10 ms·

But these alt-right figureheads aren't your average trump voters. They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other cons

But these alt-right figureheads aren't your average trump voters. They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters.

jinfiesto 10y ago
I'm not sure why the above is down-voted. There's a litany of evidence to suggest that this is actually true.
- the-dude 10y ago
  Such heavy claims require evidence. Also, it is painting one group as a whole, which reminds me of ...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - bakhy 10y ago
    "reminds me of" != "is".
  - jinfiesto 10y ago
    I don't think it's painting one group as a whole at all. No one is suggesting that all or most Trump supporters are racist. Only that many alt-right figure heads are. It's not a heavy claim. With Steve Bannon being appointed to the upcoming White House staff, there's been a parade of examples illustrating the blatant racism of alt-right figureheads. While I appreciate the sentiment that Democrats lost the election by painting much of the population (uncritically) in very broad unflattering strokes, I don't really think the trend of people saying "Well you just can't talk about a group of people as a whole" is going to last. If you're unwilling to discuss groups of people as a single entity, the entire field of social science makes little sense. I think maybe that we've lost sight of the fact that any time we talk about a group of people, we're really implicitly having a statistical discussion.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      "No one is suggesting that all or most Trump supporters are racist." I have seen that claim hundreds of times in the past few days.
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        There's a difference between being intentionally and accidentally racist. That is often dropped in conversation, which is why you see different sides disagreeing on that.
      - vorotato 10y ago
        In this specific thread? I think context is relevant here.
    - tomp 10y ago
      > With Steve Bannon being appointed to the upcoming White House staff, there's been a parade of examples illustrating the blatant racism of alt-right figureheads. I've looked at all the articles claiming that Bannon is "bad" (they use different words, of course), and I'm completely unconvinced. Seems like more of the "all Trump supporters are racist" meme.
      - alva 10y ago
        The last year of news has pushed me more than ever to read/listen to primary sources. Things have become so distorted left or right, that it seems like the responsible thing to do. Regarding the attacks towards Steve Bannon, I agree. They are only using examples of what other people who don't like him have said. Here is a great speech and Q+A he gave regarding Judeo-Christian values at the highly respected Dignitatis Humanae Institute [0]. Having listened to this speech amongst others, alongside his writings I can only conclude that what is being pushed are simply smears. Breitbart has taken so much power and money away from the mainstream publications, it is in their interests to take him down. [0] https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeednews/steve-bannon-at-dhi#c=16& https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeednews/steve-bannon-at-dhi#c=16... edit: If anyone would like to dispute my opinion, please for good discussion provide primary sources that originate directly from Steven Bannon. edit edit: please take a look at the Ask HN I have posted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873
- vijayr 10y ago
  The article says "The social network has not given an explanation for its actions." Banning is fine, but it would be nice if they can actually say in writing, citing reasons and evidence, why they banned them (even if lots of evidence exists elsewhere). Banning without any explanation isn't of any use to anyone
  - caseysoftware 10y ago
    In the US, the Net Neutrality position describes internet access as a utility, not a luxury. Further the UN declares it a Human Right. If either/both of those positions hold, then the gatekeepers - Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc - suppressing any view or blocking access to any group could be a violation of human rights. I think that will have to be settled in court, but it will get messy for those companies.
    - vorotato 10y ago
      Nobody is being banned from the internet. They are merely being banned by a privately owned American website. Businesses in America have the right to refuse service to any individual provided it is not due to protected status. In America your opinions do not grant you protected status.
      - flammablelemons 10y ago
        ISPs are privately owned American corporations as well. Did you read what you're replying to?
        grzm 10y ago
        ISPs are considered common carriers, which Net Neutrality addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati... I haven't seen this same argument made for websites in particular. If you have good references for that, please do share! btw, did you create an account just to make this comment? If so, why? It doesn't seem too controversial.
- vixen99 10y ago
  A litany? Seems an opportunity missed not to produce it rather than resort to mere assertion. If you want to persuade others of your view, that is.
adam12 10y ago
> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.
- pyvpx 10y ago
  alt-right by definition is racist and sexist. that is the definition of the alt-right platform.
  - adam12 10y ago
    Do they call themselves alt-right? edit: honest question
    - arkitaip 10y ago
      .
      - underdown 10y ago
        r/altright has 6,253 subscribers making it one of the smaller subreddits?
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        They also call themselves deplorables, and I've seen Clinton supporters calling themselves nasty women. I guess I should take that at face value as well?
  - saintwind 10y ago
    Can you provide proof to backup that claim? Seems like a serious appeal to emotion with no actual substance.
  - Pungsnigel 10y ago
    By their opponents anyway.
tajen 10y ago
"A cartoon of Pepe the Frog is a commonly used symbol of the alt-right" is the subtitle of the image in the BBC article. Look at it, the drawing innocence is really staggering: I'm wondering what is the link, whether the link is warranted, and whether Twitter used posts of Pepe the Frog to recognize alt-right people. Sounds like a badly AI-generated inference to me.
- FilterSweep 10y ago
  The particular situation with pepe the frog is a bit more nuanced than news sources let on. He went from "Feels Bad, Man" comics to being very frequently photoshopped with 3rd reich / swastikas / other neo-nazi logos. Pepe is an interesting case because it brings up the discrepancy between trolling (messing with others in "bad fun") and actual people who vehemently support and push aggressively hateful messages.
  - duncanawoods 10y ago
    >> very frequently photoshopped with 3rd reich This really is one of the more ridiculous Clinton campaign talking points that just made them look very out of touch. Pepe is a common meme template. Of the thousands of Pepes that I have unwillingly seen, none were neo-nazi except those in articles accusing Pepe of being a neo-nazi symbol. However, if you go to a deliberately offensive chan then sure, you will find every meme-template being used offensively.
    - FilterSweep 10y ago
      > Of the thousands of Pepes that I have unwillingly seen, none were neo-nazi except those in articles accusing Pepe of being a neo-nazi symbol. YMMV. In the circles I browse, they are frequently used, but they were only used to troll. They are certainly used for more aggressive hate in other places, including on Twitter.
    - patorjk 10y ago
      This has been my experience too. I've been baffled at the coverage of Pepe as a hate symbol. I had seen it around on the internet for years. To me it was just another meme. The idea of it being a hate symbol came off to me almost as propaganda.
sbuttgereit 10y ago
I am very suspicious of people throwing these terms around. Especially because the left uses the terms "racist", "sexist", and "hateful" (etc) to demonize their opponents as opposed to actually addressing certain issues in debate rationally. The willingness to use these terms so freely to shut down debate means I simply don't believe such charges unless I'm shown something that actually meets a reasonable definition. Too many have simply cried wolf here. I don't know of the people banned (I don't use Twitter) they may actually be all of these things: but I will not use the flimsy, leftist definitions to make that determination. You'd have to give more than your word that they are "racist" and "nasty".
- vorotato 10y ago
  If you don't know of the people banned, read about them. They're true white supremacists. Twitter is under no obligation to be a platform for the KKK as twitter is a private company.
  - sbuttgereit 10y ago
    I actually don't care about the people being discussed enough to look them up and I have little interest in substantiating someone else's claim. If you want me to believe someone is a nasty racist, you can tell me why and show me examples. A huge part of the reason that dialogue is breaking down in the U.S. is because these sorts of charges are so easy to fling out there and too many people take it for granted that they're justified. Worse, too often not taking for granted means you get the label yourself. It's no wonder that the polls missed how closely fought a thing the election would be. My point about some people feeling justified in conceptually stealing the moral condemnation implicit in a term like "racist", while defining that term to mean something very different than what it does mean, stands without regard to whether or not that this is the case with Twitter and these individuals. No one should trust these accusations until the specific case is actually made arguing for the validity of the charge. OK, I gave in... I looked the first name up that I came across, and what little I looked at and I tend to agree: it looked genuinely racist. By that I mean that it fit a definition of racism that is: decisions or beliefs about individuals using the non-volitional physical category of race/ethnicity of that individual as a factor in their conclusions. That and only that. Everything else, I said in the first two paragraphs stand. [EDIT FOR ADDITIONAL POINT] Also, Twitter as a private company has no obligation at all to support/allow any position, even if that position: left or right, reasonable or unreasonable, substantiated or unsubstantiated. It's their ball, they can play whatever game they want. My points aren't about Twitter's rights as much as they are about no longer believing "naked" charges or racism, sexism, etc.

But these alt-right figureheads aren't your average trump voters. They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters.

jinfiesto 10y ago

I'm not sure why the above is down-voted. There's a litany of evidence to suggest that this is actually true.

the-dude 10y ago
Such heavy claims require evidence. Also, it is painting one group as a whole, which reminds me of ...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bakhy 10y ago
  "reminds me of" != "is".
- jinfiesto 10y ago
  I don't think it's painting one group as a whole at all. No one is suggesting that all or most Trump supporters are racist. Only that many alt-right figure heads are. It's not a heavy claim. With Steve Bannon being appointed to the upcoming White House staff, there's been a parade of examples illustrating the blatant racism of alt-right figureheads. While I appreciate the sentiment that Democrats lost the election by painting much of the population (uncritically) in very broad unflattering strokes, I don't really think the trend of people saying "Well you just can't talk about a group of people as a whole" is going to last. If you're unwilling to discuss groups of people as a single entity, the entire field of social science makes little sense. I think maybe that we've lost sight of the fact that any time we talk about a group of people, we're really implicitly having a statistical discussion.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    "No one is suggesting that all or most Trump supporters are racist." I have seen that claim hundreds of times in the past few days.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      There's a difference between being intentionally and accidentally racist. That is often dropped in conversation, which is why you see different sides disagreeing on that.
    - vorotato 10y ago
      In this specific thread? I think context is relevant here.
  - tomp 10y ago
    > With Steve Bannon being appointed to the upcoming White House staff, there's been a parade of examples illustrating the blatant racism of alt-right figureheads. I've looked at all the articles claiming that Bannon is "bad" (they use different words, of course), and I'm completely unconvinced. Seems like more of the "all Trump supporters are racist" meme.
    - alva 10y ago
      The last year of news has pushed me more than ever to read/listen to primary sources. Things have become so distorted left or right, that it seems like the responsible thing to do. Regarding the attacks towards Steve Bannon, I agree. They are only using examples of what other people who don't like him have said. Here is a great speech and Q+A he gave regarding Judeo-Christian values at the highly respected Dignitatis Humanae Institute [0]. Having listened to this speech amongst others, alongside his writings I can only conclude that what is being pushed are simply smears. Breitbart has taken so much power and money away from the mainstream publications, it is in their interests to take him down. [0] https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeednews/steve-bannon-at-dhi#c=16& https://soundcloud.com/buzzfeednews/steve-bannon-at-dhi#c=16... edit: If anyone would like to dispute my opinion, please for good discussion provide primary sources that originate directly from Steven Bannon. edit edit: please take a look at the Ask HN I have posted here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12967873
vijayr 10y ago
The article says "The social network has not given an explanation for its actions." Banning is fine, but it would be nice if they can actually say in writing, citing reasons and evidence, why they banned them (even if lots of evidence exists elsewhere). Banning without any explanation isn't of any use to anyone
- caseysoftware 10y ago
  In the US, the Net Neutrality position describes internet access as a utility, not a luxury. Further the UN declares it a Human Right. If either/both of those positions hold, then the gatekeepers - Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc - suppressing any view or blocking access to any group could be a violation of human rights. I think that will have to be settled in court, but it will get messy for those companies.
  - vorotato 10y ago
    Nobody is being banned from the internet. They are merely being banned by a privately owned American website. Businesses in America have the right to refuse service to any individual provided it is not due to protected status. In America your opinions do not grant you protected status.
    - flammablelemons 10y ago
      ISPs are privately owned American corporations as well. Did you read what you're replying to?
      - grzm 10y ago
        ISPs are considered common carriers, which Net Neutrality addresses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati... I haven't seen this same argument made for websites in particular. If you have good references for that, please do share! btw, did you create an account just to make this comment? If so, why? It doesn't seem too controversial.
vixen99 10y ago
A litany? Seems an opportunity missed not to produce it rather than resort to mere assertion. If you want to persuade others of your view, that is.

adam12 10y ago

> They actually are racist and nasty people and we shouldn't group them together with other conservative/right/trump voters. This sounds like stereotyping to me.

pyvpx 10y ago
alt-right by definition is racist and sexist. that is the definition of the alt-right platform.
- adam12 10y ago
  Do they call themselves alt-right? edit: honest question
  - arkitaip 10y ago
    .
    - underdown 10y ago
      r/altright has 6,253 subscribers making it one of the smaller subreddits?
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      They also call themselves deplorables, and I've seen Clinton supporters calling themselves nasty women. I guess I should take that at face value as well?
- saintwind 10y ago
  Can you provide proof to backup that claim? Seems like a serious appeal to emotion with no actual substance.
- Pungsnigel 10y ago
  By their opponents anyway.

tajen 10y ago

"A cartoon of Pepe the Frog is a commonly used symbol of the alt-right" is the subtitle of the image in the BBC article. Look at it, the drawing innocence is really staggering: I'm wondering what is the link, whether the link is warranted, and whether Twitter used posts of Pepe the Frog to recognize alt-right people. Sounds like a badly AI-generated inference to me.

FilterSweep 10y ago
The particular situation with pepe the frog is a bit more nuanced than news sources let on. He went from "Feels Bad, Man" comics to being very frequently photoshopped with 3rd reich / swastikas / other neo-nazi logos. Pepe is an interesting case because it brings up the discrepancy between trolling (messing with others in "bad fun") and actual people who vehemently support and push aggressively hateful messages.
- duncanawoods 10y ago
  >> very frequently photoshopped with 3rd reich This really is one of the more ridiculous Clinton campaign talking points that just made them look very out of touch. Pepe is a common meme template. Of the thousands of Pepes that I have unwillingly seen, none were neo-nazi except those in articles accusing Pepe of being a neo-nazi symbol. However, if you go to a deliberately offensive chan then sure, you will find every meme-template being used offensively.
  - FilterSweep 10y ago
    > Of the thousands of Pepes that I have unwillingly seen, none were neo-nazi except those in articles accusing Pepe of being a neo-nazi symbol. YMMV. In the circles I browse, they are frequently used, but they were only used to troll. They are certainly used for more aggressive hate in other places, including on Twitter.
  - patorjk 10y ago
    This has been my experience too. I've been baffled at the coverage of Pepe as a hate symbol. I had seen it around on the internet for years. To me it was just another meme. The idea of it being a hate symbol came off to me almost as propaganda.

sbuttgereit 10y ago

I am very suspicious of people throwing these terms around. Especially because the left uses the terms "racist", "sexist", and "hateful" (etc) to demonize their opponents as opposed to actually addressing certain issues in debate rationally. The willingness to use these terms so freely to shut down debate means I simply don't believe such charges unless I'm shown something that actually meets a reasonable definition. Too many have simply cried wolf here. I don't know of the people banned (I don't use Twitter) they may actually be all of these things: but I will not use the flimsy, leftist definitions to make that determination. You'd have to give more than your word that they are "racist" and "nasty".

vorotato 10y ago
If you don't know of the people banned, read about them. They're true white supremacists. Twitter is under no obligation to be a platform for the KKK as twitter is a private company.
- sbuttgereit 10y ago
  I actually don't care about the people being discussed enough to look them up and I have little interest in substantiating someone else's claim. If you want me to believe someone is a nasty racist, you can tell me why and show me examples. A huge part of the reason that dialogue is breaking down in the U.S. is because these sorts of charges are so easy to fling out there and too many people take it for granted that they're justified. Worse, too often not taking for granted means you get the label yourself. It's no wonder that the polls missed how closely fought a thing the election would be. My point about some people feeling justified in conceptually stealing the moral condemnation implicit in a term like "racist", while defining that term to mean something very different than what it does mean, stands without regard to whether or not that this is the case with Twitter and these individuals. No one should trust these accusations until the specific case is actually made arguing for the validity of the charge. OK, I gave in... I looked the first name up that I came across, and what little I looked at and I tend to agree: it looked genuinely racist. By that I mean that it fit a definition of racism that is: decisions or beliefs about individuals using the non-volitional physical category of race/ethnicity of that individual as a factor in their conclusions. That and only that. Everything else, I said in the first two paragraphs stand. [EDIT FOR ADDITIONAL POINT] Also, Twitter as a private company has no obligation at all to support/allow any position, even if that position: left or right, reasonable or unreasonable, substantiated or unsubstantiated. It's their ball, they can play whatever game they want. My points aren't about Twitter's rights as much as they are about no longer believing "naked" charges or racism, sexism, etc.