5 ms·

It's funny how you're arguing a case where an angry mob "crucifies" the poor sap who accidentally used a wrong word, when the actual event that kicked off this

It's funny how you're arguing a case where an angry mob "crucifies" the poor sap who accidentally used a wrong word, when the actual event that kicked off this debate was an actual angry mob, with real torches, honest swastikas, and loaded semi-automatic weapons who not-so-metaphorically ran over a completely non-threatening young woman. The people marching and screaming "Jews will not replace us" also don't strike me as the autistic type abhorring "group-think", considering their enjoyment of shouting hateful slogans in unisono. And lets not get into your contention that these peoples' only fault is somehow being "too rational". Just take a look at any photos from that rally and decide for yourself if they seem to be the sort of people who got an extra helping of rationality. Hint: some of them have face tattoos.

lhnz 9y ago
This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not relevant.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Edit (previous, sarcastic comment below): I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction. In addition, I feel there are two mechanisms in play here that undermine an honest debate: First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. It reminds me of the "movement for ethics in game journalism" that had nothing to do with misogyny, no sir. Secondly, the debate is moved to some other subject where people will agree with the idea that it would be absurd to, for example, censor something like the Principia Mathematica. That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. The underlying idea is, once again, the slippery slope, or some sort of inability to differentiate things that are obviously different. (Previous reply mocking the objection regarding the timeline: "At the moment I posted, my post did not yet exist, nor did your objection to it. Therefore, I will refuse to take it into consideration.")
  - Inconel 9y ago
    >First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time understanding your reasoning here. Are you really suggesting that the majority of people on HN who are defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville are doing so because they actually agree with the message those neo-Nazis and white supremacists are spewing? If this is what you believe, then please just come out and say that anyone defending this type of speech is in fact a neo-Nazi. You talk about mechanisms that undermine an honest debate but in the very next sentence you essentially argue that anyone in support(I'm adding an edit here to clarify: I mean support for the right to this kind of speech, not support for it's actual content) of this kind of objectionable speech is a Nazi in disguise. That certainly seems like undermining the debate to me. I don't like this kind of character assassination in disguise. Either be willing to call people out as Nazis and white supremacists, and back up your assertions, or give them the courtesy that they might be taking a stand in defense of a principle they actually believe in regarding speech, even in cases where they disagree with contents of said speech. I personally don't believe a reasonable person can be a neo-Nazi and thus I have very little interest in arguing or engaging with these types of people. When it comes to free speech I tend to fall on the side of having fewer restrictions on speech, although even here my views aren't really set in stone and do change on occasion. With that being said, unlike my views on Nazism, I do think reasonable people can disagree on the issues of where to draw the line on speech. Again, while I personally fall into the less restrictions camp, I don't think its unreasonable for someone to want restrictions on certain types of speech and thus I don't automatically assume those arguing for these restrictions are authoritarians in disguise. If you think this makes me a neo-Nazi I would prefer you just come out and say it, this is of course in the interest of "honest debate". Edited for spelling and grammar.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      > defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville I have become suspicious of which kinds of speech and which contexts people choose to become vocally defensive of. In the context of "what can you say without being fired by your employer", there are people fired every week for trying to organise unions at work. Somehow there isn't the same outrage from HN at those people having their free speech impaired. (Random example in case people claim this doesn't happen: https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-allegedly-fired-union-activity-reach-settlement-seiu https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-alleged... ) It's not that people supporting the free speech of Nazis are transitively Nazis, but people doing so ought to take a good hard look at themselves and why they choose to spend their time and energy on this cause rather than others. Not to mention that there really are a lot of dedicated Internet trolls constantly probing the velociraptor fences of exactly how close to Nazi ideology they can get on any given platform without being spotted.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
wvh 9y ago
Somewhat ironically, this is a clear example of an emotional outrage post. I'm not sure how you go from my post to a specific event in the US, and assign a political colour to that post, and put me on a specific side. I have nothing to do with politics, let alone US politics. I'm from northern Europe. The article is about neurological differences and the difficulty of navigating the modern outrage world. I understand you might have strong feelings about certain events in the US, but in my opinion, they are not terribly relevant to this specific article.
dang 9y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15070499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15070499 and marked it off-topic.

lhnz 9y ago

This was posted on the 18th of July. The Charlottesville rally is not relevant.

matt4077 9y ago
Edit (previous, sarcastic comment below): I belief it is disingenuous to try to discuss such issues without addressing the elephant in the room. I also felt the imagery (angry mob/pitchforks/etc) more than subtly pointed in that direction. In addition, I feel there are two mechanisms in play here that undermine an honest debate: First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. It reminds me of the "movement for ethics in game journalism" that had nothing to do with misogyny, no sir. Secondly, the debate is moved to some other subject where people will agree with the idea that it would be absurd to, for example, censor something like the Principia Mathematica. That agreement will then, in turn be used to defend things that are definitely not scientific masterpieces. The underlying idea is, once again, the slippery slope, or some sort of inability to differentiate things that are obviously different. (Previous reply mocking the objection regarding the timeline: "At the moment I posted, my post did not yet exist, nor did your objection to it. Therefore, I will refuse to take it into consideration.")
- Inconel 9y ago
  >First, there's a glut of people insisting they're only defending "free speech" and not supporting people such as those at that rally. I'm sorry but I'm really having a hard time understanding your reasoning here. Are you really suggesting that the majority of people on HN who are defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville are doing so because they actually agree with the message those neo-Nazis and white supremacists are spewing? If this is what you believe, then please just come out and say that anyone defending this type of speech is in fact a neo-Nazi. You talk about mechanisms that undermine an honest debate but in the very next sentence you essentially argue that anyone in support(I'm adding an edit here to clarify: I mean support for the right to this kind of speech, not support for it's actual content) of this kind of objectionable speech is a Nazi in disguise. That certainly seems like undermining the debate to me. I don't like this kind of character assassination in disguise. Either be willing to call people out as Nazis and white supremacists, and back up your assertions, or give them the courtesy that they might be taking a stand in defense of a principle they actually believe in regarding speech, even in cases where they disagree with contents of said speech. I personally don't believe a reasonable person can be a neo-Nazi and thus I have very little interest in arguing or engaging with these types of people. When it comes to free speech I tend to fall on the side of having fewer restrictions on speech, although even here my views aren't really set in stone and do change on occasion. With that being said, unlike my views on Nazism, I do think reasonable people can disagree on the issues of where to draw the line on speech. Again, while I personally fall into the less restrictions camp, I don't think its unreasonable for someone to want restrictions on certain types of speech and thus I don't automatically assume those arguing for these restrictions are authoritarians in disguise. If you think this makes me a neo-Nazi I would prefer you just come out and say it, this is of course in the interest of "honest debate". Edited for spelling and grammar.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > defending the right to free speech of the neo-Nazis we saw in Charlottesville I have become suspicious of which kinds of speech and which contexts people choose to become vocally defensive of. In the context of "what can you say without being fired by your employer", there are people fired every week for trying to organise unions at work. Somehow there isn't the same outrage from HN at those people having their free speech impaired. (Random example in case people claim this doesn't happen: https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-allegedly-fired-union-activity-reach-settlement-seiu https://patch.com/new-jersey/newarknj/newark-workers-alleged... ) It's not that people supporting the free speech of Nazis are transitively Nazis, but people doing so ought to take a good hard look at themselves and why they choose to spend their time and energy on this cause rather than others. Not to mention that there really are a lot of dedicated Internet trolls constantly probing the velociraptor fences of exactly how close to Nazi ideology they can get on any given platform without being spotted.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

wvh 9y ago

Somewhat ironically, this is a clear example of an emotional outrage post. I'm not sure how you go from my post to a specific event in the US, and assign a political colour to that post, and put me on a specific side. I have nothing to do with politics, let alone US politics. I'm from northern Europe. The article is about neurological differences and the difficulty of navigating the modern outrage world. I understand you might have strong feelings about certain events in the US, but in my opinion, they are not terribly relevant to this specific article.

dang 9y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15070499 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15070499 and marked it off-topic.