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

311–320 of 530 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#311

Post by spacemanmatt »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #231
jsmith0295 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just a small percentage of activists. I'm 21, and I live in Ohio, which Trump won by 9 points, and it seems like a huge portion of people about my age are proponents of these ideas, on or off of college campuses. People call things "white" as in insult, they constantly say things like "white people have no culture", and really do seem to believe that all evil in the world is the result of things white men do…

>People call things "white" as in insult, they constantly say things like "white people have no culture" I'm black and I wish folks realized that stuff like that needs to kept behind closed doors. I'm not one of those black folks that tries to twist the definition of racism such that it can never be applied to us. It's ironic that lots of the same folks who talk about "micro-aggressions" are purveyors of them.

I'm white and I call things white as an insult when they offend me for cultural reasons. There are some behaviors I associate with white people that are unpalatable to me, and I call them out, when I might avoid the cultural call-out to other cultures because a) they are relatively more oppressed than my (white) culture and b) I do not see the interior of that culture all day every day, as an outsider to it; I decline to arrogate myself that way.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#312

Post by throwanem »

bbctol wrote: post #306
throwanem wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: no. I'm not sure what value you find in attempting to mischaracterize my argument by assuming results which do not follow from anything I have actually said.

I'm sorry: you would hesitate to extend marriage rights to post-menopausal women.

Did the status quo not already include such a right, this would be a meaningful point to raise. As it does, and we are in fact discussing heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage, I don't really see what you're getting at with it.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#313

Post by coldpie »

zigzigzag wrote: post #281
matt4077 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

Your scope of the playing field is limited. Affirmative action is indeed unfair when you consider only the choice at hand. You have to back up and take in a larger scope. Minorities are frequently disadvantaged in many areas of their lives: they are born into poverty at a larger percentage than whites; they are policed with much less forgiveness; they are killed by police at a much higher rate, and must live with that fear at all times; their fathers are incarcerated at a much higher rate. The list goes on and on. Affirmative action is an attempt to give an advantage in important employment and education opportunities to make up for those disadvantages.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#314

Post by spacemanmatt »

masondixon wrote: post #189
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…

> public perception of gay marriage Although Obama was opposed to gay marriage when elected, I will say that this is an issue that the progressives have driven into the public consciousness. But Trump will be the first elected President to support gay marriage when entering office. > police violence against blacks There are far more protests about police violence against blacks now.

I mean, if you call not openly campaigning against it support, I guess. His campaign didn't throw them many bones.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#315

Post by quonn »

nailer wrote: post #302
quonn wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a source, that's a Google search. In fact even for your search no results come up (for me) that suggest what you claim. And I'm not even talking about the reputation of potential sources. I have actually made an effort and checked, for example Amnesty International for the time that Chavez was in power. I don't find evidence that he tortured most of his opponents, sorry.

Yes, it is a Google search. That is a stellar observation. Using a search engine would have been less characters than asking me. For example, you could click: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Venezuela#2000... and read up this from Amnesty https://web.archive.org/web/20070922230635/http://web.amnest... : > The security forces have reportedly used excessive force, and detained large numbers of opposition…

For this thread I'm focusing on the claim that "Chavez tortured most of his opponents" and that he is supposedly comparable to Pot Pol (again a guy probably killed 1.6 human beings). These claims are ridiculous.

Reports about occasional police violence (can even happen in the US) and single cases of torture (not from a reputable source) are not enough for such a broad claim.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#316

Post by vtlynch »

zigzigzag wrote: post #281
matt4077 wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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?

Saying this reveals a dire mis-understanding of access and opportunity in society. The reason those initiatives are needed is because of the extreme amount of inequality that currently exists.

Women would not need to be put into tech if they were already well there. Affirmative action would have no purpose if minority groups were properly represented.

These are initiatives fighting the status quo, which has an extreme bias towards men and white people. It is exactly the opposite of giving "unequal chances."

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#317

Post by scott_s »

throwanem wrote: post #312
bbctol wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry: you would hesitate to extend marriage rights to post-menopausal women.

Did the status quo not already include such a right, this would be a meaningful point to raise. As it does, and we are in fact discussing heterosexual vs. homosexual marriage, I don't really see what you're getting at with it.

You're saying you want to not allow X because of Y. When others point out that making Y the criteria allows disallows A, B and C, you argue those points away as not important; you still want to allow A, B and C. That's basically special pleading. My conclusion - and I assume the conclusion of the people arguing with you - is that Y can't be your real reason for disallowing X.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#318

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

throwanem wrote: post #277
throwaway-hn123 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why extend marriage rights to the class of people who are infertile? I don't get why you're giving that class of people special privileges.

I'm looking to find a balance between the interests of the state and those of its individual citizens. In a heterogeneous society, which all societies to some extent are, this is a complex question. To oversimplify it benefits no one. And do you really want to equate homosexuality and infertility, which for all intents and purposes is a medical disorder? Is that where you want this conversation to go? It's not where…

All I'm doing is examining the inconsistencies in your position. You seem to think the ability to reproduce is important, except for heterosexual couples, where it doesn't matter.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#319

Post by spacemanmatt »

leereeves wrote: post #226
makomk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is how Donald Trump described said candidate's apology for that: "And then he apologized like a little baby, like a disgusting, little weak, pathetic baby, and that's the problem with our country," [1] Make no mistake, Trump and the alt-right are incredibly hostile to anyone who doesn't see Black Lives Matter as an evil, racist attack on white people, who don't think that blacks complaining about police violence…

I think that's true, but I also think one reason that works for him is that the left is so hostile to a moderate position.

Seems more directly applicable that it works for him because the alt-right is so hostile to a moderate position.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#320

Post by Chathamization »

StavrosK wrote: post #262
kemayo wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Maybe BLM should be more clear about its goals? I'm not really up-to-speed with US politics, but I know it's horrifying how easily and with impunity the police have been killing black people. Still, "Black lives matter" isn't a great slogan, and calling "all lives matter" racist definitely seems…

> Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses".

Well, the fire department does tell people that they need to pay attention to things that might cause fires. The response isn't "well, people should pay attention to all dangerous things! What about car accidents?"

I mean, this isn't a difficult concept to grasp. When someone is raising money for orphans, people don't usually say "but what about money for veterans?" When people are raising awareness about breast cancer, you don't usually tell them "hey, we should be raising awareness for all cancer." They don't get angry that Smokey Bear focuses on forest fires ("Oh, house fires don't matter to you?").

People understand single-issue campaigns for most things, but some suddenly have an issue with it when it comes to African Americans deaths. This naturally raises a few eyebrows.

Post reply on HN