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

nvm

Originally posted by woogleuk
When Gandhi made that quote, he was referring to the British not allowing the Indian army weapons to fight in the first world war, NOT about civilian gun ownership.

This is absolutely incorrect, this is western society not understanding Gandhi properly!
He NEVER believed in being sitting ducks.

Gandhi believed in Ahimsa

Ahimsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi strongly believed in this principle.[3] Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part of this principle, although ahimsa recognizes self-defense when necessary, as a sign of a strong spirit

en.wikipedia.org...

Ahimsa does recognize Self-Defense!!

Gandhi was talking about the "Indian Arms Act of 1878"

Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire.

www.abhijeetsingh.com...

So what you are saying is absolutely incorrect
And this is not an odd thing from the perspective of a pacifist, even the Dalai Lama Believed the same:

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.."
- Dalai Lama
community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I did say I wasn't sure how reliable the source was, there are several sites which claim it was to do with WW1 and several others that claim it was the arms act.

The internet is starting to become unreliable for factual information.

reply to post by Jameliel


I concure, as I am putting the exact same quote up and see what all happens.

Originally posted by woogleuk
The internet is starting to become unreliable for factual information.

The internet is just like the outside world, there's unreliable information everywhere

I like to employ something called cartesian doubt
en.wikipedia.org...

This is being not a conspiracy theorist but a skeptic
You are skeptic of everything, which is NOT simply being anti-establishment
It's second guessing everything, even fellow skeptics.

This is why I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist
I'm just a simple skeptic

You should also look into what a "Hegelian dialectic" is

All important things!

Facebook is the biggest most successful Psy-op ever undertaken...... it doesn't surprise me that they censor those who go against their masters political agenda.... screw you facebook you can't control me.........

i feel like i should add that i only have facebook in order to stay in touch with my teenage siblings who live half a world away.. if it wasn't for them i would never have signed up in the first place because in my opinion social networking is a huge part of the problem in todays society.. we interact on a personal level less frequently and interact through platforms like facebook and twitter on an ever increasing basis, i feel as a species we are becoming disconnected from each other and this is the reason for the apparent rise in global violence....


i also posted the link along with a little rant on my facebook just to see what happens

Double post

You may want to give serious consideration to this idea:

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Michal Rivero said the same thing on his site, that alternative or truth news accounts were being closed by facebook.

What he said also happened to the Facebook account of the company where I work, after two people had logged in from two different computers at the same time.

I think people should really stop blaming Facebook for censorship. I despise FB for selling users' info to companies, which is a terrible thing, but with censorship, they simply aren't involved. Anyone can hire shills to file complaints about somebody in order to get his or her account suspended.

I wrote this in another thread:

Facebook suspends the accounts of people who are the subject of lots of complaints. When a powerful person is offended by someone, he or she can ask shills (the Fifty-Cent Party if you believe in that) to complain for him or her. This has allegedly happened a few times before in Hong Kong, probably the only place in China (apart from Taiwan) where Facebook is legal.

I don't agree with facebook censoring people over a stupid meme.. but I also don't agree with people taking a Ghandi quote and brutalising it's context to create said meme. The meme almost makes out that Ghandi was a keen gun supporter or something and would agree with US culture.

It's just really bad taste and disrepectful.. especially since the guy was actually murdered by a gun.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by woogleuk
When Gandhi made that quote, he was referring to the British not allowing the Indian army weapons to fight in the first world war, NOT about civilian gun ownership.

This is absolutely incorrect, this is western society not understanding Gandhi properly!
He NEVER believed in being sitting ducks.

Gandhi believed in Ahimsa

Ahimsa means kindness and non-violence towards all living things including animals; it respects living beings as a unity, the belief that all living things are connected. Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi strongly believed in this principle.[3] Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part of this principle, although ahimsa recognizes self-defense when necessary, as a sign of a strong spirit

en.wikipedia.org...

Ahimsa does recognize Self-Defense!!

Sure - but Ghandi was not talking about individuals holding arms - he was talking about Indians joining the Army:

Gandhi was talking about the "Indian Arms Act of 1878"

Lord Lytton as Viceroy (1874 -1880), brought into existence the Indian Arms Act, 1878 (11 of 1878); an act which, exempted Europeans and ensured that no Indian could possess a weapon of any description unless the British masters considered him a "loyal" subject of the British Empire.

www.abhijeetsingh.com...

So what you are saying is absolutely incorrect

No - he is quite right. There was an Indian army - but in WW1 it was quite small - Ghandi wanted more Indians to join in order to bolster their claims for independence. These comments date to April 1918 and soon after:

I recognize that in the hour of its danger we must give, as we have decided to give, ungrudging and unequivocal support to the Empire of which we aspire in the near future to be partners in the same sense as the Dominions overseas. But it is the simple truth that our response is due to the expectation that our goal will be reached all the more speedily.

- from the same link

He saw it is a step in expressing their legitimate right to independence by way of helping the Empire.

He had previously been in favour of Indians serving in non-combatant roles in the 1906 Natal War, and again in 1914.

But it was strictly in the context of joining the military - as his recruitment pamphlet said:

To bring about such a state of things we should have the ability to defend ourselves, that is, the ability to bear arms and to use them...If we want to learn the use of arms with the greatest possible despatch, it is our duty to enlist ourselves in the army.

and

By enlisting in the army, we shall learn the use of weapons, shall have
the spirit of patriotism kindled in us and shall be strong enough to
defend our villages.

- two of many comments about joining the army in this pdf of his collected works

And this is not an odd thing from the perspective of a pacifist, even the Dalai Lama Believed the same:

"But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.."
- Dalai Lama
community.seattletimes.nwsource.com...

Not the same thing at all. But not unreasonable although it does beg the question of having guns in hte first place.

Saved to my Hard Drive and Posted on my FB page.

reply to post by RedmoonMWC


So deliberately quote mining and presenting out of context in order to perpetuate a myth

Originally posted by EllaMarina
reply to post by woogleuk

 

You missed his point, which was that they will use that T&C technicality to restrict the First Amendment rather than censor free speech directly.
When it's the government who writes the T&C on our newly corporatized information and social network sources... watch out.

I didn't miss his point, hence why I said it was still out of order when pages like sickepedia are still allowed to operate.

For the record, Facebook is a global site, the whole world isn't governed by Americas archaic and outdated rulebook.

I'd take the claims in the OP with a grain of salt. Every single time I have looked into claims of Facebook censoring anyone, it was always a case were someone was reported for posting copyrighted content, offensive material, or content that violated the Facebook ToS. And it normally resulted in several people reporting said comment/post. This is a publicly traded private company that will disable first, and investigate later because it needs to cover its behind legally. I bet the same thing happens on ATS, if someone makes a similar claim.

I guess I have always just assumed that since I do not own Facebook and do not make the rules, that those who do own it and make the rules get the final say so. You really don't have any rights to post to Facebook, it's not an infringement upon your rights for them to insist you follow their rules. If you don't like it then say/post/whatever it somewhere else, like say here for example. Of course even this site has rules that must be followed and you can't just say anything you please here either.

Too much of an entitled attitude in my opinion.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I find it amusing that people complain about this.

The membership of Facebook is the fuel that feeds the fire of the beast. I have never registered an account with them. I never will. I refuse to feed a beast that attempts to control our culture. It is corporatocracy at its worst. And the only "service" i really see FB provide is a platform for morons to complain about the more petty aspects of their lives, and to go on monologues about how horrible their lives are.

I caught a glance of my sisters FB feed. 11 straight updates talking about various health issues either she has, or a far flung family member has.

It isn't a social network. It is a social support network I just don't have the emotional bandwidth to even care.

Comments,threads and users get deleted on here all of the time same as facebook because it has been reported for breaking T&C. Is ATS evil too or censoring us working fir the government . i don't understand why every single thing has to be some big conspiracy.
i could have reported that because i found it offensive or if they had used an image i had the rights to or even just because the comments made by other users in response and therefor printed in the same place were abusive or offensive (which is likely when it comes to the gun issues some americans get pretty rabid on both sides of that argument)
it could have been the last complaint of many for things printed on their page and just the straw that broke the camels back. i assume that all the people who reposted it didnt get deleted too so maybe we arent getting the full story. i dont think facebook is without its faults but with the massive amount of varied opinions and pages on there i dont think theyre obsessively censoring anything they disagree with either.
ETA
it says at the bottom they gave us a FINAL warning.... and ..ONE MORE breach that and the way they say "so called community guidelines" suggests they have broken the rules several times qnd have disdain for the "so called community guidelines" they would be dropped from ATS for the same reasons

Originally posted by MaMaa
I guess I have always just assumed that since I do not own Facebook and do not make the rules, that those who do own it and make the rules get the final say so. You really don't have any rights to post to Facebook, it's not an infringement upon your rights for them to insist you follow their rules. If you don't like it then say/post/whatever it somewhere else, like say here for example. Of course even this site has rules that must be followed and you can't just say anything you please here either.

Too much of an entitled attitude in my opinion.

Whoa. Wait right there.

If you can be denied a job for not having a FB (and yes, it happens frequently), then it might just be considered that an account is a right.

We aren't talking about ATS here. FB is a site that is so pervasive in global culture that ignoring its existence could completely cripple a person (or companies) ability to market itself. Sadly.