5 ms·

[flagged]

• Tanjreeve 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  • uvnq 3y ago
    Case in point. "Let's kill the unpeople."
    • Tanjreeve 3y ago
      You seem to be equating my hate speech with actual violence. I don't know why you are so anti free speech but I worry that your censorious beliefs are creating a mathematical gradient pushing our society and culture towards punishment, revenge, hatred, and tyranny.. and who knows what the limits are to how far it will go
    • dang 3y ago
      It looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. That's not allowed on HN—it's against the guidelines and destroys what the site is supposed to be for, so we have to ban accounts that do it, regardless of what they're battling for or against. For more explanation see https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix=false&page=0&query=primarily%20test%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme.... If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  • prepend 3y ago
    Many bigots have jobs and produce economic value. Each bigot has a mother who loves them. Many bigots have children they sacrifice for and protect. But most importantly, bigots can be redeemed. If you violently remove someone, they lose the potential for redemption. That’s my general response to “what value do bigots have.” But what about bigots who brought about exceptional change in the world. If they had been removed, violently, the world would be worse off. Karl Marx was a bigot, anti-Semite and Mark Twain too. Malcolm X was a bigot and furthered civil rights. LBJ was a bigot who passed the civil rights act. Lincoln was a bigot that ended slavery. Bigotry is bad, but it’s not someone’s defining characteristic. We want to end bigotry and help people commit less bigotry.
    • Tanjreeve 3y ago
      If I'd posted the same thing about $group I'd have had plenty of free speech defenders saying it's my right to ask questions have debate, express views etc. But apparently if I want to have similar types of debate about $group then it's not my free speech it's just me being violent in my words etc. My suspicioun is a lot of "unlimited free speech" views are based on all debate being abstract chin stroking rather than having their own existence potentially be questioned and subject to the same kind of interrogation that are commonly expressed on the internet in hate speech. For most people who are on the end of these "intellectual debates" there's not just fear created from what if a political group holding X views gets into a position of wielding power but there's also stochastic violence often from repeated assertions that they belong to some hive mind (e.g shootings in mosques and synagogues alike). These are always hand waved away by people who just want to pretend like it's all an abstract parlour game wether from malice or lack of caring.
  • dang 3y ago
    Yikes. That's way beyond the pale and not at all ok to post here, so please don't. More generally, can you please not post flamebait to HN? It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
    • Tanjreeve 3y ago
      This whole "what value do they bring" discussion is a very normal feature of "mere rational debate" when it comes to refugees etc. But apparently my hate speech needs censoring when I switch the target group to people with bigoted views.
      • dang 3y ago
        That's an illusion. It's ok in neither case, and two wrongs don't make a right. Obviously you can't call for "violently if necessary" "removing" people on HN. That's nowhere near a borderline call. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        • Tanjreeve 3y ago
          If it's ok in neither case then you agree in the purpose of regulation of speech/censorship.
          • dang 3y ago
            A general argument about that would be a red herring. The point is that you broke HN's rules badly, and we have to ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it again.
            • deleted 3y ago
              [deleted]
            • 3y ago
• heavenlyblue 3y ago
  Hate speech today is amplified by social networks that had been non-existent 20 years ago. I would like to see what happens to your "free speech beliefs and how they don't affect you" if you happened to accidentally say something wrong on a video and then be bullied by thousands of nutties on the internet, including doxxing and swatting you on a regular basis.
  • uvnq 3y ago
    > I would like to see what happens to your "free speech beliefs and how they don't affect you" if you happened to accidentally say something wrong on a video and then be bullied by thousands of nutties on the internet, including doxxing and swatting you on a regular basis. Another comment supporting pain and suffering for the people they disagree with. "You are wrong that free speech does not have consequences" is a common anti-free-speech strawman, a dishonest tactic, and is not even remotely what I said
    • heavenlyblue 3y ago
      That's what I said though not you, haven't I? Which non-abstract pain and suffering do you mean?