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

They Thought They Were Free (1955)

press.uchicago.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 545 posts

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#221

Post by tbrownaw »

estearum wrote: post #210
tbrownaw wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Due to high turnout, polling stations are expected to be overloaded and the party I don't like should vote the day after election day" is a fairly standard joke. What he's described as posting isn't that different.

A jury felt differently. I suspect the reason you didn’t just describe what he actually did is because you know that it’s different. No need to analogize, we can talk about the specific facts of this case.

You suspect wrong. I did not see an actual screenshot or direct quote of his post, and don't like relying on other people's descriptions of what people they don't like said.

What's described is "the party I don't like should vote by text message", which as I said is fundamentally the same as that long-standing known joke.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#222

Post by metamet »

ezekiel68 wrote: post #143
thfuran wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They would say for example that Kimmel was simply deplatformed because he also spread misinformation. Okay, but they would be either misinformed or lying.

They would not. I love Kimmel, but it turns out the story of the gunman is now much more layered and nuanced than "the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them..." In Kimmel's defense, this was a developing story at the time, but it is not untrue, in hindsignt, that Kimmel spread misinformation.

Nothing Kimmel said in the quote you provided is untrue. His statement is about their actions in response to the event, not anything to do with the actual sentiment of the shooter.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#223

Post by wyldfire »

ethical_source wrote: post #137
wyldfire wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have the first amendment and are still free to a degree you are not and will never be. I'm not so sure about that. "It's no longer free speech [when someone criticizes the president]." [1] This seems like it's remarkably in line with "they thought they were free" because here you are, thinking you're free. But in fact, your speech is not free because all three branches failed to protect you from this and have no…

You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". The government threatened to revoke a broadcast license , a right to use a limited resource for the public good. Broadcast licenses come with rules to ensure the limited resource is used for public benefit: for example, you're not allowed to broadcast profanity over the air despite profanity in general being protected speech. Nobody is denying anyone's ability to…

Because HN says I should take you seriously, I will take you seriously. I think you are uninformed. Of course, we're all aware of the limitations of over-the-air broadcasts and why there are limitations there.

> Nobody is denying anyone's ability to communicate over privately owned channels.

There's several dimensions to this that I think you are lumping in to the simplest possible explanation, because you're uninformed.

* Trump himself said "When 97 percent of the stories are bad about a person, it’s no longer free speech." [1]. This signals his abandonment of his oath of office, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The first amendment doesn't apply anymore when the president decides he will use the power of the presidency to retaliate against and prevent speech he does not like.

* Nexstar Media Group is attempting to acquire Tegna Inc, this merger is pending FCC approval. Look no further than the Paramount/Skydance merger - an ombudsman being installed to review content.

These actions chill free speech [2].

> You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally".

Trump means what he says. He repeatedly backs up his words with actions that reinforce them. You have to take Trump literally, if you fail to do so, you do it at your own peril.

[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/19/trump-no-longer-fre...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#224

Post by skybrian »

robwwilliams wrote: post #215
throwawaymaths wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Universities will not be safe from government meddling until they comprehensively stop taking money from the government first . Until such a point, they run the real risk of censorship and becoming the agents of the very thing that they are warning about.

Worth drawing a distinction between governmental support for science and for the humanities. The first does a lot of relative low mark-up contract work requested by governmental agencies. Governments and all of us would like to see cancer and Alzheimer disease cured. The request for “bids” (aka grant applications) from NIH, DoD (now DoW) and NSF is what has greatly expanded research-focused universities and msde the…

It’s my understanding that the humanities doesn’t get much in government grants to begin with, but when the sciences have a finance problem, they cut the humanities for some reason.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#225

Post by Hikikomori »

nroets wrote: post #175
Schnitz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US constitution is outdated and vulnerable. Modern constitutions like Germany’s basic law are a lot more resilient. We are watching the US constitution fail right now, it didn’t even take smart men to start dismantling it. I hope I’ll be proven wrong, but what indications do you see right now that the US constitution is performing as intended?

1. When Trump lost to Biden, many Republicans including Mike Pence certified Biden's win as prescribed by the constitution. 2. Trump knows the military will not participate in a coup. 3. Trump will not run for a third term. If he does, he will loose because Americans knows it's unconstitutional. So Americans know that all the dirty laundry will come out when the next president takes office.

1. There's barely any normal republicans left, its all MAGA now that would hang Pence like they wanted to in 2021.

2. Likely true, but they don't really need the military as ICE which now employs all the armed racists they need, like Jan 6 people.

3. He's floating the idea, even talking about not having elections if they're in a war like Ukraine, even though its not in the constitution. Either way they're going all in on rigging elections so Vance will take over.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#226

Post by ajross »

microtonal wrote: post #201
bix6 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whereas the Nazi Germany analogy ends with near-inevitable wave function collapse into "start shooting Nazis" Does it? I haven’t thought about shooting anyone. I would like to see more widespread awareness, protesting, and a general strike.

This. If you read Reddit, a whole lot of comments go from Nazi parallels (which is partly justified, but as another comment points out there are also a lot of parallels with Orban's Hungary, Erdogan's Turkey, Putin's Russia, etc.) to 'Luigi'. There are so many non-violent approaches that would be effective. First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike, p…

> First, there is the 3.5% rule [1]. Second, if 10%-20% of the general population would go on a general strike

FWIW, when the best case recommendations for a restoration of civil order and the rule of law involve very large scale society-wide civil disobedience...

...then maybe the comparison to Nazi Germany and authoritative dictatorships more generally are perhaps not as far afield as you're implying. Like, once your thinking goes beyond "just win the next election" things are kinda over as far as "democracy" goes.

(And FWIW I don't necessarily disagree: the existing regime's leadership, not just the White House, seem extremely unlikely to just walk out the door if they lose an election. It was tried four years ago and failed, the resulting loyalty tests have produced a very different cabinet this time.)

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#227

Post by JackFr »

nroets wrote: post #175
Schnitz wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US constitution is outdated and vulnerable. Modern constitutions like Germany’s basic law are a lot more resilient. We are watching the US constitution fail right now, it didn’t even take smart men to start dismantling it. I hope I’ll be proven wrong, but what indications do you see right now that the US constitution is performing as intended?

1. When Trump lost to Biden, many Republicans including Mike Pence certified Biden's win as prescribed by the constitution. 2. Trump knows the military will not participate in a coup. 3. Trump will not run for a third term. If he does, he will loose because Americans knows it's unconstitutional. So Americans know that all the dirty laundry will come out when the next president takes office.

The problem is norms are being destroyed.

It’s not all new with Trump (governing by executive order, ignoring duly enacted laws, strong arming media companies, etc.). But while earlier administrations might have done those things on the margins, Trump takes them to 11 (in the spirit of the new Spinal Tap) and makes them the central and primary means of administration.

With the norms destroyed, we potentially lose our nation of laws, and become a plutocracy with different juntas every few years.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#228

Post by jjgreen »

BDPW wrote: post #163
ethical_source wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to take Trump "seriously but not literally". The government threatened to revoke a broadcast license , a right to use a limited resource for the public good. Broadcast licenses come with rules to ensure the limited resource is used for public benefit: for example, you're not allowed to broadcast profanity over the air despite profanity in general being protected speech. Nobody is denying anyone's ability to…

>In most of Europe, and in the UK, you can't express certain ideas. This is total BS. In many European countries (the ones I know personally) this is not at all the case.

Try holding a piece of paper on which is written "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action" in London.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#229

Post by Hikikomori »

thomassmith65 wrote: post #52
FridayoLeary wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are clearly very many countries that tick most of those boxes. Including some that i wouldn't necessarily define as fascist. Prominent examples are China, Russia, Iran North Korea and other middle eastern countries. I'm not saying this list is incorrect, per se, but it is vague to the point of uselessness.

1930s fascism can never occur again. It was a product of its time. But the psychology behind fascism stems from deep human quirks and is something eternal. All those nations, except perhaps China, share the DNA. If we didn't already have names for their systems, we probably would describe them as fascistic. What Trump has turned the American government into is closer to Fascism than to Liberal Democracy, no? In futur…

That's the nature of fascism, it molds itself to fit different societies. German fascism would never have worked in America, American fascism is draped in the flag and holds the cross.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#230

Post by bad_haircut72 »

ethical_source wrote: post #113
nerdponx wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of reason is actually becoming more frequently used to justify things. For years, the right wing propaganda machine has been establishing the concept that conservatism and America as a whole is besieged by authoritarian leftists and their smug out-of-outch enablers the liberals. THEY are the authoritarians and they are seeking to destroy America. WE are its defenders, and in the face of existential threat,…

Are you just going to ignore the 2016-2024 state-directed viewpoint censorship on social media?

Now we have 2025-? stare censored social media. Of all the hypocrisies, people screaming "but what about THEM" while ignoring what people in power NOW are doing is the most insufferable
Post reply on HN