9 ms·

> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". Just FTR we are pret

> It is a win for the far-right to have y'all here on HN "disagree with them but still believe they should be here and not on the fringe". Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: tptacek shared some interesting research he'd done a couple of hours ago and it might be of interest to everyone here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23681929

iron0013 6y ago
He made a claim, but he didn’t actually share any of his research or data.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. dang does a good job keeping people on-message politically (and I'm sure tptacek did as well), but being "racist-adjacent"—which HN absolutely is [1]—isn't a long-term viable position. Someday soon I expect the racist-adjacent user-banning to kick into high gear on HN (like SSC did) but it will be too little, too late. Eventually, HN will inevitably shut down—and it might be sooner than any of us think. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/ https://slatestarcodex.com/ [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033
    - lliamander 6y ago
      > In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry. > [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.
      - user982 6y ago
        > To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here. "The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacceptably reductionist?
        lliamander 6y ago
        The comment "The SPLC is a hate group" is not racist. Even if the person who said it is otherwise racist, it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist. Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.
        TomSwirly 6y ago
        An outspoken racist falsely attacks one of the great legal defenders of Blacks in America and your argument is, "it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist." I'm doubtful you will convince anyone with that argument: perhaps not even yourself.
        6y ago
  - baddox 6y ago
    I don't agree that the validity of his claim depends in any way on his character, reputation, or personal political views. The validity of a claim is independent of any attribute of the person making the claim. The only way to make any judgment about the claim is to see the data and methodology.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of. (I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.) But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.
empath75 6y ago
People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.
- Ghjklov 6y ago
  Somehow we have the opposite experience. One day, I'll see people claim HN is a safespace for socialists/communist lefties and another day it's a white nationalist haven. Which is it? :P
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    dang has commented on this a lot lately and he says it is because we see the other side much easier than our own side. I agree with him to a large degree: I personally see mostly problematic content from the left[0] but I guess that is partly my bias. [0]: for example this comment earlier today that I thought[1] was absolutely crazy "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe" - just try to turn that phrase around to "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe" and see if it wouldn't be flagged to death immediately by everyone including me.) [1]: someone had to tell me that this is basically an euphemism for nazi, to which I had to reply that I would prefer if we just said nazi then because then I could join in despising it.
    - Ghjklov 6y ago
      While it's a euphemism for nazi, I hope you don't just assume that it's appropriate to use "white nationalist" to mean "nazi". Just because other people are being stupid doesn't mean we have to. A white nationalist could be from any political faction and could have different ideas for economic policy. A National Socialist is a very specific kind of person.
      - skinkestek 6y ago
        Totally agree in case there should be any doubt. I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.
cryptoz 6y ago
> Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: I read your linked piece but came to the opposite conclusions you posted here. Reading tptacek's comment indicates to me that he thinks HN's tolerance of white supremacist content is unacceptable ("I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable...") I also wonder about his criteria for selecting what is white supremacist content and what is not. Most of the content I see on HN that I consider white supremacist or racist content is written in the form of dog whistles and not overt statements. I personally think the prevalence of that content on HN is somewhat higher than tptacek was catching.
rayiner 6y ago
Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- skinkestek 6y ago
  That was not the point of linking to that, but it seems so.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Yes; just search Twitter for "orange site".
- krageon 6y ago
  HN is pretty well known to be a cesspool of terrible far-right ideas. What's more, they're not mocked or booed off but enabled. You don't endear yourself to the general public by doing so.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    "Far right" according to the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, perhaps. One should never confuse the people who dominate social media with the general public.
  - dang 6y ago
    Everyone with a strong political commitment sees HN as dominated by the opposite politics to their own. This is an illusion. For everyone saying what you're saying, someone else is saying this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632. Both statements are false; it's just a large enough and chaotic enough dataset that you can find examples of anything—and the ones you dislike the most will be the ones you remember the most (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). For sure terrible comments appear. The false part is to say that they're representative of the community—they're not. Commenters with opposite views notice opposite examples, claim those are the representative ones, and are just as wrong. I've mentioned just one counterexample chosen at random, but could as easily link to 50, and another 50 on your side. Most such posts get downvoted and/or flagged, though it takes a while for the immune system to work. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864
core-questions 6y ago
All I see here is someone who is mad that there would dare to be people that they disagree with on the internet, and has gone out of their way to find more of this content, in the hopes that they can stifle the speech of these people. This is the weak action of a weak person who feels threatened by discussion. It's pretty sad that they have the kind of time to spend on doing this for no other purpose than to limit the range of discourse until it fits into what their level of maturity is able to handle.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> tptacek shared some interesting research No, he didn’t. He shared the subjective impression which led him to stop the research, but not the results, or even the methodology used to classify content.

iron0013 6y ago

He made a claim, but he didn’t actually share any of his research or data.

skinkestek 6y ago
I'm fairly certain he can stand for it. Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems (in an American context) so it actually surprised me quite a bit that he'd write that. Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we?
- erichocean 6y ago
  > Based on that last observation I think most of us can agree, can't we? HN is in a weird place today, very similar to where the Slate Star Codex guy was a few years ago. That is, racist Whites seem to feel safe commenting here (with appropriate dog whistles and what not), but you wonder how long that can last… In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog [0] when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. I expect the same to happen with HN. dang does a good job keeping people on-message politically (and I'm sure tptacek did as well), but being "racist-adjacent"—which HN absolutely is [1]—isn't a long-term viable position. Someday soon I expect the racist-adjacent user-banning to kick into high gear on HN (like SSC did) but it will be too little, too late. Eventually, HN will inevitably shut down—and it might be sooner than any of us think. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/ https://slatestarcodex.com/ [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > In the end, the SSC guy banned more and more commenters but it wasn't sufficient to save him and he ended up deleting his blog when the world turned its eyes to the kinds of discussions he allowed. That isn't why he deleted it. He deleted it because the NYT was threatening to publish his real name in a way that would make it untenable for him to continue to practice psychiatry. > [1] This is from an hour ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23683033 To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here.
    - user982 6y ago
      > To reduce criticism of SPLC to "racism" isn't helping the health of discourse here. "The SPLC is a hate group" is considered healthy, valid criticism to you, coming from an account which then said that "hate speech against white people has been normalized in our society for some time now" and linked to The Bell Curve as proof for the superiority of the white race, but referring to them as "racist-adjacent" is unacceptably reductionist?
      - lliamander 6y ago
        The comment "The SPLC is a hate group" is not racist. Even if the person who said it is otherwise racist, it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist. Whatever "racist-adjacent" means, clearly it must mean "not actually racist" because if it was racist, I'm sure you would call that.
        TomSwirly 6y ago
        An outspoken racist falsely attacks one of the great legal defenders of Blacks in America and your argument is, "it's entirely possible for racists to say things that aren't racist." I'm doubtful you will convince anyone with that argument: perhaps not even yourself.
        6y ago
- baddox 6y ago
  I don't agree that the validity of his claim depends in any way on his character, reputation, or personal political views. The validity of a claim is independent of any attribute of the person making the claim. The only way to make any judgment about the claim is to see the data and methodology.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Also, tptacek is fairly far to the left it seems While in the modern US there is a common (and increasingly strong) correlation on average between political attitudes toward race and gender and the left/right economic axis, there is nothing strongly inherent about that. Racism and sexism on the left are not at all unheard of. (I don't see any evidence that tptacek is a racist or sexist, I just don't think “hey, he's left-of-American-center, so if he says HN is clear of racism/sexism, it must be the case” is even approximately a reasonable position.) But, in any case, his own description seems to repeatedly focus on explicit misogynistic or white supremacists content, so even were we to take it as gospel it is perfectly consistent with HN being filled with the kind of urbane circumlocution that is frequently used to provide a thin veneer of not-all-that-plausible-in-aggregate deniability over bigoted attitudes.

empath75 6y ago

People reliably will come out to defend white nationalists in every topic it comes up here. And people denouncing white nationalists will be voted down.

Ghjklov 6y ago
Somehow we have the opposite experience. One day, I'll see people claim HN is a safespace for socialists/communist lefties and another day it's a white nationalist haven. Which is it? :P
- skinkestek 6y ago
  dang has commented on this a lot lately and he says it is because we see the other side much easier than our own side. I agree with him to a large degree: I personally see mostly problematic content from the left[0] but I guess that is partly my bias. [0]: for example this comment earlier today that I thought[1] was absolutely crazy "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe" - just try to turn that phrase around to "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe" and see if it wouldn't be flagged to death immediately by everyone including me.) [1]: someone had to tell me that this is basically an euphemism for nazi, to which I had to reply that I would prefer if we just said nazi then because then I could join in despising it.
  - Ghjklov 6y ago
    While it's a euphemism for nazi, I hope you don't just assume that it's appropriate to use "white nationalist" to mean "nazi". Just because other people are being stupid doesn't mean we have to. A white nationalist could be from any political faction and could have different ideas for economic policy. A National Socialist is a very specific kind of person.
    - skinkestek 6y ago
      Totally agree in case there should be any doubt. I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.

cryptoz 6y ago

> Just FTR we are pretty far from accepting the far right here on HN: I read your linked piece but came to the opposite conclusions you posted here. Reading tptacek's comment indicates to me that he thinks HN's tolerance of white supremacist content is unacceptable ("I don't believe the status quo is really acceptable...") I also wonder about his criteria for selecting what is white supremacist content and what is not. Most of the content I see on HN that I consider white supremacist or racist content is written in the form of dog whistles and not overt statements. I personally think the prevalence of that content on HN is somewhat higher than tptacek was catching.

rayiner 6y ago

Wait? We have a a “rep” on Twitter? HN is like one of the most civil places on the Internet insofar as ones where any debate of substance happens.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
skinkestek 6y ago
That was not the point of linking to that, but it seems so.
tptacek 6y ago
Yes; just search Twitter for "orange site".
krageon 6y ago
HN is pretty well known to be a cesspool of terrible far-right ideas. What's more, they're not mocked or booed off but enabled. You don't endear yourself to the general public by doing so.
- leereeves 6y ago
  "Far right" according to the far-left echo chamber that is Twitter, perhaps. One should never confuse the people who dominate social media with the general public.
- dang 6y ago
  Everyone with a strong political commitment sees HN as dominated by the opposite politics to their own. This is an illusion. For everyone saying what you're saying, someone else is saying this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23396632. Both statements are false; it's just a large enough and chaotic enough dataset that you can find examples of anything—and the ones you dislike the most will be the ones you remember the most (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). For sure terrible comments appear. The false part is to say that they're representative of the community—they're not. Commenters with opposite views notice opposite examples, claim those are the representative ones, and are just as wrong. I've mentioned just one counterexample chosen at random, but could as easily link to 50, and another 50 on your side. Most such posts get downvoted and/or flagged, though it takes a while for the immune system to work. More here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23686864

core-questions 6y ago

All I see here is someone who is mad that there would dare to be people that they disagree with on the internet, and has gone out of their way to find more of this content, in the hopes that they can stifle the speech of these people. This is the weak action of a weak person who feels threatened by discussion. It's pretty sad that they have the kind of time to spend on doing this for no other purpose than to limit the range of discourse until it fits into what their level of maturity is able to handle.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> tptacek shared some interesting research No, he didn’t. He shared the subjective impression which led him to stop the research, but not the results, or even the methodology used to classify content.