4 ms·

> That's easy: I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe, As a white, religious person, - but not a nationalist: I alw

> That's easy: I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe, As a white, religious person, - but not a nationalist: I always felt safe on HN and I hope most HNers are OK with that as long as I play by the rules? Why shouldn't everyone feel safe as long as they play by the rules? Edit: I'm not hurt. I'm hoping to get a better worded explanation from you :-) Edit 2: The reason why I ask is because sentence is quite absurd and cannot be what you mean. Just try to imagine someone saying: "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe," here on HN.

indigo945 6y ago
You are arguing in bad faith. Obviously one should be made welcome no matter whether they're white, a nationalist, religious, or all of these, but it should be easy enough to infer from context that this is not what the parent comment was about. It is about making clear that this welcome does not extend toward making other groups feel unwelcome, that is, toward prioritizing that welcome over others.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > You are arguing in bad faith. I'm not. I also read and re-read it too. One possible explanation could be that I'm not a native speaker. However if anyone wrote: "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe," I'd flag it instantly as I originally did with this before I unflagged it and asked instead because while I think some kind of nazi crap could write that I don't think that is what she means. Edit: also I think it is bad for the conversation to state as fact that I argue in bad faith. If you'd be kind enough to rewrite that I'll also try to remove this edit.
  - jolux 6y ago
    What I meant was that white nationalists feeling safe in a space (particularly them feeling safe expressing white nationalist views) is a decent heuristic for that space being poorly moderated or of poor quality overall. At the very least I’m not interested in the content of that space and I find white nationalists repugnant.
    - tptacek 6y ago
      Just for clarity's sake: I spent a year monitoring HN (somewhat primitively, but with automation) for white nationalist content, and I stopped because it's become increasingly clear that the site itself finds white nationalism repugnant. Though it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines (the guidelines would be long indeed if they had to state every pathology that emerges on an Internet message board), it's abundantly clear from the "informal moderation log" (the feed of comments from 'dang) that overt appeals to racial, national, or religious superiority are against the site rules. People are routinely banned for this stuff. It's also just pretty clear that the community on the site has much less patience for racism and misogyny than the rap it gets on Twitter (which is an objectively worse site, for whatever that's worth). The real reason monitoring for white nationalism got boring is that practically every comment I'd catch would get modded down and flagged. I used to report things to Dan when I saw them, but I was batting less than .200 on reporting things that weren't flagged by the time Dan saw them. What's problematic about evaluating the site --- and you don't have this problem, because you're a regular, but lots of other people do --- is it can be extraordinarily bad if you snapshot it at the wrong time. Anyone can join! Without a credit card or a phone number! They can post whatever nonsense they want! You have to watch the site in action over the course of hours to see what the community actually thinks about something. That's plenty of time to make an effective Orange Site Dunk on Twitter. I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable, and there must be room to improve it. But it's better than a lot of people think it is.
      - jolux 6y ago
        > I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable, and there must be room to improve it. But it's better than a lot of people think it is. This is basically my position. I have a hard time convincing others of it because of the reputation, though. It’s been an invaluable space for me in learning from people like you posting and I have no doubt that I have gained a significant amount of social savvy and also technological sophistication in using the site. I have trouble thinking of specific ways that it could be improved, specifically because of what you mention.
        6y ago
  - apocolyps6 6y ago
    Perhaps because you are not a native speaker you might not know, but "white nationalist" is basically the polite term for Nazis(and other groups with similar beliefs).
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      Thanks a lot. I think if that's what people mean they should just say nazi. Most of us (and I am definitely in that group) can agree on disliking/hating nazis. In my opinion there's no reason to mix skin color or religion into this. Again, thanks. Certain American cultural norms aren't obvious to me.
      - ferzul 6y ago
        It's not an American cultural norm. It's just English grammar. Things which are written as compounds in other languages often have a space in English, and English does not distinguish between word classes so that Noun-Noun compounds and Adjective-Noun phrases are ambiguous. But if you hear “white nationalism” five times, when you hear “white nationalist” you don't hear it compositionally as “(white) (nationalist)” but as “(white nation)alist” - someone who advocates for a white nation. “White nationalism” is a word. It has a different meaning than Nazism in my experience, so calling for substitution would be wrong. For instance, a person could support a multi-party white nationalist pseudo-democracy like the US during slavery. But nazism is going to be a form of dictatorship.
        skinkestek 6y ago
        Based on this (actually enlightening, thanks) I have a new idea of what it meant had it been written in a more Germam way: (religious whitenation-alism)[0] That's kind of unfortunate because I read it as just the opposite of: non-religious colored globalists In hindsight it is possible to see, but right there and then it seemed obvious, and I guess we should come up with a better term. Also, for what it is worth: I might have been able to catch that if "religious" hadn't been thrown in there. > “White nationalism” is a word. It has a different meaning than Nazism in my experience, so calling for substitution would be wrong. Good point. We could need some clear words and definitions for this as I'm fairly convinced I'm not the only one to misunderstand the wording, kind of like a DSL for discussing bad ideas. A positive side effect of this whole thing is that I am fairly certain I actually got to feel in my body what it feels like to be triggered :-D If I should ask certain other people here to learn something from this thing it would be to be precise, and to not alienate people for no good reason, because I am fairly certain a number of people here would say I was dog-whisteling or something to that effect while I was legitimately confused. [0]: Although when white-nation-alism (to be very clear) becomes religious about itself I think it is some form of nazism.
  - thomaslord 6y ago
    It's possible you interpreted this differently than it was intended as a non-native speaker. In case that's true, I'll note that rather than referring to people who are "religious", "white", or "nationalist", the OP was likely referring to people who are "religious" and "white nationalist". White nationalists are people who want to establish a white ethnostate, and typically this label is adopted by white supremacists who want to leave behind the "white supremacist" label but maintain the same ideology.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

indigo945 6y ago

You are arguing in bad faith. Obviously one should be made welcome no matter whether they're white, a nationalist, religious, or all of these, but it should be easy enough to infer from context that this is not what the parent comment was about. It is about making clear that this welcome does not extend toward making other groups feel unwelcome, that is, toward prioritizing that welcome over others.

skinkestek 6y ago
> You are arguing in bad faith. I'm not. I also read and re-read it too. One possible explanation could be that I'm not a native speaker. However if anyone wrote: "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe," I'd flag it instantly as I originally did with this before I unflagged it and asked instead because while I think some kind of nazi crap could write that I don't think that is what she means. Edit: also I think it is bad for the conversation to state as fact that I argue in bad faith. If you'd be kind enough to rewrite that I'll also try to remove this edit.
- jolux 6y ago
  What I meant was that white nationalists feeling safe in a space (particularly them feeling safe expressing white nationalist views) is a decent heuristic for that space being poorly moderated or of poor quality overall. At the very least I’m not interested in the content of that space and I find white nationalists repugnant.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Just for clarity's sake: I spent a year monitoring HN (somewhat primitively, but with automation) for white nationalist content, and I stopped because it's become increasingly clear that the site itself finds white nationalism repugnant. Though it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines (the guidelines would be long indeed if they had to state every pathology that emerges on an Internet message board), it's abundantly clear from the "informal moderation log" (the feed of comments from 'dang) that overt appeals to racial, national, or religious superiority are against the site rules. People are routinely banned for this stuff. It's also just pretty clear that the community on the site has much less patience for racism and misogyny than the rap it gets on Twitter (which is an objectively worse site, for whatever that's worth). The real reason monitoring for white nationalism got boring is that practically every comment I'd catch would get modded down and flagged. I used to report things to Dan when I saw them, but I was batting less than .200 on reporting things that weren't flagged by the time Dan saw them. What's problematic about evaluating the site --- and you don't have this problem, because you're a regular, but lots of other people do --- is it can be extraordinarily bad if you snapshot it at the wrong time. Anyone can join! Without a credit card or a phone number! They can post whatever nonsense they want! You have to watch the site in action over the course of hours to see what the community actually thinks about something. That's plenty of time to make an effective Orange Site Dunk on Twitter. I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable, and there must be room to improve it. But it's better than a lot of people think it is.
    - jolux 6y ago
      > I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable, and there must be room to improve it. But it's better than a lot of people think it is. This is basically my position. I have a hard time convincing others of it because of the reputation, though. It’s been an invaluable space for me in learning from people like you posting and I have no doubt that I have gained a significant amount of social savvy and also technological sophistication in using the site. I have trouble thinking of specific ways that it could be improved, specifically because of what you mention.
      - 6y ago
- apocolyps6 6y ago
  Perhaps because you are not a native speaker you might not know, but "white nationalist" is basically the polite term for Nazis(and other groups with similar beliefs).
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    Thanks a lot. I think if that's what people mean they should just say nazi. Most of us (and I am definitely in that group) can agree on disliking/hating nazis. In my opinion there's no reason to mix skin color or religion into this. Again, thanks. Certain American cultural norms aren't obvious to me.
    - ferzul 6y ago
      It's not an American cultural norm. It's just English grammar. Things which are written as compounds in other languages often have a space in English, and English does not distinguish between word classes so that Noun-Noun compounds and Adjective-Noun phrases are ambiguous. But if you hear “white nationalism” five times, when you hear “white nationalist” you don't hear it compositionally as “(white) (nationalist)” but as “(white nation)alist” - someone who advocates for a white nation. “White nationalism” is a word. It has a different meaning than Nazism in my experience, so calling for substitution would be wrong. For instance, a person could support a multi-party white nationalist pseudo-democracy like the US during slavery. But nazism is going to be a form of dictatorship.
      - skinkestek 6y ago
        Based on this (actually enlightening, thanks) I have a new idea of what it meant had it been written in a more Germam way: (religious whitenation-alism)[0] That's kind of unfortunate because I read it as just the opposite of: non-religious colored globalists In hindsight it is possible to see, but right there and then it seemed obvious, and I guess we should come up with a better term. Also, for what it is worth: I might have been able to catch that if "religious" hadn't been thrown in there. > “White nationalism” is a word. It has a different meaning than Nazism in my experience, so calling for substitution would be wrong. Good point. We could need some clear words and definitions for this as I'm fairly convinced I'm not the only one to misunderstand the wording, kind of like a DSL for discussing bad ideas. A positive side effect of this whole thing is that I am fairly certain I actually got to feel in my body what it feels like to be triggered :-D If I should ask certain other people here to learn something from this thing it would be to be precise, and to not alienate people for no good reason, because I am fairly certain a number of people here would say I was dog-whisteling or something to that effect while I was legitimately confused. [0]: Although when white-nation-alism (to be very clear) becomes religious about itself I think it is some form of nazism.
- thomaslord 6y ago
  It's possible you interpreted this differently than it was intended as a non-native speaker. In case that's true, I'll note that rather than referring to people who are "religious", "white", or "nationalist", the OP was likely referring to people who are "religious" and "white nationalist". White nationalists are people who want to establish a white ethnostate, and typically this label is adopted by white supremacists who want to leave behind the "white supremacist" label but maintain the same ideology.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]