Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 389 posts

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#361

Post by LyndsySimon »

Mithaldu wrote: post #350
LyndsySimon wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between "half" and "most" is literally infinitely small, as "most" literally means "more than half". But again, I'm not arguing that Clinton said that most Trump supporters are racist. I'm arguing that the prevailing belief amongst Democrats is that racism and sexism is both common and accepted within the GOP. That's utter nonsense.

Then you should have said those words instead of stomping in with a quote, a counter quote and a mic drop.

That was not my intention.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#362

Post by Mithaldu »

sctb wrote: post #360
Mithaldu wrote: post #235

Did you even read the words you quoted? Please do so again, try to not skip any.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967587 and marked it off-topic.

Ridiculous of you to detach a factual counterpoint, but not the logically invalid parent.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#363

Post by LyndsySimon »

Mithaldu wrote: post #353
LyndsySimon wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But respect? For casting a vote to spite people? For casting a vote without having done proper research? You seem to be assuming that no one voted for Trump, only against Hillary. Personally, I voted for him because I support his Supreme Court nominees and his gun rights platform.

No, i am assuming that many people were direly mislead. Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor?

The name is familiar, but doesn't ring a bell. After a cursory overview of his Wikipedia page I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as disqualifying.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#364

Post by Mithaldu »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #363
Mithaldu wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, i am assuming that many people were direly mislead. Also, do you support his nominee William Pryor?

The name is familiar, but doesn't ring a bell. After a cursory overview of his Wikipedia page I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as disqualifying.

A quote from this document, wherein he is the primary author: http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102....

"The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#365

Post by LyndsySimon »

Mithaldu wrote: post #364
LyndsySimon wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The name is familiar, but doesn't ring a bell. After a cursory overview of his Wikipedia page I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as disqualifying.

A quote from this document, wherein he is the primary author: http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102.... "The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."

As a matter of jurisprudence, I agree with that - in that the purpose of the statement is to say the US Constitution does not impose such a moral judgement upon the individual states.

I'm far more concerned with statements like:

> Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality.

and

> Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enforced (due to other salutary checks on government power, like the Fourth Amendment) has significant pedagogical value. Laws teach people what they should and should not do, based on the experiences of their elders.

FWIW, I'll also say that I strongly disagree with the amicus, on multiple grounds.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#366

Post by adekok »

moskie wrote: post #343
adekok wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> an internet campaign that has no signs of manifesting in the real world in any significant way Then you're not paying attention. See my other links. > You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust. Your argument comes across that advocating genocide isn't really that bad, because they don't really intend to do it, and anyways,…

Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed, to the point where you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses, is psychotic and incredibly toxic, and I will not humor it. The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit that makes its "point" by minimizing the Holocaust via a word game, and yet you question my morals. I see a…

> Your idea that men and Jews are equivalently oppressed

Which is not, in fact, what I said. Or what I believe. But why let facts interfere with a good flamewar?

> you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses

You're missing my point. Which is explained in simple English FFS.

> The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit

Uh... no. You don't seem to be able to understand rhetoric or analogy.

No one in that subreddit advocates anti-semitism. Instead, they re-write hateful articles to show that they have the same tone and style as anti-semitic articles. And that both are wrong.

Your interpretation of these analogies is that the people are actually advocating the opinions they're mocking.

Which (again) entirely misses the point. Depressingly so.

> I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things

Like advocating for the genocide of men? Which isn't entirely saying "mean things".

> The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.

I think your hostility comes from a point of view which prevents you from understanding what I've written.

I've tried to make it as clear as I can. Genocide is bad. Advocating for genocide is bad.

Anyone should be able to understand that.

Your point is that advocating for the genocide of some people isn't really that bad... because jewish people had it worse.

If you can't understand the immorality of such a statement, I have little more to say. If the only way you can defend such actions is to label me an anti-semite, well, that's your delusion. You're welcome to it.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#367

Post by Mithaldu »

LyndsySimon wrote: post #365
Mithaldu wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A quote from this document, wherein he is the primary author: http://findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-102/02-102.... "The States should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequences."

As a matter of jurisprudence, I agree with that - in that the purpose of the statement is to say the US Constitution does not impose such a moral judgement upon the individual states. I'm far more concerned with statements like: > Contrary to the cliché so tritely tossed about in freshman poli-sci courses, the States can and must legislate morality. and > Even legislation that is largely symbolic and infrequently enf…

Thank you for reading it. My choice of quote wasn't the best, as i am not equipped to interpret the fine details correctly in entirety. However i am happy that my overall disagreement is shared.

And i agree, that while more subtle, the points you pointed out represent a far further reaching and far more dangerous misunderstanding of the purpose of law.

There are in my opinion many details like this that many voters were not aware of, either through deception, omission or just plain lack of time to research. And to be sure, there will be such details about Clinton.

However, on balance, i am confident that Trump and the people he surrounds himself with represent a much bigger danger to the lifelihood and health of innocent people than Clinton would've been, if only because the fact that such things are said publicly indicate that restraint is not something they bother with even for appearances.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#368

Post by Wellshit »

DanBC wrote: post #114
monkmartinez wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh? Can you please explain the difference... it's 140 characters of text FFS.

Someone can say they hate The Jews on Twitter. What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person.

> What they can't do is say they hate a particular Jewish person, and link to that person's account, and encourage their tens of thousands of followers to post anti Semitic hate to that person.

Like, let's say, kill DT because [insert victim group du jour here]ism?

Or I'll kill you because u so white, and kill all white people? #noracist

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#369

Post by kristianc »

mwill wrote: post #14

I can only see this as furthering the echo chamber that caused many to be so blindsided by Trumps victory. I would like to see specifically why these people were suspended. If they're engaged in harassment obviously the suspension should hold up. If it really is just mass reporting for political speech (I've had friends msging 'targets' for reporting purely for them admitting to voting for Trump), I can only see it a…

They have those echo chambers already. Some of them are talking about moving to a platform like Gab.

However, most of them realize that the appeal of Twitter is in being able to expose normal people (or 'normies' in their terminology) to far-right ideas.

It's delusional to think that these people want to enter into a conversation or a discourse of any kind - they're using Twitter as a platform to draw attention to their ideas. Twitter, as a commercial business - not a public commons - has no obligation to support that.

Re: Twitter suspends alt-right figureheads

#370

Post by bougiefever »

13years wrote: post #79
mwill wrote: post #14

I can only see this as furthering the echo chamber that caused many to be so blindsided by Trumps victory. I would like to see specifically why these people were suspended. If they're engaged in harassment obviously the suspension should hold up. If it really is just mass reporting for political speech (I've had friends msging 'targets' for reporting purely for them admitting to voting for Trump), I can only see it a…

Agree, very disturbing trend and it only increases the animosity between groups. The trending method of improving diversity and inclusivity is through exclusivity. This will not work. People and groups who don't talk to each other grow further apart and trust each other less.

What do you do about Twitter and Facebook becoming the propaganda arm of the alt-right?
Post reply on HN