Hacker News Reader

Comment by brickmort | Hacker News Reader

The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal. Speaking for myself, I hit a point where I realized that any slight questioning or dissent of the general ideology was returned with vehement backlash by the left.

I would consider most undecided voters to be sane, rational people with good consciences because I admit that both candidates have their warts and what it all boils down to is what would best for the country. With that said, the undecided voter knows better than to even think about publicly expressing that they might consider voting Trump, out of fear of having their property stolen or burned, reputation tarnished, etc.

The left has been hijacked by extreme left-wing groups taking the podium from classical liberals, and the party itself is imploding under the repeated revelations from Wikileaks and Project Veritas. It truly is an election that will go down in history.

View on HN

"The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned" is the exact reason that I began moving away from the Left, despite still considering myself socially liberal."

Being banned on social media or not invited to a conference isn't illegal since your free to speak and associate with whom you wish. If Twitter/Facebook or some private organization doesn't want to associate with you doesn't mean you're forced to not speak. You just can't speak with or through them.

As for the rest of your comment it just smacks of naivety of someone who's not studied political history. First, classical liberalism use to be the left but ceased to be the left the moment it shifted rightward toward sympathizing with fascists as what happened in countries like Germany under the Weimer Republic. Second, left-wing groups that you deem extreme in the United States are fairly moderate in terms of global left-right politics. Asking for LGBT people to be added to the protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 isn't extreme. If such legal extensions are extreme to you then you need to ask yourself if you're actually a liberal and not some Burkean libertarian conservative.

I hope people noticed that you reserve for yourself the right to exclude people you disagree with based on private property and freedom of association but then restrict them from doing the same to you by categorizing yourself under a federal anti-discrimination law.

The civil rights act of 1964 doesn't put obligations on private parties to contract with other private parties since said private parties by definition are private. Meaning that if I operate a club or some sort of prayer group I'm privileged to exclude or include anyone of my choosing so long as the fellow members of that group agree with my decision. Federal law on this is very clear and something that no one can argue otherwise. There's hundreds of cases like this which the federal government looks at and concludes rightly the scope of the Civil Rights Act limits them. So, if I want to exclude Peter Thiel from my prayer group I can god damn can and will, and there's nothing little Pete can do about it under federal law.

cool story but facebook and twitter aren't actually private since they have open registration.

Cool story but FB and Twitter aren't violating your rights denying your access to their site. Otherwise every bar tender who's thrown out people for drunken tirades is now violating civil rights (despite the case law that says otherwise).

So unless you got a constitutional lawyer that has a solid argument against site-wide bans of users, I'm just not going to listen to you until then.

The OP didn't say it was illegal, nor should that be the metric for deciding that such an idea is entirely distasteful and not something you want to associate yourself with.

Any tech/business/non-political conference that decides to go through each persons political leanings and decides whether or not the group finds them satisfactory before allowing them to talk is such a dangerous idea IMO. It is indeed a voluntary action and one that I want nothing to do with. The fact that so many people on HN can't see the problems with mixing partisan politics with business in order to shame another persons views scares me.

If this was any other forum such as a news site's comment section or one of those protests by inexperienced university kids then I would be more understanding. But I don't believe I can hold the people on HN or in the tech community to that low standard... they should really know better. Sadly the media feeds into this hysteria.

This Less Wrong article has never been more relevant:

"People go funny in the head when talking about politics." http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

or better yet http://lesswrong.com/lw/gt/a_fable_of_science_and_politics/

"The OP didn't say it was illegal, nor should that be the metric for deciding that such an idea is entirely distasteful and not something you want to associate yourself with."

So it's distasteful that I don't want to associate with people of my own free will? Are you serious?

"The fact that so many people on HN can't see the problems with mixing partisan politics with business in order to shame another persons views scares me."

What scares me if folks like you that want to use force of another kind to obligate me to associate with people I wouldn't urinate on if they were on fire. Seriously, I would never work for the likes of Peter Thiel under any circumstances. I have my standards, you should too.

"If this was any other forum such as a news site's comment section or one of those protests by inexperienced university kids then I would be more understanding. But I don't believe I can hold the people on HN or in the tech community to that low standard... they should really know better. Sadly the media feeds into this hysteria."

Sorry, but none of that gives a moral theory of obligation for me to work for or with people like Peter Thiel.

"This Less Wrong article has never been more relevant."

I don't give two craps about LessWrong pseudo-intellectualism. Either present a theory that I'm obligated to associate with the likes of Peter Thiel or admit you have no moral theory or basis from which to obligate me or others to associate with those we choose freely not to associate with.

> So it's distasteful that I don't want to associate with people of my own free will? Are you serious?

I wouldn't say it's distasteful, but I would say that it's comically oversensitive that you wouldn't want to associate with people just because of political opinions. There is no such thing as a wrong political opinion.

If those political opinions includes putting me in a mental ward because I'm transgender then yeah I'm going to not be your friend. That's just a fact of life. It's why I haven't talked to my parents for a few years because they were 100% opposed to me being openly trans or transitioning. Who I am is more important than making people feel comfortable around me. They're free to find someone else to talk to as much as I am free to do the same. Why is this notion something shocking to you all?

Separating yourself from people with differing views doesn't do either side good. It actively works to reinforce an "Us vs Them" mentality. Instead of speaking to each other, you speak past one another. Two groups unable to communicate with words tend to eventually resort to weapons to "get the other side to understand".

On some level - I think it is fine to choose your social contacts. Taken to extreme, as many people seem to do on social media, filters your social bubble to only "Other Yous". I feel doing that actively harmful to one's self. Stifling their own view of the world and limiting it only to the parts they agree with. Nobody is saying you should go grab a beer with Peter Thiel. It is better to try and understand each other's opinions, even if you disagree, than to demonize or dehumanize anyone for their beliefs.

The line between "Those people are violent and dangerous and I wouldn't save their lives if I could" to "Those people should be rounded up and killed for the benefit of everyone else" has been historically thin and often crossed. If they're such bad people, does the world really need them? It's an easy and rational conclusion to make if you truly believe it.

One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter and all that. It's better to understand the other viewpoint than to assert that it is wrong, simply for "being wrong".

"Separating yourself from people with differing views doesn't do either side good. It actively works to reinforce an "Us vs Them" mentality. Instead of speaking to each other, you speak past one another. Two groups unable to communicate with words tend to eventually resort to weapons to "get the other side to understand"."

Kinda hard to listen to someone who thinks me being transgender makes me subhuman or mentally incompetent. It's a basic standard that you have to see the other person as a person first before any meaningful exchange is possible. And to assert it is my moral duty to make them understand is nonsensical.

"aken to extreme, as many people seem to do on social media, filters your social bubble to only "Other Yous". I feel doing that actively harmful to one's self. Stifling their own view of the world and limiting it only to the parts they agree with."

I've ranged the political spectrum more than most. From nationalism (with some racialist notions) to currently a Mutualist. I seriously doubt there's anything I can learn from the likes of Ben Shapiro when it comes to conservatism. Those folks are light weights compared to George Will and the late William F Buckley Jr. If I want to refresh my memory on conservative ideology I got dozens of essays by more competent people from years past to read. I don't need to listen someone spew an Obama birther theory to expand my horizons.

"The line between "Those people are violent and dangerous and I wouldn't save their lives if I could" to "Those people should be rounded up and killed for the benefit of everyone else" has been historically thin and often crossed. If they're such bad people, does the world really need them? It's an easy and rational conclusion to make if you truly believe it."

Yeah cause me not listening to a bigoted relative tell me that water fluoridation turned me a "tranny queer" is going to lead to people putting them in a concentration camp.

In all seriousness, your logic is very tenuous as there's no evidence of a massive liberal or progressive wave of hate coming. I don't know of any mainstream liberal or even a decently read anarchist advocating for the extermination of social conservatives. Rather I read every day CNS or Free Republic or Townhall how being a "transgendered" is "dangerous and delusional." So frankly, I'm not gonna be friends with such people. Would you?

>Kinda hard to listen to someone who thinks me being transgender makes me subhuman or mentally incompetent. It's a basic standard that you have to see the other person as a person first before any meaningful exchange is possible. And to assert it is my moral duty to make them understand is nonsensical.

It is extremely difficult to treat people as people when they refuse you the same respect. The answer isn't to step down to their level though. It may be "childish" or "naive" advice but it is a virtue I hold myself to all the same.

>I've ranged the political spectrum more than most. From nationalism (with some racialist notions) to currently a Mutualist. I seriously doubt there's anything I can learn from the likes of Ben Shapiro when it comes to conservatism. Those folks are light weights compared to George Will and the late William F Buckley Jr. If I want to refresh my memory on conservative ideology I got dozens of essays by more competent people from years past to read. I don't need to listen someone spew an Obama birther theory to expand my horizons.

The social-bubble comment was speaking in general, not necessarily of you. I apologize if I failed to make that clear enough. Choosing who one associates with is fine. Choosing what they prefer to hear or listen to is fine in moderation. I believe there is such a thing as "too much filtering" and anyone regardless of their political leanings is at risk of sealing themselves off in an echo chamber. A few days on Twitter is enough to see many, many echo chambers shouting past their opposites and "circlejerking" their own ideologies. Both sides only increasing the divide between themselves.

>In all seriousness, your logic is very tenuous as there's no evidence of a massive liberal or progressive wave of hate coming. I don't know of any mainstream liberal or even a decently read anarchist advocating for the extermination of social conservatives.

We must be in two very, very different social bubbles. Thankfully more property has been damaged than people killed at this point - but I'm not looking forward to what the next decade brings. The past twelve years has seen a drastic and increasingly large ideological gap between people. With the widening gap - and escalation of threats and "acceptable behavior" has risen, progressively worsening each year.

One side championing various forms and various levels of "social justice", some more agreeable than others, and the "racist/sexist/___ist bigots" who disagree, even if only in extremity. One of these two sides receives a disproportionate amount of mob justice, internet/social-media brigades, and dehumanization for "having the wrong beliefs". The bullying behavior is excused with reasons such as "They deserve it for their bigoted beliefs!" or "They're racists/sexists/misogynists!". I've noticed the accusations only sometimes match up with reality and slowly increasing number have been proven to have been fabricated entirely. Either for attention or an excuse to act out - I'm not sure which but I do hold a bias in one direction.

Now pardon me, I went off on a tangent below. I left it however, as I feel it may provide some insight into why I believe what I believe.

Seeing as you twice mentioned transgenderism, surely you have heard of Paul R. McHugh? Based only on what you've said in your post, I would assume your thoughts on him are negative: He's a bigot, a "tranny hater", lacks any credibility, that sort of stuff.

Now here is one of the largest reasons I've come to hold the beliefs I hold: I've received death threats for the cardinal sin of giving even the smallest amount of thought towards the idea that he might be right. For most transexuals, I've now been placed in the "asshole bucket" so to speak. The fact I identify as the opposite gender doesn't matter. I'm a self-hater, an "enemy", brainwashed, "not a real transexual", a bigot myself! You name it, I've been called it by this point.

I don't see these people as being any different than the bigots we have both dealt with. I'm able to see where they stand. They refuse to see where I stand. It isn't even an inability to see things my way - but a complete and utter refusal. I do not see that as being good.

"It is extremely difficult to treat people as people when they refuse you the same respect. The answer isn't to step down to their level though. It may be "childish" or "naive" advice but it is a virtue I hold myself to all the same."

Again, is it my moral duty to be a nice person to what amounts to as jerks? This seems to be something you can't provide so how about you admit I have no such duty to be nice to said jerks. Because that's really what it boils down to which seems to me that people want to put up fake politeness when in practice all that does is stress out the jerk in question and the person trying to be nice to said jerk.

"Choosing what they prefer to hear or listen to is fine in moderation. believe there is such a thing as "too much filtering" and anyone regardless of their political leanings is at risk of sealing themselves off in an echo chamber."

No it's called my moral right of free association. I'm not going to listen to a David Duke or a Paul McHugh ever. As in never. And there's no reason to moderate that practice. I don't listen to Neo Nazis. I don't listen to alt-medicine crackpots. I don't listen to Flat Earthers. So, there's no need to moderate this when the other side of the argument is categorical wrong. You don't debate someone who screams that 2 plus 2 equals 5.1. You just shake your head and move on. Such people have nothing to contribute in terms of my knowledge base and to entertain them is to waste your time and theirs.

"Thankfully more property has been damaged than people killed at this point - but I'm not looking forward to what the next decade brings."

Tweets and facebook memes don't constitute assault nor vandalism. And you have a higher chance today from dying a car wreck of your own making than from a random act of terrorism.

"The past twelve years has seen a drastic and increasingly large ideological gap between people. With the widening gap - and escalation of threats and "acceptable behavior" has risen, progressively worsening each year."

Yeah that gap is widening because certain people (aka social conservatives) don't want to move on. Specifically, the social conservatives in question demand LGBT people like myself to be in the closet or forced into mental wards where I'm to be subjected to "reparative therapies (usually includes things like ECT aka electro-shock therapy)." So, I'm sorry if I'm not going to listen to or be polite to such people. Either they need to acknowledge my civil rights or don't bother interacting with me at all. I don't think what I state is extreme, it's quite moderate in terms of global political movements. Even conservatives in other countries agree with my position, so basically there's no excuse at this point for the US social conservatives to keep fighting these issues.

"Seeing as you twice mentioned transgenderism, surely you have heard of Paul R. McHugh? Based only on what you've said in your post, I would assume your thoughts on him are negative: He's a bigot, a "tranny hater", lacks any credibility, that sort of stuff."

Yes and he's a complete dirtbag when it comes to defending Cardinal Law from the investigation on the molestation accusations. Dude went as far as to claim the victims were deluded or mentally incompetent. So no, I don't listen to dirtbag rent-o-shrinks that have no moral spine to stand up to his own church when it has corrupt cardinals and other staff protecting molesters.

"Now here is one of the largest reasons I've come to hold the beliefs I hold: I've received death threats for the cardinal sin of giving even the smallest amount of thought towards the idea that he might be right."

Well I don't think you deserve threats but you are a dirtbag by implication at worse or outright dumb at best. McHugh's thesis holds no water in light of the various studies so far. All you have to do is search for it on Google Scholar to see why.

"I don't see these people as being any different than the bigots we have both dealt with. I'm able to see where they stand. They refuse to see where I stand. It isn't even an inability to see things my way - but a complete and utter refusal. I do not see that as being good."

Sorry but McHugh is a dirtbag for so many reasons and no I won't ever entertain his positions. If this is too much for you it's best you stop replying to my comments or never engage me again. McHugh is basically the creationist of gender identity, so I don't listen to said crackpots. Deal with it.

I haven't heard rumors of the party imploding except from sources on the right so I'll be interested to see if it actually happens. Also I haven't found the left taken over by crazy people except on the internet but of course that's what it's going to seem like when you are talking to people on twitter and tumblr

The mentality of "if your opinions don't align with mine, you should be silenced and banned"

No one's talking about "silencing" or "banning" him. That's quite a severe misattribution of what people are actually saying.

How is Peter Thiel being silenced or banned? He's choosing to publicize his support of Trump and others are choosing to criticize it.

For instance, a recent article in The Advocate stated he was no longer a part of the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump: http://archive.is/kTlTL

Also, Facebook endured alot of external backlash for continuing to have him on the Board, so much that Facebook had to release a statement to address it: http://s13.postimg.org/ohe1sci6f/mmexport1476831885441.jpg

"For instance, a recent article in The Advocate stated he was no longer a part of the LGBTQ community for supporting Trump: http://archive.is/kTlTL"

Are you asserting that people have to associate with others they don't agree with in terms of ideologies? Because I'm sorry but I'm not inviting my alcoholic fundie uncle to the cookout. He's an ass and he has poor taste in beer. Joking aside, the freedom of association is a civil right just as much as free speech. If I don't want to associate with anyone that's my right. And it's a right that extends to private organizations. If the Advocate wants to mock Peter Thiel or otherwise not ever invite him to their events that's their right. Conversely, Thiel is free to do the same without interference. Why is this a problem with you? Do you want force people to associate with each other when they would better off not associating at all?

According to the alt-right you have to listen to their side or else you're censoring them. Also, if you ban them from your own web forums, mailing lists, or private venues that too is evil evil censorship (aka no freedom of association for you).

He isn't being silenced or banned as far as I know, but there were multiple people calling for his removal as a part-time partner with YCombinator.

Sam Altman summed it up and explained his decision in his blog: http://blog.samaltman.com/the-2016-election

Reply on news.ycombinator.com