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

Voat Is Shutting Down

voat.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 671 posts

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#661

Post by yakireev »

dragonwriter wrote: post #660
yakireev wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like the other guy said, that was not a war. The casualties were minimal, and Iran is still where it used to be. That was a scary moment indeed, but luckily nothing serious came out of it. Also, I'm quite surprised that someone else is still reading this conversation. Wow.

> Like the other guy said, that was not a war. “Was”? It isn't over. But, sure, if we arbitrarily exclude some international armed conflicts between military forces of one country and those of another from “war”, then, ok, you can rescue the claim that Trump hasn't started any “wars”, but at the cost of weakening the case for excluding other Presidents from that same description.

Out of my head:

  * Obama: Libya (in ruins), Syria (in ruins)
  * Bush: Iraq (conquered, then partially reconquered back by ISIS), Afghanistan (yet another never-ending Afghan war)
  * Clinton: Serbia (ended up relatively OK, had to elect a new president, give away the old one, and also a part of the country declared independence), and I think there were more? I was a kid back then, don't remember it well, need to wiki up. 
  * Old People's Bush: Gulf War, and I guess wiki would tell more stories.
These all are large conflicts with non-trivial outcomes. Lots of troops involved, lots of casualties caused, serious consequences for the countries attacked. Now, what are the casualties for that T's conflict with Iran? What are the consequences for Iran?

Checked wiki [1]: 7 combatants dead on the U.S. side, 22 on the Iran side (of which 19 is friendly fire), in the grand scheme of things - no consequences so far.

Also, if we need a relatively neutral third party, then English Wikipedia calls these events not "war" but "crisis" [1] and does not list it in their list of U.S. wars [2]. Feel free to try to add it to that list and prove your point to fellow wikipedians, I'd watch how it would go.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Persian_Gulf...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#662

Post by verroq »

ashtonkem wrote: post #645
verroq wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your straw man of my argument is particularly in good faith. >Here's the issue, either you're advocating for something useless, or for the suppression of speech. Incorrect. I'm pointing out your flawed argument where you somehow believe that "free speech" exists if there are social consequences for speaking. I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech. As po…

> I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech. You listed a crime that might happen, and then asserted that therefore we need more laws to protect speech. I find the argument unpersuasive, for reasons I have already provided. As an aside, I find the hyperbole tiresome. "What if someone gets lynched?" is half a step away from "think of the children" in its triteness, and i…

You think that people aren’t already hiding their views because of social consequences? And this is progress? You’d rather that people hid what they really think?

Your entire view handicapped by your inability to see past what is and what is not allowed by law. You seem to think that only legal methods, instead of social or cultural changes are the only way to encourage a culture that values the freedom of speech. You are too shortsighted to see that freedom of speech is both a cultural and legal concept. More importantly, by arguing legal semantics, you don’t seem to understand why freedom of speech is necessary at all. Freedom of speech is merely an implementation detail. Has it never occurred to you to ask “what problem is it trying to solve?”

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#663

Post by ashtonkem »

verroq wrote: post #662
ashtonkem wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I provide a counter example where severe social consequences, effectively suppress speech. You listed a crime that might happen, and then asserted that therefore we need more laws to protect speech. I find the argument unpersuasive, for reasons I have already provided. As an aside, I find the hyperbole tiresome. "What if someone gets lynched?" is half a step away from "think of the children" in its triteness, and i…

You think that people aren’t already hiding their views because of social consequences? And this is progress? You’d rather that people hid what they really think? Your entire view handicapped by your inability to see past what is and what is not allowed by law. You seem to think that only legal methods, instead of social or cultural changes are the only way to encourage a culture that values the freedom of speech. Yo…

It seems that all you have to offer here is abuse, not concrete suggestions.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#664

Post by eropple »

UncleMeat wrote: post #648
0xBA5ED wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That's the same thing I disagree. You can enforce behavioral restrictions without reducing it to us vs them. It is about order and maintaining good relations. In the case of people disrupting your conference, you can have them removed for their behavior without resorting to name calling and framing it like you're "fighting fascists". It's like policing. If you reduce it to "catching bad guys", you won't get good pol…

Why is it always an expectation that people handle fascists with kid gloves? Some racist asking questions at a panel about wild shit they read online is a waste of conference time . 20 racists asking questions at a panel about wild shit they read online ruins entire conferences. You need to nip that in the bud.

I assume you know this and the question was rhetorical, but in this case, you're being told to handle white supremacists with kid gloves because you're talking to a white supremacist. (Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.)

Occasionally they have useful idiots carving out their elbow room, but the heartening thing about 2020--maybe the only thing--is that there are ever fewer useful idiots, and instead rhetorical positions like this have to be taken up by folks who just don't hide their "power levels" the way they would need to for adequate opsec.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#665

Post by pstuart »

yakireev wrote: post #652
pstuart wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppress what? He was acknowledged for that tiny win. Just because you have an article that doesn't praise him directly you build a case of suppression. There's not a whole lot positive to say about the man, so far you've offered up the tiniest sliver. You're clearly more informed on this wonderful information that is being suppressed so tell me more. I've already accepted that the NK remains was a good thing and he…

> More please? Like I said, I'm not his supporter, go ask them if you're actually interested. As a foreigner, I'd mention that he did not start any new wars around the globe, the first U.S. president since... Carter, I guess? I wasn't even alive back then. But this is offtopic. Also, fascism is one of those words which lost its meaning. Every person has their own definition of it, the only common denominator (usually…

> But are you OK with you not making money?

Yes, if those incomes are via conning people or inciting hatred. I worked in internet advertising and got out once I could -- that's about as far to the dark side as I've gone.

> Are you OK with subreddits you visit being banned? I'm actually banned in /r/politics for stating that if Stephen Miller died I wouldn't be sad because at least he'd be out of power. Am I ok with that? I think it's a bit extreme but I'm a guest there and so be it.

I'd be bothered by losing any of my subreddits (or FSM help us, HN!), but then again my intake is content isn't based up on hate speech.

> Are you OK with websites you visit being deplatformed? Losing stuff you like is a bummer but c'est la guerre. I miss Kuro5hin.

You worry about the State censoring things but every single example you give is a for-profit enterprises adjusting to market pressures. Do you hate capitalism or what?

> Do you think that you should have more rights than those 45% who believe in ghosts, or what?

WTF? I never implied anything like that -- I implied that there's a lot of stupid people out there. Do I have the right to do that?

You also conveniently ignore the dangers of hate speech and frame this all as "people don't get to say nice things about T. because those mean libtards won't let them".

Are you familiar with the concept of stochastic terrorism? One simple example: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/22/533941689...

Are you aware that in America, decades of right-wing hate speech has conditioned half of the country to hate the other half, to the point where "I'd rather be Russian than a Democrat" -- https://www.amazon.com/Rather-Russian-Than-Democrat-T-shirt/....

Because I believe in "free speech" I'm not comfortable with having the government come in and shut them down. FFS, I understand that can go both ways. But it's nuanced and simplifying it the way you have borders on disingenuous.

As for not giving money to the companies that pay for that hate to be spread (and encouraging others to do the same -- free speech too, buddy), yes, I'm absolutely fine with that. Why don't you explain to me how that's government censorship. And while you're at it, why don't you explain to me how you think hate speech is good for society?

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#666

Post by 0xBA5ED »

eropple wrote: post #664
UncleMeat wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it always an expectation that people handle fascists with kid gloves? Some racist asking questions at a panel about wild shit they read online is a waste of conference time . 20 racists asking questions at a panel about wild shit they read online ruins entire conferences. You need to nip that in the bud.

I assume you know this and the question was rhetorical, but in this case, you're being told to handle white supremacists with kid gloves because you're talking to a white supremacist. (Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.) Occasionally they have useful idiots carving out their elbow room, but the heartening thing about 2020--maybe the only thing--is that there are ever few…

>(Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.)

Wow. You are so off the mark I don't even know what to say. It's this kind of thinking that divides the world. It is paranoid us vs them garbage.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#667

Post by verroq »

ashtonkem wrote: post #663
verroq wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think that people aren’t already hiding their views because of social consequences? And this is progress? You’d rather that people hid what they really think? Your entire view handicapped by your inability to see past what is and what is not allowed by law. You seem to think that only legal methods, instead of social or cultural changes are the only way to encourage a culture that values the freedom of speech. Yo…

It seems that all you have to offer here is abuse, not concrete suggestions.

Great way to dismiss the actual actual argument.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#668

Post by pstuart »

yakireev wrote: post #185
sellyme wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moderators on Reddit hold very little power. Unlike almost every other messageboard in existence, they can do absolutely nothing to stop you from creating a competing community on the exact same website, leveraging the existing userbase. The only tools are standard moderator ones: content deletion, stickying, and a banhammer. There's not many sites where moderators have less power.

> they can do absolutely nothing to stop you from creating a competing community on the exact same website, leveraging the existing userbase. Admins can though. I see a recurring pattern of this in U.S. politics or politics-infested parts of reddit: mods of /r/PoliticalHumor or /r/MurderedByWords can make a pro-D. echo chamber out of their subreddits, but an attempt to make a pro-R. echo chamber of the similar temper…

Trying again. I wanted to focus on your theme of repressed voices, not which side is good or bad (a losing game of tribal warfare).

> dissenting opinions on U.S. politics were silenced on reddit

A quick googling: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/29/reddit-...

It’s not as simple as you make it out and your framing of it suggests a significant bias on your part. Some speech doesn’t deserve a platform. You’re still free to think it, to say it out loud, to buy a domain and host it, and talk about it with like minded people — but you have zero god-given right to engage in that shit-talk in other people’s space in which you are a guest.

Censorship is a concern, free speech is a concern but it’s complicated. Add in the weaponization of social media and the lovely gift of the power of disinformation from your motherland and it gets messier still.

You’ve provided incredibly weak evidence to make your case (an article that didn’t praise T and an article that unnecessarily dunked on him). And all the while you conveniently ignore key factors (i.e., that T. treated his office as his personal kingdom and expressed contempt for those not loyal to him, ad nauseam).

Someday I should actually read it, but the theme itself is pretty clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#669

Post by eropple »

0xBA5ED wrote: post #666
eropple wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume you know this and the question was rhetorical, but in this case, you're being told to handle white supremacists with kid gloves because you're talking to a white supremacist. (Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.) Occasionally they have useful idiots carving out their elbow room, but the heartening thing about 2020--maybe the only thing--is that there are ever few…

>(Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.) Wow. You are so off the mark I don't even know what to say. It's this kind of thinking that divides the world. It is paranoid us vs them garbage.

My dude.

I read your posts.

They speak for themselves.

Re: Voat Is Shutting Down

#670

Post by 0xBA5ED »

eropple wrote: post #669
0xBA5ED wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>(Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.) Wow. You are so off the mark I don't even know what to say. It's this kind of thinking that divides the world. It is paranoid us vs them garbage.

My dude. I read your posts. They speak for themselves.

Apparently not, since you are wrong. You are paranoid "my dude".
Post reply on HN