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

Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

raddit.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 267 posts

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#161

Post by BooglyWoo »

mejin wrote: post #135
stevenwoo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that kind of what this is about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.

Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#162

Post by enraged_camel »

nextlevelwizard wrote: post #159
zimpenfish wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at the moment if you do not agree with Antifa/SJW crowd you are automatically labeled a Nazi This just isn't true no matter how many times people say it.

I only speak from experience. I've been called a Nazi scum for advocating civil behavior, refraining from violence and doxxing, and siding with free speech for everyone. People have even straight up assumed I was a (poorly hidden) KKK member because my user name has the word "wizard" in it.

The thing is, many people conflate Freedom of Speech with free speech.

The former is the constitutionally protected freedom from government persecution (e.g. imprisonment) based on what you say.

The latter is the misguided belief that you should be allowed to say whatever you want in public without consequence.

I strongly believe it is morally wrong to side with people who support genocide, and whose predecessors have committed genocide. It is morally wrong to suggest they should be allowed (by other members of the public) to continue touting and spreading their hateful, vile ideologies. Siding with such people doesn't make you a Nazi, but it's still pretty bad.

They do have the right, i.e. Freedom of Speech, to demonstrate without government interference. They absolutely do not have the right, morally or otherwise, to demonstrate without interference from public groups.

America fought and defeated the Nazis in World War 2. Can you imagine this "both sides are wrong" argument being pushed forth back then?

Well, actually you don't have to imagine it. In the late 1920s and early 1930s when Nazis were still a relatively fringe extremist group, Antifa was violently opposing them and beating them up in the streets. And many members of the German public, mainly the German middle class, denounced such violence, which only served to empower the Nazis, who could in turn say "See? Violence is wrong! Everyone says so!"

We all know how it all ended up.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#163

Post by wallace_f »

likeslogic wrote: post #145
mejin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part…

This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population.

The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#164

Post by int_19h »

likeslogic wrote: post #145
mejin wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that make sense? If a culture is tolerant and somewhat smart they can add tolerance to their constitution. By doing so they will both allow tolerance and not have to worry about anyone (tolerant people or not) taking away their "ability" to tolerate.

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part…

The problem with this paradox is that it's applied to situations that are actually different from what's describe here.

Suppose even we have this group that's intolerant of everyone else. But their intolerance is expressed in speech, not actions. In other words, they're saying, "you're all our enemies, and should be destroyed", but they aren't doing anything about it. Or maybe they are, but it consists of running a political party on that platform, encouraging people to vote them in.

As a society, you can absolutely tolerate them without the use of force, at least until the point where they actually get the majority of votes (but at that point, they are the society, and you're an outgroup in that society).

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#165

Post by andypants »

monokrome wrote: post #72

I wonder if these people are aware that they didn't need to write a Reddit clone? Why would you write a Reddit clone in PHP when Reddit itself is a perfectly fine open source Python project? Is their license not permissive enough? https://github.com/reddit/reddit

That's not the complete source code. Some parts are kept secret such as the voting algorithm.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#166

Post by int_19h »

tray5 wrote: post #81
wutbrodo wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude his comment is like a paragraph and a half long. At least finish reading it before disagreeing with it. Like you, I think he's _wrong_ about Ancaps not being "true" anarchist (or Scotsmen...), but it's not like he didn't address them and isn't aware of the concept (he addresses them in literally the next sentence! Jesus). Smugly linking the Wikipedia article is entirely unhelpful for anything except revealing th…

>I think he's _wrong_ about Ancaps not being "true" anarchist I don't believe they aren't "true anarchists", I believe they aren't anarchist at all. They aren't even in the realm of consideration of what constitutes anarchist. Their ideal society would end up corporate feudalism.

By this metric, one can say that e.g. anarcho-syndicalists aren't anarchist at all, because their ideal society would end up as lots of small but totalitarian communities. Of course, the syndicalists themselves would dispute this, but then ancaps would also dispute your "corporate feudalism" claim.

The real difference here is philosophical. Right-wing anarchists believe that private property is a natural concept that exists independently of power hierarchies. Left-wing anarchists believe that's an artificial concept that requires such a hierarchy to enforce, and doesn't exist without it. Hence ancaps believe that absence of government will result in a capitalist utopia, while traditional anarchists believe that it would result in a socialist utopia. These two viewpoints are irreconcilable, because the fundamental premise is not just different, but literally opposite.

However, insofar as both groups believe that their ideal society is characterized primarily by the lack of a power hierarchy (and all other things, like unrestricted property rights, or complete lack thereof, simply follow naturally from that), both groups are "real" anarchists.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#167

Post by nextlevelwizard »

enraged_camel wrote: post #162
nextlevelwizard wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only speak from experience. I've been called a Nazi scum for advocating civil behavior, refraining from violence and doxxing, and siding with free speech for everyone. People have even straight up assumed I was a (poorly hidden) KKK member because my user name has the word "wizard" in it.

The thing is, many people conflate Freedom of Speech with free speech. The former is the constitutionally protected freedom from government persecution (e.g. imprisonment) based on what you say. The latter is the misguided belief that you should be allowed to say whatever you want in public without consequence. I strongly believe it is morally wrong to side with people who support genocide, and whose predecessors hav…

Yet no Nazi symbolism or chants were present in the Alt-Right's ranks before Antifa started to organize Black Blocks and turned protests violent.

Remember this whole cycle started by grown adults wanting special treatment, such as safe spaces and forced usage special pronouns, and people who were against such non-sense.

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#168

Post by int_19h »

tray5 wrote: post #76
kemiller wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what, exactly, is the alternative to a free market?

Personally I'm a fan of a workers run syndicalist economy. There are other options, like a workers run market economy, or an outright collectivist gift economy.

The question is, how would you enforce that, if some part of the populace just decided to recognize property rights, and structured their part of the economy accordingly?

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#169

Post by likeslogic »

wallace_f wrote: post #163
likeslogic wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say in a 100% tolerant society a group that is intolerant of every other group comes into existence. They just operate by the credo - you're either with us, or the enemy, and all enemies must be destroyed. No further logic can be applied (they may even declare all logic as one of the enemies). Now if as a society you tolerate them without the use of force, they will try to destroy everyone else who is not part…

This would only work assuming such a group could gain enough power to overthrow local PD and eventually the US military, etc., which is kind of unrealistic for an group that is not supported by a majority of the population. The wikipedia page on this notes people dispute this idea, sourcing John Rawls as a notable example.

Not really. A little further is this - "However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2][3]"

Re: Raddit: An open source alternative to Reddit

#170

Post by int_19h »

pamqzl wrote: post #132
wutbrodo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly don't understand why people try so desperately to shove politics into a one-dimensional axis, _even in a comment that's pointing out how inadequate it is!_ Politics is complicated, but the two-axes model is a lot less laughably simplistic: left/right, liberal/authoritarian. To drastically oversimplify: left-liberal: Bernie Sanders, sort of left-authoritarian: full communism right-liberal: libertarian right-au…

Two dimensions is certainly better than one, although I note that almost nobody would self-identify as "authoritarian" which makes half of the chart a bit useless. The vast majority of people, at least in western countries, agree with the basic assumption of (classical) liberalism, which is that "people should be allowed to do what they want, except...". For the most part people just differ on what comes after the "e…

Many socialists quite eagerly self-identify as "authoritarian", actually. It's not the opposite of "democratic", necessarily, at least not on paper: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism
Post reply on HN