Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#131

Post by kemayo » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:30 AM UTC

commenting wrote: post #73

leereeves wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the left seriously damaged their ability to fight racist ideas when they abandoned the idea of equality. Now, the left calls colorblindness and "all lives matter" racist. (Remember when Martin O'Malley was destroyed for saying that?) They create advantageous standards based on race, and even exclusive positions for non-white applicants. (For example, at the BBC.) And I too doubt they would object to "dedi…

Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well . The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't, and that the racial struggles of American Blacks are irrelevant. That is the reason why All Lives Matter is considered abusive.

My preferred analogy to use here is that saying "it's not just black lives that matter, all lives matter" is like going to your fire department and saying "it's not just houses on fire that matter, all houses matter".

Yes, of course, they do. But some houses need immediate attention because they're in danger.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#132

Post by pfisch » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:34 AM UTC

MichaelBurge wrote: post #42

nostromo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see "alt-right" as being so similar to "far-right" based on my limited exposure. I've watched some debates with Milo as well as Gavin Mcinnes. They are definitely not what most Americans would call "far-right" -- in that they aren't anti-gay, aren't anti-drugs, aren't socially conservative, and aren't particularly hawkish. They seem to dislike Republicans like Paul Ryan almost as much as Nancy Pelosi. Milo re…

"alt-right" is mostly just a term used by the Clinton campaign to label their political opponents as weirdos. I don't think I heard anyone using it before Clinton did. I suppose Richard Spencer used it. Before the 2016 election, the term was "classical liberal". I don't know about Milo, but at least Alex Jones has described himself as a liberal.

This is the "alt-right" and it didn't come from Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/16/translator-migran...

frontpage of breitbart today.

This article is racist af, and the comments are even worse.

This article basically has no source, and is a bunch of anecdotal race war bullshit. The only "facts" are so lacking in context that they are meaningless. Like number of total attacks for example....

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#133

Post by whybroke » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:35 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #47

Why does everyone think censorship is the answer? The idea that "evil" ideas pollute minds is the same reasoning that neocons have for why Islam must be stopped. It's bizarre and farfetched. Our values of free speech and free expression are far more important than the cringeworthy and extremely stupid things some people choose to say. Twitter should not ban these accounts, or should it ban ISIS accounts or anything e…

Evil ideas need to be analyzed and refuted absolutely. Their adherents should write them up in depth and place them on the web so that they can be discussed widely and in depth and, if erroneous, be refuted.

It's hard to see how 140 character snipes, provocations and occasional calls to hostility fall into that category. But maybe.

Is it censorship to remove random stickers from telephone poles? To erase graffiti?

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#134

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:38 AM UTC

grad_ml wrote: post #110

iopq wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't That's not what "all" means. It's turning the name of the movement by implying it means "only" Black Lives Matter. So All Lives Matter is saying that not only Black Lives Matter.

The question is why people of color have to come up with "BLM" movement. Why not Latinos, White or some other racial entity (not yet, because they are not demographically significant)? Because there had been numerous instances, when black folks have been murdered by police brutally without any repercussions from courts or government. So, this is not the time for all lives matter, yet.

[deleted]

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#135

Post by xaa » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:43 AM UTC

jknoepfler wrote: post #96

xaa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The first thing I thought upon reading this was: would Twitter ban an account with the following description: "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of African descent in the United States, and around the world." Undoubtedly not. The only difference, of course, is s/African/European/g. I'm a liberal, but I feel that if this election has taught us anything, it should be that suppression of "…

I agree with your broader point that suppression of viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas is a bad idea, but I strongly disagree with the idea that Twitter is inconsistent for treating compositionally identical sentences differently. For example, if you substitute "Swedish" or "German" or something more specific than "European," you get something that doesn't set off alarm bells, just as with "African" (or "Eritrean…

I would take your side on most of your bets. But I disagree with your implied conclusion that banning this type of speech is therefore OK.

The reason is that it places our government (or Twitter, in this case) in a situation of making impossible judgment calls. A person who is "proud of their European heritage" could be anything from a docile recent Polish immigrant to a rabid neo-Nazi. Yes, you can make probabilistic determinations as to which account or individual is truly racist and who is not, but to what end?

Speaking very broadly, we live in a democracy. And the underlying "faith" that is necessary to believe in a democracy is to believe that voters can distinguish between true and false, right and wrong. If we don't have that, we are completely lost.

So I choose to believe that voters are mature enough to see alt-right posts on the Internet and, on average, consider the reasoning and reject it. What's the harm of letting voters see the alt-right's arguments and decide for themselves? Either we believe the median voter can come to rational and ethical conclusion or we don't. If we don't, we have much bigger problems than deciding what Twitter's specific censorship policy should be.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#136

Post by dak1 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:45 AM UTC

drewrv wrote: post #114

iopq wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't That's not what "all" means. It's turning the name of the movement by implying it means "only" Black Lives Matter. So All Lives Matter is saying that not only Black Lives Matter.

If one truly believed "all lives matter" then one would not object to the statement "black lives matter".

> When they shouted, "Black lives matter!" a rallying cry of protests that broke out after several black Americans were killed at the hands of police in recent months, O'Malley responded: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter."

O'Malley was eviscerated for that statement, even though he clearly agreed with the sentiment that black lives matter.

I can understand the concern that some have that turning "Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter" could conceal the reality that people with darker skin have been disproportionately impacted by our Justice system, but I also agree with the contention that overreaching and overreacting to a statement that seems completely reasonable to people not deeply aware of the discussion can ultimately have the opposite effect and serve as fuel to movements like the alt right.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#137

Post by kemayo » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:45 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #126

grad_ml wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is why people of color have to come up with "BLM" movement. Why not Latinos, White or some other racial entity (not yet, because they are not demographically significant)? Because there had been numerous instances, when black folks have been murdered by police brutally without any repercussions from courts or government. So, this is not the time for all lives matter, yet.

In truth this happens to all races. It does happen to black people somewhat more often, per capita, but 50% of people killed by police are white.

Mind, since ~70% of the US population is white, that does imply whites are less likely to be killed by the police.

Predicting the likely response to this, of course, we get into the (surprisingly hard to accurately work out) question of what proportion of crimes are committed by people of various races, and to what extent that figure is manipulated by conscious / subconscious bias on the part of law enforcement. (It's a swamp, and I don't feel like arguing about it tonight, I just wanted to acknowledge it's complicated.)

Edit to acknowledge: yes, it's more like 60% white if you're splitting out Hispanic-origin into its own category. Still, disproportionate.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#138

Post by prewett » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:46 AM UTC

alistproducer2 wrote: post #113

leereeves wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the left seriously damaged their ability to fight racist ideas when they abandoned the idea of equality. Now, the left calls colorblindness and "all lives matter" racist. (Remember when Martin O'Malley was destroyed for saying that?) They create advantageous standards based on race, and even exclusive positions for non-white applicants. (For example, at the BBC.) And I too doubt they would object to "dedi…

HN is a bad place to discuss this sort of stuff because you're always risking karma, but here goes. As a liberal, I will say that liberals drastically overplayed their hand the last 8 years. Many of us have been saying for a while that the language, tenor, and actions of recent liberal movements was ultimately counter productive. I understand and share the demand to be treated decently and equally, but admittedly thi…

I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end, its just bad tactics right now.

I didn't notice this until after I got back to the US after some time in an authoritarian country, and I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side, a feeling of we are certainly right and we are going to enforce it on everyone else through legislation. California just banned single-use plastic bags; it could have simply charged a fee commensurate with the costs of cleanup. Or the hot-button issues. Abortion: women's rights, yes, but the conservatives have a point that it is also killing babies. Homosexual marriage: people's rights, yes, but there are some good arguments to the other side, too. Usually issues have two sides because there actually are two different ways of looking at the problem, and to say that the other way is ignorant, intolerant, wrong, etc. is really not respecting the other side.

(Full disclosure: I am a conservative. I am not saying conservatives (!= Republican) are any better, certainly we have our own failings.)

I like your analogy about the bear, btw. I think you are probably right on. And even as a conservative, I was just as shocked as everyone else. Hopefully this election will get a good dialog going and people actually trying to understand the other side. That would probably make it worth it.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#139

Post by stevebmark » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:48 AM UTC

hnsucks2 wrote: post #64

commenting wrote: post #37

Good riddance. Twitter shouldn't let itself be a recruiting platform for neo-Nazis and their ilk. This is consistent with the ban on ISIS propaganda accounts, which was also a positive step towards combatting online extremism.

Are the banned "alt-right" commentators commensurate with ISIS propagandists? If so, how much else ought to be banned? Black power groups? Anti-fascist groups? Many "social justice" accounts post anti-white, anti-male messages with impunity. Should we then paint all people concerned with social justice with the same brush?

This is a boring question. Reality is more complicated than drawing stark lines around everything. There may be some gray areas Twitter also has to deal with, but that's not a counter argument to the obviously positive move of removing abusive bigots.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#140

Post by throwaway4job » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 5:50 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #48

xaa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The first thing I thought upon reading this was: would Twitter ban an account with the following description: "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of African descent in the United States, and around the world." Undoubtedly not. The only difference, of course, is s/African/European/g. I'm a liberal, but I feel that if this election has taught us anything, it should be that suppression of "…

I feel like the left seriously damaged their ability to fight racist ideas when they abandoned the idea of equality. Now, the left calls colorblindness and "all lives matter" racist. (Remember when Martin O'Malley was destroyed for saying that?) They create advantageous standards based on race, and even exclusive positions for non-white applicants. (For example, at the BBC.) And I too doubt they would object to "dedi…

All Lives Matter is racist af.

The message of black lives matter is not that they matter more than other lives, it's that they _also_ matter, in a world where it seemed that non-black lives were valued, but black lives were not. It took steps to try to ensue that blacks were treated the same as others.

The All Lives Matter movement took no steps to protect all lives. If it did, it would be a great cause. But it existed solely so that racist assholes could slam the BLM movement with bullshit rhetoric. It's a garbage movement cited solely by garbage people.