2 ms·

>Note that the reverse is also quite common. "Punch a Nazi" was very popular for a while and antifa was big. Political violence is back on the rise in the USA,

>Note that the reverse is also quite common. "Punch a Nazi" was very popular for a while and antifa was big. Political violence is back on the rise in the USA, though its not as bad as the 70s If the Nazis self-identify, and the most famous cases indeed did, I can't say I'm terribly concerned. Publicly espousing the view that some people are naturally inferior not by creed but by nature, and that you intend to impose physical consequences on them for that nature, isn't compatible with a free society. I don't think violence is a necessary condition to stop the Self-Identified Nazis from carrying out their murderous plans, but history shows that it is a sufficient one. Now look at the numbers: who hurts who, and by how much? Which is the bigger threat, as assessed by the US government: "left-wing terrorism", or "right-wing terrorism"? And what's "antifa"? Is it an organization with a website and funding, like the Proud Boys or Stormfront or the National Socialist Movement? >it is extremely common for those reading the news to pick up an incorrect view of what happened Sure, anyone who regularly reads HN has probably noticed the Gel-Mann Effect [0] in news articles pertaining to tech; other experts regularly notice them regarding their fields of expertise. Whether due to an overworked "staff writer" or intentional puff-piece (or imperative commands from The Owners to say this or that), the idea that one can "pick up an incorrect view of what happened" isn't unreasonable. I don't think that's what Trump is talking about when he suggests that the 2020 election was fraudulent and that the Constitution should be suspended in order to restore him to power. >Or those who believe the Canadian protest truckers were Nazis proudly waving Nazi flags (as opposed to being disproportionately waving signs declaring the government were Nazis and these signs having swastikas or SS symbols etc on them) Or those who believe the "Canadian protest truckers" were mostly truckers, or that they didn't have a memorandum of understanding that the Canadian Prime Minister should be violently deposed and replaced by a council chosen by them! [0] https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...

naasking 4y ago
> If the Nazis self-identify, and the most famous cases indeed did, I can't say I'm terribly concerned. You should be. Normalizing a behaviour encourages more of that behaviour, and outside of the original context. > Publicly espousing the view that some people are naturally inferior not by creed but by nature, and that you intend to impose physical consequences on them for that nature, isn't compatible with a free society Sure it is, as long as that view remains fringe, which it is. Encouraging or even tolerating violence against such people emboldens them and their claims of persecution, and the violence itself generates sympathy. You're better off ignoring them and addressing the factors that cause people to gravitate to these ideas. That's where we're failing today.
concordDance 4y ago
> Publicly espousing the view that some people are naturally inferior not by creed but by nature, and that you intend to impose physical consequences on them for that nature, isn't compatible with a free society. In my experience the SJW version of this is more commonly espoused than the right wing version. I've certainly talked to more people who believe men are inherently worse (more violent, worse students, etc) and believe in affirmative action quotas than I've met right wingers wanting to deport all black Americans to Liberia. Most of the desire for immigration restrictions seems to come from belief in potential immigrants coming from undesirable cultures and bringing it with them, though there's admittedly a noticeably large minority who believe IQ gaps are partially genetic. Btw: would I be correct in saying that you don't think genes are irrelevant on an individual basis, just that we should treat people according to what they actually do, rather than what their DBA says? > Self-Identified Nazis from carrying out their murderous plans Not sure I've ever come across anyone in the modern world who espoused killing undesirables and self identified as Nazi, even in the news. Not convinced these people exist in non-negligible numbers. > Now look at the numbers: who hurts who, and by how much? Which is the bigger threat, as assessed by the US government: "left-wing terrorism", or "right-wing terrorism"? I would be quite interested in the numbers here if you have them. Though there are methodological questions like, do you include people killed in the Floyd protests (e.g. extending things to "political violence" rather than "terrorism") and do you include those killed on 6/6 (e.g. extending it to those killed as a result of the political action rather than just those killed by the action initiators)?

naasking 4y ago

> If the Nazis self-identify, and the most famous cases indeed did, I can't say I'm terribly concerned. You should be. Normalizing a behaviour encourages more of that behaviour, and outside of the original context. > Publicly espousing the view that some people are naturally inferior not by creed but by nature, and that you intend to impose physical consequences on them for that nature, isn't compatible with a free society Sure it is, as long as that view remains fringe, which it is. Encouraging or even tolerating violence against such people emboldens them and their claims of persecution, and the violence itself generates sympathy. You're better off ignoring them and addressing the factors that cause people to gravitate to these ideas. That's where we're failing today.

concordDance 4y ago

> Publicly espousing the view that some people are naturally inferior not by creed but by nature, and that you intend to impose physical consequences on them for that nature, isn't compatible with a free society. In my experience the SJW version of this is more commonly espoused than the right wing version. I've certainly talked to more people who believe men are inherently worse (more violent, worse students, etc) and believe in affirmative action quotas than I've met right wingers wanting to deport all black Americans to Liberia. Most of the desire for immigration restrictions seems to come from belief in potential immigrants coming from undesirable cultures and bringing it with them, though there's admittedly a noticeably large minority who believe IQ gaps are partially genetic. Btw: would I be correct in saying that you don't think genes are irrelevant on an individual basis, just that we should treat people according to what they actually do, rather than what their DBA says? > Self-Identified Nazis from carrying out their murderous plans Not sure I've ever come across anyone in the modern world who espoused killing undesirables and self identified as Nazi, even in the news. Not convinced these people exist in non-negligible numbers. > Now look at the numbers: who hurts who, and by how much? Which is the bigger threat, as assessed by the US government: "left-wing terrorism", or "right-wing terrorism"? I would be quite interested in the numbers here if you have them. Though there are methodological questions like, do you include people killed in the Floyd protests (e.g. extending things to "political violence" rather than "terrorism") and do you include those killed on 6/6 (e.g. extending it to those killed as a result of the political action rather than just those killed by the action initiators)?