3 ms·

This will very likely get flagged and I am commenting this because I have noticed this pattern

therobots927 1y ago
Yep. I saw two stories in the same day get flagged a week ago. Denial and censorship... Sillicon Valkey is complicit and no one wants to rock the boat.
- throwawaybob420 1y ago
  “It’s a complex topic!” “This isn’t related to technology!” “Keep politics out of HN!”
  - stemlord 1y ago
    hacking used to be deeply political but i guess i've come to learn over the past 15 years here that such a label here is just whitewashing for the kind of neoliberal capitalistic selfishness that has fueled modern day sv following the first wave of big tech successes that occurred a lifetime ago now
    - throwawaybob420 1y ago
      [flagged]
- goku12 1y ago
  I have question on a related note. Why do public fora like HN and the western society in general, frown upon and harshly censor any comparisons of contemporary human actions with Nazi tactics (and explicitly not the magnitude of their consequences), made in order to highlight the underlying human behavior? The responses are as if they just saw Nazism or the Holocaust being glorified. Many replies often contain such exaggerated and inordinate amount of outrage that it makes you wonder if they witnessed the holocaust in person (in which case, the response would be justified on account of trauma. But the incident was 80 years ago). There is no question that the Holocaust was a horrific chapter in human history. But that extreme nature is also what makes it a treasure trove of references for human behavior - be it bad or good (like the heroics and selflessness of those who opposed it). Isn't that why we learn history? To reference it when relevant and to prevent a repeat of the past mistakes? Now especially, since Nazism is rearing its ugly heads again in multiple places on the planet, quite overtly at times. Instead, it's now difficult to draw any such parallels in human psychology for the fear of accidentally offending some people's fragile sensitivities. I still don't understand what it is that they get so offended about. The entire reaction feels quite pretentious and has strong vibes of virtue signalling and gatekeeping.
  - therobots927 1y ago
    That's a great question. I think on one hand people don't want the term to be diluted by comparisons to less heinous crimes. Maybe the following will help make sense of it: In the case of Palestine the comparison is made routinely on the left (socialist / anti war flank of the democrats). On the other hand you will see plenty of people on the center left flank (neoliberals) who refuse to talk about Palestine but are more than happy to compare Trump to Hitler. Now in this example I would agree with both comparisons at a high level but the IDF is clearly killing more people than ICE ever has and ever will. So you could argue that the center left is diluting the comparison and even making a mockery of it by not also talking about Palestine. But like I said more and more people are viewing the treatment of Palestine as on par with the treatment of the Jews in Germany. And accusations of "anti-semitism" don't work anymore after you've seen videos of kids missing limbs and settlers harassing old women in the West Bank.
    - goku12 1y ago
      > I think on one hand people don't want the term to be diluted by comparisons to less heinous crimes. I'm asserting that this stance is irrational, arbitrary and even harmful at times. Why do people insist that every comparison must match by magnitude of the events, when other meaningful comparisons exist - like intent, motive and MO? That connection may even extend beyond the abstract similarities. Some crimes are directly inspired by horrible historic events, including Nazi activities. Will people start objecting to comparative case studies in general someday, because the magnitudes of the cases rarely ever match? This sort of gatekeeping serves no worthwhile purpose and is counterproductive in most cases. > Maybe the following will help make sense of it Actually, no (will elaborate). But thanks for taking the effort to provide an example. > Now in this example I would agree with both comparisons at a high level but the IDF is clearly killing more people than ICE ever has and ever will. So you could argue that the center left is diluting the comparison and even making a mockery of it by not also talking about Palestine. The problem I have with this argument is that it's whataboutery by proxy (strictly a characterization of the argument, not an accusation). Actions of ICE and IDF are two different cases. The discourse on one must not influence or dictate the discourse on the other. For example, my views on the Trump regime doesn't reliably indicate my views about IDF. Contrary to your example above, what if my stances on both are consistent (non-contradictory)? It up to the people taking the contradictory stances to explain themselves (hypocrisy and opportunism). The arguments themselves are not affected by their double standards. Coincidentally, the IDF's actions are blessed by the pres himself. That provides anyone with two different ways to make that comparison - the destruction of democracy and the genocide. I don't know the full situation now and I don't know how far it will slide. But my question is, do you want to put that uncomfortable comparison aside, until you wake up one day to realize that the most infamous mistake in history was repeated all over again? Let's hope that doesn't happen. But if it does, that will be the worst insult and disrespect the world would have shown towards the victims of the Holocaust. Not only did they meet a horrible end, we would have also callously ignored their final lesson for us. No one is doing the Holocaust victims or the present world any favors by avoiding Nazi/Holocaust comparisons and references. We always compare the smaller things to the golden standard. As of now, the golden standard for human depravity is the Holocaust. Thus, it's never a dilution or belittling of that event to compare anything else with it. It's a very shameful and uncomfortable chapter in our collective history. Refusing to acknowledge, embrace and learn from it might make some people comfortable. But that's just an illusion that won't last. I really don't want to see the order of that comparison being reversed, because some people are too sensitive to face the terrible and harsh truth. That also brings me to a broader point. I hope I was able to convince you to some extend that this censorship is a hollow gesture that achieves nothing besides some virtue signalling. But this is hardly the only case I've seen. I'm going to make another comparison that's strictly based on motive and not the magnitude. Take the example of bigtech renaming the master branch as main branch. Apparently, this is a gesture against slavery and oppression. I don't know how a 'master record', from which the branch derives its name, represents slavery or oppression in any manner. It would have made more sense in the case of 'master-slave' terminology. But there are no 'slave' branches. Meanwhile, professionals from the historically enslaved and oppressed race point out that they remain under-represented and widely discriminated against in those same corporations. These are all just smoke and mirrors to create an illusion of moral and ethical positivity that is clearly missing. The world really needs to quit these deceptive empty gestures and get back to genuine discourse on serious issues, no matter how uncomfortable they seem.
ryandrake 1y ago
[flagged]
- elzbardico 1y ago
  Why they don't understand this is just giving fuel for some awful people with sinister intentions? This mob censorship is absolutely counter-productive.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    They do.
antif 1y ago
I think it’s newsworthy as related to managed web publishing/speech and the governance of online information. Did any Wikipedia articles cite this page? Do those need revision now??
alkyon 1y ago
This is flagged by anti-Semites, obviously. Yes, Palestinians are Semites by all definitions.

Yep. I saw two stories in the same day get flagged a week ago. Denial and censorship... Sillicon Valkey is complicit and no one wants to rock the boat.

throwawaybob420 1y ago
“It’s a complex topic!” “This isn’t related to technology!” “Keep politics out of HN!”
- stemlord 1y ago
  hacking used to be deeply political but i guess i've come to learn over the past 15 years here that such a label here is just whitewashing for the kind of neoliberal capitalistic selfishness that has fueled modern day sv following the first wave of big tech successes that occurred a lifetime ago now
  - throwawaybob420 1y ago
    [flagged]
goku12 1y ago
I have question on a related note. Why do public fora like HN and the western society in general, frown upon and harshly censor any comparisons of contemporary human actions with Nazi tactics (and explicitly not the magnitude of their consequences), made in order to highlight the underlying human behavior? The responses are as if they just saw Nazism or the Holocaust being glorified. Many replies often contain such exaggerated and inordinate amount of outrage that it makes you wonder if they witnessed the holocaust in person (in which case, the response would be justified on account of trauma. But the incident was 80 years ago). There is no question that the Holocaust was a horrific chapter in human history. But that extreme nature is also what makes it a treasure trove of references for human behavior - be it bad or good (like the heroics and selflessness of those who opposed it). Isn't that why we learn history? To reference it when relevant and to prevent a repeat of the past mistakes? Now especially, since Nazism is rearing its ugly heads again in multiple places on the planet, quite overtly at times. Instead, it's now difficult to draw any such parallels in human psychology for the fear of accidentally offending some people's fragile sensitivities. I still don't understand what it is that they get so offended about. The entire reaction feels quite pretentious and has strong vibes of virtue signalling and gatekeeping.
- therobots927 1y ago
  That's a great question. I think on one hand people don't want the term to be diluted by comparisons to less heinous crimes. Maybe the following will help make sense of it: In the case of Palestine the comparison is made routinely on the left (socialist / anti war flank of the democrats). On the other hand you will see plenty of people on the center left flank (neoliberals) who refuse to talk about Palestine but are more than happy to compare Trump to Hitler. Now in this example I would agree with both comparisons at a high level but the IDF is clearly killing more people than ICE ever has and ever will. So you could argue that the center left is diluting the comparison and even making a mockery of it by not also talking about Palestine. But like I said more and more people are viewing the treatment of Palestine as on par with the treatment of the Jews in Germany. And accusations of "anti-semitism" don't work anymore after you've seen videos of kids missing limbs and settlers harassing old women in the West Bank.
  - goku12 1y ago
    > I think on one hand people don't want the term to be diluted by comparisons to less heinous crimes. I'm asserting that this stance is irrational, arbitrary and even harmful at times. Why do people insist that every comparison must match by magnitude of the events, when other meaningful comparisons exist - like intent, motive and MO? That connection may even extend beyond the abstract similarities. Some crimes are directly inspired by horrible historic events, including Nazi activities. Will people start objecting to comparative case studies in general someday, because the magnitudes of the cases rarely ever match? This sort of gatekeeping serves no worthwhile purpose and is counterproductive in most cases. > Maybe the following will help make sense of it Actually, no (will elaborate). But thanks for taking the effort to provide an example. > Now in this example I would agree with both comparisons at a high level but the IDF is clearly killing more people than ICE ever has and ever will. So you could argue that the center left is diluting the comparison and even making a mockery of it by not also talking about Palestine. The problem I have with this argument is that it's whataboutery by proxy (strictly a characterization of the argument, not an accusation). Actions of ICE and IDF are two different cases. The discourse on one must not influence or dictate the discourse on the other. For example, my views on the Trump regime doesn't reliably indicate my views about IDF. Contrary to your example above, what if my stances on both are consistent (non-contradictory)? It up to the people taking the contradictory stances to explain themselves (hypocrisy and opportunism). The arguments themselves are not affected by their double standards. Coincidentally, the IDF's actions are blessed by the pres himself. That provides anyone with two different ways to make that comparison - the destruction of democracy and the genocide. I don't know the full situation now and I don't know how far it will slide. But my question is, do you want to put that uncomfortable comparison aside, until you wake up one day to realize that the most infamous mistake in history was repeated all over again? Let's hope that doesn't happen. But if it does, that will be the worst insult and disrespect the world would have shown towards the victims of the Holocaust. Not only did they meet a horrible end, we would have also callously ignored their final lesson for us. No one is doing the Holocaust victims or the present world any favors by avoiding Nazi/Holocaust comparisons and references. We always compare the smaller things to the golden standard. As of now, the golden standard for human depravity is the Holocaust. Thus, it's never a dilution or belittling of that event to compare anything else with it. It's a very shameful and uncomfortable chapter in our collective history. Refusing to acknowledge, embrace and learn from it might make some people comfortable. But that's just an illusion that won't last. I really don't want to see the order of that comparison being reversed, because some people are too sensitive to face the terrible and harsh truth. That also brings me to a broader point. I hope I was able to convince you to some extend that this censorship is a hollow gesture that achieves nothing besides some virtue signalling. But this is hardly the only case I've seen. I'm going to make another comparison that's strictly based on motive and not the magnitude. Take the example of bigtech renaming the master branch as main branch. Apparently, this is a gesture against slavery and oppression. I don't know how a 'master record', from which the branch derives its name, represents slavery or oppression in any manner. It would have made more sense in the case of 'master-slave' terminology. But there are no 'slave' branches. Meanwhile, professionals from the historically enslaved and oppressed race point out that they remain under-represented and widely discriminated against in those same corporations. These are all just smoke and mirrors to create an illusion of moral and ethical positivity that is clearly missing. The world really needs to quit these deceptive empty gestures and get back to genuine discourse on serious issues, no matter how uncomfortable they seem.

ryandrake 1y ago

[flagged]

elzbardico 1y ago
Why they don't understand this is just giving fuel for some awful people with sinister intentions? This mob censorship is absolutely counter-productive.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  They do.

antif 1y ago

I think it’s newsworthy as related to managed web publishing/speech and the governance of online information. Did any Wikipedia articles cite this page? Do those need revision now??

alkyon 1y ago

This is flagged by anti-Semites, obviously. Yes, Palestinians are Semites by all definitions.