Live data from Hacker News

Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

bbc.com

281–290 of 389 posts

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#281
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an able bodied straight male working in tech, I don't understand how any man can be offended by the killallmen hashtag. I don't feel threatened. They can't even hurt my feelings. Offended men must be very soft and have small dongles.

Here's a simple test. Take someone's rhetoric, like "killallmen". And replace the target with "Jews". If the updated statement feels racist and evil, then the original is also racist and evil. There's an entire subreddit devoted to this idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/menkampf/ It's eye-opening just how racist many "mainstream" comments are.

But the difference is the context of history, right? While I definitely don't advocate for any "killallmen" stuff, I can recognize the difference between Jews, who were the actual target of a real genocide in which millions died and whose people are located in a country in a region embroiled in actual physical wars, vs men who are the target of.... internet campaigns? A key aspect is how these sentiments manifest (or have manifested) in a tangible sense.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#282
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.

Are you kidding me? Those who identify as "alt-right" aka Far Right are definitely racist and nasty folks and you can easily see it by reading through their screeds and "jokes." In the US, they have a right to express themselves, but they do not have a right to be accepted as decent and normal people.

Wrong. Alt-right is a burgeoning group, AND what we are seeing is democrats are trying to strike early to get the "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" label associated with them. Basically alt-right is the same as "anonymous" people don't really know who identifies with x,y,z parts of it and it's just frightened democrats who are scared to death to have another group against them that they can't use their standard buzzwords to demean them. E.G. Obama with his "oke-dokes"

Wake me up when Twitter actually suspends demonstrably more toxic groups on the left. Those who have infiltrated and are even holding conferences on evils of "whiteness" and white-hating. So far, Twitter are showing they are biased censoring scared little puritans.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#283
Actually this matches NPI's policy too, guess they can't complain:

>"NPI will, however, exclude those who show reckless disregard with the media, or those who've made morally indefensible public statements. Such people make our movement look bad. We choose not to grant them a platform. It’s as simple as that."

Source: http://www.npiamerica.org/the-national-policy-institute/cate...

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#284
post #258
post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's extremely convenient when the major labels that you use to demonize your political opponents cannot apply to you, even when you do the exact same behavior, based on definitions that your side made up. Extremely convenient.

Who said they don't apply to everyone?

> Who said they don't apply to everyone?

>> How can you be racist against the ruling, privileged class?

The first quote is what I am replying to, the second is your comment to someone else from up thread. The fact that you are so conflicted regarding your own views suggests you need to think about them more carefully.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. I'm trying to say that that from this side of the aisle, it certainly seems that the prevailing opinion amongst Democrats is that the Republican Party is full of terrible people.

half There is not more to say than that. Pretty sad that a foreigner needs to teach you English.

I think you might have missed part of the context as well.

/foreigner

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#286
post #129
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/r/AskHistorians bans people who post jokes, I don't know if that qualifies as "dissent". It seems in line with the purpose of the sub.

Sure. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? The T_D subreddit explicitly says that dissent is not tolerated, so yes, I suppose it is in line with the purpose of the sub. The problem is with them being upset with twitter for enforcing their purpose: a platform open to everyone to express themselves outside of hate speech/abuse.

If they were engaging in abuse, I agree that it's hypocritical of them to complain. From the article however it is not clear if they were abusing people or just voicing right wing ideas, which as far as I know, is not forbidden by any TOS:

> Several alt-right figures have been suspended from Twitter, but the social network is not saying why

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the die techie scum protests. Vomiting on busses, throwing rocks at bus windows etc. It was very threatening.

Oh yes, the "poor" rich people being threatened by the actual poor. Very threatening indeed.

Going to work each day worried that I might get hit by a brick and broken glass was very threatening indeed. And for the record I'm from a poor background and worked my whole life hard for that job. I saved the money I got from it so I could work full time on improving the lives of my fellow humans - which is what I do now.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#288
post #82
post #28

Although Twitter obviously has the right to do this, legally, I don't think it is good. Twitter is esentially a public infrastructure for real-time communication. We have public officials from countries all over the world that use Twitter to communicate to their citizens. For that (and similar) reasons, I would strongly prefer if Twitter didn't go around policing what types of political opions are okay and aren't. Ev…

The very liberal users aren't inciting hate speech, racist, misogynistic, and often times anti semitic attacks on other users en masse

I have been hanging around here on HN after the election and there was one group that IMO tried to portrait everyone but themselves as dumb half-humans.

And it wasn't the republicans. It wasn't people from flyover country laughing about their victory.

Edit: 2 down, no comments. And I have a weird feelings it isn't the republicans who are out to get me. ;-)

I have enough points so feel free to illustrate my point.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#289
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think having black governors, judges, or prosecutors will suddenly stop racism? I'll remind you that black people can be racist too (indeed, the New Black Panther Party is incredibly antisemitic) I'll repeat a few sentences from my above comment: > And many other people of color in power everywhere else? Your claim reads as if every white person oppresses every black person, all the time. And that's just offen…

And I just don't think you have read up or understand the vastness of privilige and power structures in the country that perpetuate racism every day. Just because black people can be racist doesn't mean they have the institutional power to oppress others with it. It's often kept in these fringe extremist groups. Combatting racism is a huge task. The first, most effective, and most difficult order has been in the fron…

You and I have very different definitions of racism. I'm using it as a synonym for "acts of racial discrimination" and not a system of oppression. I don't believe whether one racially discriminates or not is based on their race, is the argument I was making.

But considering your definition, do you believe this statement: "Our institutional and cultural processes are so arranged as to automatically benefit whites, just because they are white." If you do, how does your view contrast with the concept of affirmative action?

> reforming prisons, walking back the war on drugs

Agreed.

> White people dominate media, and this sends a message that the national narrative is white.

You've completely lost me.

> only see yourself as a token character on a show written completely without your cultural perspective

I am certain there are shows that exist as a counterpoint to that. It's difficult to do stuff like that, though, considering people would have to cater to a smaller market. Many shows today avoid focusing directly on traditional white or black life and instead pick some sort of fantasy or otherwise fast-and-loose setting in order to expand their total addressable market, so it's not unimaginable you'd see very little of your culture represented. But then again, mine is similarly unrepresented. That's why I watch streaming Polish TV sometimes.

> start taking hate speech seriously

That depends on your definition of "hate speech". Our definitions have differed before... so I'd agree with banning harassing, threatening, or libelous/slanderous speech. But as far as I know, those are all already banned, no? So I then assume that your definition of "hate speech" is "speech that is disrespectful to people based on the people's characteristics." And I'd disagree with banning that, because no one should go to jail for simply being disrespectful.

> giving everybody equal chances at training, education, income, and housing

If you can scratch together the funds to do so, can't you do any of those things? I come from a family of Polish emigrants (having been born there myself), and having immigrated to the US, we had very very little. But my mom started out cleaning rich people's houses day and night (with me in tow) and my dad applied his knowledge from Poland in a CNC shop. Now my mom is a dental hygienist, having studied at a community college, and now makes above the median pay for her field. My dad is far along in his career as a CNC machinist. We live well now, and I go to a university. I have lived the American dream and believe that "equal chances" are already given, for the most part.

And I agree that your view of the poor is extremely patronizing and reductionist. But perhaps state-funded training might be helpful in the coming years, considering Trump said he's bringing back manufacturing jobs, and most of those jobs now require technical expertise and programming/engineering/applied math knowledge.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#290
post #281
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a simple test. Take someone's rhetoric, like "killallmen". And replace the target with "Jews". If the updated statement feels racist and evil, then the original is also racist and evil. There's an entire subreddit devoted to this idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/menkampf/ It's eye-opening just how racist many "mainstream" comments are.

But the difference is the context of history, right? While I definitely don't advocate for any "killallmen" stuff, I can recognize the difference between Jews, who were the actual target of a real genocide in which millions died and whose people are located in a country in a region embroiled in actual physical wars, vs men who are the target of.... internet campaigns? A key aspect is how these sentiments manifest (or…

I don't want to go down the path of who was oppressed, or how, or why.

I will say that advocating for genocide is wrong.

This shouldn't be rocket science. Advocating for the death or oppression of any group "just 'cause" is wrong. People shouldn't do it. Their behavior shouldn't be condoned, or excused as "they don't really mean it", or "they're not really going to do it", or "other people have it worse".

Personally, I've never advocated for genocide, and never defended anyone who advocates for genocide. The idea horrifies me.

Post reply on HN