711–720 of 744 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you not consider an average 50-60k "high"? That is more than basically anyone I know personally outside of software, and I'm not in a low COL area.
For a job that I may get shot and die on any given day, no. I do not.
They rank 15th. Electrical Engineers, loggers, fishermen, etc all have more dangerous jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the Nazis weren't actually racists, got it. It's amazing how many people actually think this, and how discussions like this bring them out of the woodwork. A couple of years ago I got into a pointless discussion with someone on HN who went so far as to say that Hitler wasn't a racist. (No, really.) This is why white supremacy is dangerous. The history of WWII and the rise of the Nazis is rapidly being forgotten, a…
That certainly wasn't the impression that I meant to give with my comment. So I can write more clearly in the future, can you tell me what I said that made you think that I'm claiming Nazis aren't racist? I just think it seems overly simplistic to the point of being almost nonsensical to say that WW2 was caused by white supremacism. White supremacism certainly didn't make Japan invade China. While I'm no expert, at t…
It's particularly the mention of Jews here that makes it clear that in your view, the Nazis' racism was merely a matter of expedience, not conviction.
After all, would it not have been "convenient for the cause" for the Nazis to make all of Europe's Jews "honorary Aryans", and thus save themselves the trouble of murdering six million of them? The reason that they didn't do this is - obviously - that racism and anti-Semitism were a core part of their cause.
>White supremacism certainly didn't make Japan invade China.
A red herring, surely. We're talking about the cause of the war in Europe in this context. But in any case, there was certainly a racist component to Japanese nationalism too.
>nationalist expansionism
The Nazis' nationalist expansionism was intimately connected to their racism. Hitler invaded Poland so that racially inferior slavs could be replaced by racially superior "Aryans".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is that the Nazis were motivated by an ideology of racial supremacy, and that this was a significant factor in triggering WWII. This isn't some kind of wacky revisionist history I'm putting forward here. Look at any historical account of the Nazi invasion of Poland (which of course precipitated WWII) and you'll find "Lebensraum" mentioned quite prominently. You can argue that the use of the term "white supr…
> You can argue that the use of the term "white supremacy" is anachronistic in this context (as the Nazis were technically "Aryan supremacists" rather than white supremacists). You can generalize to ethno-national supremacy. Which covers Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and US White Supremacists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But to say the Nazis weren't white supremacists because their ideology differs from today's white supremacists isn't really saying anything at all. It's still racism, just differently defined.
I'm breaking with my usual rule of not commenting on downvotes, this only seems to happen with historical topics, to say that trying to make a distinction between the Aryan supremacy of the Nazis, as weird as the details would sound to a 21st century mind, and the racists of our day, is just a distinction without a difference. You see the exact same mentality, the exact same sorts of arguments. If today's white supre…
Sure, but it's important to realize that this is true about any supremacist ideology. There's nothing exclusive about either Nazism or white supremacism. ISIL's Islamofascism is the same old crap for example, and it too has a line of historical descent from, e.g. early-20th-c. anti-Semitism. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a raging anti-Semite who met Adolf Hitler and ardently supported his most heinous atrocities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is this supposed to threaten me? I'm not sure what that would mean in this context. >You can suppress free speech in private spaces. You don't even have to allow access to private spaces while it's the other way around in public spaces. There are laws for that. The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. >You can't display swastikas in a Bundesl…
> The point I'm making is that it's probably not a good idea to allow certain private spaces to suppress free speech. And it's a good idea to force private spaces to allow everything on their spaces or declaring it public spaces even if they are not? What about the implications? If your private space becomes a public space, does it make you some kind of government? > As I understand, you can't display them anywhere i…
You become "some kind of government" by being more powerful than a single citizen should have. A kind of undemocratic, illegitimate government.
And here we go. As usual the "racist" pretext is being used to censor videos. I have no doubt that there are some terrible awful racist videos in that lot but you have to wonder how many times this is ALSO used as a mean to censor pretty much any video that the youtube execs don't like. Censorship is getting worse Edit: Replacing "Censorship is coming back" with "Censorship is getting worse"
No censorship. You are still free to create your own YouTube clone and publish your extreme political views there. Maybe call it "GabTube"?
censor verb censored; censoring\ ˈsen(t)- sə- riŋ , ˈsen(t)s- riŋ \
Definition of censor (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable censor the news also : to suppress or delete as objectionable censor out indecent passages
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with the other commentator. You seem to be posting pointless confrontational messages that you know there’s no complete proof for, but if you were discussing in good faith, you wouldn’t have posted your messages questioning Google’s YouTube algo.
Parent made broad claims without evidence. Maybe those convinced you. They did not convince me. If you cannot respect that then what is the point of a discussion? Also, I said I want "some objective proof". You twisted that into "complete proof". Its funny that you are doing the exact thing you're accusing me of.
I didn’t do the same thing as you because I didn’t post around multiple times asking for the same thing from multiple people and acting sort of obtuse like they are saying something isolated.
I'm starting to think that comment sections on news sites are a really bad idea. At first I thought NPR and the like were cowards for removing theirs. It's bad enough that NYT can be pretty biased on its own, but the comment sections are always full of low-tier thinking that just push whatever narrative is currently in the Overton window. What I find distressing is how people remark that a telecom and advertising gia…
Although any hateful speech is terrible of course, I think censoring like this is a bad idea. Like other conversations about freedom of speech on HN it will eventually lead to talking about banning non hateful but extreme ideas like flat earth and anti vax. While ridiculous as they are, I think it would be equally ridiculous to ban them. What's the line you draw when you decide what gets to be promoted. Maybe certain…
I don't know if breaking up these massive "tech" companies is a good approach, but something has to be done at some point, and there needs to be rules over how YouTube can regulate its platform. At the very least, YouTube needs to be forced to make all of its rules explicit and to not insta-ban entire channels while deleting all their data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If that was the case, then why did their policies include the murder of millions of German-speaking Jews, Gypsies, and people with disabilities. Because Jews and Gypsies weren't considered ethnically German. Re: disabilities, it's a mix of rabid utilitarianism (they were called "useless eaters") and a belief that disabilities stemmed from corrupted bloodlines (hence the term mongoloid -- it was a popular theory tha…
> Because Jews and Gypsies weren't considered ethnically German. What defined German ethnicity? Clearly it wasn't the ability to speak the language, or being descended from many generations of ancestors living in Germany, otherwise the Jews and Roma both would have been considered German. Clearly there was something else attributed to them that didn't fit the definition of "German". It was that they weren't considere…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a huge proponent of this in the early days of the web and was leading the crusade for reader engagement, championing the idea of anonymous commentary and a pure marketplace of ideas. Well, it turns out I had an over-optimistic view of people.
What no one really wants to admit here on YC is that the userbase here is something like the top .01% of (intelligence / literacy / analytical skills). Hell, even reddit, as low-brow as that has gotten, is still top 1% easily. But there are still plenty of staggeringly oblivious views in both places. It's hard to admit that dichotomy, because when we realize that the top 1% or .01% can still be so ignorant, we also g…
In reality I doubt the average HN user is above the 75th percentile