Live data from Hacker News

Yes, It's Fascism

theatlantic.com

421–430 of 439 posts

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I were in your shoes, I would consider dang’s response in this thread and contemplate whether this is the correct forum for your style of political analysis. I did observe some of this activity over the past couple days and note that many of your interlocutors were also flagged, downvoted, etc., and not always for clearly legitimate reasons. I turned on showdead for a while just to follow the plot. So it goes. I t…

I always have showdead on. I turned it on as soon as I learned that there was such a feature. Even the crypto scam posts amuse me. I don't feel that I have a particular "style" of political analysis. In the case of ICE I'm not even doing political analysis; it's legal analysis. I don't like seeing my communities swell with outrage that appears, to me, to be based on propaganda and ignorance. I would not be talking ab…

I’m not dissuading or suppressing your point of view, mate. You’re clearly in some distress over this, but feel obligated (honor-bound?) to continue prosecuting your case. It’s a vicious cycle: the harder you hammer on this, the less persuasive you become, and accordingly the less satisfied you’ll be with the state of affairs. That’s all I’m saying.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#422
post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me check. Population of democracy vote for something. President of democracy enacts stronger power for that something. That something gets done. People who disagree with democratic powers doing what they said they were going to do want to stop it by force . That something now gets done, by force . --- Sounds justified because it is.

No one, absolutely zero people, voted for giving the president the power to ignore all checks and balances, taking a dump on the democracy you’re so fond of. We know for certain no people voted for it, because the option was never on a ballot.

[dead]

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nit: Fascist voters who think of themselves as "conservative" are the problem. Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump attacking institution after institution, both domestic and international. My point isn't to defend the behavior of the people who have called themselves conservative for the past ~forty years. Rather it's meant to reclaim the term for what has now clearly become the middle of the Overton window.…

> Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump It's quite honestly amazing how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind. So many liberals actually believe that conservatives just want a slow measured pace of change and to balance budgets, but that's literally never been what they have actually legislated for or accomplished. Liberals are the only people in my lifetime who have actually held those value…

> how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind

Maybe? I feel like my only real assumption is that there is some coherent set of values that describe conservatism. But maybe that is still falling into a trap of applying a liberal value of intellectual consistency to the "conservative" position (cf "Wilholt's law").

I would often read conservative media / forums from about 2008-2016, and saw merit to many of their arguments. And for others I could at least put on my empathy hat and see where they were coming from. At the same time I would see plenty of excesses and blind spots in progressive media and forums. So it really did feel like a "both sides" dynamic, where they both earnestly wanted freedom but always failed to catch the roadrunner (thanks to corrupt politicians that tended to only move in the corporate-authoritarian direction).

But sure, with the whole-hog rise of Trumpism I'm now confronted with the possibility that perhaps the kernel of conservatism isn't based on any sort of lofty ideals at all, but rather the starting point is always the ingroup-outgroup thing - even if locally-coherent logical arguments branch off of it.

But even if this is true for the vast majority of conservatives, surely it is not true for at least some "liberal minded" conservatives who do apply those values consistently? And even if they're only a small segment, with the way elections get decided isn't it still worthwhile to try and reach them by pointing out the failings in what they're ultimately supporting? (eg flagrant rejection of the 2nd amendment, previously with Breonna Taylor and now with Alex Pretti)

> Consistently throughout this country's history, conservatives rally to oppose rights being shared with a broader group of people. Conservatives fought a civil war to maintain slavery. They fought for Jim Crow laws. They fought against anti-miscegenation laws. They fought against women's right to vote. They fought and are still fighting against gay rights and recognizing trans people as humans. Literally every single time there is a minority "at risk" of having a better lot in life, there are conservatives turning out to fight against it.

Let me explicitly state that I agree with where you're coming from morally on these specific points - I'm certainly not trying to whitewash or defend these things. But I don't see how these points support your main point - they're all instances of trying to prevent social change. But before Trump, it doesn't seem like they were openly trying to turn the clock back (at least more than one lifetime). Now perhaps that's just me viewing the past with rose-tinted glasses. But it really feels like there was a sea change with Trump, and I think it makes sense to try and appeal to people for whom the reality distortion field may be fading - especially as the Trumpists continue to shamelessly kill American citizens.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#424
post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump It's quite honestly amazing how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind. So many liberals actually believe that conservatives just want a slow measured pace of change and to balance budgets, but that's literally never been what they have actually legislated for or accomplished. Liberals are the only people in my lifetime who have actually held those value…

> and recognizing trans people as humans Actually, the policy proposal is to recognize in law that women and men are defined by sex, not self-declared gender identity.

Or we could have less government in our lives. That's the approach I generally lean towards, especially regarding my genitals.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#425
post #408
post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we have a discussion that improves in quality if people dissent to the view of the article, agree with the article, or hold a view that is something in between? If the answer is no then the risk that someone will flag the article increases dramatically. If the discussion environment isn't open and peaceful then how much more likely isn't it that people will just disengage, flag, and then move on.

Open and peaceful isn't the same as accepting an objectively incorrect viewpoint as equally valid. But I agree that what you describe as how some people read it is likely what is happening.

No one has to be accepting to have an environment where people feel safe to participate in a dialog. Civil disagreement is a good thing and can improve a discussion just as civil agreements.

If however a large portion of comments get flagged or downvoted to the point of being killed, or met with hate rather than polite and constructive discussion, the result becomes a hostile environment. Repeat that experience a few times and many people will stop engaging in the discussion and just use tools like downvote and flag without making a single comment. It becomes a battle ground where moderation tools are a weapon, rather than a forum where moderation is there to improve the quality of those wishing to participate.

There has been a few times where dang has removed the flags of an article but also done some more heavy handed moderation with a seemingly focus on civility and tone. Personally I would also like to see them remove downvoting for those articles, leaving only upvotes as a way for people to appreciate other comments. It is a nice way to give people room to have a serious and open discussion around political topics here on HN, but with some supervision.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump It's quite honestly amazing how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind. So many liberals actually believe that conservatives just want a slow measured pace of change and to balance budgets, but that's literally never been what they have actually legislated for or accomplished. Liberals are the only people in my lifetime who have actually held those value…

> how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind Maybe? I feel like my only real assumption is that there is some coherent set of values that describe conservatism. But maybe that is still falling into a trap of applying a liberal value of intellectual consistency to the "conservative" position (cf "Wilholt's law"). I would often read conservative media / forums from about 2008-2016, and saw merit to ma…

The "principled" conservatives will never save us. There are fewer of them than principled liberals. Go watch The Bulkwark. The anti-Trump conservatives have had their balls cut off and they have zero influence on anything. Nor should they. They still want the fucked up things conservatives want. They just want a more polite face pushing it.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump It's quite honestly amazing how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind. So many liberals actually believe that conservatives just want a slow measured pace of change and to balance budgets, but that's literally never been what they have actually legislated for or accomplished. Liberals are the only people in my lifetime who have actually held those value…

> how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind Maybe? I feel like my only real assumption is that there is some coherent set of values that describe conservatism. But maybe that is still falling into a trap of applying a liberal value of intellectual consistency to the "conservative" position (cf "Wilholt's law"). I would often read conservative media / forums from about 2008-2016, and saw merit to ma…

> But even if this is true for the vast majority of conservatives, surely it is not true for at least some "liberal minded" conservatives who do apply those values consistently? And even if they're only a small segment, with the way elections get decided isn't it still worthwhile to try and reach them by pointing out the failings in what they're ultimately supporting? (eg flagrant rejection of the 2nd amendment, previously with Breonna Taylor and now with Alex Pretti)

This is cope, they don't exist, it's just comforting to believe they do. And if they ever existed, they would never, ever vote for a Democrat.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Which part of 'enough' is it that went by you?

The part where you supposed that you should be able to prevent me from speaking on the topic just because I don't have an approved opinion.

Incidentally, my above comments don't violate guidelines and should not have been flagged.

Re: Yes, It's Fascism

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Are you're saying what ICE is doing is justified somehow?

Let me check. Population of democracy vote for something. President of democracy enacts stronger power for that something. That something gets done. People who disagree with democratic powers doing what they said they were going to do want to stop it by force . That something now gets done, by force . --- Sounds justified because it is.

The same should apply to all the laws ICE 'agents' are breaking in their "enforcement".

What, do you think they should not be punished, or should be immune from following the law? The laws passed by the representatives and president of the democracy you're so keen on?

If you think they are following the law, you sound crazy, because you are.

Post reply on HN