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

Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 530 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#161

Post by rm999 »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #156
rm999 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Micro-aggression, safe spaces, trigger words I think you're missing some perspective on this; a small % of activists on the left (mostly on college campuses) do not represent the trends of liberals in the USA. I can't think of a mainstream Democrat who considers these serious causes (including liberal ones like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren). The reality is the left has been making huge inroads on social cause…

>a small % of activists on the left A vocal minority + rapid societal change + social media echo chambers = reactionary backlash = Donald Trump presidency >I wouldn't extrapolate much from this election I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me. That and pretty much total Republican domination on the state level. The GOP is one state house away from b…

>I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me.

Let me rephrase: you are extrapolating the wrong thing when you say the "liberals drastically overplayed their hand" and then use this election as evidence.

Obama almost certainly would have annihilated Trump (his support in rural swing states is much stronger than Hillary's), and he's more liberal than Hillary. For all we know, Bernie could have done decently. Hillary's downfall is that she's seen as an out-of-touch corrupt establishment politician, which Trump (and Obama) were not.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#162

Post by kbart »

tootie wrote: post #59
micaksica wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people find the "ideas that powered the NSDAP" quite disgusting. If we are truly building a society of tolerance, whether or not one has a visceral reaction to an idea should not stop whether or not one can discuss and debate it. I'm not a neo-Nazi, but I've talked at length with them about their views. I will give anyone a few minutes to explain what they are about, try to listen to it neutrally, and form my…

I disagree. I think there is most definitely a boundary between people with different opinions and people with opinions that are fundamentally at odds with living in a civilized society. "I don't like Goldman Sachs" is an opinion you can debate on its merits. "Kill all the Jew bankers" is not. The boundary is somewhere in between those two. I can't speak to the particular accounts banned by Twitter, but the alt right…

""I don't like Goldman Sachs" is an opinion you can debate on its merits. "Kill all the Jew bankers" is not. The boundary is somewhere in between those two."

I don't agree. "Kill all the X" is a hate speech and, depending on context, a threat of violence -- we already have tools/laws to act against such, so there's no need for more censorship.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#163

Post by kbart »

pasquinelli wrote: post #77
sparky_z wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, but not everyone enjoys spending their time engaging with Nazi rhetoric. There are plenty of places outside of Twitter where you can actually choose whether or not to have a discussion. You could say the exact same thing about literally any view and it would be equally true.

that would be of the same form, but not equally true. there are actual differences between the substance of things beyond logical form.

"Sure, but not everyone enjoys spending their time engaging with vegan rhetoric. There are plenty of places outside of Twitter where you can actually choose whether or not to have a discussion."

By this logic, Twitter should ban pretty much any ideology.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#164

Post by colemickens »

Karunamon wrote: post #99
colemickens wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most asinine, childish conversation I've ever participated in, but here's what 50 seconds of effort got me: https://twitter.com/LK4Csjsharks20/status/795128062941675520 https://twitter.com/Sundance_44/status/794595588822155264 https://twitter.com/gr1zzly/status/794184499491782657 https://twitter.com/WYLTK13/status/798922065399070720 https://twitter.com/Wolf_Gang_Tears/status/79871237999133081... https://t…

So yeah, we are getting different results. Just looking at your top 3, I don't even see those posters in the list. I'm not blocked by them or anything, since your links work for me when logged in. Filter bubble shenanigans? There is no need whatsoever for these theatrics over a simple disagreement, for crying out loud. If I had my druthers, the owners of every single tweet linked in this thread, yours as well, would…

>There is no need whatsoever for these theatrics over a simple disagreement, for crying out loud.

Oh I dunno, it might have something to do with you implying that I support the idea of any person telling any other person to kill themselves.

>You will note that I said Twitter has no issues with those with leftist political leanings telling others to kill themselves. That statement is still true, but misleading in the light of what you linked here. Twitter apparently has no issue with anyone telling others to kill themselves.

That was an awfully artful way of saying you were full of shit without having to actually admit you were wrong. Nice.

Ironically, I was actually remarking, just hours ago, about Twitter's horrible moderation and response to abuse before even seeing this thread. I would have readily agreed that they suck at handling abuse, but instead you went with "a liberal conspiracy to allow threats towards conservatives" despite the incredible ease of finding counter examples.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#165

Post by kbart »

whybroke wrote: post #133
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?

Ask 100 people what is evil and I'm sure you will get similar number of different answers. Is abortion evil? Is religion evil? Is being proud of your history and heritage evil? Is being gay evil? Not everything in life is black and white. In fact, most of things are grey, so it's important to allow both (or even more) sides to express their views, even if somebody else might find it evil. If it goes down to threatening with violence, outright racist slurs etc. we have laws to deal with it.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#166

Post by exclusiv »

danudey wrote: post #158
autognosis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're all crap labels. They contain no knowledge. What confused people call "liberals" aren't so about firearms and markets. "Liberal" is from the latin word for "freedom". SJWs are not liberal. They don't want free speech. CA is not a liberal state by looking at its taxes and firearms laws. These are authoritarian ideas. Rectification of names... Labels and Knowledge are totally independent things.

Freedom can include the freedom from harasment, which is a curtailing of speech. That's a liberal idea. The other alternative is 'let people say anything they want and they can just learn to deal with it', which doesn't work with e.g. death threats, harassment, etc. That's why one freedom might be more important than another. People who claim it's a negative are usually upset that they can't attack, belittle, or hara…

The ACLU disagrees with you. You can't have freedom of speech and then decide to put an asterisk on it. That's the paradox of tolerance.

We have laws on harassment and threats. You don't get to suppress people's speech even if they are idiots.

That's a real liberal position.

Believing that people that respect that idea are bullies is both unfounded and unfair.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#167

Post by exclusiv »

kbart wrote: post #162
tootie wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. I think there is most definitely a boundary between people with different opinions and people with opinions that are fundamentally at odds with living in a civilized society. "I don't like Goldman Sachs" is an opinion you can debate on its merits. "Kill all the Jew bankers" is not. The boundary is somewhere in between those two. I can't speak to the particular accounts banned by Twitter, but the alt right…

""I don't like Goldman Sachs" is an opinion you can debate on its merits. "Kill all the Jew bankers" is not. The boundary is somewhere in between those two." I don't agree. "Kill all the X" is a hate speech and, depending on context, a threat of violence -- we already have tools/laws to act against such, so there's no need for more censorship.

So true. Strategically most people should want people with those beliefs saying stuff like that publicly!

Does it make any sense to push the fringe away and offline when we can let them expose themselves and then monitor them?

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#168

Post by exclusiv »

panic wrote: post #121
rustynails77 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at it another way. Ban all hate groups, or don't ban any of them. However, don't pick and choose. I don't agree with Neo Nazis. I hold Neo Nazis with the same contempt that I hold feminists. Why not apply the policy for all hate groups? For example, in Australia we refuse to acknowledge the approximately 25% of violence and abuse by females within the household. The worst case statistic is NSW ("Twice as m…

Feminism isn't a hate group. Feminists (at least the overwhelmingly vast majority) aren't trying to abuse or kill men. It's true that female-on-male abuse is ignored too often, but I don't think you can blame feminists for this: they're just focused on other issues.

They push a subtle hate for sure with sexist undertones.

I had a recent conversation w two feminists where I pointed out a fact as reported by Harvard that women are getting paid less because they don't negotiate.

I hadn't even made a comment on the underlying reasons and two women jumped all over me.

They lumped me in with the root cause, made simplistic comments like "oh so it's the women's fault!" and challenged me to start a class teaching women to negotiate.

While I don't think that's a bad idea, it's BS to put blame on me and challenge me to do more than they've done because I'm a successful man that owns a few companies.

Over half my primary company is women and if you asked any of them they'd say I'm the best boss they've had and I empower them to succeed. I trust them. I've also changed a life by hiring a homeless person. I take chances on good people making career changes.

I've got a small company of about 20 employees and a bunch of contractors. I've done more for women in business than both of the 2 feminists combined. Yet I'm the bad guy. Funny they consider themselves liberal and do little for their causes.

It's absolutely ridiculous how feminists push blame and are so divisive. They think everyone is out to get them. Facts mean nothing. They want to talk about prior injustices and ignore the first "why".

Merely pointing out the fact that women don't negotiate means you think it's women's fault to feminists. I recognize we've gotten here for a variety of reasons but if business rules currently dictate you need to negotiate, maybe learn to negotiate and use research from industry experts to tell a compelling story and make more money.

Sure there are asshole sexist males out there but the women I know that know negotiation are on par with men.

Feminists also ignore how women treat other women in business. Throughout the companies I've worked for and my own, something like 95% of issues with coworkers involved women with other women.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#169

Post by exclusiv »

pasquinelli wrote: post #76
micaksica wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people find the "ideas that powered the NSDAP" quite disgusting. If we are truly building a society of tolerance, whether or not one has a visceral reaction to an idea should not stop whether or not one can discuss and debate it. I'm not a neo-Nazi, but I've talked at length with them about their views. I will give anyone a few minutes to explain what they are about, try to listen to it neutrally, and form my…

so we shouldn't build a society of tolerance then, that way we don't have to debate nazism for eternity. i can't imagine a greater waste of time than talking at length with neo-nazis.

Full tolerance allows us to monitor those that might be harmful. You can't convert most of them but you can watch them.

And sometimes the people the majority thinks are being intolerant will end up being right.

Bottom line though: look at all the intolerant societies with no real framework. They don't fare well. The Founders of the US Constitution believed in unalienable rights for a reason.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#170

Post by sangnoir »

kemayo wrote: post #137
leereeves wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> 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

I find this argument (the one you are referring to) to be spurious. We don't calculate the number of rapes committed by men and there is no subsequent societal bias against men as criminal by default (or suspect by default). Not to mention the mindset leads to a feedback loop: "Of the bugs found during team code reviews, 50% were in Bob's code" will lead to everyone going through Bob's code with a fine tooth comb - and finding yet more bugs, while Stacy's code never gets a second glance regardless of its quality[1].

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-b...

Post reply on HN