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

The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

warisboring.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 149 posts

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#121

Post by Mz »

tptacek wrote: post #119
Mz wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the basic problem is that people arguing the way you are arguing are basically arguing in a theoretical space. It almost never addresses the practical realities nor tells people how to move the needle in any meaningful way. Arguing about doing it right very often ends up being a form of flak that helps keeps the status quo in place. I'm currently homeless and I try to explain to people why I don't agree with…

Hold on. I DO NOT think we need to respect Nazis or their beliefs. Rather, I think citizens have something close to an obligation to suppress Nazis (and all related ideologies) with every lawful means available. By way of example: the deference Hacker News gives to racism and misogyny in the name of tolerance is deeply problematic for me, and, I think, an enormous mistake. Where Ed and I disagree is that I do not thi…

When people are horrible enough and are not respecting the laws at all themselves, advocating that we can only go after them by lawful means amounts to advocating more respect for them than they will give anyone else.

I don't know the solution. I really don't. But in order to defend yourself from horrible, predatory people in the world today, you basically need to be some kind of kung fu wizard and diplomatic genius combined or you will be railroaded by the laws that, in theory, are supposed to protect good people.

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse who was clear I would murder anyone in cold blood if they raped my small children -- and then go to jail for a very long time because I would not have at all made a sympathetic defendant -- this is a problem space I have contemplated a great deal. Fortunately, I am hellaciously talented and was able to make sure no one raped my children. But there is something very wrong in a world where we worry more about protecting the rights of heinous people like child rapists than we do about their victims, which is essentially what is going on here.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#122

Post by tptacek »

Mz wrote: post #121
tptacek wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold on. I DO NOT think we need to respect Nazis or their beliefs. Rather, I think citizens have something close to an obligation to suppress Nazis (and all related ideologies) with every lawful means available. By way of example: the deference Hacker News gives to racism and misogyny in the name of tolerance is deeply problematic for me, and, I think, an enormous mistake. Where Ed and I disagree is that I do not thi…

When people are horrible enough and are not respecting the laws at all themselves, advocating that we can only go after them by lawful means amounts to advocating more respect for them than they will give anyone else. I don't know the solution. I really don't. But in order to defend yourself from horrible, predatory people in the world today, you basically need to be some kind of kung fu wizard and diplomatic genius…

The moment a Nazi attempts to use physical force against you, all bets are off.

But the idea that you can physically attack someone for carrying an offensive flag can't possibly be defensible.

I understand how the flags and racial slurs and such create strong emotions and I offer you all the rhetorical space in the world to talk about how you personally would beat the everloving crap out of someone who tried to burn a cross in your field of vision. I'm not condemning either you or Ed for having strong feelings about Nazis.

But it remains a simple fact that you can't use coercive physical force to stop people from talking.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#123

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #114
anigbrowl wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACLU was worried about government restraint on anyone under the 1st amendment, specifically the display of the Nazi flag with a swastika. I think they were wrong insofar as the march and display of the flag was intended specifically to terrorize the Jewish population of Skokie. In the event, the march never took place; by the time the case was resolved, the residents of Skokie had built a holocaust memorial and t…

If I'm standing in a park with a police officer and an angry activist and I say something that offends the police officer and he hits me to shut me up, he's violated the First Amendment. Similarly, in that same set of circumstances, if I say something that offends the activist and he hits me to shut me up and the police officer doesn't arrest him, the police officer has also violated the First Amendment. So, no, I do…

Are you sure about that? Police officers owe a duty to the public in general, not to specific individuals. In general, police officers do not have a duty of care towards individuals unless there was a prior promise to provide protection, and then only in that context.

https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4...

I'd like some case law support for your claim that failure to arrest/act by a police officer equates to a violation of the first amendment.

In the meantime, I'd also like you to consider that it's not hard to find examples of collusion between police and members of right-wing militias, as in this one from just a few weeks ago, which provoked questions from the mayor of Portland: https://theintercept.com/2017/06/08/portland-alt-right-milit...

In this document, the police chief replied to the mayor's inquiries and admitted (Q5/page 5) preemptively detaining and photographing left-wing activists on the basis that they might later engage in violence against right-wing activists, based on observations of earlier altercations between the two groups. Oddly, no such preemptive behavior was carried on with respect to the right-wing group. I might point out that the ACLU also finds this problematic.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3873511-Marshman-Res...

Individual anecdotes like this are not dispositive, but there is at least some evidence for believing that the police do not reliably maintain a politically neutral position as referees of fair play and good behavior, notwithstanding the belief that they should.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#124

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #123
tptacek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm standing in a park with a police officer and an angry activist and I say something that offends the police officer and he hits me to shut me up, he's violated the First Amendment. Similarly, in that same set of circumstances, if I say something that offends the activist and he hits me to shut me up and the police officer doesn't arrest him, the police officer has also violated the First Amendment. So, no, I do…

Are you sure about that? Police officers owe a duty to the public in general, not to specific individuals. In general, police officers do not have a duty of care towards individuals unless there was a prior promise to provide protection, and then only in that context. https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4... I'd like some case law support for your claim that failure to arrest/act by a police of…

I have absolutely no doubt that there are white supremacist police officers.

For the previous point, read Scalia in Castle Rock v. Gonzales:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZO.html

Note how the weird particulars of how Colorado police were not required to enforce this person's restraining order in effect define where there are requirements, in particular, from anything intrinsically stemming from the Constitution.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#125

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #122
Mz wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people are horrible enough and are not respecting the laws at all themselves, advocating that we can only go after them by lawful means amounts to advocating more respect for them than they will give anyone else. I don't know the solution. I really don't. But in order to defend yourself from horrible, predatory people in the world today, you basically need to be some kind of kung fu wizard and diplomatic genius…

The moment a Nazi attempts to use physical force against you, all bets are off. But the idea that you can physically attack someone for carrying an offensive flag can't possibly be defensible. I understand how the flags and racial slurs and such create strong emotions and I offer you all the rhetorical space in the world to talk about how you personally would beat the everloving crap out of someone who tried to burn…

What has usually happened in practice is that people seize the offensive flag and shred or burn it. Look Thomas, carrying a Nazi battle flag or a deliberate derivative of it isn't just a matter of 'creating strong emotions' in the sense of some proxy moral outrage. In certain contexts, it's an act of aggression.

Legally speaking this may not rise to the standard of criminality for evaluating criminal threats. But a lot of people are increasingly losing confidence in the legal system to protect their civil rights or fairly balance their interests with those of other people in society. In relation to both this and your exhortation to call 911, it's worth referencing the recent controversy over the acquittal of the police officer in the death of Philando Castile. However you feel about the legal aspects of that verdict, there's no getting away from the fact that many people of color and other groups do not feel safe around police officers.

You keep saying of course we must use available within-the-law means to suppress Nazism, but that presupposes the law is morally neutral (highly questionable), fairly enforced (likewise), and that this job should really be left to law enforcement and prosecutors rather than being the subject of any kind of private or collective action. I suggest to you that that's an easy attitude to have when you are not a member of a vulnerable population, but a potentially fatal error of judgment for someone in a more marginal position.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#126

Post by tptacek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #125
tptacek wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The moment a Nazi attempts to use physical force against you, all bets are off. But the idea that you can physically attack someone for carrying an offensive flag can't possibly be defensible. I understand how the flags and racial slurs and such create strong emotions and I offer you all the rhetorical space in the world to talk about how you personally would beat the everloving crap out of someone who tried to burn…

What has usually happened in practice is that people seize the offensive flag and shred or burn it. Look Thomas, carrying a Nazi battle flag or a deliberate derivative of it isn't just a matter of 'creating strong emotions' in the sense of some proxy moral outrage. In certain contexts, it's an act of aggression. Legally speaking this may not rise to the standard of criminality for evaluating criminal threats. But a l…

I have basically the opposite perspective: that in a time like this, when the executive branch of the country is controlled by someone who aspires to be an American Duterte, the rule of law and our institutions have never mattered more. To abandon them now is to lose entirely.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#127

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #124
anigbrowl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure about that? Police officers owe a duty to the public in general, not to specific individuals. In general, police officers do not have a duty of care towards individuals unless there was a prior promise to provide protection, and then only in that context. https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4... I'd like some case law support for your claim that failure to arrest/act by a police of…

I have absolutely no doubt that there are white supremacist police officers. For the previous point, read Scalia in Castle Rock v. Gonzales: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZO.html Note how the weird particulars of how Colorado police were not required to enforce this person's restraining order in effect define where there are requirements, in particular, from anything intrinsically stemming from the Co…

Fascinating though your unproven legal theory is, I'm a lot more worried about the immediate reality of how to deal with the problem of white supremacists in and out of the police force. Obviously getting a restraining order against them isn't going to do the trick.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#128

Post by reddog »

Udik wrote: post #62
4bpp wrote: post #25

Well, this sort of depiction is always a many-edged sword. After seeing a media argument that amounts to "Nazis are these grotesquely inhumane monsters, and therefore it's okay to punch them", you'll have some people taking away that they should punch Nazis (their own, possibly much more general definition), some people actively trying to expand the "Nazi" label to their political opposition (so they are flagged for…

I am more concerned with the fact that, when you keep depicting the baddies as grotesquely inhumane monsters, people will soon start believing that recognizing them and choosing the right side is an easy task. In reality, baddies are often not that grotesque, they might actually have a point on a few things, and their arguments might be quite spread in the culture of the time, making them sound more reasonable than t…

Excellent point!

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#129

Post by anigbrowl »

pheldagryph wrote: post #112
anigbrowl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The contents of a persons heart are known only to them and fundamentally unknowable by anyone else barring some scientific breakthrough, so they cannot and should not be subject to sanction. The words that come out of their mouth, on the other hand, are discernable. You say the correct way to read your comment is as a criticism of the rhetorical support for violence in the parent, but the parent comment in question t…

> Please explain to me why you find the idea of violent opposition to Nazism 'chilling' That is one HECK of an uncharitable assumption. My original comment speaks for itself. You are coming uncomfortably close to calling me a Nazi sympathizer. I don't appreciate that. In case the ancestors get edited: >>> It's way better to combat "racial purity" ideologies (or any other speech) with more speech, with reason and trut…

I have no doubt you're a good hearted person and have not made any assumptions to the contrary, but it does read as if you are chilled by a request for evidence that reason and truth are the best means of combating racial purity ideologies.

It would certainly be nice to rely on reason and truth if those strategies are indeed reliable. But the extant question is what if they're not?

The historical record suggests that appeals to reason, truth, and morality actually have a really terrible record as practical responses to autocracy. As we've been talking about Nazis, it's an easily verifiable fact that there was abundant intellectual, political, and religious opposition to their ideology and that none of these proved especially effective.

Once the nazis got comfortable and installed their people in key administrative positions, they just started arresting people whose public behavior was politically inconvenient for them. I don't want to start drawing parallels with individual current events which is more likely to confuse than to inform, but they're not hard to imagine.

Re: The Surprising Importance of ‘Wolfenstein: The New Order’

#130

Post by anigbrowl »

tptacek wrote: post #116
anigbrowl wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that has something to do with my willingness to punch back. I've been the subject of quite a lot of unprovoked assaults in my life, Thomas; it's rather disconcerting to have someone that I've had as a guest in my own home tell me to disregard my personal experience of violence. People who are displaying a Nazi battle flag or its derivatives in public spaces are not doing so to express their desire for peace a…

And you know that if you ever find yourself in Chicago you are always welcome in my house, too. I'm not discounting your personal experience of violence. But no personal history of any sort entitles you to hit someone simply for carrying a flag. You know that's true.

I don't know that's true, and will read each situation on its own merits.

I think it's important not to over-simplify or sanitize this. I'm making specific and qualified statements about political realities, not arguing a law school hypothetical. I'm not proposing just unilaterally hitting anonymous individuals over display of generic flags. I am saying that we're suffering an institutional breakdown where reflexive adherence to behavioral norms under all circumstances could compromise people's safety.

The two people who died in Portland a couple of weeks ago are dead because they remonstrated verbally with Jeremy Christian and he responded by cutting their throats. They would have done better to just assault him physically and they might still be alive if they had. They could have done nothing, of course, but you may recall that Christian was abusing and threatening two young women at the time, as opposed to just shouting at nobody in particular.

That's a real thing that happened. Those two people are really and permanently dead now because they underestimated the guy's willingness to initiate deadly violence.

Post reply on HN