5 ms·

> If it's so obviously wrong, then nobody will believe it anyway. That's not objectively true. You have extremely obvious historical examples at your disposal

> If it's so obviously wrong, then nobody will believe it anyway. That's not objectively true. You have extremely obvious historical examples at your disposal that completely negate what you just said, assuming you've been exposed to some equivalency of U.S. middle school level world history. To provide some more immediate examples relevant to the rhetoric on /pol/, we face issues with people not vaccinating, believing in deep state conspiracy theories, etc. Don't even bother with that talking point because you're either just ignorant about what's being discussed or being disingenuous. >These reactionary calls to ban speech you don't like just makes your own position seem weak. No, it makes my position look sane and practical. That's kind of a dishonest statement to make. It's not because I don't like it, again, it's because the typoe of rhetortic on /pol/ (that is supported quantifiably by thread bumping and the frequency with which those talking points come up) is insane and antithetical to a decent, functioning society. >Nothing is above debate. Plenty of things are below the debate threshold. Everything I just listed being some examples of those. >those people are the absolute minority No they're not. Shit was so prevalent it caused some nutcase to storm a pizza place and threaten innocent pizza loving patrons. In short, spare me the fuzzy peaches ("free speech") parade you're trying to put on. Because you know it's not an honest talking point and it certainly isn't a principle that leads to some higher plane of intellectual debate. It does quite the opposite.

kadenshep 8y ago
I like how my grandparent comment got flagged. Was it uncomfortable reading actual Nazi talking points HN? You might want to evaluate why that's the case and why you were okay with someone putting the blame on the "journalist's sensibilities."
- dang 8y ago
  It probably got flagged because ideological battle is off topic here. Regardless of how right you are, it's not what this site is for, and (worse) destroys what it is for. The comment you replied to wasn't good, but taking HN even further from its intended use just makes the thread worse, which is why the site guidelines ask you not to do: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - kadenshep 8y ago
    We dont discuss the merits fuedalism. Why are you condoning the discussion and apology of Nazi talking points in a disingenuous manner on this forum? The purpose of HN is to discuss topics from a hacker perspective is it not? Which typically has implied characteristics of rationally discussing topics in an honest and forthright manner, no? Would you consider the calling out of similar dishonest talking points in support of flat Earth theories to be in violation of "idealogical" battle rules.
    - dang 8y ago
      People often conclude that we're secret sympathizers with their opponents, but since the opponents cover the spectrum, this logic refutes itself. The issue is rather that the online callout/shaming culture leads to degraded discussions and flamewars, as does ideological battle generally, regardless of how right people are or feel. The purpose of Hacker News is intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies. I don't need to agree with Nazis or disagree with you to point that out, and you don't need to break the site rules to correct errors or just flag egregious comments. If you like political kung fu fighting, there are other places to do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - matheusmoreira 8y ago
      The fact a bunch of /pol/ nazis make use of free speech doesn't invalidate free speech. It doesn't make free speech a "nazi talking point", either. It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, an English woman, who wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". She was describing Voltaire's beliefs. Democracy means giving everyone a chance, even those nazis that nobody likes. You can't say you're tolerant and at the same time be intolerant towards that specific group because history condemns them. You've got to be better than that on principle. If you claim that rationality should prevail, then engage them on those terms rather than banning them outright. I don't associate with flat Earth theorists because I've convinced myself those are false based on my current knowledge of physics. For me, that matter is pretty much settled. However, the people from /pol/ sometimes cite published scientific articles I'd never seen before in order to substantiate their claims. While I take their politicized posts with extra grains of salt, I do check their references and try to form my own opinion on the matter. Many times I end up no wiser than before, sometimes I reach different conclusions. The point is: if people had simply banned their discourse outright, I wouldn't have reached any conclusion at all. I simply don't want anyone else drawing conclusions for me.

kadenshep 8y ago

I like how my grandparent comment got flagged. Was it uncomfortable reading actual Nazi talking points HN? You might want to evaluate why that's the case and why you were okay with someone putting the blame on the "journalist's sensibilities."

dang 8y ago
It probably got flagged because ideological battle is off topic here. Regardless of how right you are, it's not what this site is for, and (worse) destroys what it is for. The comment you replied to wasn't good, but taking HN even further from its intended use just makes the thread worse, which is why the site guidelines ask you not to do: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kadenshep 8y ago
  We dont discuss the merits fuedalism. Why are you condoning the discussion and apology of Nazi talking points in a disingenuous manner on this forum? The purpose of HN is to discuss topics from a hacker perspective is it not? Which typically has implied characteristics of rationally discussing topics in an honest and forthright manner, no? Would you consider the calling out of similar dishonest talking points in support of flat Earth theories to be in violation of "idealogical" battle rules.
  - dang 8y ago
    People often conclude that we're secret sympathizers with their opponents, but since the opponents cover the spectrum, this logic refutes itself. The issue is rather that the online callout/shaming culture leads to degraded discussions and flamewars, as does ideological battle generally, regardless of how right people are or feel. The purpose of Hacker News is intellectual curiosity, not smiting enemies. I don't need to agree with Nazis or disagree with you to point that out, and you don't need to break the site rules to correct errors or just flag egregious comments. If you like political kung fu fighting, there are other places to do it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - matheusmoreira 8y ago
    The fact a bunch of /pol/ nazis make use of free speech doesn't invalidate free speech. It doesn't make free speech a "nazi talking point", either. It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall, an English woman, who wrote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". She was describing Voltaire's beliefs. Democracy means giving everyone a chance, even those nazis that nobody likes. You can't say you're tolerant and at the same time be intolerant towards that specific group because history condemns them. You've got to be better than that on principle. If you claim that rationality should prevail, then engage them on those terms rather than banning them outright. I don't associate with flat Earth theorists because I've convinced myself those are false based on my current knowledge of physics. For me, that matter is pretty much settled. However, the people from /pol/ sometimes cite published scientific articles I'd never seen before in order to substantiate their claims. While I take their politicized posts with extra grains of salt, I do check their references and try to form my own opinion on the matter. Many times I end up no wiser than before, sometimes I reach different conclusions. The point is: if people had simply banned their discourse outright, I wouldn't have reached any conclusion at all. I simply don't want anyone else drawing conclusions for me.