3 ms·
> Publication does not mean endorsement of the view. You see this in the disclaimer in all the editorials: "The views expressed are those of the author, and do
by fzeroracer 8y ago
> Publication does not mean endorsement of the view. You see this in the disclaimer in all the editorials: "The views expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of [publication]". They can publish, on their platform, views that they disagree with. On that point, you are simply wrong.
Publication is, essentially, endorsement. Let's say I hosted a blog, and then I decided on my blog to constantly host people whom deny climate change. I can add a disclaimer to the end of all of their posts and say 'these represent views I personally do not endorse', but if the entirety of my blog consisted of those sort of views, people would naturally question what I really believe. At a certain point it is endorsement depending on how odious the behavior is. If the Washington Post decided to publish an article on how black people are responsible for all the evils in America, that would be a blemish on their reputation even if they added said disclaimer.
> Contrary to the ideals of America, even. Should I be able to get you banned from HN? If they don't, should I say that HN endorses your views, and get a howling mob to shut HN down?
If you haven't realized yet, this is why flagging and voting down posts exists on HN. It exists so that the users can self-curate content and remove things that are considered particularly odious. If you consider that contrary to American ideals, then why are you participating on a site contrary to your beliefs? Posters on HN can and do shut down people espousing alt-right beliefs.
>That's why I'm opposed to societal censorship. If a mob can shut down the alt right for being too far outside society, they can shut down you and me when they decide that we're too far outside the new norm.
This is the answer from someone scared of progress or change. This was the exact argument made during the Civil Rights era by people who were afraid of black people gaining rights: They were scared of mobs shutting them down, stopping them from being racist. Does this mean the mob is always right? No, but it does mean that you should strongly consider whether or not your beliefs are truly outdated.
Society as I mentioned evolves and changes over time. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. I would hope you would agree that society evolving to give more rights to people previous deprived of them to be a good thing. And I would also hope you realize that the reason why there's such a strong reaction against the alt-right is because they want to specifically take away those rights from minority populations.
And with regards to the baker thing, you managed to miss my point entirely. My point is that your concept of American ideals is flawed and broken: Because we have not and never applied those ideals equally. The baker case was never truly about endorsement or religious liberties: It was about entrenching the right to discriminate against minorities.
- haberman 8y ago> And I would also hope you realize that the reason why there's such a strong reaction against the alt-right is because they want to specifically take away those rights from minority populations. I hope you would realize that the reason there's such a strong reaction to the "alt-left" is because this kind of thinking leads people to such crazy places that they would defend Soviet gulags as "compassionate." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-camps-compassionate-educational-institutions-say/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/11/soviet-labour-ca... The 20th century had horrors of Naziism and racism, yes, but it also had horrors perpetrated in the name of "progress" and "reeducation." If you have emotionally internalized the horrors of Germany and Jim Crow, but haven't done the same with the USSR, the Cultural Revolution, and the Khmer Rouge, then I can understand why ideologically-enforced progressivism might seem harmless and noble.
- fzeroracer 8y agoThe 'alt-left' as people claim barely exists in any tangible form. Yes, there are going to be people that'll excuse the crimes of the USSR but to try and equate them to the alt-right is a false equivalence. Particularly because when you look at the spike in hate crimes, violence, antisemitism etc, you primarily see members of the alt-right fall within that group. Considering how our president behaves and excuses members of the alt-right, I'll start worrying about the alt-left when and if they start holding positions of power. Before you start trying to point out further members of the alt-left: I'll just remind you that it was during that same speech that the alt-left term was invented.
- haberman 8y ago> Particularly because when you look at the spike in hate crimes, violence, antisemitism etc, you primarily see members of the alt-right fall within that group. Let's just go from the last week. Here is some left-wing violence: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/us/conservative-activist-assault-uc-berkeley/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/us/conservative-activist-assa... Here is a weekly roundup of anti-semitism, and much of it is from the left (associated with Britain's Labour party): https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/week-headlines-tell-story-anti-semitism/583393/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/week-headl... And for hate crimes, the news is that Jussie Smolett has been arrested for staging the "modern-day lynching" against him that has captured national attention for the last few weeks: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jussie-smollet-chicago-attack-hoax-empire-actor-full-timeline-live-updates/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jussie-smollet-chicago-attack-h... I'm not saying the alt-right is nothing to worry about. I'm saying the left is capable of real harm too.