7 ms·

People of color, and LGBT are demographics. White supremacy is an ideology (a reprehensible one at that). People choose their ideology, not their race, or sexua

People of color, and LGBT are demographics. White supremacy is an ideology (a reprehensible one at that). People choose their ideology, not their race, or sexuality. They are not the same thing. Third party businesses should not feel any obligation to do business with "dudes who blabber" about the murdering and hate of others.

cambalache 7y ago
What about communists, anarchists, marxists, mormons, people who believe there are genetically based cognitive differences based on sex/race. What about people who are against abortion, against weed legalization, what about people who consider cops to be a civilian death squad used by the rich to oppress the poor. What about people who think the US Army is an occupation force in every place but America. Is OK to discriminate some of them? All of them? None? Are you going to manage the API so the apps can be built to see who is worthy or not?
- ausbah 7y ago
  I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others.
  - shard972 7y ago
    I think Zionists are the same as white nationalists and yet they are a protected class....
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
    Doesn't almost every religious group fall under it then?
    - ausbah 7y ago
      No, I wouldn't equate the teachings of ISIS with my neighborhood mosque. Religions have many variations under the larger umbrella.
      - read_if_gay_ 7y ago
        The point is, who’s gonna be the arbiter of what’s absolute good and what’s absolute bad? What happens if people disagree? Where is the line? If you find something like 8chan and point it out to Cloudflare, should they ban it? If they say no that’s not as bad, well why is their value judgment worth more than that of other people? If they say okay, then anyone can get anything they judge to be as bad as 8chan ‘banned’ from it.
  - tripzilch 7y ago
    > I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others. Does that also work if you can show that it doesn't cause widespread harm in every country with stricter gun regulations? Seriously if you make statements like that, you ought to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
- abootstrapper 7y ago
  > Is OK to discriminate some of them? If they promote violence and racism. Yes. > Will you manage the API? If I thought it would help, sure.
sadris 7y ago
Political ideology has a higher heritability than homosexuality. It's a myth that people can simply "choose their ideology"
sneak 7y ago
People choose their religion, too.
- ausbah 7y ago
  Religious groups have a loooooong history of persecution, discrimination, and genocide.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    So have ideological groups. The Nazis murdered plenty of communists, too. The communists murdered plenty of critics.
- Smithalicious 7y ago
  Do they? A key aspect of religion is believing that your beliefs reflect objective reality, e.g. there really is a God that did all this stuff, there really were prophets that performed these specific miracles and said these specific things etcetera. Saying that believing in what you think is objective reality is a choice gives off some strong 1984 vibes.
  - thephyber 7y ago
    I think it depends on how you categorize the act of "choosing". It could be cognitive and evidence (more traditional idea of "choosing") based or it could be faith and/or feelings-based (it's not clear if this is "choosing"). There are a thousand religions/sects in the world. Most of them are exclusive (as in the 1st Commandment). You have to make a choice to affiliate yourself with one of them (although not everyone chooses to be specific to one denomination). I don't think it's reminiscent of "1984" to say that people choose their religion. I think people choose who they want to be around and that tends to be among the largest predictors of religious affiliation.
  - sneak 7y ago
    This is a good argument, but it falls apart when you confront the fact that religious beliefs have no basis in objective reality and are thus entirely unbound from it. People convert all the time, religious beliefs are frequently inherently contradictory, et c. When your beliefs about objective reality include a bunch of made up delusional shit to satisfy oneself emotionally, it’s pretty straightforward to swap one set of fairy tales that didn’t happen for another set of fairy tales that didn’t happen. No harm, no foul.
lm28469 7y ago
lgbt fanatics aren't much more sane than any other extremists yet they don't have any issues with being on twitter, facebook or reddit. (emphasis on _fanatics_). Widespread propaganda about kids sexualization/abuse and genitalia mutilation on these platform is A-ok and a cause for celebration. You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile (alt-right, nazi, white privileged, whatever the word of the day is, &c.), no matter how valid the point you're making is (even here on HN you can’t have serious discussions about issues like the gender pay gap or immigration). It really isn't a surprise that these loners end up on sketchy websites once they're ridiculed/banned/shut off everywhere else. If you're a man feeling like a girl you'll find a community telling you you should chop off your genitals and ingest a truck load of hormones, if you’re a POC feeling unaccepted they'll tell you it's because of how racist society is [0], if you’re a girl and aren’t successful it’s due to the patriarchy [0], but oh boy if you’re a white man feeling empty inside no one gives a flying fuck about what you have to say. Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple, the issues are rooted much more deeply, especially in the US culture, and they've been running for a while. I’d even argue that the root cause of modern white supremacy is very close to the root cause of religious terrorism. But see, no one wants to even consider it through that lens, it's much easier to dismiss it entirely and talk about non-issues ("they're mentally ill", "just an angry loner", "if only he was dating", &c.). Now we can spend days talking about cloudflare, but that's mostly a waste of time, you don't put a bandaid on a broken leg and expects it to heal. https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror --- “These young people find themselves at a time in their life when they are looking to the future with the hope of engaging in meaningful behavior that will be satisfying and get them ahead. Their objective circumstances including opportunities for advancement are virtually nonexistent; they find some direction for their religious collective identity but the desperately disadvantaged state of their community leaves them feeling marginalized and lost without a clearly defined collective identity” for the individuals who become active terrorists, the initial attraction is often to the group, or community of believers, rather than to an abstract ideology or to violence” --- [0] Just to be clear I'm not implying these things don't exists or that they're non-issues.
- Daishiman 7y ago
luckylion 7y ago
> People choose their ideology How do you figure that works? Do we wake up, fully equipped with a developed mind but zero preferences and experiences and then ponder which of the available ideologies we would like to subscribe to?
namtir 7y ago
Yes naturally people of color, and LGBT folk can't ascribe to an ideology. Naah .. that's nonsense. They're immune. Each group will have its own ideologues, its own agenda.
Smithalicious 7y ago
I think this is shaky ground. Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality (though I do not). White supremacists, religious people etc think their beliefs reflect objective reality, which is clearly not something they can choose. I think making "you chose this" a valid reason to censor/attack/etc. something opens the door to some pretty dangerous things, since it's not difficult to accuse things of being a choice that aren't.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality Right. Even this assumption is loaded with ideology both ways. I.e. either they choose or do not choose. Neither is correct.
- memmcgee 7y ago
  Except there is an objective reality that LGBT people don't choose their sexuality.
  - wyclif 7y ago
    That is not "an objective reality", it's an opinion.
    - widowlark 7y ago
      it's only an opinion if you reject years of research. Sounds like you might just be a bigot.
      - wyclif 7y ago
        The accusation of "bigotry" is a common and entirely predictable, tiresome move for those without the academic goods. Why not read the actual research? Nope, sorry/not sorry, the prolix pop culture wishful thinking that homosexuality is innate is fiction https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50Sexualit...
turk73 7y ago
I don't see how white supremacy is any different than what the Black Panthers promote. Or any identity movement, for that matter. I'm sure there are some pretty vile Asian ones. Do you reject all of them?

cambalache 7y ago

What about communists, anarchists, marxists, mormons, people who believe there are genetically based cognitive differences based on sex/race. What about people who are against abortion, against weed legalization, what about people who consider cops to be a civilian death squad used by the rich to oppress the poor. What about people who think the US Army is an occupation force in every place but America. Is OK to discriminate some of them? All of them? None? Are you going to manage the API so the apps can be built to see who is worthy or not?

ausbah 7y ago
I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others.
- shard972 7y ago
  I think Zionists are the same as white nationalists and yet they are a protected class....
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
  Doesn't almost every religious group fall under it then?
  - ausbah 7y ago
    No, I wouldn't equate the teachings of ISIS with my neighborhood mosque. Religions have many variations under the larger umbrella.
    - read_if_gay_ 7y ago
      The point is, who’s gonna be the arbiter of what’s absolute good and what’s absolute bad? What happens if people disagree? Where is the line? If you find something like 8chan and point it out to Cloudflare, should they ban it? If they say no that’s not as bad, well why is their value judgment worth more than that of other people? If they say okay, then anyone can get anything they judge to be as bad as 8chan ‘banned’ from it.
- tripzilch 7y ago
  > I think it's okay to discriminate or moderate against a set of beliefs if you can show that the spread beliefs lead to the widespread harm of others. Does that also work if you can show that it doesn't cause widespread harm in every country with stricter gun regulations? Seriously if you make statements like that, you ought to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
abootstrapper 7y ago
> Is OK to discriminate some of them? If they promote violence and racism. Yes. > Will you manage the API? If I thought it would help, sure.

sadris 7y ago

Political ideology has a higher heritability than homosexuality. It's a myth that people can simply "choose their ideology"

sneak 7y ago

People choose their religion, too.

ausbah 7y ago
Religious groups have a loooooong history of persecution, discrimination, and genocide.
- luckylion 7y ago
  So have ideological groups. The Nazis murdered plenty of communists, too. The communists murdered plenty of critics.
Smithalicious 7y ago
Do they? A key aspect of religion is believing that your beliefs reflect objective reality, e.g. there really is a God that did all this stuff, there really were prophets that performed these specific miracles and said these specific things etcetera. Saying that believing in what you think is objective reality is a choice gives off some strong 1984 vibes.
- thephyber 7y ago
  I think it depends on how you categorize the act of "choosing". It could be cognitive and evidence (more traditional idea of "choosing") based or it could be faith and/or feelings-based (it's not clear if this is "choosing"). There are a thousand religions/sects in the world. Most of them are exclusive (as in the 1st Commandment). You have to make a choice to affiliate yourself with one of them (although not everyone chooses to be specific to one denomination). I don't think it's reminiscent of "1984" to say that people choose their religion. I think people choose who they want to be around and that tends to be among the largest predictors of religious affiliation.
- sneak 7y ago
  This is a good argument, but it falls apart when you confront the fact that religious beliefs have no basis in objective reality and are thus entirely unbound from it. People convert all the time, religious beliefs are frequently inherently contradictory, et c. When your beliefs about objective reality include a bunch of made up delusional shit to satisfy oneself emotionally, it’s pretty straightforward to swap one set of fairy tales that didn’t happen for another set of fairy tales that didn’t happen. No harm, no foul.

lm28469 7y ago

lgbt fanatics aren't much more sane than any other extremists yet they don't have any issues with being on twitter, facebook or reddit. (emphasis on _fanatics_). Widespread propaganda about kids sexualization/abuse and genitalia mutilation on these platform is A-ok and a cause for celebration. You literally can't express any opinions going against the current flow of ideas without being labelled as hostile (alt-right, nazi, white privileged, whatever the word of the day is, &c.), no matter how valid the point you're making is (even here on HN you can’t have serious discussions about issues like the gender pay gap or immigration). It really isn't a surprise that these loners end up on sketchy websites once they're ridiculed/banned/shut off everywhere else. If you're a man feeling like a girl you'll find a community telling you you should chop off your genitals and ingest a truck load of hormones, if you’re a POC feeling unaccepted they'll tell you it's because of how racist society is [0], if you’re a girl and aren’t successful it’s due to the patriarchy [0], but oh boy if you’re a white man feeling empty inside no one gives a flying fuck about what you have to say. Anyone thinking these shootings are due to 8chan is a fool, plain and simple, the issues are rooted much more deeply, especially in the US culture, and they've been running for a while. I’d even argue that the root cause of modern white supremacy is very close to the root cause of religious terrorism. But see, no one wants to even consider it through that lens, it's much easier to dismiss it entirely and talk about non-issues ("they're mentally ill", "just an angry loner", "if only he was dating", &c.). Now we can spend days talking about cloudflare, but that's mostly a waste of time, you don't put a bandaid on a broken leg and expects it to heal. https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror https://www.gwern.net/Terrorism-is-not-about-Terror --- “These young people find themselves at a time in their life when they are looking to the future with the hope of engaging in meaningful behavior that will be satisfying and get them ahead. Their objective circumstances including opportunities for advancement are virtually nonexistent; they find some direction for their religious collective identity but the desperately disadvantaged state of their community leaves them feeling marginalized and lost without a clearly defined collective identity” for the individuals who become active terrorists, the initial attraction is often to the group, or community of believers, rather than to an abstract ideology or to violence” --- [0] Just to be clear I'm not implying these things don't exists or that they're non-issues.

Daishiman 7y ago

luckylion 7y ago

> People choose their ideology How do you figure that works? Do we wake up, fully equipped with a developed mind but zero preferences and experiences and then ponder which of the available ideologies we would like to subscribe to?

namtir 7y ago

Yes naturally people of color, and LGBT folk can't ascribe to an ideology. Naah .. that's nonsense. They're immune. Each group will have its own ideologues, its own agenda.

Smithalicious 7y ago

I think this is shaky ground. Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality (though I do not). White supremacists, religious people etc think their beliefs reflect objective reality, which is clearly not something they can choose. I think making "you chose this" a valid reason to censor/attack/etc. something opens the door to some pretty dangerous things, since it's not difficult to accuse things of being a choice that aren't.

zzzcpan 7y ago
> Plenty of people think LGBT "choose" their sexuality Right. Even this assumption is loaded with ideology both ways. I.e. either they choose or do not choose. Neither is correct.
memmcgee 7y ago
Except there is an objective reality that LGBT people don't choose their sexuality.
- wyclif 7y ago
  That is not "an objective reality", it's an opinion.
  - widowlark 7y ago
    it's only an opinion if you reject years of research. Sounds like you might just be a bigot.
    - wyclif 7y ago
      The accusation of "bigotry" is a common and entirely predictable, tiresome move for those without the academic goods. Why not read the actual research? Nope, sorry/not sorry, the prolix pop culture wishful thinking that homosexuality is innate is fiction https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50Sexualit...

turk73 7y ago

I don't see how white supremacy is any different than what the Black Panthers promote. Or any identity movement, for that matter. I'm sure there are some pretty vile Asian ones. Do you reject all of them?