How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack • Hacker News Board

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#591

Post by mptest » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:14 AM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #552

mptest wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, all of that can be true, but it doesn't change my point that Americans by and large support his policy, even if he isn't the best salesman in the country, or scares the boomers and the uneducated by mentioning socialism and triggering the McCarthy region of the brain, and it merits exploration as to why people support his policies but not him. I agree, part of it may be his extreme language off-putting those wh…

Why doesn't opposing capitalism count as a policy? It seems entirely reasonable for one of the people in that +32 to say "well, I like a lot of Bernie's proposals, but he thinks we should put fetters on capitalism and I think we shouldn't do that". (Multiple people I know have told me something along those lines, although I should acknowledge it's true they were all boomers.)

>Why doesn't opposing capitalism count as a policy?

Yeah, fair point, I hadn't really thought about it that way. You're absolutely right, that is obviously a policy, and one that people don't agree with, woe unto them...

I guess it's like that author said: "It's easier to envision the end of the world than the end of capitalism." I fell in to that trap of assumption, taking that not as a policy prescription, but as a far off amorphous aspiration.

I guess because it's obvious to me that even if he had had a super-majority that "ending capitalism" would still be a decades long reconstruction of the economy, not something one could put in to a bill put to congress. Plus I always saw him more as opposed to unrestrained capitalism in segments of our life that were basic needs, rather than opposition to capitalism as an idea. I must admit I do still hold some rose colored glasses, I guess.

>I should acknowledge, they were all boomers.

haha. unsurprising. I know first hand the type you describe, as someone who campaigned for him twice and is involved in local politics.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#592

Post by mmooss » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:14 AM UTC

zmgsabst wrote: post #363

mmooss wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it starts with undermining the values: Note the disparagement of freedom, of knowledge, science, and education as ways humans can make their world better - even the idea of making the world better and of truth itself; of the rule of law rather than the rule of power, and the embrace of violence, athletics, etc. Notice the contempt for the enlightenment and embrace of ancient Rome and other sub-democratic or d…

It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US. That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.

> That’s been happening from Leftist criticism for generations.

I'm talking about the principles: freedom, rights, and self-determination as self-evident, essential goods; progress as essential and good (real progress, not padding bank accounts); knowledge as the way humans can change their world; and knowledge provided by science and scholarship.

The left has criticized many things as lacking in knowledge and threats to freedom and rights, and the institutions, but not these principles.

> It wasn’t the MAGA movement that started dismantling Western culture in the US.

It was a branch of conservatives before them, but MAGA has fully embraced it. Look at the denial of freedom and human rights, replaced by a naked, aggressive embrace of oppression and cruelty. Look at the contempt for those things and progress, in the name of power. Look at replacing science with ideological disinformation - at even aggressively destroying science - even when it costs millions of lives, such as during a pandemic. How much blood is on their hands - how many needless deaths? Nobody talks about it.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#593

Post by amitport » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:15 AM UTC

someothherguyy wrote: post #585

amitport wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People voted for Trump because the democratic party is THAT bad. Instead of keeping attacking Trump maybe it is time to ponder what is it about the current democratic party that made so many people disapprove of them.

Plenty of other reasons they could have voted the way they did? https://navigatorresearch.org/2024-post-election-survey-the-...

I haven't listed the reasons I am pointing the underlying lack of internal critisism in the democractic party and their supporters.

The democractic party was terrible in regards to many issues many people cared about.

You should stop caring about Trump and care about what people care about.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#594

Post by acidmath » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:15 AM UTC

spiderfarmer wrote: post #570

acidmath wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For books depicting sex acts, banning such books from public elementary and middle school libraries is reasonable. Is it not? Does there exist any example of an administration (federal or state) successfully prohibiting the private sale of an LGBTQ book?

Books with rainbows are getting banned under the same policy. Rainbows!

Where is this happening? URL?

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#595

Post by strogonoff » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:15 AM UTC

OccamsMirror wrote: post #442

move-on-by wrote: post #373

If I were to share this article with some loved ones, they would say the press deserves it for all the fake news and unfair treatment of the current administration. As for the signal aspect, the last discussion I was a part of devolved into “ MI6 did it to make trump’s team look bad”. There is some bogus ‘news’ article to back this up. I don’t know how we got here, but it’s devastating and scary.

Stupid people got unfettered access to the internet. Essentially, this is all Steve Job's fault.

It used to be that you had to mingle with people, and if you had a particularly crazy take on reality there was a dynamic where 80% of people around you IRL would not really take you seriously because respected people didn’t—especially if you were otherwise not appearing to be a socially well-integrated and productive person. This had a chilling effect on extreme views and helped somewhat bring the outliers in, so to speak. Now, even if you never leave your house, cannot hold a job or a relationship, you can find any number of people who share your extreme views, and the more extreme the views the tighter the community (due to justified exclusion IRL).

Naturally, it did not take too long for other people exploit that newly found dynamic in context of democracy and use tech to manipulate such people with fringe views for own short-term gains.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#596

Post by tombert » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:16 AM UTC

Afforess wrote: post #385

tombert wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't force you to do anything. No one did. I'm just judging you.

[flagged]

How does this make me a fascist? I am a fascist for thinking you’re dumb if you were allowed to vote and didn’t? I can’t judge someone for something without being called a fascist?

I think we have some very different definitions of words here.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#597

Post by gblargg » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:16 AM UTC

chriscrisby wrote: post #400

This is partisan garbage, I’ve been in infosec circles long enough to see democrats always get a pass for doing the same thing republicans do. Selective outrage is fake outrage.

Did Krebs comment on government suppressing discussion during COVID? The article reads like suddenly there are attacks on freedom of speech. It's been raging over the past four years.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#598

Post by FilosofumRex » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:18 AM UTC

amitport wrote: post #580

FilosofumRex wrote: post #565

[flagged]

"Trump is merely doing what he has been paid to do by pro-Israeli zionist lobby - who apparently were the highest bidders" The concept of blaming the Jews on everything wrong in one's country is not new, and it never ends well.

[dead]

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#599

Post by gblargg » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:18 AM UTC

kacesensitive wrote: post #428

webninja wrote: post #390

He’s helping make the left care about free speech again. Something they wanted to continue censoring.

Ah yes, nothing screams “free speech hero” like a guy who tried to censor the press, punish critics, and begged Twitter to silence his enemies.

This is called suppressing "disinformation" in the other circles.

Re: How each pillar of the First Amendment is under attack

#600

Post by _emacsomancer_ » Mon, Mar 31, 2025, 5:18 AM UTC

least wrote: post #465

_emacsomancer_ wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

The Paradox of tolerance almost never means what the person invoking it as a rebuttal to free speech thinks it means. It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens. It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold. The most frequently quoted t…

> ....It's not some moral axiom that demands action to shut down problematic speech whenever it happens.

No, that would probably end up in a logical paradox, if one were intolerant of any degree of intolerance.

> It's a concept that has varied views on to what extent should tolerance of intolerance be extended and to what response is appropriate when it extends beyonds that threshold.

I don't know enough to have a particular position on the ACLU, but at least in theory an organisation defending free speech might decide that conditions have become such that defending certain things will lead to the inability to defend other things and choose to proceed differently on that basis.