This is how extremism spreads: 1. A Reasonable Position is expressed, in this case - 'Nazi's are very bad'. The Reasonable Position often involves an Enemy that must be stopped. Most reasonable people will agree with the Reasonable Position. 2. The Reasonable Position becomes the overriding factor in any situation that involves it. All other factors and considerations are dwarfed by it and forgotten. 3. Because the R…
Some examples would help here. Reading this did not bring any real world situations to mind for me.
Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
271–280 of 398 posts
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reddit is particularly bad. I'm glad there's a place like Hacker News where people who disagree can still speak to one another civilly.
On occasion I have the impression that all my recent comments have been downvoted by 1 in a short span of time. Not that HN karma matters, but it's very well possible that that is already going on.
HN users have to accrue a certain amount of karma and age before they can downvote comments. Thankfully.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.
He condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.
And he then pretty much rolled back 24 hours later by suggesting some kind of equivalence between the white supremcists and those who opposed them.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#274While I definitely don't support these people, I do have to point out: The problem with the approach taken by Google & Co. is that it criminalizes beliefs, regardless of whether or not adherents have taken illegal actions based on their beliefs. If people 1) believe something, and 2) perform illegal actions based on their beliefs, a free society can punish #2. However, a free society can neither outlaw nor punish #1…
Google has not criminalized anything, certainly not beliefs. A different word might suit your argument better.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pres. Trump is being crucified right now precisely for failing to provide such a statement. It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.
He condemned them by name, but it took 48 hours to do so.
And then went right back to false equivalence and whataboutism less than 24 hours later. The third statement reinforced the insincerity of the second.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a long time, it seemed it was only Tumblr types who were calling everyone nazi. Recently, even people I've known for 20 years, who I thought were normal, have been posting/tweeting to the effect of either you're loudly proclaiming your opposition to nazism, or you're on their side.
I saw a thread where trolls were rejoicing, saying: they kept calling everybody a Nazi so some of us actually became Nazis. While well some people might put disclaimers on everything others are simply giving up. This started during the Trump campaign where everybody was called racist. The same with anti-semitism, especially against the current president who has a Jewish daughter. When people sling these around just a…
That's an interesting paradox: I'd argue that anyone who became a Nazi because someone mistakenly called them a Nazi, wasn't mistakenly called a Nazi.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#277It also had the opposite of its intended effect. Millions of people had no idea Daily Stormer existed until GoDaddy, Google, and CloudFlare kicked them out. Each one only added to their growing pile of free publicity. I guess Google never Googled "Streisand Effect"? First Damore and now this. Edit: Also kind of ironic that my comments are now being buried on HN because I posted some unpopular opinions. Maybe we shoul…
From the HN guidelines:
Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in my country, there're laws for disturbing public. Even if you shout "I love political correctness" too loudly and too long, you can be taken to custody and fined. If Nazis are such a big problem, secret service and whatnot should start looking into them. It's not a job of private company to enforce it's own point-of-view on the society. Wether it's correct not, but a private company cannot hold a a fair tr…
To be fair, in America we have "time, place and manner" restrictions for that sort of thing as well. > I'd rather have a pissed off bakery serving gay cakes and coffeeshop serving nazi teaparty than letting a private company apply censorship. I'd rather have bigoted companies free to be bigots, so that at least I could know who they are, and to avoid patronizing their business at all costs. The alternative is that th…
Or they'd fly certain flags high to attract certain clientele and make sure people they don't like don't come. Yet if you're in need, they'd serve you.
I'm not talking about making everybody pretend to be not who they are. That's totally fine by me. If a bakery wants to fly a Nazi flag - so be it. But if gay couple wants a selfie drinking smoothies by said flag - that's fine.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#279While I definitely don't support these people, I do have to point out: The problem with the approach taken by Google & Co. is that it criminalizes beliefs, regardless of whether or not adherents have taken illegal actions based on their beliefs. If people 1) believe something, and 2) perform illegal actions based on their beliefs, a free society can punish #2. However, a free society can neither outlaw nor punish #1…
Strange. Quite a few countries manage to outlaw and punish (expressions of) Nazi beliefs, without "sinking into despotism".
Actually, the country many people are very concerned about now happens to be the country that is a free-for-all when it comes to Neo-Nazism and White Supremacy.
Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even 'racist' music can be tricky business. There are lot's of Swedish and Polish metal bands that would call themselves 'nationalist' but have a great 'nazi' following for example. I enjoy some of these bands and would not want them censored. Just as I would not want Shakespeare plays to be censored either. Keep downloading your music and your movies. You will never be able to trust your streaming services.
Yes! Richard Wagner was an anti-semite - no argument! He's been described as 'one of the most virulent anti-Semites in modern history as well as being Adolf Hitler’s most revered cultural role-model'. He also happened to be a musical genius. Do we bann performances of the Ring Cycle or Tristan & Isolde?
If I remember correctly in the 90s there was a picket against a performance of Tannhauser in London by artists.