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

Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 530 posts

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#261

Post by quonn »

nailer wrote: post #171
TillE wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a little odd, since 99% of the time it's really just a euphemism for a particular kind of neo-nazi.

Really? The alt-right side don't support immigration and like their own culture - which is a very common thing across the world, particularly amongst the working class. neo nazis specifically advocate violence. I generally vote for the Labour party, but that doesn't mean I and my fellow Labour voters (Corbyn aside) support Mao/Chavez/PolPot-style murdering of our enemies.

First of all, mixing Chavez in with Mao and Pol Pot is ridiculous. Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp.

I'm not even sure if Mao should be directly compared to Pol Pot. Probably not.

Second, the Labour party has been social democratic for at least 30 years. It cannot be compared to communist parties at all.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#262

Post by StavrosK »

kemayo wrote: post #131
commenting wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Black Lives Matter means Black Lives Matter as well . The All Lives Matter movement, as a reaction to BLM, is essentially saying that they don't, and that the racial struggles of American Blacks are irrelevant. That is the reason why All Lives Matter is considered abusive.

My preferred analogy to use here is that saying "it's not just black lives that matter, all lives matter" is like going to your fire department and saying "it's not just houses on fire that matter, all houses matter". Yes, of course, they do. But some houses need immediate attention because they're in danger.

Then it's a failure in marketing, as the fire deparment doesn't market itself as "department for throwing water at houses". Maybe BLM should be more clear about its goals?

I'm not really up-to-speed with US politics, but I know it's horrifying how easily and with impunity the police have been killing black people. Still, "Black lives matter" isn't a great slogan, and calling "all lives matter" racist definitely seems like an overreaction. I'm not familiar with ALM's positions, though, so maybe it's a racist organization in disguise, I don't know.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#263

Post by nailer »

quonn wrote: post #261
nailer wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? The alt-right side don't support immigration and like their own culture - which is a very common thing across the world, particularly amongst the working class. neo nazis specifically advocate violence. I generally vote for the Labour party, but that doesn't mean I and my fellow Labour voters (Corbyn aside) support Mao/Chavez/PolPot-style murdering of our enemies.

First of all, mixing Chavez in with Mao and Pol Pot is ridiculous. Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp. I'm not even sure if Mao should be directly compared to Pol Pot. Probably not. Second, the Labour party has been social democratic for at least 30 years. It cannot be compared…

Chavez tortured most of his opponents. No killing fields, or year 0, but advocating and using violence for political purposes is clearly a connection. Obviously, Momentum aside, Labour is against such ideas, that was precisely my point.

Edit: you edited your post to add:

> "Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp."

...after I added multiple sources showing Chavez using torture and other forms violence. Nobody claims Chavez was as violent as the others - in fact, I specifically claimed the opposite in my reply before you edited your post. Merely that he used violence including torture.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#264

Post by throwaway-hn123 »

throwanem wrote: post #255
throwaway-hn123 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you would deny marriage rights to a heterosexual couple who are infertile and unable to have children?

No, I would hesitate to extend marriage rights to an entire class of people, of all of whom the same is true.

Why extend marriage rights to the class of people who are infertile? I don't get why you're giving that class of people special privileges.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#265

Post by speeder »

EJTH wrote: post #213

So freedom of speech is now only for religious extremists like ISIS, Al-Nusra etc. whos supporters are free to express themselves on twitter. The more the establishement tries to fight the alt-right, the more free (and valid?) publicity it recieves. I didn't really believe in the so called "anti-white" agenda, but the more I see these guys getting censored for simply expressing their (somewhat legitimate) concerns an…

If you want to see anti-white agenda, pay attention to instances of GamerGate interacting with politics...

First, Hillary campaign and pro-Hillary journalists keep lumping GG with altright and Trump, ignoringt surveys that show that most GG people are more in the Bernie camp instead.

This basically forced GG into politics, and then you got outright anti-white racism on the mix... for example one of the biggest opponents of GG is Bioware, they even made a tweet comparing trump to Reapers (mass effect antagonists, they are a species of racist robots that use mass brainwashing as basic weapon), but the same people in Bioware made blatant racist tweets, for example tweeting photo of a cup with words about white tears, making a feminist conference and writing in one of the slides that white women are against the cause and should be ignored, defending hiring decisions based on race (ie: hire everyone that ins't white) and so on.

GG also had spats with a guy that literally wrote that he wanted white people dead, twitter banned his critics instead.

Or the infamous Leslie Jones vs Milo incident, GG people dug up lots of racist tweets from Leslie, and then tried to defend Milo, and were banned instead. someone then copied Leslie tweets, made a new account, and tweeted the same tweets but changing whites for other races, and got insta banned.

GG also has lots of devs, that of course noticed GitHub controversies, including that GitHub refused to fix their official code of conduct that explicitly writes that anti-racism protections don't apply to whites.

GitHub also hired people that were already infamous on Tweeter for making explicitly anti-white racist tweets.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#266

Post by matt4077 »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #150
prewett wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end, its just bad tactics right now. I didn't notice this until after I got back to the US after some time in an authoritarian country, and I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side, a fee…

>I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressive…

That's a bit of a caricature. You're fighting some imagined liberals that you can possibly find on tumblr, not out there in the real world.

There are really not that many fighting on the internet about who said what about who's sexual identity.

Liberals care about someone who has to work 12 hours a day for minimum wage, has no meaningful time with their children, has to go to work even when sick or risk being fired, is possibly just a broken bone away from homelessness, and is preyed on by the financial industry with fraudulent credits etc. Oh – and when they get home, there's Mit Romney on FOX saying poor people are lazy.

As a liberal I know that these people may have made poor choices. Where's the father? Shoulda finished school! Why do you need a cell phone? I just don't care. I see the willingness to spend money on anything /but/ the basic needs of people: the military, tax cuts to levels last seen in the 1920, etc. Indeed, conservatives seem to enjoy the suffering of others to such a degree that they're willing to spend more on people when they get to throw them in jail, with a bonus if it's a 20-year wait for the electric chair.

There are all sorts of questions about incentivizing people, motivating them and punishing them at the core of all this. The problem is that these questions are discussed only in terms of morality, not practicality. Every single industrialized country can serve as a laboratory, and time and again we see policies that improve lives.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#267

Post by badthingfactory »

Does anyone have screenshots or examples of hate speech from these accounts? I would like to make an informed decision about whether I should continue using Twitter. I use Twitter every day, but if they're banning accounts because they don't agree with certain views, I am absolutely closing my account.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#268

Post by quonn »

nailer wrote: post #263
quonn wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First of all, mixing Chavez in with Mao and Pol Pot is ridiculous. Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp. I'm not even sure if Mao should be directly compared to Pol Pot. Probably not. Second, the Labour party has been social democratic for at least 30 years. It cannot be compared…

Chavez tortured most of his opponents. No killing fields, or year 0, but advocating and using violence for political purposes is clearly a connection. Obviously, Momentum aside, Labour is against such ideas, that was precisely my point. Edit: you edited your post to add: > "Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of C…

Please post sources for your claims.

edit: I did not edit my post after you provided any sources! From the start it contained "Pol Pot is responsible for killing 1.6 million people. He ran labor camps, etc. Please name how many people were killed on purpose on orders of Chavez. Please name a labor camp."

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#269

Post by matt4077 »

throwanem wrote: post #199
alistproducer2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressive…

> Gay people getting married deprives no one of anything. There's an opportunity cost. I expanded on that a few days ago, and rather than rehearse it again, I'll link the answer I gave to "What do anti-gay-marriage people gain?": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12933668

Seriously, you've lost that fight so hard – gay rights is the one thing where even Donald Trump thinks your time has passed.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#270

Post by moon_priestess »

alistproducer2 wrote: post #150
prewett wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if you intended this meaning, but it sounds like you see (your) liberal view as the ultimately right one which will inevitably triumph in the end, its just bad tactics right now. I didn't notice this until after I got back to the US after some time in an authoritarian country, and I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness of being unwilling to consider the merits of the other side, a fee…

>I noticed that liberals had this similar authoritarianness IMO this is what distinguishes a traditional liberal from a a progressive. For me, a liberal is basically libertarian with a belief the state can be used to ensure the rights of citizens are administered evenly. IMO, if someone's actions aren't depriving another of life or liberty, the state doesn't have much standing in regulating that activity. Progressive…

> For example, the trans bathroom thing. I legitimately see both sides on that.

How? Requiring trans people carry papers just so they can use the restroom doesn't strike you as just as little bit terrible? Trans people already use whichever bathroom they feel more safe and comfortable in: All these bathroom laws do is make life harder for members of what is already a very marginalized group. There's literally no positive aspect to them whatsoever.

Post reply on HN