5 ms·

I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? American dems are definitely less hostile than conse

I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? American dems are definitely less hostile than conservatives towards China so it feels natural than a wanted fugitive in China would work with conservatives. I agree free speech doesn't apply here, given Apple it's a private company, but it definitely aligns Apple with Facebook, Twitter, Google and whatever other Big Tech company that censures whatever they don't like (applying their own policies only when they want). It's also interesting to see who's lining up with China.

dahfizz 6y ago
It's bizarre and terrifying that people somehow associate freedom with fascism. The idea that wanting rights makes someone "alt right" is absolutely insane.
- bjustin 6y ago
  “Free speech” is used by some people, more often alt-right people than others, to mean freedom from consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the “right” to “free speech”. That’s presumably what the original post mentioning this meant. There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” —Idi Amin.
    - winston_smith 6y ago
      (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history")
- geofft 6y ago
  It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.
  - xibalba 6y ago
    > if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. How about the ACLU? Are they fascist? Perhaps you're only seeing alt-right associated with because of the particular filter bubble(s) in which you are located. I strongly encourage you to dig a little deeper, reflect a little more, and think a little harder on this topic. Free speech is the font from which all other rights spring and are defended. It is sacrosanct. Thus, folks like the ACLU try to defend it everywhere for everyone, not just the folks that pass purity tests.
    - alisonkisk 6y ago
      The ACLU now supports the 1A and the 2A SEPARATELY, but is opposed to having both simultaneously at one event. https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...
    - geofft 6y ago
      The ACLU? The group that sued the city of Charlottesville so that the fascist "Unite the Right" rally could happen in a place that the city said would be hard to maintain order/peace instead of in a nearby park where the city had already issued a permit, as a result of which, the fascists killed someone? Again, I have thought and reflected and dug. I donated to the ACLU for many years. I used to believe that they engaged in a noble cause of protecting the right of people with unpopular opinions to express their unpopular opinions. I used to believe that protecting the rights of the Nazis in Skokie protected all our rights. I now believe that it primarily protects the rights of the alt-right in Charlottesville to demonstrate and to kill, and I now believe that the ACLU's free speech advocacy, however well-intentioned, isn't good for society and leaves us all less free. And the last time they called me to ask if I'd "resume" my membership, I told them they have blood on their hands. If the lawsuit the ACLU filed (Kessler v. Charlottesvile) hadn't happened, the fascists would still have been equally able to express their opinions. The city just wanted the rally in a different spot to reduce the risk of violence. In retrospect, the city was right, the ACLU was wrong, and Kessler got the violence he wanted. I don't think there is any genuine danger (especially thanks to modern communications technology) to the ability of fascists to advocate for fascism, to make sure that the policy proposals of fascism remain known to the general public. What remains is a genuine danger to the ability of fascists to actually engage in fascism, which they call "exercising free speech," and they dupe organizations like the ACLU into helping them with it. (Note I'm not claiming the ACLU is intentionally fascist. Outside of free speech advocacy, they do a lot of effective work to oppose fascism. But on this particular issue, their effect, regardless of intent, is to support fascism, and their notable work is supporting fascists who think their right of "free speech" has been violated.) I intentionally keep my filter bubble quite broad. I read far-right forums and they love free speech. I read centrists and they think free speech is a great idea and will some day defend the. And I see far-left activists who gain nothing from the concept. If you have an example of the font of free speech actually serving to protect any rights beyond the right to enact fascism, I'd be very curious. My position could certainly evolve further, but this is where it is now. (BTW, it took me a long time to reply because HN blocked me with the "You're posting too fast. Please slow down." message, because I got downvoted too much in the last few minutes. If you think free speech is a virtue, please email the moderators and tell them that they should remove that feature and also stop greying out downvoted comments - downvoting for disagreement is explicitly permitted on HN, and the last thing an advocate of free speech would want is unpopular ideas to be literally unreadable! But the fact remains that HN is a better forum than e.g. 4chan because of its censorship mechanisms, and that's in fact one of the things that makes me believe free speech is not a virtue - even though I'm frequently one of the targets of that censorship because I frequently post unpopular ideas. I genuinely believe this community's ability to censor me makes it better.)
- vkou 6y ago
  Have you considered that some of the ways in which the alt-right demands their rights may be fascistic? Ponder, for instance, the proud boy chant of "Jews will not replace us." Are you going to let that one slide because, well, those folks are just making demands for their rights?
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    "Jews will not replace us" is not an appeal to human rights, it's just racist. I don't see the connection you're trying to make. I'm genuinely confused on what your position is. Why do you have an association with freedom and the alt-right? Implicit in that position is that the Democratic left is somehow anti-rights. How can you simultaneously believe that: 1) the alt right champions rights / freedoms. 2) this makes the alt right fascist / authoritarian. 3) your party / alignment / position opposes the alt right, and therefore opposes the freedoms they advocate for. 4) by opposing freedom and human rights, your party is anti fascist. I'm genuinely confused. And why the connection with free speech in particular? The alt right also stages protests alot, do you think protesting is bad?
philwelch 6y ago
There are, broadly speaking, two categories of people who advocate for free speech: civil libertarians who advocate for free speech on principle, and people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship. In 20th century America, between approximately Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, those “people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship” tended to be the ones on the far left—socialists, communists, draft resisters—who fell victim to sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored, but there are calls to censor the far right, many of which are based on the exact same arguments that once justified those sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. This has caused the far left to abandon the cause of free speech (since it is no longer tactically useful for them) and the far right to take it up (because it is tactically useful for them).
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  > As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored This is entirely inaccurate, as most discussions about labeling AntiFa a 'terrorist organization' will show, and the huge investment many large companies make for preventing unionization. It is true that some people on the far left believe this, but they are entirely wrong.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    AFAIK, US law actually has no provision for designating domestic terrorist organizations, so it’s not clear what that would entail. In any case, your examples seem to have more to do with freedom of association than freedom of expression, which is also important but not what I was talking about.
    - tsimionescu 6y ago
      Well, if the president of the USA and half of the Senate are truly considering labeling AntiFa a terrorist organization, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if pro-AntiFa videos started getting demonetized and even banned. I would be very surprised if pro-unionization content weren't already in this area. As an example of how "extreme"-left information is kept out, have you seen even one piece of news in the US or Europe in January 2020 or since about the largest organized strike in human history? An estimated 200 million people strike in India.
chalst 6y ago
Steve Bannon said of Breitbart when he was still in charge of it that "We're the platform for the alt-right". Miles Guo, the CEO of Guo Media, seems to have latched on to Bannon's brand of political journalism as well-suited to the objectives of at least some of his enterprises, e.g. Gnews [1]. [1]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gnews/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gnews/
btilly 6y ago
I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? Steve Bannon is strongly associated with the alt right. See https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon-five-things-to-know https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon-fiv... for a list of reasons why, including his own statements on the matter. That said the friendship of the two seems to be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". With their common enemy being the Chinese government. Steve Bannon opposes China because he believes in a cyclical view of history, and the next cycle, the "fourth turning", is likely to feature a war with the Middle East and/or China. Guo Wengui opposes China because he thinks they will kill him for corruption. To be fair, you don't get as successful as he did in a corrupt environment without being corrupt yourself, so China probably has reason to kill him. But it is also a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dahfizz 6y ago

It's bizarre and terrifying that people somehow associate freedom with fascism. The idea that wanting rights makes someone "alt right" is absolutely insane.

bjustin 6y ago
“Free speech” is used by some people, more often alt-right people than others, to mean freedom from consequences. Even criticism is derided as attacks on the “right” to “free speech”. That’s presumably what the original post mentioning this meant. There is no right to not face consequences from other private citizens for bad behavior.
- philwelch 6y ago
  “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech” —Idi Amin.
  - winston_smith 6y ago
    (wp: "Popularly known as the "Butcher of Uganda", he is considered one of the most brutal despots in world history")
geofft 6y ago
It would be helpful if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. I used to believe free speech was a virtue. I no longer believe that because universally everyone who cares strongly about it is actually using it as cover for pushing opinions they don't like out of public discourse. If that's the result of free speech advocacy, then I don't see how I can conclude that it's good for society.
- xibalba 6y ago
  > if I saw "free speech" being championed by anyone other than the fascists. How about the ACLU? Are they fascist? Perhaps you're only seeing alt-right associated with because of the particular filter bubble(s) in which you are located. I strongly encourage you to dig a little deeper, reflect a little more, and think a little harder on this topic. Free speech is the font from which all other rights spring and are defended. It is sacrosanct. Thus, folks like the ACLU try to defend it everywhere for everyone, not just the folks that pass purity tests.
  - alisonkisk 6y ago
    The ACLU now supports the 1A and the 2A SEPARATELY, but is opposed to having both simultaneously at one event. https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazis-charlottesville https://www.vox.com/2017/8/20/16167870/aclu-hate-speech-nazi...
  - geofft 6y ago
    The ACLU? The group that sued the city of Charlottesville so that the fascist "Unite the Right" rally could happen in a place that the city said would be hard to maintain order/peace instead of in a nearby park where the city had already issued a permit, as a result of which, the fascists killed someone? Again, I have thought and reflected and dug. I donated to the ACLU for many years. I used to believe that they engaged in a noble cause of protecting the right of people with unpopular opinions to express their unpopular opinions. I used to believe that protecting the rights of the Nazis in Skokie protected all our rights. I now believe that it primarily protects the rights of the alt-right in Charlottesville to demonstrate and to kill, and I now believe that the ACLU's free speech advocacy, however well-intentioned, isn't good for society and leaves us all less free. And the last time they called me to ask if I'd "resume" my membership, I told them they have blood on their hands. If the lawsuit the ACLU filed (Kessler v. Charlottesvile) hadn't happened, the fascists would still have been equally able to express their opinions. The city just wanted the rally in a different spot to reduce the risk of violence. In retrospect, the city was right, the ACLU was wrong, and Kessler got the violence he wanted. I don't think there is any genuine danger (especially thanks to modern communications technology) to the ability of fascists to advocate for fascism, to make sure that the policy proposals of fascism remain known to the general public. What remains is a genuine danger to the ability of fascists to actually engage in fascism, which they call "exercising free speech," and they dupe organizations like the ACLU into helping them with it. (Note I'm not claiming the ACLU is intentionally fascist. Outside of free speech advocacy, they do a lot of effective work to oppose fascism. But on this particular issue, their effect, regardless of intent, is to support fascism, and their notable work is supporting fascists who think their right of "free speech" has been violated.) I intentionally keep my filter bubble quite broad. I read far-right forums and they love free speech. I read centrists and they think free speech is a great idea and will some day defend the. And I see far-left activists who gain nothing from the concept. If you have an example of the font of free speech actually serving to protect any rights beyond the right to enact fascism, I'd be very curious. My position could certainly evolve further, but this is where it is now. (BTW, it took me a long time to reply because HN blocked me with the "You're posting too fast. Please slow down." message, because I got downvoted too much in the last few minutes. If you think free speech is a virtue, please email the moderators and tell them that they should remove that feature and also stop greying out downvoted comments - downvoting for disagreement is explicitly permitted on HN, and the last thing an advocate of free speech would want is unpopular ideas to be literally unreadable! But the fact remains that HN is a better forum than e.g. 4chan because of its censorship mechanisms, and that's in fact one of the things that makes me believe free speech is not a virtue - even though I'm frequently one of the targets of that censorship because I frequently post unpopular ideas. I genuinely believe this community's ability to censor me makes it better.)
vkou 6y ago
Have you considered that some of the ways in which the alt-right demands their rights may be fascistic? Ponder, for instance, the proud boy chant of "Jews will not replace us." Are you going to let that one slide because, well, those folks are just making demands for their rights?
- dahfizz 6y ago
  "Jews will not replace us" is not an appeal to human rights, it's just racist. I don't see the connection you're trying to make. I'm genuinely confused on what your position is. Why do you have an association with freedom and the alt-right? Implicit in that position is that the Democratic left is somehow anti-rights. How can you simultaneously believe that: 1) the alt right champions rights / freedoms. 2) this makes the alt right fascist / authoritarian. 3) your party / alignment / position opposes the alt right, and therefore opposes the freedoms they advocate for. 4) by opposing freedom and human rights, your party is anti fascist. I'm genuinely confused. And why the connection with free speech in particular? The alt right also stages protests alot, do you think protesting is bad?

philwelch 6y ago

There are, broadly speaking, two categories of people who advocate for free speech: civil libertarians who advocate for free speech on principle, and people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship. In 20th century America, between approximately Schenck v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio, those “people with unpopular opinions that tend to face censorship” tended to be the ones on the far left—socialists, communists, draft resisters—who fell victim to sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored, but there are calls to censor the far right, many of which are based on the exact same arguments that once justified those sedition and anti-syndicalism laws. This has caused the far left to abandon the cause of free speech (since it is no longer tactically useful for them) and the far right to take it up (because it is tactically useful for them).

tsimionescu 6y ago
> As of 2021, there is no realistic threat of the far left being censored This is entirely inaccurate, as most discussions about labeling AntiFa a 'terrorist organization' will show, and the huge investment many large companies make for preventing unionization. It is true that some people on the far left believe this, but they are entirely wrong.
- philwelch 6y ago
  AFAIK, US law actually has no provision for designating domestic terrorist organizations, so it’s not clear what that would entail. In any case, your examples seem to have more to do with freedom of association than freedom of expression, which is also important but not what I was talking about.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    Well, if the president of the USA and half of the Senate are truly considering labeling AntiFa a terrorist organization, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if pro-AntiFa videos started getting demonetized and even banned. I would be very surprised if pro-unionization content weren't already in this area. As an example of how "extreme"-left information is kept out, have you seen even one piece of news in the US or Europe in January 2020 or since about the largest organized strike in human history? An estimated 200 million people strike in India.

chalst 6y ago

Steve Bannon said of Breitbart when he was still in charge of it that "We're the platform for the alt-right". Miles Guo, the CEO of Guo Media, seems to have latched on to Bannon's brand of political journalism as well-suited to the objectives of at least some of his enterprises, e.g. Gnews [1]. [1]: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gnews/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gnews/

btilly 6y ago

I don't understand how that article is linked with the alt right? Or is it just conservatives = alt right? Steve Bannon is strongly associated with the alt right. See https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon-five-things-to-know https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounders/steve-bannon-fiv... for a list of reasons why, including his own statements on the matter. That said the friendship of the two seems to be a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". With their common enemy being the Chinese government. Steve Bannon opposes China because he believes in a cyclical view of history, and the next cycle, the "fourth turning", is likely to feature a war with the Middle East and/or China. Guo Wengui opposes China because he thinks they will kill him for corruption. To be fair, you don't get as successful as he did in a corrupt environment without being corrupt yourself, so China probably has reason to kill him. But it is also a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]