Hacker News Reader

Comment by floodyberry- | Hacker News Reader

So you were worried that the repercussions for saying whatever you like may be too high, and in exchange you were willing to potentially sacrifice women's rights, minorities rights, lgbt+ rights, the environment, business regulations, and whatever else conservative Trump appointments might do?

If only the third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice warriors, black lives matters activists, etc, had kept their mouths shut! It's good they were shown there are repercussions to saying whatever you like.

View on HN

> you were willing to potentially sacrifice women's rights, minorities rights, lgbt+ rights, the environment, business regulations, and whatever else conservative Trump appointments might do?

You see how here you are saying that I am in favour of sacrificing womens, minorities, lgbt, etc. rights.

You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist?

Why don't you ask me what I think about those issues? Why don't you ask me my views on how they are best improved, and how the current approach is bad? Why don't we have a debate on the effects of introducing female quotas in workplaces. Why don't we have a debate on illegal immigration?

You know why? Because before we start talking about illegal immigration, you will be calling me a "xenophobe" for not using the correct terminology of "undocumented immigrant" or something like that. Its tiring. But I'm always up for it.

> If only the third-wave feminist bloggers, social justice warriors, black lives matters activists, etc, had kept their mouths shut! It's good they were shown there are repercussions to saying whatever you like.

Sadly its true. If you reach too far, and attack everyone who doesn't hold your viewpoint, there are repercussions.

If people don't agree with your approach, you make an argument about why it will result in a better society. You don't label people sexist and racist, and not worth speaking to. Its childish. And this election was a referendum on this.

You have to make logical arguments and engage in debate. Your ideas have to be able to be challenged.

We all want to help, but no one wants to listen.

> You see how it is basically saying: You are are a sexist, misogynist, racist?

Oh cry me a river. It's starting to look like your only debating tactic is "stop oppressing me".

You said it yourself that you voted for quoting "a racist, sexist, misogynist, xenophobe" because "One side is for freedom of speech, the other side is for controlling what you can say."

How is floodyberrys post not a fair representation of your views?

http://carlosmariscal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/logical...

There are errors in your argument, others agree as you have been down-voted. I will not respond.

It does seem like that alt-right has basically appropriated the anti-oppression-speech of feminists and other civil liberty advocates, to construct the appearance of a minority of oppressed white men. It's a very frustrating process to see, and it's even more frustrating to have to tip-toe around white males who victimize themselves, as if they are actual minorities with long histories of oppression, like females, black people, LGBT-folks, latinos, or Muslims in America.

They've also appropriated the 'there is no absolute' truth idea, that is used to try to make people understand differing perceptions. It was used to try get people to accept different view points, basically something that liberals and hippies came up with in the 60s. Now it's been appropriate to further the post-truth politics. If there is no truth, why not always lie.

The real frustrating part is that this conflict was totally unnecessary. Yes listening to feminists and black people can sometimes by hard to white males, it sometimes appears unfair and as if they want to 'reverse' the world. But overall, that's not the aim of these movements. And we (the white males) should really just give them the benefit of the doubt. We should listen. It hurts, but the conflict hurts them more.

Instead, some of the people in a traditional position of privilege have successfully turned around the conversation, into "no, you should listen to us".

And now this group of people, many of whom were traditionally democrats (even may have voted for Obama), now voted for Trump. They are the swing vote.

I cannot stand irrationality. I don't care who you are, what you look like, all we have is logic and reasoning.

I am not going to give someone the benefit of the doubt. If it doesn't make sense it doesn't make sense.

It is irrational because it caused them to lose control of the government.

This is the tough love approach and will help them become stronger in the future.

I don't think you realise how rare it is to find any kind of spokesperson for these groups who can make a good argument and debate someone else without resorting to calling someone a racist, sexist, etc. and deeming them not worthy of speaking to. They will grow up during the Trump years.

The liberals only offer short-term comfort, that will hurt them in the long run.

You do realize that people are falling over backwards to be polite to you. People are listening to you because out of intellectual curiosity, because they want to better understand the delusions of the alt-right.

You sound like some sort of misguided 'red pill' type person who lives in a strange parallel phantasy world where privilege doesn't exist and where racism and sexism are just words used in 'name-calling'. Your patronizing 'tough love' argument is straight out of something like Uncle Tom's Cabin. You're hiding your overt sexism behind 'rationality'. You're denouncing the anger of the less privileged but are smug and unforgiving in considering their problems. You severely lack empathy. You are truly part of the problem.

I care more about the less privileged than you do. You satisfy your own selfish desires thinking its empathy.

You couldn't even make it through this comment without calling me sexist, and stating that you shouldn't have to listen to me, without making any arguments.

Thank you for your ignorance, you are only hurting yourself.

The key to rational thought is not just logic and reasoning, because both rely on axioms and information. You need to make sure you're getting the correct data and proceeding from sound foundations. Thats where the skepticism comes in -- double and triple check your sources.

I'm going to be straight here -- what are your sources?

I mean try not to take this too defensively, but you pegged Reagan as a political outsider when arguing for trump. You think an investigation is the same as a conviction. You think that political correctness is the substantive issue difference between HRC and Trump. None of these things are true. In fact, they are so obviously not true that I have to wonder about your rationality.

> Why don't we have a debate on illegal immigration?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while you personally may want to have a debate about illegal immigration, the person who you support to represent you (Trump) does not want to debate. He just wants to make a sweeping change without anyone in his path.

The people elect the president.

The people had the time to debate. We had the referendum. So now we live with it.

If you weren't busy calling everyone xenophobes maybe you would have got some support and won the senate and we could discuss it more.

Next time...

Wow, this escalated quickly. Where did I call everyone a xenophobe? I thought we were going to have some rational discourse and you quickly resorted to name calling and finger pointing. Thanks.

> Why don't you ask me what I think about those issues?

You didn't vote for your views, you voted for Trump. You had to believe that whatever would result from a Trump election was at least balanced by your desire to show the left the consequences of their free speech, yes?

> balanced by your desire to show the left the consequences of their free speech

There is no vengefulness here. We just wanted to be able to debate freely and openly without ad-hominem attacks all the time. Because we think that it is bad for the country.

If your freedom of speech is about shutting down the discussion by shaming people, then we will not reach a middle ground. So now we took complete power.

There are liberal policies I like, but now you get a mix of Republican policies I might not like.

The left polarised the country. The right is just trying to get by and talk about things.

Ok then, you valued your free speech more than the rights of those whose speech you think shouldn't be so free. There isn't anything more to say here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com