Live data from Hacker News

Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

bbc.co.uk

351–360 of 398 posts

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#351
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The far-right is trying to be "counterculture", in an effort to make hate speech "cool". The people lobbying for the removal of the hate speech and its enablers are far more mainstream than "extreme left". People who are victims of hate speech don't have to be extreme anything to prefer that sites choose not to enable harassment. I'm not even sure who counts as "extreme left" any more, there are very few people tryin…

I'm not sure about "extreme left" as a movement but there are definitely positions I'd attribute to the "extreme left". Universal Basic Income. Replacing the police force with a comparably sized and empowered army of social workers and therapists. Outlawing fossil fuels. Banning GMO.

> Universal Basic Income

Seriously considered and nearly implemented by famous leftist Richard M. Nixon: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/richard-nixon-ubi-basic-i...

> Outlawing fossil fuels.

A fossil fuel phase out eventually is a requirement, both to deal with depletion and global warming. It's just the schedule that's reasonable to argue over. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/08/g7-leaders-agr...

> Banning GMO.

Mainstream position in the EU: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28283-more-than-half-...

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social change. Please do not argue for this position based on "feelings"... In my own country, most social change was the result of war, credible threats of violence and technological progress. Natuarally, I "feel" the opposite. Since we're discussing the US, I'd wager that's probably true there too: white culture became dominant over Native America cu…

I'm not at all comfortable talking about 18th and 19th century social issues through a 21st century lens. It's not going to be productive at all. Slavery ended in the Northern US states without any war. It's an oversimplification to say the US Civil War ended slavery--it ended the southern plantation culture that supported slavery, but that's about all it did and the effects lingered until at least the early 1960s! H…

Where am I looking at this through a 21st century lens?

I'm just saying that in all of these cases, the strong won and imposed their will on the weak, thus suppressing their ideas and culture... Love doesn't seem to have been very important in any of this.

I don't understand your criticism, sorry.

> Had there been no war, the abolitionist argument probably would have eventually won out and social change may have been more rapid.

Maybe, I'm not comfortable speculating about such things. I don't know nearly enough to even start :)

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#353
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private individual getting paid is not so private anymore. Especially once "protected classes" are brought in. Either go all in and allow anybody to refuse service to anybody or make everybody serve everybody. I don't see middle ground in there. It'd always result in he-said, she-said. Point in case - people bringing up the gay cake in mentioning of google memogate. Is a bus company right to refuse service to protest…

There’s ways to convolute any of those scenarios, but let me just explain why I think there are notable differences: 1. Protected classes are defined by a history of prejudicial treatment and blocked access to essential services, and they exist as a class of people defined by biological markers. So you can control being black or being gay, and you can’t access any bus service or use the same water fountain anywhere.…

"Protected classes" as currently defined is an insult to freedom of speech. Once "protected classes" collide, we got oppression olympics.

Christians have enough of hard time for their believes in quite a few places. Why are they less protected than gays? Why is their freedom of speech is worth less than gays?

One could argue that gay cake is not biologically defined marker. For example, by christian believe, marriage is to make babies. Gays can't make babies. Thus gay marriage is not biologically even possible.

Then we step into another issue. Frequently "protected class" is taken as free pass to do anything rather than being protected for their specific attribute. For example, people being called racists for rightfully calling out black person for his bad behaviour.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Racism? Ok nobody's really going to bat an eye at that disappearing. Violence and hatred though? You've got this all backwards. We should be most concerned about censorship of political beliefs, however wrongheaded they are.

How can you call racism a political belief?

No, but it's closely upstream of certain political beliefs and the Left has attacked our ability to talk sensibly about these issues by conflating the two.

I assume that you will agree that racism has two common definitions[1]:

1. a belief about facts: that there are distinct human subspecies that differ biologically from each other in various ways 2. a description of behaviour: favouring one human subspecies over another in certain matters

An example of the first kind would be the observation that Kenyans, particularly from the Nandi subtribe of the Kalenjin tribe seem to outperform every other ethnic group on distance-running, and the hypothesis that "favorable somatotype" (i.e. an innate biological characteristic of this group) may be contributing to this.

An example of the second kind would be the factual observation that (at least in the US), increased ethnic neighbourhood diversity is correlated with decreased with lower trust in others and lower neighbourhood social cohesion[4]. Another example would be the theoretical observation (based on agent-based modeling) that diversity and a sense of community are incompatible community properties[5].

Now the point I want to make is that while racism as defined above (either a statement of fact, or a description of human racial preferences) is not in itself a political belief, it can very certainly form, contribute to, or be the basis of certain political beliefs.

As I hinted at with the start of this comment, I think your statement is a symptom of broader confusion on the Left about racism caused by lack of clear definitions and eagerness to overuse "racist" as a slur and as a catch-all for people or ideas they don't agree with[9]. Here's a list of mistakes that many on the Left make and that combine to make it really hard to address these issues clearly and without hysteria. Hopefully it will help clear up some confusion and provide opportunity for some exchange of thoughts:

1. Conflating the two definitions given here. For example, by assuming that those who think there are biological differences between certain human subspecies (first definition) also think discrimination based on these group characteristics (second definition) is okay.

2. Conflating beliefs about biological differences (first definition) between human subspecies with beliefs about the supremacy or inferiority of certain human subspecies. That's why the terms "racism" and "white supremacy" are often seen to be used almost interchangeably.

3. Conflating favouring one human subspecies over another (second defition) with the supremacy of one's own subspecies. For example, Enoch Powell opposed mass immigration to Britain, but also regarded "many of the peoples of India as being superior in many respects [...] to Europeans."[6]

4. Believing that whoever opposes or is skeptical about multiracial/multiethnic societies is doing so on racist grounds (as defined above, so either because he believes certain human subspecies are less well adapted to life in some society, or because he believes people have a natural preference for more or less monoethnic societies and that it therefore makes pragmatic political sense to favour monoethic societies). For example, someone may oppose it because he values and wishes to maintain human racial diversity and believes (not unreasonably so[8]) that multiethnic societies are eroding racial diversity.

5. Believing that opposition to multiculturalism is racist. This is self-explanatory and should be obvious regardless of whether you oppose or support multicultural or multiethnic societies.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/racism

[2] Tucker, Ross, Vincent O. Onywera, and Jordan Santos-Concejero. “Analysis of the Kenyan Distance-Running Phenomenon.” International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 10, no. 3 (April 1, 2015): 285–91. doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0247.

[3] Larsen, Henrik B. “Kenyan Dominance in Distance Running.” Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology 136, no. 1 (September 2003): 161–70. doi:10.1016/S1095-6433(03)00227-7.

[4] Putnam, Robert D. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30, no. 2 (2007): 137–174.

[5] Neal, Zachary P., and Jennifer Watling Neal. “The (In)Compatibility of Diversity and Sense of Community.” American Journal of Community Psychology 53, no. 1–2 (November 6, 2013): 1–12. doi:10.1007/s10464-013-9608-0.

[6] "What I would take 'racialist' to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is 'no'—unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects—intellectually, for example, and in other respects—to Europeans."[7]

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_Blood_speech#Politic...

[8] https://mic.com/articles/87359/national-geographic-determine...

[9] For example, it is not uncommon to hear that "racism is prejudice plus power"[10]. That's a great definition if you want a stick to beat people with, but so broad and vague as to be rendered pretty much useless on critical examination. For example, there may be plenty of prejudice against pedophiles. And it is certainly common for societies to use their collective power (through state force or collective action) to mobilize power against pedophiles. Does that make pedophiles victim of racist discrimination? Of course not, but it sure is included in this broadened definition of racism.

[10] http://edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/racism.html

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw a thread where trolls were rejoicing, saying: they kept calling everybody a Nazi so some of us actually became Nazis. While well some people might put disclaimers on everything others are simply giving up. This started during the Trump campaign where everybody was called racist. The same with anti-semitism, especially against the current president who has a Jewish daughter. When people sling these around just a…

That's an interesting paradox: I'd argue that anyone who became a Nazi because someone mistakenly called them a Nazi, wasn't mistakenly called a Nazi.

[deleted]

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#356
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some percentage of people learned the site exists. Some other percent learned there are still a lot of people (relative to what they thought) that believe in nazi principles. This attention would only be bad in my eyes if the first group was bigger than the second.

Neo-Nazis: "We feel unfairly persecuted!" *hosts kick them off the internet* Neo-Nazis (in an angrier tone): "See! We were right!!!" So now they've poked the hornet's nest, added credibility to the neo-nazis' complaints, earned the ire of the EFF, and didn't solve a single problem. Mission Accomplished? When I look at trending political stories today, all I see is mind-boggling stupidity on both sides.

But again, now the rest of America is more cognizant of the existence of those people.

People with a persecution complex are going to view anything that way. Get kicked off? Fits their narrative (or is approval). Ignored? Fits their narrative. Told what they're doing is wrong? Fits their narrative.

So if you think this is stupid what would have accomplished the goal of making life harder for them?

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#357
post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try having a conversation about civil war history. You reference any historical information that makes views on the war less cut and dry, you'll gain the label immediately. I'm from South Carolina and after seeing all of the conflicting historical information on the internet since the Dylan Roof shooting, I decided to pick up a bunch of books on the subject from both sides. My main driving force was a strong belief t…

What you mind to point to some more... controversial literature? Or some handbook you found rather objective on the matter?

Ehh...it's not so much controversial as it is just details that are normally left out. Once you're aware of them and take the time to verify the citations you immediately notice when other people leave them out.

Sure there were economic factors at play and those are interesting in their own right, but in the south the biggest thing that people fail to understand is the element of fear. I don't want to do a historic nose dive, but the 3 things you can read about to understand that better are The Haitian Massacre of 1804, John Brown, and The Cherokee Declaration of Causes.

Of those three, only John Brown is mentioned on the Wikipedia timeline. The other two provide context.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance Refusing to tolerate the intolerant, when their intolerance _may_ be an imminent threat to society (e.g. neo-nazis in the US being defended by the current president) is paradoxical and distasteful, but not inconsistent with a liberal position on tolerance.

When ever I think about issues regarding racism and tolerance, I like to think of Daryl Davis and Keshia Thomas. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/black-man-daryl-davis... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/black-woman-recalls...

Those are both fantastic!

That's the exact kind of thing we need more of in response to this: love and kindness can literally extinguish the hate in people. Unfortunately, that takes way more courage and strength than it does to engage in a twitter witch hunt.

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#359
post #89

I'm glad to see the EFF making the point I'be been trying to make all week; at the cost of multiple downvotes: "Because internet intermediaries, especially those with few competitors, control so much online speech, the consequences of their decisions have far-reaching impacts on speech around the world."

It's not really a free speech issue. It's a monopoly issue. Google should be protected from government interference in their right to exercise free speech just like every other individual and company in the US. The fact that they are a near monopoly is a problem that has side effects, but the real issue to focus on is the monopoly.

> Google should be protected from government interference in their right to exercise free speech just like every other individual and company in the US.

If Google wants those rights, it could surrender its monopoly (through a voluntary break-up).

Re: Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF

#360
post #127
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I definitely don't support the people they're booting off... A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic? I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that…

For a long time, it seemed it was only Tumblr types who were calling everyone nazi. Recently, even people I've known for 20 years, who I thought were normal, have been posting/tweeting to the effect of either you're loudly proclaiming your opposition to nazism, or you're on their side.

It's insane. I had posted some very interesting articles that I thought were very insightful as to examples in regards to deescalation of violence and possible non-violent means to resolve some of these issues.

That got me accused of being a sympathizer.

Post reply on HN