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

Gab.com’s Response to Congress

news.gab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 254 posts

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#241

Post by TMWNN »

1634347773432 wrote: post #238
slumdev wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More deflection. Using language to dehumanize people who disagree with you is immature and demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the left.

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Every single scientific study done on immigration shows that immigration benefits the host country, or maybe, to quote Tucker Carlson, it turns out that immigration doesn't really make our country "poorer and di…

>"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

First, Emma Lazarus's bad poetry was added to the base of the Statue of Liberty 20 years after the statue itself, as a fundraising effort.

Second, bad poetry does not policy nor law make.

Third, as slumdev's mysteriously crossed-out comment accurately states, in any case, every single person who came through Ellis Island

* was a legal immigrant

* had passed a medical inspection

* had proof of having enough resources to pay for their upkeep in the US, or a US financial sponsor guaranteeing same

* was turned away if failing any of the above tests, with no possibility of appeal

I, for one, am very much in favor of reinstating such barriers to entering the US.

PS - One more thing: Every single person who came through Ellis Island was coming to a country with an enormous demand for unskilled labor. This is no longer true.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#242

Post by ohgodplsno »

gruez wrote: post #235
ohgodplsno wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's self defense. Especially not when the actual nazis are the ones committing acts of terrorism in your very own country.

1. someone holding up a racist sign at a protest doesn't mean they're going to go around committing violence against minorities. You're going to have a hard time convincing a judge that falls under "self defense". 2. You'd be fine if republicans commit "self defense" by punching ANTIFA and BLM activists, right?

lmao are you both sides-ing literal Nazis with BLM and antifas? (No, not ANTIFA. anarchists do not make organisations like that. We do like our meetings though). You're not even arguing in good faith, go dogwhistle somewhere else.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#243

Post by kypro »

happytoexplain wrote: post #107
kypro wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I also hate it when people have differing opinions to myself. Someone should really do something about this.

Should nobody face criticism? The parent didn't imply the user should be banned. The "you hate people for having a different opinion than you" accusation seems to be disproportionately levied against left-ish or anti-Trump sentiment, but pro-Trump sentiment is disproportionately in the flavor of "hating you for having a different opinion", in my opinion.

> Should nobody face criticism? The parent didn't imply the user should be banned.

Reading it again, I think you're right -- I should have been more charitable.

That said, I guess I didn't see the point the parent was trying to make. You see this kind of outrage stuff on Twitter and Reddit a lot as a reason to dismiss or ban someone. For example, if you express the wrong opinion on trans issues you're not allowed to express an opinion on anything Twitter.

I also agree it's something disproportionately levied against those with left-ish views, but I'd argue that's because this is a tactic used primarily by the left. I do also agree that the pro-Trump cohort often hates people with different opinions. I don't think either is good, but one side seems to be more likely to take their "hate" further and use it as a reason to censor.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#244

Post by Veen »

UncleMeat wrote: post #220
commandlinefan wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I can guarantee freedom of speech. I cannot guarantee freedom after speech" -- Idi Amin (the murderous dictator)

Watch how swiftly the alt right retreats on their support for free speech should they ever dominate politics.

About as quickly as progressives retreated from it once they had the power to get people they disagree with fired.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#245

Post by ladyattis »

1MachineElf wrote: post #225
ladyattis wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe Gab and other alt-righters really are being honest about the issue. They're only raising alarm because they're a small segment of society that doesn't get along with the rest of us so they don't have many or any lifelines to call on. For the rest of us, it's just a Tuesday, we've been acclimated to the sad reality that the State can and will infringe on rights whenever it sees fit to do so. This doesn…

>This doesn't justify what the Congressional committees are doing but that the alt-right in general would be completely fine with having Congress sending out subpoenas to Food not Bombs or the IWW because they're looney leftists or some other spiel. Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want?

>Imagine all of the people who have been arbitrarily labelled as "alt-right" in social and traditional media. Do you actually think this is what they generally want?

Many of them self identify as alt-right. It's largely a self-selected identity. They're often proud of the term too. I have yet to see someone mislabeled alt-right when they're a vanilla conservative. Alt-right really is the far right of old but with Gen Z aesthetics.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#246

Post by orange_puff »

I wonder if a social media site marketed as a "free speech" platform will become something center left and right people actually use rather than a haven for psychotic racists. I do not think Gab should be shut down or anything, but just take a look at the average post there.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#247

Post by coldacid »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #236
coldacid wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you forgot the sarcasm tag at the end there.

Do you think I was downvoted more by people who disagree with my actual sentiment, or people who couldn’t see I was being sarcastic?

It's probably 50/50.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#248

Post by jcranmer »

kthejoker2 wrote: post #240
jcranmer wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... how do you distinguish between a platform and a publisher?

A notice board in town square is a platform; no endorsement by anyone is presumed by content posted there. A billboard is a publisher; the content there is clearly governed. So the criteria seems simple: * is content freely posted? What is the approval process for content? * if content is freely posted, are the rules for removing content uniformly applied and viewpoint neutral? * what mechanisms exist for appeal, pro…

So Reddit's a publisher (because most of the subreddits have various on-topic rules for posting) and my newspaper's a platform (because their rules for posting comments are what's prohibited).

One of the problems with trying to use an actor's own policy to distinguish between platforms and publishers is that the goal of creating such a distinction in the first place is to restrict the ability of the actor to undertake certain policies.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#249

Post by UncleMeat »

Veen wrote: post #244
UncleMeat wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch how swiftly the alt right retreats on their support for free speech should they ever dominate politics.

About as quickly as progressives retreated from it once they had the power to get people they disagree with fired.

Progressives aren't the ones using free speech as the core argument for their policies.

Re: Gab.com’s Response to Congress

#250

Post by Veen »

UncleMeat wrote: post #249
Veen wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About as quickly as progressives retreated from it once they had the power to get people they disagree with fired.

Progressives aren't the ones using free speech as the core argument for their policies.

Free speech was a core component of progressive ideology until fairly recently, which is the point I was making. Of course they aren't so insistent on it now it's become inconvenient.
Post reply on HN