Comment

Comment on Meta to broaden hate speech policy to remove more posts targeting 'Zionists'

That is exactly it. Antisemites figured out a while back that they could say whatever they want about Jews as long as they swap out the word Zionist. This has been a feature of white supremacy for ages. It used to be “people with big noses” or “people who wear hats” or even “bankers,” or “globalists.” The latter two are more similar to the use of “Zionist” because they represent actual groups that people criticize. That gives more cover to the actual antisemites.

This is actually a good thing, because it removes that cover from bigots who want to hijack the movement and hide behind it.

source

Sort:hotnew top

tjsauce@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Isn’t it incredibly dangerous to ban “Zionist” only because it’s misused? It can be used to legitimately describe people who have a vested interest in Isreal occupying Palestine. I understand it’s used as a slur, but banning otherwise normal words will make the discourse much more difficult.

source
- gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Who said anything about banning it? You can read the full statement here. As I said, this is about bigots co-opting the word to say bigoted shit, taking into account the nuance of how a word can be used or misused. Literally no one other than propagandists are talking about Meta “banning” the word.
  
  We do not allow content that attacks people on the basis of protected characteristics such as nationality, race, or religion, among others. We do allow people to criticize adherents of political affiliations and ideologies.
  
  source
  - tjsauce@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    My apologies, I did not read the article on the assumption Meta would choose the irresponsible option. The article was surprisingly nuanced, and I hope the enforcement of Meta’s policies are equally nuanced.
    
    source
    gedaliyah@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Yes, let’s hope so!
    
    source