5 ms·

Most of white American would’ve supported siccing the police and military on the civil rights movement in the 60s. That doesn’t mean that newspapers should’ve a

Most of white American would’ve supported siccing the police and military on the civil rights movement in the 60s. That doesn’t mean that newspapers should’ve advocated they do so. The same holds true here. Ethics are not equivalent to populism.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hedora 6y ago
The newspapers in the 60’s didn’t pretend that 100% of the population was behind the civil rights movement. When racist politicians spoke, they got their platform. People could read, and decide for themselves. If an elected official wants to publish a racist diatribe, the press should circulate it as widely as possible. Informed voters make for a stronger democracy. Burying the editorial because it would offend their readers just improves the racist’s chances of being reelected.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  Ah yes, giving bigotry a prominent position and mass circulation is what protects and furthers democracy. History certainly agrees with your sentiment.
  - ReptileMan 6y ago
    Since the US has outlived the russian, german, french, japanese, and british empires, USSR and select other totalitarian states while not stopped being democracy I would say that US society commitment to the principles of marketplace of ideas had indeed protected and furthered the US democracy. All while being a lot more bigoted society.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      How did the US “commitment” to democracy and a “marketplace of ideas” play out in Indonesia again? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_...
  - hedora 6y ago
    Well, there were a bunch of white nationalists in Germany doing all sorts of terrible stuff, and the news decided to filter the message to match their sponsors’ ideology (by adding fake stories about eating babies, and suppressing stories about death camps). How did history judge that again?
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      It was US state policy to reject Jewish refugees while our wealthy industrialists conspired to profit from the Nazi regime. The German American Bund had branches across the US and Hitler‘s writing was featured in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1941/06/22/archives/the-art-of-propaganda-by-adolf-hitler.html https://www.nytimes.com/1941/06/22/archives/the-art-of-propa... If you’re going to invoke Godwin’s Law type arguments, you at least have to know the actual history.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Yes, it absolutely does. Think about LGBT rights. There was plenty of opposition to gay marriage, it was covered broadly and people had platforms. Slowly over time, opinions changed. Why? Because LGBT rights were publicly and transparently argued in the media. People heard opposing viewpoints. Would it have been better if back in the 1950's gay marriage was verboten? No one can talk about it?
  - dang 6y ago
    This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you please re-read them and stop taking HN threads further into flamewar? We've had to ask you this many times already. This thread is managing to stay barely on the ok side, with many comments from many sides of the issue, including your own side. These other users are managing to stay within the guidelines, and there's no reason why you can't also. Please do so. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mushbino 6y ago
  Is there a study or data that you could link to showing that frequently spreading white nationalist propaganda as widely and frequently as possible makes for better voters?
  - hedora 6y ago
    I suggested that we should make it more obvious that some elected politicians are white nationalists. That is different than giving all white nationalists a platform to spread their garbage.
- pm90 6y ago
  Part of the evolution of norms is a change in what’s acceptable and what isn’t. The N word was considered acceptable in print but isn’t anymore, even if the argument is being made by publicly racist politician. We agree as a society on what is considered offensive and not and that changes with time. Deplatforming people who refuse to adhere to that change is part of the evolution of society. The racist politician will ultimately find a racist platform which would gladly accept their views. This would make it pretty clear to the public that the politician is racist, wouldn’t it?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hedora 6y ago

The newspapers in the 60’s didn’t pretend that 100% of the population was behind the civil rights movement. When racist politicians spoke, they got their platform. People could read, and decide for themselves. If an elected official wants to publish a racist diatribe, the press should circulate it as widely as possible. Informed voters make for a stronger democracy. Burying the editorial because it would offend their readers just improves the racist’s chances of being reelected.

claudeganon 6y ago
Ah yes, giving bigotry a prominent position and mass circulation is what protects and furthers democracy. History certainly agrees with your sentiment.
- ReptileMan 6y ago
  Since the US has outlived the russian, german, french, japanese, and british empires, USSR and select other totalitarian states while not stopped being democracy I would say that US society commitment to the principles of marketplace of ideas had indeed protected and furthered the US democracy. All while being a lot more bigoted society.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    How did the US “commitment” to democracy and a “marketplace of ideas” play out in Indonesia again? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965–66 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_...
- hedora 6y ago
  Well, there were a bunch of white nationalists in Germany doing all sorts of terrible stuff, and the news decided to filter the message to match their sponsors’ ideology (by adding fake stories about eating babies, and suppressing stories about death camps). How did history judge that again?
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    It was US state policy to reject Jewish refugees while our wealthy industrialists conspired to profit from the Nazi regime. The German American Bund had branches across the US and Hitler‘s writing was featured in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1941/06/22/archives/the-art-of-propaganda-by-adolf-hitler.html https://www.nytimes.com/1941/06/22/archives/the-art-of-propa... If you’re going to invoke Godwin’s Law type arguments, you at least have to know the actual history.
- refurb 6y ago
  Yes, it absolutely does. Think about LGBT rights. There was plenty of opposition to gay marriage, it was covered broadly and people had platforms. Slowly over time, opinions changed. Why? Because LGBT rights were publicly and transparently argued in the media. People heard opposing viewpoints. Would it have been better if back in the 1950's gay marriage was verboten? No one can talk about it?
- dang 6y ago
  This comment breaks the site guidelines. Would you please re-read them and stop taking HN threads further into flamewar? We've had to ask you this many times already. This thread is managing to stay barely on the ok side, with many comments from many sides of the issue, including your own side. These other users are managing to stay within the guidelines, and there's no reason why you can't also. Please do so. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
mushbino 6y ago
Is there a study or data that you could link to showing that frequently spreading white nationalist propaganda as widely and frequently as possible makes for better voters?
- hedora 6y ago
  I suggested that we should make it more obvious that some elected politicians are white nationalists. That is different than giving all white nationalists a platform to spread their garbage.
pm90 6y ago
Part of the evolution of norms is a change in what’s acceptable and what isn’t. The N word was considered acceptable in print but isn’t anymore, even if the argument is being made by publicly racist politician. We agree as a society on what is considered offensive and not and that changes with time. Deplatforming people who refuse to adhere to that change is part of the evolution of society. The racist politician will ultimately find a racist platform which would gladly accept their views. This would make it pretty clear to the public that the politician is racist, wouldn’t it?