Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#291

Post by V-2 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

alistproducer2 wrote: post #113

leereeves wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the left seriously damaged their ability to fight racist ideas when they abandoned the idea of equality. Now, the left calls colorblindness and "all lives matter" racist. (Remember when Martin O'Malley was destroyed for saying that?) They create advantageous standards based on race, and even exclusive positions for non-white applicants. (For example, at the BBC.) And I too doubt they would object to "dedi…

HN is a bad place to discuss this sort of stuff because you're always risking karma, but here goes. As a liberal, I will say that liberals drastically overplayed their hand the last 8 years. Many of us have been saying for a while that the language, tenor, and actions of recent liberal movements was ultimately counter productive. I understand and share the demand to be treated decently and equally, but admittedly thi…

This article sums it up perfectly: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberali...

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#292

Post by aminorex » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #190

rm999 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I would. 60+ million people voting for a man as odious and unprepared as Donald Trump says a whole lot to me. Let me rephrase: you are extrapolating the wrong thing when you say the "liberals drastically overplayed their hand" and then use this election as evidence. Obama almost certainly would have annihilated Trump (his support in rural swing states is much stronger than Hillary's), and he's more liberal than Hill…

Hillary's problem is that she's just not likable, in the sense that people are not going to get excited to vote for Hillary. Obama got people excited. He had a message he got out to people and they responded in a huge way. I'm really not sure what Hillary's was. Trump got a different set excited. Sure some are deplorable. A lot are just republicans. A lot are people who just want their lives to be as good as they use…

Hilary's problem was that she was a warmonger allied with the banks.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#293

Post by jimmywanger » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #266

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…

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,…

>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.

Ridiculous. I can't tell you how many times I've heard those sentiments expressed when they're tapping away on their iPhones. Liberals care about whatever they currently feel the most strongly about. And they see no issues with using the fruits of Chinese laborers working in slave-like conditions while simultaneously agitating for the increase of minimum wages.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#294

Post by throwanem » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:33 PM UTC

bbctol wrote: post #287

throwanem wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you would ban post-menopausal women from getting married. Understood.

Again: no. I'm not sure what value you find in attempting to mischaracterize my argument by assuming results which do not follow from anything I have actually said.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#295

Post by Cakez0r » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:34 PM UTC

danudey wrote: post #158

autognosis wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're all crap labels. They contain no knowledge. What confused people call "liberals" aren't so about firearms and markets. "Liberal" is from the latin word for "freedom". SJWs are not liberal. They don't want free speech. CA is not a liberal state by looking at its taxes and firearms laws. These are authoritarian ideas. Rectification of names... Labels and Knowledge are totally independent things.

Freedom can include the freedom from harasment, which is a curtailing of speech. That's a liberal idea. The other alternative is 'let people say anything they want and they can just learn to deal with it', which doesn't work with e.g. death threats, harassment, etc. That's why one freedom might be more important than another. People who claim it's a negative are usually upset that they can't attack, belittle, or hara…

> Freedom can include the freedom from harasment

I would argue that it can't. Freedom is the freedom to do things. "Freedom from x" is just another way of saying "you're not allowed to do x".

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#296

Post by StavrosK » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:35 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #271

StavrosK wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I replied to your linked comment, you're conflating the arguments. If you believe that marriage should be allowed if and only if a couple bears/adopts a child, then make parenthood a prerequsite for marriage, there's no point in instituting complex heuristics to try to guess whether a couple wants kids or not beforehand.

If that were the argument I was making, you'd have a point. But it's not, although I can see how it would be misgathered as such. The essential difference I see isn't one of individual probability of parenthood, but of aggregate. Not all heterosexual couples rear children, true. But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple. Tha…

> But the likelihood of a randomly selected example rearing children is vastly higher than that for a randomly selected homosexual couple.

Okay, but why guess? We already register children and parents, so only issue marriage licenses when a couple has a child. That takes the guessing out of it.

> but to do so in practice not only massively increases the bureaucracy and cost involved and brings in creepy edge cases, but requires a panopticon state in order to work.

I don't see how, the state already knows who a child's parents are.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#297

Post by aminorex » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:36 PM UTC

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #236

leereeves wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before there was an All Lives Matter movement, there was one candidate who said: "Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter." Whatever may have happened after, there was little justification to destroy that candidate for saying this.

Nobody liked Martin O'Malley even before he said that.

I may not have liked him, but I thought he was a more viable candidate than Clinton or Sanders. Certainly less intrinsically offensive than Clinton, who was a truly awful candidate.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#298

Post by tanderson92 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

throwanem wrote: post #277

throwaway-hn123 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm looking to find a balance between the interests of the state and those of its individual citizens. In a heterogeneous society, which all societies to some extent are, this is a complex question. To oversimplify it benefits no one. And do you really want to equate homosexuality and infertility, which for all intents and purposes is a medical disorder? Is that where you want this conversation to go? It's not where…

I don't believe the intent was to call your sexuality a disorder, it was to demonstrate the dangers of applying rights by class instead of universally.

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#299

Post by aminorex » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

serge2k wrote: post #183

xaa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. The first thing I thought upon reading this was: would Twitter ban an account with the following description: "dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of people of African descent in the United States, and around the world." Undoubtedly not. The only difference, of course, is s/African/European/g. I'm a liberal, but I feel that if this election has taught us anything, it should be that suppression of "…

> The only difference, of course, is s/African/European/g. In a literal sense, but the latter is a pretty good example of a white nationalist dog whistle. > I feel that if this election has taught us anything, it should be that suppression of "undesirable" views only makes them stronger That's your takeaway? Not that having a presidential candidate on TV giving his implicit approval to these ideas makes them stronger…

> the latter is a pretty good example of a white nationalist dog whistle.

To quote Ray Davies: "Paranoia - brain destroyer."

To parody "The Sixth Sense": "I hear dog whistles."

Re: Twitter Suspends Prominent Alt-Right Accounts

#300

Post by throwanem » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #282

throwanem wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it perpetuates the state's existence.

You don't need state intervention to encourage people to reproduce. I am sure that groups that believe in waiting until marriage to have sex would acknowledge church marriages as they always did. Cynically you could argue that the state benefits far more from dysfunctional families who are more likely to become dependant. I would rather the government spend money on sex education and contraception for teens than supp…

Indeed you don't, but there's a lot the state can do to encourage and facilitate children being reared in stable families which can prepare them for an adult life which is a net benefit to their society.

Your cynical argument has value as well. The trouble is that the only even temporarily stable state thus produced is a single-party state, and you can't really kick everyone off the dole once you've finished using it to get where you want to go. It's an ongoing cost whose magnitude is only ever likely to grow over time, and the probable economic result is frightening.