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

281–290 of 530 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#281

Post by zigzigzag »

matt4077 wrote: post #256
prewett wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fee…

I'm willing to say that, yes, most "liberal" ideas are ultimately right, and will ultimately prevail. History has by and large been a march towards these ideals. Freedom, equal chances, some organized support isolating you from the raw&random powers of markets&nature. That believe isn't new, by the way. The first progressive would have said: "We believe these truths to be self-evident".

Isn't that just using a cherry-picked definition of "liberal"? How do you define "liberal" if you say history has been a march towards these ideals?

My understanding of how Americans use the word "liberal" is that it's an alternative way of saying "left wing". In that case history has not been a march towards left wing views, surely the fall of the USSR, the rise of Reagan and Thatcher ... it's been the opposite.

And aren't "liberals" now pitching for unequal chances? Like, HRC should be President because she's a woman, affirmative action, get women into tech funds etc?

It looks like you just picked a few things that are widely regarded as good, and labelled them liberal.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#282

Post by 7952 »

throwanem wrote: post #242
7952 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> the legitimate interest of the state in supporting marriage and reproduction. Why is that a legitimate interest of the state?

Because it perpetuates the state's existence.

You don't need state intervention to encourage people to reproduce. I am sure that groups that believe in waiting until marriage to have sex would acknowledge church marriages as they always did.

Cynically you could argue that the state benefits far more from dysfunctional families who are more likely to become dependant. I would rather the government spend money on sex education and contraception for teens than supporting married couples.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#283

Post by aminorex »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #215
throwanem wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. There's an opportunity cost. I expanded on that a few days ago, and rather than rehearse it again, I'll link the answer I gave to "What do anti-gay-marriage people gain?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12933668

I read you comment. I get your point on why the state provides benefits for marriage. You're argument that civil unions should suffice misses the point and is ignorant of the facts. The fight for marriage equality is not because gay people are overly attached to the nomenclature, there's a real practical difference between unions and marriage[1]. Also you quoted me in your response, but your comments made no argument…

I think the reasonable thing is to eliminate the institution of state marriage.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#284

Post by ejstronge »

woodman wrote: post #172
sangnoir wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side I am not American, but I must say on the level of politicians, Obama repeatedly tried to be bipartisan and was repeatedly rebuffed by the GOP who seemed intent on grinding the government to a halt. Frankly, and it made the Dems look like a pathetic 'hanger-on', IMO. "Considering the merits of the o…

> ... in game theory when the other side always defects. Consider the conservative position, and what strategy would work for conserving what is important to them. Any sort of compromise is a long term losing strategy, so of course they'll block progressive moves if they're capable. I'm not aware of any real trade ever being offered, something like: we want full on no joke equality of outcome for every flavor of the…

The human waste metaphor raises an interesting question - what do you think the role of elected officials in a representative democracy is?

I would also add that the media-portrayal of conservative perspectives if in multiple instances further to the right than that of the electorate. I'm happy to go into examples if you care (one example would be people wanting healthcare before the ACA became associated with the 'evil' Democrats).

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#286

Post by trdrake »

tnone wrote: post #233
masondixon wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are losing sight of why freedom of speech is important which is insane to me. I'm with you. Its very difficult to find people like you who think practically and consider side-effects, etc. I'm curious as to whether this has changed over time. And how could the founding fathers have such foresight. Where have all the thinkers gone?

They learned to self censor, lest they be shouted down and branded for heresy by the left wing ideologues with an axe to grind.

...or be branded as "brain-washed" dupes of lame-stream media by right wing ideologues with a meme-generator.

everyone's shouting past each other.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#287

Post by bbctol »

throwanem wrote: post #255
throwaway-hn123 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you would deny marriage rights to a heterosexual couple who are infertile and unable to have children?

No, I would hesitate to extend marriage rights to an entire class of people, of all of whom the same is true.

So you would ban post-menopausal women from getting married. Understood.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#288

Post by throwanem »

matt4077 wrote: post #269
throwanem wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. There's an opportunity cost. I expanded on that a few days ago, and rather than rehearse it again, I'll link the answer I gave to "What do anti-gay-marriage people gain?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12933668

Seriously, you've lost that fight so hard – gay rights is the one thing where even Donald Trump thinks your time has passed.

I'm not sure my motivation is clear. As above, rather than rehearse it, I'll link a prior comment in which I did so at length: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12457439

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#289

Post by nailer »

quonn wrote: post #279
nailer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the same as the (generally left) folk feel fine about when preserving areas from other cultures. Want to preserve Oakland or the Mission as is? That's fine. Don't like seeing women forced to walk around in burkas and girls having their genitals cut (I live in London where these re both issues)? That's racist. Obviously Islam isn't a race, and this makes no sense, but it's something people still claim. Either pre…

I'm sure genital mutilation is already prohibited under British law. The problem with the burkas is that is it of course difficult to determine or prove that they are not worn voluntarily. I know some girls from liberal (Christian/Atheist) families who converted to Islam who wear a Niqab. I can guarantee you that they are not "forced" to do this.

FGM is illegal, but there has been zero prosecutions, and estimated a few thousand girls mutilated since the laws were passed.

One of the reasons FGM goes on in the UK is precisely that people don't want to be seen as judging a culture, even for something which is statistically more likely to happen in a culture: ie, the problem could be addressed with medical inspections in schools but this won't happen for fear of being called Islamophobic (oddly enough I learnt most of this from reading Bridget Christie's book, and she's pretty damn left). A similar situation occurred in the systemic rape cases in Rotherham.

And yes, of course people can voluntarily submit to something, it doesn't change that others are forced.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#290

Post by [deleted] »

aminorex wrote: post #283
alistproducer2 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read you comment. I get your point on why the state provides benefits for marriage. You're argument that civil unions should suffice misses the point and is ignorant of the facts. The fight for marriage equality is not because gay people are overly attached to the nomenclature, there's a real practical difference between unions and marriage[1]. Also you quoted me in your response, but your comments made no argument…

I think the reasonable thing is to eliminate the institution of state marriage.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN