goodness living person at FB the accounts are restored.

This.




posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
This is just another example of tyranny and the attempt to hinder the freedom of speech .You have been warned people they are becoming more bold, this is the time to stand for your rights as a United States citizen.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lee anoma
 




Ghandi said and did a lot of things.
Those things seemed to indicate he was a bigot, sexist, and I suppose now...a gun advocate.

On Black Africans:
“Only a degree removed from the animal.”

That's just one of his more 'milder' quotes without the use of what is essentially the 'n-word' in South Africa.


It is true that Gandhi was very naive when he 1st arrived in Africa, he didn't even quite grasp that as an Indian he would be treated differently than a British person, he had grown up around Indians without much visible presence of the English, he then went to London for education and was not treated as lesser at least not to a direct enough degree that he acknowledged it.

When he got to Africa however, it slapped him in the face as he did have a low opinion of Africans, to see Indians treated the same as Africans and it took him a while to change how he thought, mostly because when he began practicing disobedience he was jailed with Africans.

Gandhi was not a God only a man and subject to the same flaws we all are, what made him a great man is that he learned, he acknowledged his demons once he was able to recognize them as such and he changed... he never stopped changing, never stopped challenging his own thinking.

After several arrests in Africa he became sympathetic to Africans, began seeing Colonialism for what it was. In fact much of who he became can be credited to the fact that he realized that to the British, Indians and Africans were no different... it caused to him to realize they were in fact, no different.


On Jews Facing a Potential Holocaust: "Just Accept It':
...the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror.


He was talking about passive resistance, civil disobedience... to suffer the immediate punishment of the Nazi's as opposed to a continued willing shuffling into Labor camps. He did also oppose Zionism, he didn't think it fair to displace Palestinians, he had named a place where the Jews had been welcomed to go (I forget the name) and suggested they go there and live in peace with the Muslims that had offered a home.


On Women:
Wife gets sick. He refused to allow her to be treated with penicillin; she died. “If God wills it, He will pull her through.”

He got sick with malaria; took penicillin. He lived.


Both he and his wife did not believe in modern medicine, when his wife got seriously ill they consulted Ayurvedic doctors. He also never took penicillin willingly and it doesn't even treat malaria.


Believed Indian women who were raped lost their value as human beings and that fathers were justified in murdering their daughters if they were raped and brought dishonor to their families.


Never heard or read such a thing.

Ultimately though you have to realize that Gandhi was not the same man in 1904 as he'd become in 1940 and he died still learning and still imperfect.

Regarding facebook... the whole claim is bogus as is typical of Natural News, and the misunderstood quote has already been clarified by several people in different threads on ATS. It's actually pretty funny reading GOP supporters quoting Gandhi as if he is now their hero too, when decades have been spent slandering him. Suddenly they forget that he was an anti-capitalist and proved their worst nightmare real... that peaceful resistance can result in real change. Now it's all "he was one of us".... lol.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
I did not read through each page entirely, so forgive me if this was said. I would like to point out that it may be possible that this was done on purpose. Who finds and edits these types of things on the FB staff? Considering the original party that was censored, wouldn't it be feasible to think they did it to help it go viral? It's at least as feasible as thinking they did it for a completely random reason that makes very little sense.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


In my eyes the conspiracy on this one is not the first amendment. It's Facebook. Facebook already had their IPO, made their billions. Time to give someone else a chance. Give the users some incentive to try other websites.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Just for that, I re-posted the quote.

Censorship of factual information has to be stood up to in all venues, public and private. The fact that it's "private ownership blah blah blah" (which the corporate lapdogs will no doubt start spewing soon) does not excuse it; censorship of factual information has just as damaging of an effect on society regardless of venue. Demand your right to tell the truth with militant ferocity in all situations.


i just did the same thing lol

outrageous..



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   
some of my frinds posted this figured it was worth a post for you all to read





www.canadafreepress.com...



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
So... all the people in this thread who jumped on the latest bandwagon and posted the Gandhi quote to their Facebook page...
Have you been banned yet?



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

So... all the people in this thread who jumped on the latest bandwagon and posted the Gandhi quote to their Facebook page...
Have you been banned yet?

Nope, typical of Natural News though, I still had to test their claim.
Anything happens over the next day or so and I'll post it.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
If you do make a face book account.
use IP hide. and make a fake person up.
use the countrie that the IP use's.
I have done this many times.

and Yes some of the stuff from ATS has been deleted that I put om FB.
but no lose of account as of yet.



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Well so far so good. I posted a graphic from the thread, with the quote under it. I think it is probably because I don't tolerate jerkoffs anymore. I culled them all after my own artworks were reported for copyright violations........



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by buddha
 


I used to have like 20 accounts on facebook, when I used to waste time playing the little flash games like bubble safari


Used TOR to make them all



posted on Dec, 29 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by darkbake
 





Since Facebook is a medium of exchange of speech just like the telephone or cell phones or letters, does anyone think that the Supreme Court will eventually rule that it must allow for free speech?


No, it is not. The medium is the internet. Facebook is just a private site, and those can censor whatever they want.


By that rationale, I can say that the telephone cables are simply the medium. The companies that use them are private companies and they can censor whatever they want. The infrastructure for telephones has existed longer than most lifetimes. Technically, extremely so, one could say that an entity owns the physical cables but I never see a charge for that on my hardline bill.

Can't say I agree with you. As another poster pointed out, FB has become so pervasive that a persons life can be seriously affected by using it(or not using it in respect to employers). With that kind of power the only defense is inalienable rights.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Jameliel
 


I posted it just now. Lets see!! hehe



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 





By that rationale, I can say that the telephone cables are simply the medium. The companies that use them are private companies and they can censor whatever they want. The infrastructure for telephones has existed longer than most lifetimes. Technically, extremely so, one could say that an entity owns the physical cables but I never see a charge for that on my hardline bill.


I dont understand what you are trying to say. Telephone cables are indeed the medium.




Can't say I agree with you. As another poster pointed out, FB has become so pervasive that a persons life can be seriously affected by using it(or not using it in respect to employers). With that kind of power the only defense is inalienable rights.


So if my site gets big, I can no longer censor what I want? Nope, it does not work that way. Free speech does not apply to privately owned forums. Also, you need inalienable rights on Facebook? I find that laughable at best. An inalienable right not to be banned on Facebook..
I wonder how long until the constitution is amended..
edit on 30/12/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Happy New Year Everyone



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
So... nobody has been banned yet?

I think by now we can safely write off this thread title as being completely wrong.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I think it is what was mentioned before, people who friend anyone(or sites that are fan pages than can be followed with just a like), are amassing serious douches on their lists that are reporting their stuff in droves.

During the election, some asshats reported all my personal artwork and got it taken down, I had to contact people at facebook to get them reinstated. It happened shortly after I posted an anti obama painting. I then deleted most the liberals off my list, never happened again.

With all the hard right wingers I have on my page, no one ever reported my graphics that bashed bush, or bashed mcain, or bashed mittens. I got some piffy comments on them sure, I can handle criticism, but no one ever reported them.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 05:10 AM
link   
If someone agrees to the t&c they abide by them.


Facebook doesn't NEED to let you have a space on their website.


Simple as that.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I was thrown off a political forum a few years back for just saying i'm a holocash denier. The left policy on free speech is " we oppose censorship unless there's a good reason for it".





top topics
 
40
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join