7 ms·

Honestly, "Those are the eyes of a rat" is a fairly tame insult compared to the kind of toxic drivel Jones usually says, and seems like weak grounds for termina

Honestly, "Those are the eyes of a rat" is a fairly tame insult compared to the kind of toxic drivel Jones usually says, and seems like weak grounds for termination. He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex.

darpa_escapee 8y ago
The thing about persecution complexes is that those who have them will find persecution in anything, so it's kind of a waste of energy to worry about what might trigger those prone to thinking in such a way.
- GW150914 8y ago
  The thing about persecution complexes is that those who have them will find persecution in anything, so it's kind of a waste of energy to worry about what might trigger those prone to thinking in such a way. Interestingly enough, that’s probably why Twitter feels comfortable ignoring the screams of outrage from the “this is censorship, and the internet is now dooooomed” crowd. When the only thing a group has to stand on is a slippery slope of their own invention, ignoring them is a safe option. People who can only accept their own rigid interpretations at the direct expense of everyone else are impossible to engage with, and a global megacorporation simply doesn’t have the luxury to try. The banning of Alex Jones from one platform doesn’t spell the end of freedom, or the rise of unfettered censorship, it’s just the application of the most bedrock, basic standards of both intellectual honesty and human decency. The idea that freedom can only exist if we require something like Twitter to lend their platform to the likes of Jones is intellectually bankrupt. It’s also ironic on Hacker News, which explicitly exists as the result of strong curation and moderation. Having standards isn’t censorship, and just as a newspaper doesn’t owe you and everyone else their own page, no other outlet does either.
  - bachbach 8y ago
    So as seems likely - suppose a schism opens up that pushes 'those people' off some platforms. The next step is to prevent DNS resolution working. I assume that like myself you would see that as a step too far. The problem is that the average millennial will not see a meaningful distinction between being blocked on plaform X and being prevented from using a protocol. There is a good chance of that happening I think - it's a matter of time before somebody develops a 'fake news' list and the wrongthinkers are effectively not part of the web for nearly everybody. What will happen then is a big expansion of that other portion of the internet, and eventually citizens will go there to 'find out what really happened' on event x.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      When the only thing a group has to stand on is a slippery slope of their own invention, ignoring them is a safe option. Then you open with a slippery slope, “Suppose a schism opens... the next step...” If that next step ever begins to materialize that would be the time to worry. Paralysis of decency and standards out of fear of a possible slippery slope is the miserable status quo, and not desirable. If this... then maybe that... and possibly later... isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy.
      - bachbach 8y ago
        I reiterate: the average millennial does not make a distinction between a website service and a protocol. If you make ban lists (the Silicon Valley companies are operating in near sync with each other) - then the public expectation won't just be that level of moderation/censorship within the walled garden - but also outside of it. We're already at the point of materialization, Stormfront and a socialist organization I can't recall (World Socialist something) are prevented from using domain names and other services like turning up in Google Search, Cloudfront or GoDaddy - effectively banning them from the web. They have then migrated to more censorship resistant networks. Legitimacy to the political persecution (by liberals) narrative has solidified in far right and far left circles - even the ones who aren't affiliated with the two organizations - it is now taken for granted in parts of mainstream web, parts of Reddit that organizations like DW are outright lying. The trend is consistent, and I don't believe either of those two organizations were accused of being law breakers - and next to go down it will be Alex Jones - a watershed moment and advertising for censorship resistant networks because Jones is more famous than either. In the case of Jones his brand will be bolstered by this. China and Russia will say he is a ideological refugee, a political dissident and they will be able to make a great argument for that. This is how censorship looks like from the inside perspective - it's just that you're on the inside. The Chinese feel the same way when being told off by the West on the subject of reeducation camps. You'll scoff at that I expect - but at least the Chinese are able to say these people needed handling because of real terrorism and illegal activity - where you've nothing to stand on.
- twiceaday 8y ago
  This is overly simplistic. Everybody has their own thresholds. The tamer the 'last straw' the easier it is to twist the message.
  - noobermin 8y ago
    Why do you care? If you're on the right, then I'd say look at the Presidency, look at the Congress, look at the Supreme Court, look at most of state and local governments and stop crying. If you aren't on the right, why do you care how they feel? Do they spend time worrying about the suppressed people they victimize? Or do they mock them and deride them?
    - _Tev 8y ago
      This is how American left loses elections. I was really thinking that your crazies on the right simply make up that "intellectual left that looks down on them", but boyyy, HN discussions have convinced me that the US left is quite rotten too (I assume people here are actually friendlier and more likely to try to convince the other side than general population). It's a shame, this stupid polarization.
CharlesW 8y ago
It does seem tame, but a quick search suggests it may be an anti-semitic dog whistle.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  It seems like every comment by someone the left doesn’t like is a kind of dog whistle.
  - Kye 8y ago
    Doesn't mean they're wrong. There's a reason they don't like those words/phrases.
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > Doesn't mean they're wrong. If you have watched Alex Jones before you will know he happily speaks his mind and is not afraid to come across as offensive or crazy. It is not in his character to hide secret meanings in his content.
      - Kye 8y ago
        He was put on notice by Twitter with a week ban. That's the exact circumstance where someone like him would start using coded language to try and avoid a ban while still promoting his ideas. That's the purpose of coded language.
  - nichochar 8y ago
    Ah. the good old: lets criticize a generalization by making a generalization. Always a strong argument :)
    - ravenstine 8y ago
      Since when does the broadness of an observation or argument have any impact on its validity? Who made up that rule?
candiodari 8y ago
> He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex. He is quite correct in the assessment that he's being persecuted on ideological grounds, unless he says "by the government". Why would you deny that ? And let's face facts here. If you held an alt-right viewpoint in San Francisco ... would you tell your employer ? Would you tell your friends ? Would you tell a police agent ? Would you tell city hall ? Because I'd sure be afraid as hell to tell anyone. Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened. They, of course, will not change their opinion or their vote, and will give more power if this movement does grow to the point they can get enough politicians elected. The really sad part is that it really looks to me like neither Damore nor Eich had an alt-right worldview when they got screwed, but ... let me ask you ... if they held one now, because of what happened to them, would you find that surprising ? Would you blame them ? I wouldn't. So let's just say that I REALLY think this is the wrong tactic. Engaging with them is the only way things might happen. That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults. Yep. Absolutely. Censorship, aside from being an act of desperation, mostly strengthens the hand of the people being censored, and convinces new people that what is being censored is true. I mean, just the act of censorship by itself does that. Plus, it won't stop them, Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically. This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. Or at least, he has a lot more arguments against those. Let's face facts here. These bans, takedowns, ... they make most of us feel better. They make the situation worse, but they make us feel better. That by itself is dangerous as hell.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened." I find it incredible how many people are more upset that those two got called out for their crappy views, and don't care at all what the actions of those two meant to the groups they targeted. Suppose you were a gay person working at Mozilla. How would you feel if you found out that your boss thought that you were not deserving of basic human rights? "Would you blame them ?" Yes, I absolutely would. Because they're adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions. "Engaging with them is the only way things might happen." No, it isn't. Because they do not engage in good faith. They do not debate in good faith. "That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults" The fact that you refer to what they're saying as merely "insults" says a lot. They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public. They are questioning the idea that these people are entitled to basic human dignity. That is not just an insult to be sustained. "Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically." Then they don't need the megaphone of Twitter. "This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. " This is directly contrary to your previous point, which was that they still have their own websites to get their message out.

darpa_escapee 8y ago

The thing about persecution complexes is that those who have them will find persecution in anything, so it's kind of a waste of energy to worry about what might trigger those prone to thinking in such a way.

GW150914 8y ago
The thing about persecution complexes is that those who have them will find persecution in anything, so it's kind of a waste of energy to worry about what might trigger those prone to thinking in such a way. Interestingly enough, that’s probably why Twitter feels comfortable ignoring the screams of outrage from the “this is censorship, and the internet is now dooooomed” crowd. When the only thing a group has to stand on is a slippery slope of their own invention, ignoring them is a safe option. People who can only accept their own rigid interpretations at the direct expense of everyone else are impossible to engage with, and a global megacorporation simply doesn’t have the luxury to try. The banning of Alex Jones from one platform doesn’t spell the end of freedom, or the rise of unfettered censorship, it’s just the application of the most bedrock, basic standards of both intellectual honesty and human decency. The idea that freedom can only exist if we require something like Twitter to lend their platform to the likes of Jones is intellectually bankrupt. It’s also ironic on Hacker News, which explicitly exists as the result of strong curation and moderation. Having standards isn’t censorship, and just as a newspaper doesn’t owe you and everyone else their own page, no other outlet does either.
- bachbach 8y ago
  So as seems likely - suppose a schism opens up that pushes 'those people' off some platforms. The next step is to prevent DNS resolution working. I assume that like myself you would see that as a step too far. The problem is that the average millennial will not see a meaningful distinction between being blocked on plaform X and being prevented from using a protocol. There is a good chance of that happening I think - it's a matter of time before somebody develops a 'fake news' list and the wrongthinkers are effectively not part of the web for nearly everybody. What will happen then is a big expansion of that other portion of the internet, and eventually citizens will go there to 'find out what really happened' on event x.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    When the only thing a group has to stand on is a slippery slope of their own invention, ignoring them is a safe option. Then you open with a slippery slope, “Suppose a schism opens... the next step...” If that next step ever begins to materialize that would be the time to worry. Paralysis of decency and standards out of fear of a possible slippery slope is the miserable status quo, and not desirable. If this... then maybe that... and possibly later... isn’t an argument, it’s a fallacy.
    - bachbach 8y ago
      I reiterate: the average millennial does not make a distinction between a website service and a protocol. If you make ban lists (the Silicon Valley companies are operating in near sync with each other) - then the public expectation won't just be that level of moderation/censorship within the walled garden - but also outside of it. We're already at the point of materialization, Stormfront and a socialist organization I can't recall (World Socialist something) are prevented from using domain names and other services like turning up in Google Search, Cloudfront or GoDaddy - effectively banning them from the web. They have then migrated to more censorship resistant networks. Legitimacy to the political persecution (by liberals) narrative has solidified in far right and far left circles - even the ones who aren't affiliated with the two organizations - it is now taken for granted in parts of mainstream web, parts of Reddit that organizations like DW are outright lying. The trend is consistent, and I don't believe either of those two organizations were accused of being law breakers - and next to go down it will be Alex Jones - a watershed moment and advertising for censorship resistant networks because Jones is more famous than either. In the case of Jones his brand will be bolstered by this. China and Russia will say he is a ideological refugee, a political dissident and they will be able to make a great argument for that. This is how censorship looks like from the inside perspective - it's just that you're on the inside. The Chinese feel the same way when being told off by the West on the subject of reeducation camps. You'll scoff at that I expect - but at least the Chinese are able to say these people needed handling because of real terrorism and illegal activity - where you've nothing to stand on.
twiceaday 8y ago
This is overly simplistic. Everybody has their own thresholds. The tamer the 'last straw' the easier it is to twist the message.
- noobermin 8y ago
  Why do you care? If you're on the right, then I'd say look at the Presidency, look at the Congress, look at the Supreme Court, look at most of state and local governments and stop crying. If you aren't on the right, why do you care how they feel? Do they spend time worrying about the suppressed people they victimize? Or do they mock them and deride them?
  - _Tev 8y ago
    This is how American left loses elections. I was really thinking that your crazies on the right simply make up that "intellectual left that looks down on them", but boyyy, HN discussions have convinced me that the US left is quite rotten too (I assume people here are actually friendlier and more likely to try to convince the other side than general population). It's a shame, this stupid polarization.

CharlesW 8y ago

It does seem tame, but a quick search suggests it may be an anti-semitic dog whistle.

sheepmullet 8y ago
It seems like every comment by someone the left doesn’t like is a kind of dog whistle.
- Kye 8y ago
  Doesn't mean they're wrong. There's a reason they don't like those words/phrases.
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > Doesn't mean they're wrong. If you have watched Alex Jones before you will know he happily speaks his mind and is not afraid to come across as offensive or crazy. It is not in his character to hide secret meanings in his content.
    - Kye 8y ago
      He was put on notice by Twitter with a week ban. That's the exact circumstance where someone like him would start using coded language to try and avoid a ban while still promoting his ideas. That's the purpose of coded language.
- nichochar 8y ago
  Ah. the good old: lets criticize a generalization by making a generalization. Always a strong argument :)
  - ravenstine 8y ago
    Since when does the broadness of an observation or argument have any impact on its validity? Who made up that rule?

candiodari 8y ago

> He should've been kicked off long ago, but I fear that having this particular example be the "final straw" is only going to strengthen the alt-right's persecution complex. He is quite correct in the assessment that he's being persecuted on ideological grounds, unless he says "by the government". Why would you deny that ? And let's face facts here. If you held an alt-right viewpoint in San Francisco ... would you tell your employer ? Would you tell your friends ? Would you tell a police agent ? Would you tell city hall ? Because I'd sure be afraid as hell to tell anyone. Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened. They, of course, will not change their opinion or their vote, and will give more power if this movement does grow to the point they can get enough politicians elected. The really sad part is that it really looks to me like neither Damore nor Eich had an alt-right worldview when they got screwed, but ... let me ask you ... if they held one now, because of what happened to them, would you find that surprising ? Would you blame them ? I wouldn't. So let's just say that I REALLY think this is the wrong tactic. Engaging with them is the only way things might happen. That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults. Yep. Absolutely. Censorship, aside from being an act of desperation, mostly strengthens the hand of the people being censored, and convinces new people that what is being censored is true. I mean, just the act of censorship by itself does that. Plus, it won't stop them, Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically. This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. Or at least, he has a lot more arguments against those. Let's face facts here. These bans, takedowns, ... they make most of us feel better. They make the situation worse, but they make us feel better. That by itself is dangerous as hell.

s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Neither Damore nor Eich deserved what happened to them, and it's disgraceful (and, of course, discriminatory/racist) that such things happened." I find it incredible how many people are more upset that those two got called out for their crappy views, and don't care at all what the actions of those two meant to the groups they targeted. Suppose you were a gay person working at Mozilla. How would you feel if you found out that your boss thought that you were not deserving of basic human rights? "Would you blame them ?" Yes, I absolutely would. Because they're adults, fully capable of taking responsibility for their own actions. "Engaging with them is the only way things might happen." No, it isn't. Because they do not engage in good faith. They do not debate in good faith. "That's difficult, takes constant effort, and will require people to sustain insults" The fact that you refer to what they're saying as merely "insults" says a lot. They are questioning the very right of these people to exist. They are questioning the ability of these people to be in public. They are questioning the idea that these people are entitled to basic human dignity. That is not just an insult to be sustained. "Breitbart and Infowars are more than big enough to grow their audience organically." Then they don't need the megaphone of Twitter. "This act of censorship is doubly counterproductive even. Before we had very concrete things to point at to show how despicable he sometimes is ... and now we don't. " This is directly contrary to your previous point, which was that they still have their own websites to get their message out.