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

Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 276 posts

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#171

Post by panarky »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #83
aaron-lebo wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect your are talking about seems legit. The flip side about that is if you force these groups out of the public and then into the shadows, that's only proving the paranoia. Does that radicalize things even more? The same kind of viewpoints existed in the mid 90s, underground, and that lead to OKC which was one of the worst terrorist incidents in US history. Is it better or worse that this is happening in publi…

I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, these are humans, not monsters; their views can be changed, perhaps, but not if we force them into hiding and radicalize them. On the other hand, giving them power and influence in public spaces, the ability to disrupt other people's discourse and lives at will, is not okay. I'm not sure there is one best solution. We need to give bigots a chance to change their views, and we…

> these are humans, not monsters

Humans can become monsters.

Nazism and fascism metastasize in open societies. If they have a forum, if they're allowed to congregate online or in real life, they self-radicalize.

I'm extremely pro-free-speech, often to a fault -- but that doesn't apply to actual Nazis or other people who promote hate and violence.

This is really toxic shit and can be impossible to control once it gets going.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#172

Post by KGIII »

itsdrewmiller wrote: post #170
KGIII wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society. I don't expect to change your mind. It's okay. I'm just really, really pro human rights. I've seen places with massive deprivations of rights. That's not okay.

You are conflating the “least” among us with the “worst” among us. We actually only have sympathy for the former.

I'd argue your use of 'we.'

Have you ever seen what happens when we dehumanize our enemies? Have you seen what happens when we lose empathy?

These people you hate are, without a doubt, able to exhibit some pretty poor behavior. Most of them are children looking to belong, mentally ill, and those who prey on them - also probably mentally ill. Those that are adults were usually reached as children and come from abusive childhoods.

And you have no sympathy. It's okay, you're not required to. It isn't easy to empathize with Nazis. I can understand the unwillingness to try.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#173

Post by thescribe »

sighwhatnow wrote: post #72
KGIII wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue they have no moral obligation to do any such thing. However, they should probably make a pretty clear warning sign. I fear we will digress too far. In short, I'm very pro freedom of expression. I'm glad voat exists, for example. The people there are often horrible, that is true. But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.

> But, they still deserve to express themselves freely. Um, why. What makes you think this. If someone's opinions are stupid and abhorrent, why should they not experience an immediate and firm response, in ban-hammer form. Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into…

What's the point of liberalism if everyone does not get to express themselves?

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#174

Post by thescribe »

glenstein wrote: post #138
celticninja wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well to be fair, one is entirely bad, jut to be clear thats the Nazis. There may be some rogue elements in the other groups who perhaps would use violence to further their cause but it is not their fundamental belief. Whereas Nazi ideology specifically calls for the extermination of others, neither of the other 2 groups are anywhere remotely near that position. There are no good Nazis. Sure there were some Nazis in W…

This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech, abstracted from the contents of any particular ideology. And yet, part of what makes you "wrong" to oppose speech of particular groups is that you are just as bad as them. That's a judgment of the "wrongness" of a particular ideology, being directly appealed to, to j…

If democracy can't stand up to a laughable idea then it was a nice run. If we start taking away fundamental human rights the moment we hear some words we don't like, they probably deserve to destroy our democracy.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#175

Post by thescribe »

vaishaksuresh wrote: post #54
mschuster91 wrote: post #8

Hmm. This is going to be interesting. I mean, nearly everyone should be fine with banning Nazis. After all, they're vile and in my opinion don't deserve any place on the world except the inside of a jail cell... The problem is: where will the line be drawn? What about Black Lives Matter? The more, uh, militant parts of the Antifa movement? Militant animal rights groups (which actually are treated as domestic terroris…

>The problem is: where will the line be drawn? Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance. If BLM, PETA, Antifa want people of other race/class/sexual orientation harmed in any kind of way, sure go ahead and ban them. If on the other hand they want fair treatment, equality or reprieve from targeted brutality, listen to them and see how we as a society can address their concern. If they resort to violence, arrest t…

Why are your morals the ones that deserve free speech?

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#176

Post by thescribe »

uoaei wrote: post #163
jquery wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they want to cleanse the bourgeoisie, they're very multi-ethnic in their genocides. And not all of the far left is colorblind, we generally consider people who want to ethnically cleanse white people as far left.

They specifically advocate for inclusion of races, and a destruction of a class system. Nowhere in this does "color" or "ethnicity" make its way into this.

So a bloody bolsheviks style revolution is ok as long as they do it inclusively?

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#177

Post by uoaei »

thescribe wrote: post #176
uoaei wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They specifically advocate for inclusion of races, and a destruction of a class system. Nowhere in this does "color" or "ethnicity" make its way into this.

So a bloody bolsheviks style revolution is ok as long as they do it inclusively?

Intellectual dishonesty is a bad look.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#178

Post by uoaei »

KGIII wrote: post #168
uoaei wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot. Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stand…

Let's try something. Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?

The question is, access to what?

Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive.

Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary.

Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#179

Post by vaishaksuresh »

thescribe wrote: post #175
vaishaksuresh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is: where will the line be drawn? Intolerance, you draw the line at Intolerance. If BLM, PETA, Antifa want people of other race/class/sexual orientation harmed in any kind of way, sure go ahead and ban them. If on the other hand they want fair treatment, equality or reprieve from targeted brutality, listen to them and see how we as a society can address their concern. If they resort to violence, arrest t…

Why are your morals the ones that deserve free speech?

Because wanting to own other humans, killing people because of their race, gender or sexual orientation are not morals.

Re: Reddit Bans Nazi Groups and Others in Crackdown on Violent Content

#180

Post by KGIII »

uoaei wrote: post #178
KGIII wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try something. Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?

The question is, access to what? Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive. Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary. Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right…

So, we have a starting point. Now, would you then agree that the primary purpose of a networked group of computers is the exchange of information?

If you will agree to that, will you also agree that communication is information?

If you will agree to that, and to the general concept of the freedom of expression, as an ideal to aspire to and not just a government restriction, would you then agree that even the shittiest people on the planet should be allowed some method for self expression on said connected network of computers in a reasonable manner, so long as said expression is lawful and up until due process, in accordance with their local jurisdiction, takes away said rights?

In other words, they deserve the right to say their vile crap.

Before you say no they don't, I'd like to point out that not that king ago, and in some parts of this world, is censored speech. I'd like to point out that I absolutely guarantee there are those who would silence even you. They find your views absolutely reprehensible. You offend the very fiber of their being. They hate everything you stand for.

Be careful which rights you cede, for you will not always be the decider. Pendulums swing and the repercussions are mighty.

I've traveled, a lot. I've been in combat, war zones, in the midst of refugees, in camps, and in ruins. I've seen what happens when people dehumanize others. I've seen what happens when we lose empathy.

I'm not trying to change your mind. It's the Internet. Nobody ever changes their mind. I am trying to demonstrate a good accounting. Someone has to speak for the rights of all humans. Someone has to have empathy for even the worst among us.

Don't get me wrong. Some folks need killing. But, due process matters, as does empathy, dignity, and honor. Meh... It is just what it is. Things go to hell without it.

As for your point, you don't need a right to bear arms to survive. You don't need a right to speech to survive. You don't need a right to your property, your right to avoid self incrimination, etc... You need those to have liberty.

Edit: email in profile, if you want. I'm quite happy to have rational discourse.

Post reply on HN