4 ms·

How about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known

How about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups, should be banned. The sarcasm/satire/meme defense is not a real thing. It's not that it's hard identify Nazis, it's that they make Facebook money and that's why Facebook is not willing to deal with them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mistermann 8y ago
> How about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups The issue with this approach is what constitutes a dog whistle seems to be growing rapidly, and largely relies upon the imagination of the person judging. On a related note, I'm curious where you are encountering all these nazis you speak so passionately about, and what definition you're using for nazi.....might the deciding factor be the detection of a dog whistle, which is why you seem to encounter so many? Or for a more concrete approach to the question: I an an unambiguous opponent of open borders - does that make me a nazi?
- jessaustin 8y ago
  The only exception would be if you're a NIMBY talking about the "borders" of your neighborhood. Social media critics have to worry about home values, too.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    Just to confirm I'm not misunderstanding you (and the downvoters, presumably).....if I am opposed to the complete removal of my nation's borders, you consider me to generally support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Is that correct? If so, do you realize the implications of that belief?
    - jessaustin 8y ago
      See irony, dude. My comment highlighted the hypocrisy of your downvoters, in an amusing way. They're happy to have immigrants in the county, because fast food. They're much less happy to have them in the neighborhood, because racism. That isn't to say that I agree with you. Although it's true that immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing and we're only now approaching the percentages we had at the turn of the century. Immigration back then has been a long-term benefit to the nation, and immigration now will probably be the same.
      - mistermann 8y ago
        > See irony, dude. More likely a misunderstanding on my part, and now on yours if you believe this is irony. > That isn't to say that I agree with you.....< immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing> I'm not saying anything about immigration levels, I am talking about this increasingly popular idea that a lack of support for open borders is inherently racist. It is lazy, stupid thinking, and the prevalence of this sort of thinking seems to be growing, even on relatively highly objective and intellectual sites like HN. This sort of thinking has consequences.
        jessaustin 8y ago
        Don't worry, I detect zero irony on your part. I've been called "racist" (by family members!) for not believing the Russia fairy tale. This despite loudly proclaiming my antipathy to Trump and my opinion that a vote for anyone other than Stein or Johnson was wasted. This week our heroic investigators are reading tweets! So, there's sort of a sliding scale of ridiculousness in racism accusations. When you say your objections are to "open borders", a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade, it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really against...
        mistermann 8y ago
        > a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade There is a growing number of people who believe borders, and border enforcement, are literally racist. I am protesting against that movement. > it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really ag If(!) my previous statement doesn't change your mind on this, then you might want to adjust your dog whistle detector, or even better, reconsider the utility of that mode of perception entirely.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mistermann 8y ago

> How about we start with whoever is calling for extermination of people with identifiable characteristics such race/religion/etc or using a number of well known dog whistles against those groups The issue with this approach is what constitutes a dog whistle seems to be growing rapidly, and largely relies upon the imagination of the person judging. On a related note, I'm curious where you are encountering all these nazis you speak so passionately about, and what definition you're using for nazi.....might the deciding factor be the detection of a dog whistle, which is why you seem to encounter so many? Or for a more concrete approach to the question: I an an unambiguous opponent of open borders - does that make me a nazi?

jessaustin 8y ago
The only exception would be if you're a NIMBY talking about the "borders" of your neighborhood. Social media critics have to worry about home values, too.
- mistermann 8y ago
  Just to confirm I'm not misunderstanding you (and the downvoters, presumably).....if I am opposed to the complete removal of my nation's borders, you consider me to generally support: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Is that correct? If so, do you realize the implications of that belief?
  - jessaustin 8y ago
    See irony, dude. My comment highlighted the hypocrisy of your downvoters, in an amusing way. They're happy to have immigrants in the county, because fast food. They're much less happy to have them in the neighborhood, because racism. That isn't to say that I agree with you. Although it's true that immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing and we're only now approaching the percentages we had at the turn of the century. Immigration back then has been a long-term benefit to the nation, and immigration now will probably be the same.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      > See irony, dude. More likely a misunderstanding on my part, and now on yours if you believe this is irony. > That isn't to say that I agree with you.....< immigrants as a percentage of overall population have increased since the 1960s, that increase is slowing> I'm not saying anything about immigration levels, I am talking about this increasingly popular idea that a lack of support for open borders is inherently racist. It is lazy, stupid thinking, and the prevalence of this sort of thinking seems to be growing, even on relatively highly objective and intellectual sites like HN. This sort of thinking has consequences.
      - jessaustin 8y ago
        Don't worry, I detect zero irony on your part. I've been called "racist" (by family members!) for not believing the Russia fairy tale. This despite loudly proclaiming my antipathy to Trump and my opinion that a vote for anyone other than Stein or Johnson was wasted. This week our heroic investigators are reading tweets! So, there's sort of a sliding scale of ridiculousness in racism accusations. When you say your objections are to "open borders", a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade, it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really against...
        mistermann 8y ago
        > a ridiculous fancy that cannot possibly happen in the next decade There is a growing number of people who believe borders, and border enforcement, are literally racist. I am protesting against that movement. > it's somewhat natural to wonder what you're really ag If(!) my previous statement doesn't change your mind on this, then you might want to adjust your dog whistle detector, or even better, reconsider the utility of that mode of perception entirely.