5 ms·

I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.

by saboot 10y ago

imron 10y ago
You can reply, you just need to wait a few minutes - it’s an HN feature to prevent people replying in haste. I have no political agenda. I’m not from the US, I’m not in the US, I can’t vote in this election. I have no horse in this race. I’m an outsider looking in on the stupidity (on both sides). I am addressing your points - or at least thought I was. Your point as it appears to me (feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you) was ‘we need to make people aware of how these white supremacists are promoting their ideals’. My point is ‘this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect, it inadvertently helps promote such ideals and gives these people cultural ground that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to occupy. Giving any sort of import to their ravings, makes them more important than they deserve to be, and gives them a degree of control over your actions.'
- saboot 10y ago
  > this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse. I see no problem in calling for people to reject it, and helping them identify them. You can look into american history and see that we have been through cycles like this before (example the 'Know Nothings' against the catholics). I have myself clearly seen more speech in favor of segregation ("we just weren't meant to mix together") on many sites (reddit, facebook comments on congressman pages, etc). I can give you links to explicitly racist sites where they talk about organizing on popular websites to change discourse. You argue I'm giving them the Streisand effect, but we are already too late. They are here, people need to be aware today. These people intentionally prey on those who are susceptible and angry. I have two (former) friends who have tried talking to me about how "cultural marxism is destroying western values" and that every muslim has evil in their hearts. They weren't always like this. They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome.
  - imron 10y ago
    > They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome. Which is a better way to show someone that they are not important: * Ignoring them * Giving their views countless press in order to discredit them I agree that calling out racism is important, but when it's just people spouting nonsense in their own little corner of the Internet why give that any attention. > They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse Something they have been trying to do since basically forever. However they can only successfully inject themselves when other people allow it. Have a look at this basic timeline: Internet: Pepe the frog is fun Racists: Pepe the frog now belongs to us Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Clinton: Pepe the frog belongs to racists Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Question: In this scenario, who gave racists control of Pepe the frog and who allowed racists to inject themselves in to this part of mainstream culture? (Hint: it was not the racists and it was not the Internet). > I can give you links to explicitly racist sites This is exactly what I was talking about. In your fervor to show how horrible these people are, you are willing to promote these sites yourself... I don't care for those sites any more than I care for sites promoting flat-earth science and/or UFOs. I know they exist, but I ignore them completely, which is exactly the attention they deserve.
    - saboot 10y ago
      You are wrongly characterizing what I am saying. Maybe try reading my original post again? People can only "allow" them to inject themselves into discourse when they have full consent, ie what their agenda is. Ignoring them doesn't silence them, nor makes it clear that their ideas are not acceptable. Did I give you any links? I indicated that they are there and it is explicit and obvious. If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say. The above people asked for proof, I gave it to them. Deal with the facts. I'm not going to stop pointing out the tactics of white supremacists to inject themselves in mainstream culture.
      - imron 10y ago

I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.

by saboot 10y ago

I can't reply to you, but I suggest you try replying directly to my points instead of injecting your own political agenda.

imron 10y ago

You can reply, you just need to wait a few minutes - it’s an HN feature to prevent people replying in haste. I have no political agenda. I’m not from the US, I’m not in the US, I can’t vote in this election. I have no horse in this race. I’m an outsider looking in on the stupidity (on both sides). I am addressing your points - or at least thought I was. Your point as it appears to me (feel free to correct me if I've misinterpreted you) was ‘we need to make people aware of how these white supremacists are promoting their ideals’. My point is ‘this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect, it inadvertently helps promote such ideals and gives these people cultural ground that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to occupy. Giving any sort of import to their ravings, makes them more important than they deserve to be, and gives them a degree of control over your actions.'

saboot 10y ago
> this has the opposite intent of what you expect and like the Streisand effect They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse. I see no problem in calling for people to reject it, and helping them identify them. You can look into american history and see that we have been through cycles like this before (example the 'Know Nothings' against the catholics). I have myself clearly seen more speech in favor of segregation ("we just weren't meant to mix together") on many sites (reddit, facebook comments on congressman pages, etc). I can give you links to explicitly racist sites where they talk about organizing on popular websites to change discourse. You argue I'm giving them the Streisand effect, but we are already too late. They are here, people need to be aware today. These people intentionally prey on those who are susceptible and angry. I have two (former) friends who have tried talking to me about how "cultural marxism is destroying western values" and that every muslim has evil in their hearts. They weren't always like this. They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome.
- imron 10y ago
  > They don't deserve to be important, instead of ignoring them people need to be willing to say that this is unacceptable and their ideas are not welcome. Which is a better way to show someone that they are not important: * Ignoring them * Giving their views countless press in order to discredit them I agree that calling out racism is important, but when it's just people spouting nonsense in their own little corner of the Internet why give that any attention. > They are promoting it themselves, loudly, and trying to inject their ideas into mainstream political discourse Something they have been trying to do since basically forever. However they can only successfully inject themselves when other people allow it. Have a look at this basic timeline: Internet: Pepe the frog is fun Racists: Pepe the frog now belongs to us Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Clinton: Pepe the frog belongs to racists Internet: Nah, Pepe's not racist. Question: In this scenario, who gave racists control of Pepe the frog and who allowed racists to inject themselves in to this part of mainstream culture? (Hint: it was not the racists and it was not the Internet). > I can give you links to explicitly racist sites This is exactly what I was talking about. In your fervor to show how horrible these people are, you are willing to promote these sites yourself... I don't care for those sites any more than I care for sites promoting flat-earth science and/or UFOs. I know they exist, but I ignore them completely, which is exactly the attention they deserve.
  - saboot 10y ago
    You are wrongly characterizing what I am saying. Maybe try reading my original post again? People can only "allow" them to inject themselves into discourse when they have full consent, ie what their agenda is. Ignoring them doesn't silence them, nor makes it clear that their ideas are not acceptable. Did I give you any links? I indicated that they are there and it is explicit and obvious. If you cannot handle that a meme is ALSO (which means NOT ENTIRELY ie they dont own it) by people with a racist agenda then I frankly don't know what to say. The above people asked for proof, I gave it to them. Deal with the facts. I'm not going to stop pointing out the tactics of white supremacists to inject themselves in mainstream culture.
    - imron 10y ago