4 ms·

Can this be because your group of "white nationalists" is getting very big and possibly includes a good number of innocent people? Someone wrote something real

Can this be because your group of "white nationalists" is getting very big and possibly includes a good number of innocent people? Someone wrote something really interesting here somewhere a couple of days ago: every time a non-racist says something not correct enough or God forbid even wrong (e.g. on twitter), they are ejected into the other camp. Eventually the other camp's grown from a fringe phenomenon to being noticeably large and everyone laments. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23664418

user982 6y ago
This is a thread topic about white nationalists being banned from YouTube. It has 700+ comments, many of them in defense of the banned. Which of the banned people being defended are not actually white supremacists, but innocents caught in a too-broad dragnet?
- SuoDuanDao 6y ago
  Stephen Molyneux is a single-minded crusader against corporal punishment of children. He cites IQ and demographic statistics as evidence that the high incidents of corporal punishment among African-Americans is harmful to the population. But untangling that ball of wax is a lot harder than calling him a racist and getting on with life isn't it?
  - user982 6y ago
    It's this benevolent concern for the welfare of black children that underlies his complaint that 'relentless propaganda for "white women with black men" would serve to lower the average IQ of the offspring'?
  - phs318u 6y ago
    https://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/02/a-libertarian-icons-descent-into-racist-pseudoscience/ https://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/02/a-libertarian-icons-d...
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Stefan Molyneaux is a racist. Racists can be concerned for child welfare.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    Your comment does not appear to prove that Stephen Molyneux is not a racist. Can you explain why you think it does?
    - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
      It's a good question politely asked, so uncomfortable as the subject makes me I'm going to try. Like I said though, this is an awful ball of wax and it feels dirty to approach it. I'm going to try and tackle it via the question of how one identifies a racist. Let me start with a generic, emotionally less charged example and then try to relate that to the specifics of the Molyneux story. Suppose two people are talking. The first says, "Minority X children score below the national average on IQ tests. I bet it's because minority X children are more likely to be exposed to lead in tapwater. Our country should have an all-hands on deck effort to solve the lead-in-tapwater problem" The other responds: "I am not interested in any discussion that begins with 'minority X children score below...'. You are a racist for saying this and I don't listen to policy proposals from racists". Which of these two is the racist? By the modern definition, it's clearly the second, because he's arguing for a status quo that disadvantages minority X. Whether his heart is in the right place or not, he's contributing to systemic oppression by refusing to act in the face of injustice and therefore a racist. By the classic definition, it's just as clearly the first because he is asserting a difference between races. Whether his heart is in the right place or not, he's deepening racial divisions by this rhetoric and therefore a racist. Hopefully we can agree on those definitions, if not the rest of this comment is pointless. Regardless, and assuming we can, let's bring this to the topic at hand. African-Americans are Molyneux's 'Minority X' and child corporal punishment is his 'lead-in-tapwater'. Let's see first how he fares by the modern definition of racism. The wrinkle here might be that lead in tapwater is done to a population while corporal punishment is done by a population. This might seem to make it apples and oranges, but I'd disagree. Anyone who wished could make the case that higher rates of corporal punishment are self-evidently fallout from the abuses of colonialism, and done to the African-American population no less than leaded tapwater. What's the standard under this definition for determining whether a person is a racist? I would propose the following two tests: if their professed beliefs are sincerely held, and if their proposals would lessen inequality assuming their premise is correct, then that person is not a racist. They may be mistaken in their premises, but in that case it is up to other non-racists to educate them, and there is no use for hostility in that process. By that standard, how does Molyneux fare? I think his life provides ample evidence that his beliefs were sincerely held. He became a public intellectual and subjected himself to ongoing, harsh criticism because he believed it was important people hear his ideas. He spoke often about corporal punishment of children and not once did he vary his message. As to the second test, if his premise is correct that higher rates of corporal punishment lead to worse education outcomes for African Americans, then it's fairly obvious that his proposal of no corporal punishment anywhere would help close the gap. Having listened to him speak, I genuinely believe that if his proposal was accepted and the result was that his children faced tougher competition for jobs and scholarships, he would consider it the best possible outcome and validation of his beliefs. So by that standard, I would definitively judge him 'not racist'. Of course, Molyneux never made any of these arguments because like most people born before 1982, he would use the classical definition of racism and probably refuse to cede the linguistic territory necessary to make any of the foregoing arguments. The way to not be racist by the classical definition is much simpler and requires no arguments about colonial fallout. One must simply start the argument by saying 'inner city children...' instead of 'minority x children...' and one's thoughts on race are one's own affair. The trouble with that approach is, people born after 1982 immediately start shouting about dog whistles and secret racism, and one finds oneself isolated with people who increasingly egg one on to just name the races in question. I believe this is what happened with Molyneux. When I first encountered him, he seemed to be making a good-faith effort to talk about specific demographics instead of the races over represented in them. By the time I lost interest in his content, I must admit, he was no longer making that effort nor did the bulk of his audience want him to. So on deeper reflection, I think it was a bit disingenuous of me to judge Molyneux only by one set of standards. By what is probably his own definition of racism - and though I'm conversant in both linguistic systems, the definition I use in private thought - he did commit racism. My only excuse is that I cede linguistic territory as instinctively as Molyneux would defend it, and it didn't occur to me much harm could be done thereby. I'll walk my statement back and say that Molyneux weaponized racism for an agenda that, had it succeeded, would have reduced racial inequality.
  - empath75 6y ago
    Hitler was a vegetarian that loved animals.
tptacek 6y ago
No, it's not. It's because people make point-in-time observations about HN and don't see the community working over hours, which is what you have to do, since anyone can make an account and write any comment they want here.
- thu2111 6y ago
  And how did you define "white nationalism"? HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU institutions or ideologies to be some sort of racist zealotry, although it's utterly mainstream throughout Europe.
  - TomSwirly 6y ago
    > aren't supportive of globalism either. You understand that when you speak of "globalism" this way, you place yourself as a member of a tiny, if vocal, minority. Hacker News has a lot of sophisticated, intelligent people from all over the world and that's why fringe political beliefs aren't common. I would add that the collegial atmosphere here means people are unsupportive of naked aggression and anger, which also seems to be a common component of fringe political beliefs. If it's important for you to criticize the EU and have people listen to you, there are plenty of places to go for that. My personal belief about the EU is that it like all political systems is flawed and could certainly do with constructive criticism, but has managed to deliver a high standard of living, personal rights, some degree of income equality and even happiness to its citizens for decades now and do it better than any other. This is why I personally left the United States after thirty years to move to Europe.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      Given I'm British, that'd make me a part of the majority actually. And in the USA that anti-globalism candidate won the last election, so, I guess I'd be in the majority there too (barely). Obviously you're entitled to your view on the EU, but your attitude is why EU supporters lost in the UK and would lose in other countries in the unlikely event their political systems would ever give them a true choice on the matter. You cannot handle genuine, well reasoned, intelligent and sophisticated criticism of the EU so simply try to suppress it. That mistake is how the EU's supporters in the UK got their asses kicked, despite having way more resources and the full support of the entire global establishment on their side. They thought all "intelligent, sophisticated" people agreed with them ... because they'd shouted down or suppressed everyone who disagreed. They were then shocked to discover that their arguments were deemed incredibly weak by the large section of the population that hadn't already made up their minds. That's what happens when you deplatform those you disagree with. They don't go away. They keep refining their arguments where you can't see it, and then if one day you go head to head with them - you lose.

user982 6y ago

This is a thread topic about white nationalists being banned from YouTube. It has 700+ comments, many of them in defense of the banned. Which of the banned people being defended are not actually white supremacists, but innocents caught in a too-broad dragnet?

SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Stephen Molyneux is a single-minded crusader against corporal punishment of children. He cites IQ and demographic statistics as evidence that the high incidents of corporal punishment among African-Americans is harmful to the population. But untangling that ball of wax is a lot harder than calling him a racist and getting on with life isn't it?
- user982 6y ago
  It's this benevolent concern for the welfare of black children that underlies his complaint that 'relentless propaganda for "white women with black men" would serve to lower the average IQ of the offspring'?
- phs318u 6y ago
  https://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/02/a-libertarian-icons-descent-into-racist-pseudoscience/ https://tracinskiletter.com/2016/10/02/a-libertarian-icons-d...
- tptacek 6y ago
  Stefan Molyneaux is a racist. Racists can be concerned for child welfare.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  Your comment does not appear to prove that Stephen Molyneux is not a racist. Can you explain why you think it does?
  - SuoDuanDao 6y ago
    It's a good question politely asked, so uncomfortable as the subject makes me I'm going to try. Like I said though, this is an awful ball of wax and it feels dirty to approach it. I'm going to try and tackle it via the question of how one identifies a racist. Let me start with a generic, emotionally less charged example and then try to relate that to the specifics of the Molyneux story. Suppose two people are talking. The first says, "Minority X children score below the national average on IQ tests. I bet it's because minority X children are more likely to be exposed to lead in tapwater. Our country should have an all-hands on deck effort to solve the lead-in-tapwater problem" The other responds: "I am not interested in any discussion that begins with 'minority X children score below...'. You are a racist for saying this and I don't listen to policy proposals from racists". Which of these two is the racist? By the modern definition, it's clearly the second, because he's arguing for a status quo that disadvantages minority X. Whether his heart is in the right place or not, he's contributing to systemic oppression by refusing to act in the face of injustice and therefore a racist. By the classic definition, it's just as clearly the first because he is asserting a difference between races. Whether his heart is in the right place or not, he's deepening racial divisions by this rhetoric and therefore a racist. Hopefully we can agree on those definitions, if not the rest of this comment is pointless. Regardless, and assuming we can, let's bring this to the topic at hand. African-Americans are Molyneux's 'Minority X' and child corporal punishment is his 'lead-in-tapwater'. Let's see first how he fares by the modern definition of racism. The wrinkle here might be that lead in tapwater is done to a population while corporal punishment is done by a population. This might seem to make it apples and oranges, but I'd disagree. Anyone who wished could make the case that higher rates of corporal punishment are self-evidently fallout from the abuses of colonialism, and done to the African-American population no less than leaded tapwater. What's the standard under this definition for determining whether a person is a racist? I would propose the following two tests: if their professed beliefs are sincerely held, and if their proposals would lessen inequality assuming their premise is correct, then that person is not a racist. They may be mistaken in their premises, but in that case it is up to other non-racists to educate them, and there is no use for hostility in that process. By that standard, how does Molyneux fare? I think his life provides ample evidence that his beliefs were sincerely held. He became a public intellectual and subjected himself to ongoing, harsh criticism because he believed it was important people hear his ideas. He spoke often about corporal punishment of children and not once did he vary his message. As to the second test, if his premise is correct that higher rates of corporal punishment lead to worse education outcomes for African Americans, then it's fairly obvious that his proposal of no corporal punishment anywhere would help close the gap. Having listened to him speak, I genuinely believe that if his proposal was accepted and the result was that his children faced tougher competition for jobs and scholarships, he would consider it the best possible outcome and validation of his beliefs. So by that standard, I would definitively judge him 'not racist'. Of course, Molyneux never made any of these arguments because like most people born before 1982, he would use the classical definition of racism and probably refuse to cede the linguistic territory necessary to make any of the foregoing arguments. The way to not be racist by the classical definition is much simpler and requires no arguments about colonial fallout. One must simply start the argument by saying 'inner city children...' instead of 'minority x children...' and one's thoughts on race are one's own affair. The trouble with that approach is, people born after 1982 immediately start shouting about dog whistles and secret racism, and one finds oneself isolated with people who increasingly egg one on to just name the races in question. I believe this is what happened with Molyneux. When I first encountered him, he seemed to be making a good-faith effort to talk about specific demographics instead of the races over represented in them. By the time I lost interest in his content, I must admit, he was no longer making that effort nor did the bulk of his audience want him to. So on deeper reflection, I think it was a bit disingenuous of me to judge Molyneux only by one set of standards. By what is probably his own definition of racism - and though I'm conversant in both linguistic systems, the definition I use in private thought - he did commit racism. My only excuse is that I cede linguistic territory as instinctively as Molyneux would defend it, and it didn't occur to me much harm could be done thereby. I'll walk my statement back and say that Molyneux weaponized racism for an agenda that, had it succeeded, would have reduced racial inequality.
- empath75 6y ago
  Hitler was a vegetarian that loved animals.

tptacek 6y ago

No, it's not. It's because people make point-in-time observations about HN and don't see the community working over hours, which is what you have to do, since anyone can make an account and write any comment they want here.

thu2111 6y ago
And how did you define "white nationalism"? HN routinely votes down to the max all kinds of mainstream and legitimate viewpoints that aren't "white nationalism" but aren't supportive of globalism either. Literally any criticism of the EU will hit -4 within hours regardless of how grounded in facts it is. Given the rhetoric that often accompanies that topic, without a doubt some people consider any criticism of the EU institutions or ideologies to be some sort of racist zealotry, although it's utterly mainstream throughout Europe.
- TomSwirly 6y ago
  > aren't supportive of globalism either. You understand that when you speak of "globalism" this way, you place yourself as a member of a tiny, if vocal, minority. Hacker News has a lot of sophisticated, intelligent people from all over the world and that's why fringe political beliefs aren't common. I would add that the collegial atmosphere here means people are unsupportive of naked aggression and anger, which also seems to be a common component of fringe political beliefs. If it's important for you to criticize the EU and have people listen to you, there are plenty of places to go for that. My personal belief about the EU is that it like all political systems is flawed and could certainly do with constructive criticism, but has managed to deliver a high standard of living, personal rights, some degree of income equality and even happiness to its citizens for decades now and do it better than any other. This is why I personally left the United States after thirty years to move to Europe.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Given I'm British, that'd make me a part of the majority actually. And in the USA that anti-globalism candidate won the last election, so, I guess I'd be in the majority there too (barely). Obviously you're entitled to your view on the EU, but your attitude is why EU supporters lost in the UK and would lose in other countries in the unlikely event their political systems would ever give them a true choice on the matter. You cannot handle genuine, well reasoned, intelligent and sophisticated criticism of the EU so simply try to suppress it. That mistake is how the EU's supporters in the UK got their asses kicked, despite having way more resources and the full support of the entire global establishment on their side. They thought all "intelligent, sophisticated" people agreed with them ... because they'd shouted down or suppressed everyone who disagreed. They were then shocked to discover that their arguments were deemed incredibly weak by the large section of the population that hadn't already made up their minds. That's what happens when you deplatform those you disagree with. They don't go away. They keep refining their arguments where you can't see it, and then if one day you go head to head with them - you lose.