3 ms·

If someone replies to this comment saying they are a Nazi, are you going to stop using hacker news? Perhaps you're restricting yourself to only paid services, b

If someone replies to this comment saying they are a Nazi, are you going to stop using hacker news? Perhaps you're restricting yourself to only paid services, but that still doesn't seem like a tenable plan. Nazis buy coffee from the same cafés as you, they ride the same trains as you. If you think people should be removed from society altogether, you should vote to make what they're doing illegal so they can all be thrown in jail. Short of that, I don't think it's fair to try to prevent them from participating in society. Jail is the way we prevent people from participating in society, stopping them from using their bank accounts seems like a half-measure.

fake-name 7y ago
> If someone replies to this comment saying they are a Nazi, are you going to stop using hacker news? If someone from $ORGANIZATION made it clear that people that work for them and don't like Nazi's aren't welcome to be clear they don't like Nazis, I'd certainly consider dropping $ORGANIZATION. > you should vote to make what they're doing illegal so they can all be thrown in jail. What? There's a broad spectrum of things I personally don't like, or even think are odius that I'm not seeking to make illegal. The law is not a reflection of morality. I'm not seeking to impose my own value judgements on others (excepting murder, etc...), but the illegality of something has no substantial bearing on what I view as right. What do you think the laws are for, out of curiosity? I assume you don't think they're supposed to reflect morality?
- doubleunplussed 7y ago
  > If someone from $ORGANIZATION made it clear that people that work for them and don't like Nazi's aren't welcome to be clear they don't like Nazis, I'd certainly consider dropping $ORGANIZATION. This is shifting the goalposts and not an answer to my question. Allowing Nazis does not imply disallowing anti-Nazis. You can allow both. Laws are for lots of things, but they are for imposing morality, yes. I mean, I'm a consequentialist, so morality and "good outcomes" are synonymous for me. The law is to create incentives that make people cooperate in prisoners' dilemma type situations, at the societal level. You personally avoiding Nazis is one thing - you are entitled to it and it has nothing to do with the law. However, if you are taking part in activism to exclude them from society, not just your part of society but payment systems, social media, things where them taking part has no effect on you, then I don't know why you don't go the whole way and make their views illegal. Also, being excluded from society in the ways that people think Nazis should be is a consequence so harsh that I would want it to have legal oversight. As the past has shown, "I don't like people x" plus mob rule is not a good way to decide people's fates. Avoid them in your personal life, sure, but it sounds like you're talking about activism to exclude them from places where you could just not interact with them. Just don't contribute to Nazi gitlab projects. If you're boycotting gitlab to try and get them to exclude Nazis, then I think you are using the private sector to enforce what you think should be a general rule, and I think companies and mobs are the wrong tool for the job. Take it to the voting booth, that is what democracy is for.

fake-name 7y ago

> If someone replies to this comment saying they are a Nazi, are you going to stop using hacker news? If someone from $ORGANIZATION made it clear that people that work for them and don't like Nazi's aren't welcome to be clear they don't like Nazis, I'd certainly consider dropping $ORGANIZATION. > you should vote to make what they're doing illegal so they can all be thrown in jail. What? There's a broad spectrum of things I personally don't like, or even think are odius that I'm not seeking to make illegal. The law is not a reflection of morality. I'm not seeking to impose my own value judgements on others (excepting murder, etc...), but the illegality of something has no substantial bearing on what I view as right. What do you think the laws are for, out of curiosity? I assume you don't think they're supposed to reflect morality?

doubleunplussed 7y ago
> If someone from $ORGANIZATION made it clear that people that work for them and don't like Nazi's aren't welcome to be clear they don't like Nazis, I'd certainly consider dropping $ORGANIZATION. This is shifting the goalposts and not an answer to my question. Allowing Nazis does not imply disallowing anti-Nazis. You can allow both. Laws are for lots of things, but they are for imposing morality, yes. I mean, I'm a consequentialist, so morality and "good outcomes" are synonymous for me. The law is to create incentives that make people cooperate in prisoners' dilemma type situations, at the societal level. You personally avoiding Nazis is one thing - you are entitled to it and it has nothing to do with the law. However, if you are taking part in activism to exclude them from society, not just your part of society but payment systems, social media, things where them taking part has no effect on you, then I don't know why you don't go the whole way and make their views illegal. Also, being excluded from society in the ways that people think Nazis should be is a consequence so harsh that I would want it to have legal oversight. As the past has shown, "I don't like people x" plus mob rule is not a good way to decide people's fates. Avoid them in your personal life, sure, but it sounds like you're talking about activism to exclude them from places where you could just not interact with them. Just don't contribute to Nazi gitlab projects. If you're boycotting gitlab to try and get them to exclude Nazis, then I think you are using the private sector to enforce what you think should be a general rule, and I think companies and mobs are the wrong tool for the job. Take it to the voting booth, that is what democracy is for.