4 ms·

I wonder if our respected peers on the Left will ever decide that their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels

I wonder if our respected peers on the Left will ever decide that their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? When Google and Facebook (among others) are explicitly enforcing censorship favoring the leftist worldview it really makes me wonder who stands to benefit and whether it is done with good intentions.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Getting their politics injected into "The System" was an explicit policy goal of the Left. The term typically used is "entryism".
- tnone 9y ago
  Yes but the amount of griping over the need to fight the status quo is absolutely there to keep the bulk from noticing they are the status quo.
forapurpose 9y ago
I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview; it's a widely accepted and healthy one. In a way, you agree: > their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned. But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree. Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution. But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- ameister14 9y ago
  As a citizen of a country that fought a war for independence against another much more powerful country, I believe that it is a mistake to set up a system for removing all violent rhetoric. That said, I do actually think the terrorists have an inherently worse POV. That's one of the reasons I'm ok with them spouting it. >Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me. That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract.
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    > That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract. Interestingly, not only is it almost universal, but it's even present on HN and in our immediate interaction.
- arkh 9y ago
  "I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview;" It sure is not. If you take the dictionary definition of the word hate. But what a lot of people do is use one word which have different meaning for them than for the public. When hate comprise any contrary view from yours, suddenly being against hate is not a healthy worldview. You have the exact same word-play with equality, equity, meritocracy etc. Set a good goal which everyone can accept, then swap the meaning of the words used to describe your goal and go after those who "don't think of the children".
- biggerbistro 9y ago
  >I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview This is the exact trap I was referring to. There are many political issues that are not as morally clear-cut as "people should not enslave other people", but are still lumped in with the "don't hate" rhetoric. The refugee crisis in Europe is one such controversy: it is easy to say "don't hate, all people are equal" but many view it as ethnic replacement which is a form of genocide. Hatred should of course be resisted but you have to understand that the word is being used as a boogeyman right now.

ThrustVectoring 9y ago

Getting their politics injected into "The System" was an explicit policy goal of the Left. The term typically used is "entryism".

tnone 9y ago
Yes but the amount of griping over the need to fight the status quo is absolutely there to keep the bulk from noticing they are the status quo.

forapurpose 9y ago

I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview; it's a widely accepted and healthy one. In a way, you agree: > their politics are the ones supported by "The System" and that they are perhaps not the rebels they thought they were? Certainly there is a very well-established and long history, and continuing practice, of prejudice in government against (almost any group besides white Christian males, as a shorthand for a long list). There is also now a countervailing force, protecting the freedoms and asserting the interests of the oppressed groups. The existence of both forces can't seriously be questioned. But going back to my first sentence: Really, that's the fundamental debate going on in this HN thread and in many others: Some assert, implicitly, that the hate groups are just another point of view, and that they are inherently no better or worse than other POVs. Others, including Google, disagree. Sometimes that argument is made using extreme relativism or political correctness: All POVs have the same merit and deserve equal treatment; it's politically incorrect to discriminate at all. While that's an interesting and valuable philosophical discussion - how do we distinguish perfectly between good and bad - we can and must still distinguish between them. We don't have to wait for the perfect philosophical solution. But we can approach the question with reason: First, I believe that many (not all) arguing that the hate groups should be heard simply support the hate groups - it has nothing to do with public interest or freedom of speech; probably that's true on the other side too. Second, a more reasoned argument: Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ameister14 9y ago
As a citizen of a country that fought a war for independence against another much more powerful country, I believe that it is a mistake to set up a system for removing all violent rhetoric. That said, I do actually think the terrorists have an inherently worse POV. That's one of the reasons I'm ok with them spouting it. >Why should we tolerate groups who don't tolerate others? It breaks a fudamental social contract of free societies: If you want me to respect you, you must respect me. That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > That is not now and never has been a part of the fundamental social contract. Interestingly, not only is it almost universal, but it's even present on HN and in our immediate interaction.
arkh 9y ago
"I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview;" It sure is not. If you take the dictionary definition of the word hate. But what a lot of people do is use one word which have different meaning for them than for the public. When hate comprise any contrary view from yours, suddenly being against hate is not a healthy worldview. You have the exact same word-play with equality, equity, meritocracy etc. Set a good goal which everyone can accept, then swap the meaning of the words used to describe your goal and go after those who "don't think of the children".
biggerbistro 9y ago
>I don't believe being against hate is a "leftist" worldview This is the exact trap I was referring to. There are many political issues that are not as morally clear-cut as "people should not enslave other people", but are still lumped in with the "don't hate" rhetoric. The refugee crisis in Europe is one such controversy: it is easy to say "don't hate, all people are equal" but many view it as ethnic replacement which is a form of genocide. Hatred should of course be resisted but you have to understand that the word is being used as a boogeyman right now.