6 ms·

Posting here as well; As someone who is facinated by what is happening I spend a decent amount of time spelunking in the dark web. The Neo-Nazis are not that

Posting here as well; As someone who is facinated by what is happening I spend a decent amount of time spelunking in the dark web. The Neo-Nazis are not that upset by this. They want to use the same tools to boycott the Zionist and Jews. It's actually one of the many things the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right agree on. In addition we're making them into martyrs. Banning and suppression was counter productive on the original Nazis and it is counter productive here. This should be we'll know by those who read civics. It is even codified in the book Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinsky. It makes me wonder what books Antifa are reading as they are doing all of the wrong things. I get that it feels like we're (non nazis) are winning but we're not and this is isn't helping.

tweedledee 9y ago
Can the downvoters give a reason. I like hearing from those who disagree with me.
- grzm 9y ago
  People downvote for a variety of reasons. In this case, one reason may be that you copy-pasted an earlier comment, which is generally frowned upon on HN.
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  Sure, but this is political and will probably exceed the HN mandate. There's literally nothing we can do to stop these disgusting examples of humanity. Rational discourse is predicated on the idea that your opponent isn't purposefully lying. They are. So leaving them in the sunlight accomplishes nothing, while driving them out of the public sphere while not destroying them, at least helps us as a society set a 'this is where tolerance ends' boundary. That has to exist somewhere, and Nazism is clearly beyond that. As for making them martyrs, they already cast themselves in that light, and their supporters already see them as that. I don't think losing a web domain will drive the common man into their arms unless they were looking for an excuse.
  - elmerfud 9y ago
    If your goal is to establish a clear societal tolerance boundary then you need a far better understanding of history.
- rhizome 9y ago
  Martyrdom requires sympathy. Who is sympathetic to the goals of a gang other than gang members?
  - gspetr 9y ago
    People who think gang lifestyle is cool? What do you think the entire african american gangsta rap culture is? Most people who buy their content aren't african american either.
seattle_spring 9y ago
The alt-left is not a real thing. please stop spreading this meme.
- thinkingemote 9y ago
  Many thought that the alt-right is not a real thing either. Turns out if you label something and it sticks, it becomes real.
  - tweedledee 9y ago
    I did ask :) It appears as if the Alt-Left is already a thing. Otherwise people would be asking for clarification on what I meant by it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    “alt-right” is a label created by people to refer to themselves, and distinguishes their group from the establishment right. “alt-left” is a label created by defenders of the alt-right to refer generically to it's opponents. They aren't really parallel terms.
- gaius 9y ago
  Now I'm confused. Is Antifa mainstream Left then? I think most people would disagree. What term is more appropriate to describe them? Genuine question.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    What exactly is your question? You have about 3 layers of circular reasoning and undefined terms.
  - mintplant 9y ago
    Anarchists, socialists, and antifascists have been traditionally grouped under the umbrella of "the Left". It's odd seeing people try to push parts of the original Left out into the "Alt-Left", almost like gentrifying a political space. (Antifascism itself dates back to early 20th century opposition action against fascist tides in Italy, Germany, and Spain; the comparison to the modern phenomenon of the Alt-Right feels historically inappropriate.)
guptaneil 9y ago
Using the term "Alt-Left" as the opposite of "Alt-Right" only serves to normalize their position on the spectrum by dragging the mainstream "normal" further right. We should refer to them as the "alt-right" (or preferably nazis) vs the mainstream to keep "normal" where it is.
- apearson 9y ago
  Do you not agree there are extremes on both ends? Calling alt-right or anyone not directly associated with the Nazi party makes the term Nazis less significant.
lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
Where you, and ever other "Free Speech" person misses the point is this isn't the government. There's no "banning and suppression" because you can still legally host your views yourself. The idea that private companies are required to distribute your speech is like implying freedom of the press means that any article you write NYT is required to print. Turns out, most companies don't want to be associated with Nazis; shocking I know. And, as Nazis are not a protected class in the United States, it's fully within their rights not to do business with them. It's easy to say "let's all support a version of free speech that's never existed because we believe in the ideology" when these groups aren't targeting you. It's a bitter pill to swallow if you happen to be Jewish, Black, etc.
- xaa 9y ago
  This viewpoint confuses the legal meaning of the First Amendment, which indeed only applies to the government, with its rationale. The rationale is the theory that having a diversity of viewpoints, including some that are dangerous or repugnant, is the best approach towards a robust civil society and intellectual growth. If you disagree with something you hear or read, you can ignore it, or you can criticize it, but banning speech causes two undesirable outcomes: 1) The speech will continue anyway, but not in the public eye, where it can be criticized 2) The popularity of an idea is different from the correctness of an idea. It has happened many times that an unpopular or even heretical idea has turned out to be right. Almost certainly these people are no Galileo. But this approach to free speech is intended to protect the Galileos of the world. It should be kept in mind that talk of revolution in the U.S. during the late 1700s would have been considered extremely dangerous and repugnant by many as well.
  - lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
    This is historical revisionism in the extreme. That rationale is younger than a good number of people on this board, not the golden ideal in the minds of the founders. You're literally posting to a forumn where certain speech is moderated; it's because of that moderation that you post here, otherwise it would be a cesspool of off topic memes and spam (a la /r/programming et al). A private company or even a cabal of private companies cannot ban speech. Nothing is stopping anyone from hosting which ever content they'd like. You are not entitled to the walled garden that Google and others insist is "The Internet". Private businesses and lay people not wanting to do business with you is fundamentally different from official prosecution. I will gladly fight for any group's protection from governmental over reach; I can't even begin to understand the rational behind choosing "private businesses can't have moderation" as the hill you choose to die on.

tweedledee 9y ago

Can the downvoters give a reason. I like hearing from those who disagree with me.

grzm 9y ago
People downvote for a variety of reasons. In this case, one reason may be that you copy-pasted an earlier comment, which is generally frowned upon on HN.
drewbuschhorn 9y ago
Sure, but this is political and will probably exceed the HN mandate. There's literally nothing we can do to stop these disgusting examples of humanity. Rational discourse is predicated on the idea that your opponent isn't purposefully lying. They are. So leaving them in the sunlight accomplishes nothing, while driving them out of the public sphere while not destroying them, at least helps us as a society set a 'this is where tolerance ends' boundary. That has to exist somewhere, and Nazism is clearly beyond that. As for making them martyrs, they already cast themselves in that light, and their supporters already see them as that. I don't think losing a web domain will drive the common man into their arms unless they were looking for an excuse.
- elmerfud 9y ago
  If your goal is to establish a clear societal tolerance boundary then you need a far better understanding of history.
rhizome 9y ago
Martyrdom requires sympathy. Who is sympathetic to the goals of a gang other than gang members?
- gspetr 9y ago
  People who think gang lifestyle is cool? What do you think the entire african american gangsta rap culture is? Most people who buy their content aren't african american either.

seattle_spring 9y ago

The alt-left is not a real thing. please stop spreading this meme.

thinkingemote 9y ago
Many thought that the alt-right is not a real thing either. Turns out if you label something and it sticks, it becomes real.
- tweedledee 9y ago
  I did ask :) It appears as if the Alt-Left is already a thing. Otherwise people would be asking for clarification on what I meant by it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  “alt-right” is a label created by people to refer to themselves, and distinguishes their group from the establishment right. “alt-left” is a label created by defenders of the alt-right to refer generically to it's opponents. They aren't really parallel terms.
gaius 9y ago
Now I'm confused. Is Antifa mainstream Left then? I think most people would disagree. What term is more appropriate to describe them? Genuine question.
- rhizome 9y ago
  What exactly is your question? You have about 3 layers of circular reasoning and undefined terms.
- mintplant 9y ago
  Anarchists, socialists, and antifascists have been traditionally grouped under the umbrella of "the Left". It's odd seeing people try to push parts of the original Left out into the "Alt-Left", almost like gentrifying a political space. (Antifascism itself dates back to early 20th century opposition action against fascist tides in Italy, Germany, and Spain; the comparison to the modern phenomenon of the Alt-Right feels historically inappropriate.)

guptaneil 9y ago

Using the term "Alt-Left" as the opposite of "Alt-Right" only serves to normalize their position on the spectrum by dragging the mainstream "normal" further right. We should refer to them as the "alt-right" (or preferably nazis) vs the mainstream to keep "normal" where it is.

apearson 9y ago
Do you not agree there are extremes on both ends? Calling alt-right or anyone not directly associated with the Nazi party makes the term Nazis less significant.

lordCarbonFiber 9y ago

Where you, and ever other "Free Speech" person misses the point is this isn't the government. There's no "banning and suppression" because you can still legally host your views yourself. The idea that private companies are required to distribute your speech is like implying freedom of the press means that any article you write NYT is required to print. Turns out, most companies don't want to be associated with Nazis; shocking I know. And, as Nazis are not a protected class in the United States, it's fully within their rights not to do business with them. It's easy to say "let's all support a version of free speech that's never existed because we believe in the ideology" when these groups aren't targeting you. It's a bitter pill to swallow if you happen to be Jewish, Black, etc.

xaa 9y ago
This viewpoint confuses the legal meaning of the First Amendment, which indeed only applies to the government, with its rationale. The rationale is the theory that having a diversity of viewpoints, including some that are dangerous or repugnant, is the best approach towards a robust civil society and intellectual growth. If you disagree with something you hear or read, you can ignore it, or you can criticize it, but banning speech causes two undesirable outcomes: 1) The speech will continue anyway, but not in the public eye, where it can be criticized 2) The popularity of an idea is different from the correctness of an idea. It has happened many times that an unpopular or even heretical idea has turned out to be right. Almost certainly these people are no Galileo. But this approach to free speech is intended to protect the Galileos of the world. It should be kept in mind that talk of revolution in the U.S. during the late 1700s would have been considered extremely dangerous and repugnant by many as well.
- lordCarbonFiber 9y ago
  This is historical revisionism in the extreme. That rationale is younger than a good number of people on this board, not the golden ideal in the minds of the founders. You're literally posting to a forumn where certain speech is moderated; it's because of that moderation that you post here, otherwise it would be a cesspool of off topic memes and spam (a la /r/programming et al). A private company or even a cabal of private companies cannot ban speech. Nothing is stopping anyone from hosting which ever content they'd like. You are not entitled to the walled garden that Google and others insist is "The Internet". Private businesses and lay people not wanting to do business with you is fundamentally different from official prosecution. I will gladly fight for any group's protection from governmental over reach; I can't even begin to understand the rational behind choosing "private businesses can't have moderation" as the hill you choose to die on.