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

The Data of Hate

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 115 posts

Re: The Data of Hate

#71

Post by henrymercer »

ninguem2 wrote: post #64
henrymercer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hateful milieu arises from the mixing of four ingredients: One part legitimate grievance. For instance, black on white crime is a huge problem that is not talked about and not addressed in mainstream discourse. In Philadelphia, a close friend of mine got mugged at gunpoint outside of her apartment. Two blocks away, recently, a twenty-something woman who could have been any of my friends, was mugged, shot, and kil…

Your "legitimate grievance" adds nothing to explain the main hatred of the site, which according to the article, is anti-semitism. It's hard to believe that "Jews run Hollywood" is enough to explain that. I guess you need to add the old myth that Jews run the economy or some such. But then, that doesn't work well with the article's claim that the hatred is not driven by economic hardship.

"Your "legitimate grievance" adds nothing to explain the main hatred of the site, which according to the article, is anti-semitism."

Um, well you can believe what Seth (the article's author) says, or, um, you can make a very quick trip to the Stormfront home page. Seems to me that maybe ~20% of the thread subjects relate to Jews. The other big two topics are black-on-white violence and immigration. It is in those two topics where I think there is a considerable amount of legitimate grievance.

"It's hard to believe that "Jews run Hollywood" is enough to explain that."

No it's not enough, that was just one of many examples of pattern matching.

Re: The Data of Hate

#72

Post by cookiecaper »

morgante wrote: post #55
jqm wrote: post #3

Why would anyone register for a site like this? Doesn't everyone know by now that putting your name on a list of white supremacists might not be a good move? I guess white supremacy and intelligence may be negatively correlated? Or maybe they just don't care. I sometimes picture a secret room at the FBI with poor clerks running around trying to avoid being buried under ever growing lists of suspicious people being sp…

> Doesn't everyone know by now that putting your name on a list of white supremacists might not be a good move? You're being downvoted unfairly. I think this is actually a very legitimate point. In fact, someone in this thread shared links to Stormfront and I refused to visit them out of fear that I'll end up on a list of white supremacists at the FBI.

Such lists would be meaningless if they contained anyone who wandered onto the site. I assume they'd have to be more discerning than that (for instance, logging people with an account, or even better, logging people that have an account and post supportive content).

Re: The Data of Hate

#73

Post by colanderman »

middleclick wrote: post #48
bhaumik wrote: post #19

Discussion around this article: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1051922/ Germany's win today: https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1052081/ "Yes. I like Argentina also because they're mostly white, and they sheltered the heroes of our race after the Zionist take-over of Europe. But I was for Germany all the way. I loved how they utterly crushed Brazil in their own house. I don't like that they have to have an African…

So much hate, wow. How do these people manage to live their lives with all this hate? I am guessing it would be very heavy?

That's not even just hate, that reads like someone desperate for acceptance. They touched on every hate-able aspect of the match they could. Pitiful.

Reminds me once of an article about how socially difficult it is to break out of hate groups; such that at some skinhead convention, and anti-hate group distributed white-nationalist T-shirts, which, upon washing, revealed a message offering help breaking away from the WN scene... and it actually saw results.

Re: The Data of Hate

#74

Post by colanderman »

cpa wrote: post #15
hawkharris wrote: post #11

Hate speech can be a good thing. When someone verbalizes hatred, he or she gives us a chance to push back and question underlying prejudices. This is always better than a heckler's veto of racist or sexist ideas. Drowning out the hurtful speech doesn't address the root causes of ignorance, fear and anger.

Although I think you're right, that is definitely not what's happening on Stormfront. There's nobody "pushing back", just racist people talking together.

I bet there's a handful of good trolls on the site too.

Re: The Data of Hate

#75

Post by sethsd »

henrymercer wrote: post #71
ninguem2 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "legitimate grievance" adds nothing to explain the main hatred of the site, which according to the article, is anti-semitism. It's hard to believe that "Jews run Hollywood" is enough to explain that. I guess you need to add the old myth that Jews run the economy or some such. But then, that doesn't work well with the article's claim that the hatred is not driven by economic hardship.

" Your "legitimate grievance" adds nothing to explain the main hatred of the site, which according to the article, is anti-semitism. " Um, well you can believe what Seth (the article's author) says, or, um, you can make a very quick trip to the Stormfront home page. Seems to me that maybe ~20% of the thread subjects relate to Jews. The other big two topics are black-on-white violence and immigration. It is in those t…

I said that the group most-mentioned in Stormfront member profiles is Jews and that things often come back to Jews. But this is not to say there are not many threads about black-on-white crime and immigration, which I mention right off the bat. Most of those threads tend to mention Jews, as well ... not saying that's the primary motivation of everyone or that it even matters which group is talked about the most. But I think everything I said will be clear to anybody who goes through the site.

Re: The Data of Hate

#76

Post by cookiecaper »

I've flagged this article because it's not really apropos to HN, but we'll never have a truly sympathetic or constructive discussion with others when we openly editorialize their beliefs as "bigotry" or "hatred". Even if they are wrong, framing the discussion in these terms just ensures that no constructive or beneficial dialogue can occur between the parties. Any time you see words like this used, especially in the abundance used in this article, you should understand that there are likely rhetorical and political forces at work intent on discounting the other side (i.e., this is the language of propaganda, not true journalism).

I do have a question in that vein, if anyone is still reading these comments. At what point does a group cross the rubicon such that it's an acceptable implementation of journalistic ethics to slap these kinds of labels on their fundamental beliefs and statements? Isn't journalism supposed to convey events and groups in a neutral context, without favoring one side or the other? I understand almost no organizations like that exist anymore, but hypothetically speaking, I guess. Where is the line of demarcation between a group that still deserves a fair airing of beliefs and the respect of journalistic ethics and a group that doesn't?

Newspapers obviously do not have an obligation to publish rants by any and every madman who comes along, but once they start to gather a significantly-sized following, isn't there a duty to archive and catalog the events in a neutral manner, for the accuracy of the historical record if nothing else? Isn't that what journalism is supposed to be about? I'm just curious how this works and is considered within the industry. I'll be honest, from a distance, it seems that the new journalistic ethics are "If it supports your boss's beliefs, run with it and make it positive; if it tears down your boss's opponents, run with it and make it as damning as possible".

Re: The Data of Hate

#77

Post by philwelch »

QuantumChaos wrote: post #41

Even though they take their views to ridiculous extremes, sites like Stormfront do have a valid critique of the hypocrisy of liberal American Jews. Exactly the same people and groups who claim that White people desiring to live among other White people is stupid and immoral, also believe that Israel being a Jewish nation is non-negotiable. Only the far-left (e.g. Norman Finkelstein and Chomsky in some moments) are co…

"White identity" is a historically incoherent concept advanced almost exclusively by neo-Nazis. "Whites" are descended from an entire continent of rival nations, all of whom historically hate each other.

A better analogy would be, I dunno, Croats? No one begrudges the Croats their national identity.

Re: The Data of Hate

#78

Post by henrymercer »

igravious wrote: post #68
henrymercer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Jews are to blame" aspect is NOT part of the 30% that is legitimate grievance. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8029096

Yeah, silly michaelochurch. It's black on white crime of course. (Well according to your comment.) Add to that faulty logic. Add to that the general degradation of morals and the kids of today, I tell you. --- Let's completely forget the centuries long history of white on black oppression that has led to the unequal socio-economic conditions between blacks and whites. I'd, you know, cut them some slack. --- You do re…

"Let's completely forget the centuries long history of white on black oppression that has led to the unequal socio-economic conditions between blacks and whites. I'd, you know, cut them some slack."

By saying "cut them some slack" you are implying that I am doing the opposite. IE, I you are implying that I am being too hard on black people. How is this case? I pointed out a legitimate problem - black-on-white crime. Is it not a problem that multiple friends and people like my friends (ie white or Asian) were assaulted or killed in nearby neighborhoods? Is it not a problem? Should I just be silent about these problems? What on earth does "cutting them some slack mean"? I'm not endorsing stormfronts views on the matter, I am just saying that the base of their hatred there are some real, legitimate problems.

"You do realise that every generation has claimed that the "youth of today" are nothing compared to how things were "back in the day". I mean, really?"

Yes, I realize that. It also true. Most of the people who ever complained about the decline of the youth, were in fact correct. That is how the rise and fall of civilizations works. Civilizations explode out of a small tribes of ultra-militant, ultra-fertile, ultra-patriarchal, utlra-disciplined people. See for instance, the Puritan settlers of America who had fertility rates of nearly 10 per woman, who conquered New England, begot 16 million descendants and established the American empire. Each generation was slightly more decadent than the previous. But the momentum from the starting culture was so great that there was a lot of expansion before the cultural decay becomes apparent, and the decline phase sets in. Eventually, the society becomes too decadent and corrupt, and a new hard-core tribe comes in and conquers. So the cycle goes. How many years before ISIS rules us all? Hopefully it won't be in my lifetime.

One side note - the decline is not uniform or all one-way. Within the broader trend there are ebbs and flows among subpopulations of being more or less vulgar, more or less decadent, etc. Vulgarity actually probably decreases for a while as the break-out tribe becomes more "civilized", and then starts to rise again as order declines. (I think the 1950's were probably an absolute minimum of vulgarity in the U.S.)

"I would jettison the rest if I were you."

Is that a threat?

Re: The Data of Hate

#79

Post by morgante »

QuantumChaos wrote: post #59
morgante wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> sites like Stormfront do have a valid critique of the hypocrisy of liberal American Jews. No, they don't. Don't legitimize their nonsense. Also, Israel is not meant to be solely Jewish. It's just majority Jewish, just like other nations are majority Christian/white. That's a security measure, not an expression that Jews are inherently superior to other races—most Jews I know (including Israelis) support the inclusi…

>No, they don't. Don't legitimize their nonsense. I share this critique, and I outlined it in my post, so I'm not legitimizing them, but rather outlining what things I think they are correct about. I simply do not believe that Israel as a Jewish state is a "security measure". Almost no one thinks of it in these terms, neither Israeli Jews or American Jews (Einstein did, but he was in a minority). Israeli's (and Ameri…

> Almost no one thinks of it in these terms, neither Israeli Jews or American Jews (Einstein did, but he was in a minority). Israeli's (and American Jews) typcially describe Israel is existing for the protection of Israel identity, religion and culture, not the physical protection of individual Jews.

I'm an American Jew who does. It's also not all that rare of a belief that having a country with a majority Jewish population is essential to the protection of the Jewish people. While people certainly talk about this argument less these days, it was one of the key justifications for the creation of Israel in the wake of the Holocaust (what you get as a small minority in every nation on Earth).

Re: The Data of Hate

#80

Post by morgante »

cookiecaper wrote: post #72
morgante wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't everyone know by now that putting your name on a list of white supremacists might not be a good move? You're being downvoted unfairly. I think this is actually a very legitimate point. In fact, someone in this thread shared links to Stormfront and I refused to visit them out of fear that I'll end up on a list of white supremacists at the FBI.

Such lists would be meaningless if they contained anyone who wandered onto the site. I assume they'd have to be more discerning than that (for instance, logging people with an account, or even better, logging people that have an account and post supportive content).

> Such lists would be meaningless if they contained anyone who wandered onto the site.

Unfortunately I have no faith in the ability of the government to be discerning in the people it targets as subversive or dangerous. See the terrorist watchlist with over a million names on it.

Post reply on HN