Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbrock | Hacker News Reader

I'm curious, if you imagine a possible historical situation, let's say a German business owner in the 1930s that took a stance of not offering services to Nazi organizations, does that appear commendable, or bad in the same "slippery slope" way that you apply in the present situation?

It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously, and it seems that businesses that did in fact offer services to e.g. the Nazi party are now tarnished morally because of that.

View on HN

>I'm curious, if you imagine a possible historical situation, let's say a German business owner in the 1930s that took a stance of not offering services to Nazi organizations, does that appear commendable, or bad in the same "slippery slope" way that you apply in the present situation?

How about the possible historical situation where a business owners doesn't offer services to the irish, jews, gays, blacks, etc?

Because those things have also happened -- and when you say it's ok to refuse those services to a group, you open a window for refusing those services to other groups too.

Just because consensus or power today is with the "good groups" (as far as you're concerned) doesn't change that fact.

It's even worse when what's right and wrong is even more muddy. E.g. someone criticizing their own country (like the Vietnam war protests) or in favor of a regime change etc.

> How about the possible historical situation where a business owners doesn't offer services to the irish, jews, gays, blacks, etc?

I'm sorry if someone was born a nazi then.

Then you wouldn't mind if they didn't offer services to vegans, christians, hackers, etc, right?

Not when they start organizing murder, no.

I must have missed the memo on us hackers. What group of traits in people do we blame for our woes? Just so I know who we want to exterminate.

I know this isn't a place for sarcasm, but when I can't tell if your comparison is sarcastic or not, I have a hard time not responding in kind.

> Not when they start organizing murder, no.

I think you are misinformed (I assume you talk about natzis).

Not all natzis are violent or are looking for violence. There are plenty of pre-war natzis that loved how Hitler pulled their country from dispair of economical and technological swamp, created economy of solid growth and created hundreds of thausands of jobs. Up to this point Hitler was an incredible leader and actually all those real successes as a politican made him being voted to become Germans fuerer.

As with any other group or person views, a reasonable person never agrees with anyything they say or believe. Thats called fanatism. Look at Trump. Mamy things he do or say are reasonable and as a POTUS he sould be praised for. On the other hand you shouldnt agree with him when he talks crap.

So its wrong to say all natzis are looking for violence, just like its wrong to say all Muslims are looking to blow thmeselves up in crouded spot.

So your point is some of the Nazis were reasonable other than the ones that want to commit genocide?

It doesn't even hold up today because you are saying historically there were Germans that supported the Nazi party because of Hitler's leadership in other areas. But we're in 2017 where everyone knows that Nazis committed a genocide. So anyone like the Daily Stormer that supports Nazis we know to be dangerous. And It's okay to not do business with dangerous people who want to harm innocents.

To your point about Muslims, we know that there are millions of peaceful non-violent practicing Muslims. You are trying to make a logical equivalency here and what I believe is more important is the facts that we know about the real world we live in. Supporting Nazis is explicit support of genocide. Practicing Islam has an unfortunate overlap with violent terrorists. But practicing Christianity also has an unfortunate overlap with domestic terrorists like Timothy McVeigh and Dylan Roof. I don't think existing in this theoretical world of forced equivalency even benefits your argument as much as you believe it does.

> So anyone like the Daily Stormer that supports Nazis we know to be dangerous.

How is it exactly dangerous? How did they views hurt you or your family? How did they affect you? IF you children happen to be listening and turn to Natzis, I can bet even if DS never existed in the first place, they would get to be Natzis somehow anyways.

Point being, limiting free speech is never a good idea. Especially of something SO silly as a website where it is NOT pushing itself on you, but to the contrary - you have to visit it to be a "part" of it.

> actually all those real successes as a politican made him being voted to become Germans fuerer.

Where do you have this from? From a computer game or a movie? From a gumball machine?

Read this book.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/65458.Defying_Hitler

Here I googled it for you:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-achievements-of-Hitler

Amongst all interesting points: 10. Nazis started first checking of drunk drivers.

Your link does not support the claim that that is how Hitler got into power at all.

Read the book. Don't pass "go", don't collect $400, and spare me more pop history. I lead you to water, now drink or don't.

Since you are new to Hacker News, I suggest you read the HN Guideline before you take on any further historical book [1].

Furthermore, your response doesn't support anything at all but only steer conversation off to a different course.

As you can rewind, I was merely responding to previous post not to equal Nazism with violence, just like you can't equal Muslim religion with violence. In that context, I couldn't care less about some historical book. I assume in your country you have access to Amazon, so go ahead dive in their books section. You welcome!

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not new to HN, I just ditch accounts when they approach 500 karma because I'm edgy like that.

> Not all natzis are violent or are looking for violence [...] Up to this point Hitler was an incredible leader

Hitler was openly advocating persecution of Jews and annexing countries through war. Supporting Hitler at the time, even without hindsight, was to be in active support of violence to say the least.

Normally you don't need to point out the link between Nazism and violence, but these don't seem to be normal times.

>Hitler was openly advocating persecution of Jews and annexing countries through war.

The US (and France and co) were quite antisemitic at the time as well. Hitler took that sentiment and run with it to unprecedented murdering levels, but it was there (and of course, when it was millions of developing worlds colonial slaves who got the axe, nobody really cared. Heck, people didn't even care that much for Jews at the time either: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267 ).

As for "annexing countries through war" the European colonial powers had been doing exactly the same to 2/3 of the world for centuries (and continued to do so after WWII).

The difference is that Hitler did that "annexing" to other European countries, not to third world people (for whom hypocritical Europeans could not care less).

(Of course European countries have also had a long bloody history of fighting and annexing each other for centuries up to WWI as well).

> As for "annexing countries through war" the European colonial powers had been doing exactly the same to 2/3 of the world for centuries (and continued to do so after WWII).

How is this relevant? Get back to me when people proudly call themselves neo-colonialists, and I will gladly call them idiots. No one is defending that part of British history (for example).

>No one is defending that part of British history (for example)

You'd be surprised. I recall the British being quite fond of their Falklands war -- for an astonishingly remote land that has absolutely no historical connection to the isle and population of Britain apart from the colonial plundering.

Plus, it's not like the big powers are not invading and bombing countries here and there to this day under various pretexts...

> You'd be surprised. I recall the British being quite fond of their Falklands war -- for an astonishingly remote land that has absolutely no historical connection to the isle and population of Britain apart from the colonial plundering.

Yes, I would be surprised, because it's inane. You've got a poll? I must've missed the large gatherings of Brits protesting to take back India.

> Plus, it's not like the big powers are not invading and bombing countries here and there to this day under various pretexts...

Yes, and like I asked last time, what's your point? Show me a movement bent on persecution of a people, leading to invasion of other countries, that is hence emulated elsewhere, and not criticized as neo-Nazis are.

Iraq was unrelated to 9/11, was about oil, but used 9/11 as an excuse to look for WMDs, and is immensely unpopular.

Are you claiming that there are neo-Bushists organizing to take back America from Saddamists that aren't criticized like neo-Nazis are?

Does that proposition sound ridiculous? It's because it is. You are not making a comparison, you are bringing up non-sequitors to gaslight the issue.

There are wars and invasions, and most if not all are very unpopular, and any that revolves around eradication of peoples are historically reviled. Except for neo-nazis views of 1940s Germany, for some reason. Do you have a comparison to that?

As a rhetorical lesson, notice how easily whataboutism can be turned in service of Nazism.

For the parent, I would prefer that you argue the merits of national socialism on their own terms. It makes it easier to see where you stand.

>As a rhetorical lesson, notice how easily whataboutism can be turned in service of Nazism.

I don't consider "whataboutism" an offense -- rather it's what people used to call "calling a spade a spade" and not siding with pots in calling the kettle black, but rather pointing the finger and both the pot and the kettle.

(Of course I don't belong to either the pot or the kettle. I can understand why compatriots of one or the other would take offense at "whataboutism". They'd rather only the other is called out).

I also don't particularly see how if reality proves that both sides in WWII were bastards, or that the best between them dropped nukes on civilians with the same ease the Nazis murdered Jews (but just for 200.000 people, not 4 million) that's "in service of Nazism".

Rather it's in service of the truth those other victims ALSO deserve.

I wouldn't be satisfied if we just didn't repeat Nazism.

I also want us to not repeat imperialism and colonialism [1].

For that, call all out all sides is necessary.

(Well, we never stopped those, but in any case).

> I also want us to not repeat imperialism and colonialism

And I want us to not repeat the murder of JFK. However Oswaldians aren't a side in the conversation.

The opposition to nazis aren't colonialists. They are anti-nazis, democrats, republicans, human beings, ie people that don't like persecution of peoples. That's not a bad, equal, or comparable side to any obfuscation you've managed to dream up.

What if I consider infant/child circumcision mutilation? Jews and Muslims do this for religious reasons. Would it be therefore okay for me to bar them from service?

What if I'm an American Christian and think abortion is literally murder? Would it be therefore okay for me to ban customers who identify themselves as Pro-Choice?

Or if I consider the Catholic church a criminal organisation for enabling systematic child abuse? Does that mean I can ban Catholics?

If you say no, what about white supremacists who merely spread the idea that whites are superior but don't encourage violence against other races? If the KKK formally promised to never commit any violent acts again and leave POC alone but continue preaching racial superiority and claiming the US as a white nation?

This is a pretty slippery slope you're arguing.

> What if I consider infant/child circumcision mutilation? Jews and Muslims do this for religious reasons. Would it be therefore okay for me to bar them from service?

Are there muslims and jews that don't circumcise/mutilate their children? Are they still muslims and jews? If you say yes, then it's not a religious tenet, but a cultural tradition.

> What if I'm an American Christian and think abortion is literally murder? Would it be therefore okay for me to ban customers who identify themselves as Pro-Choice?

I was raised Christian and no one in those circles takes issue with the choice of abortion. Seeing as you explicitly wrote "American Christian", it's clear it's trying to make a distinction, which I agree with, that there is an evangelical branch of Christians in America that are radical, and that it's not what Christianity is about.

> Or if I consider the Catholic church a criminal organisation for enabling systematic child abuse? Does that mean I can ban Catholics?

Catholics condemn child abuse, it's not a part of their religion, but I think they should allow priests to marry instead, because forced celibacy is unnatural for humans, and it clearly leads to a disturbingly high rate of abhorrent criminal misconduct.

> If you say no, what about white supremacists who merely spread the idea that whites are superior but don't encourage violence against other races? If the KKK formally promised to never commit any violent acts again and leave POC alone but continue preaching racial superiority and claiming the US as a white nation?

So what you're asking is: If white supremacists don't act on the core principle of their organisation, should they be allowed to practice?

Sure, I don't see the point of them keeping it up at that point, but whatever floats their boat.

>Are there muslims and jews that don't circumcise/mutilate their children? Are they still muslims and jews? If you say yes, the it's not a religious tenet, but a cultural tradition.

There's no difference between the two. You can break any religious tenet and still belong to the particular religion/faith.

Heck, you can murder people and still be considered a christian saint for example.

> There's no difference between the two. You can break any religious tenet and still belong to the particular religion/faith.

Sure it is. One is within the tenets, one is: maybe, despite the tenets.

You are a [religion]:ian because you follow the tenets, and you can be a [religion]:ian by reforming, despite breaking tenets.

Nazis are not and have never been violent in opposition to their core beliefs, but completely in line with them.

>I must have missed the memo on us hackers. What group of traits in people do we blame for our woes? Just so I know who we want to exterminate.

You've probably missed the memo. Not all neo-Nazis, and certainly not all modern alt-right/new-right groups are against Jews or want to exterminate any particular group. In fact many are pro-Israel and are even OK with homosexuals and blacks, but favor a strong state, discipline, no immigration, traditional values, etc. So, that means you're ok with them then?

> You've probably missed the memo. Not all neo-Nazis, and certainly not all modern alt-right/new-right groups are against Jews or want to exterminate any particular group. In fact many are pro-Israel and are even OK with homosexuals and blacks, but favor a strong state, discipline, no immigration, traditional values, etc. So, that means you're ok with them then?

I am well aware that there are normalizing voices within their ranks, that vocally proclaim a nuanced view. The news and discussions on daily stormer does not mirror that, nor did the conduct in Charlottesville. If they held those views you claim, they would not carry the Nazi flag, do the salute, use SS and other symbols, shout "Heil Trump", etc, etc, etc.

You either identify as a neo-Nazi, or you don't.

I can't say that I'm a vegan, but that I eat meat, eggs, fish and dairy.

You instead look at what someone eats, and then determine if they are an omnivore or other.

Judge the tree by its fruit and all that.

> Not all neo-Nazis

Give me a break.

I can give you all the breaks you want, but you might be surprised.

Being Irish, Jewish, gay or black are not choices (for the most part, anyway) and do not inherently imply that you're intolerant of any other group. Being Nazi, on the other hand, is clearly a choice, and intolerance is inherent to it. I think the difference is clear.

Also, people arguing that companies should be required to serve and even create safe spaces for particular marginalised groups usually do so not from a "First Amendment" standpoint, but from the point of view that a sex life, gender identity or religious belief has higher inherent value than any particular prejudice against it.

If people would like to make the argument that Naziism also has higher inherent value than prejudices against Naziism, they are welcome to do so explicitly...

A more realistic historical example than yours (which assumes hindsight): what about the McCarthyism? "If these guys are communist let's not give them jobs, particularly in the medias where they could spread their ideas".

The US liberals kept a pretty sour memory of McCarthyism. But fundamentally it is no different.

There are many differences:

1. Nazis started WW2 with around 80 million deaths, including hundreds of thousands US soldiers, and killed 5-6 million Jews in the gas chambers of concentration camps.

2. McCarthyism originated from and was systematically exerted by the US government in many official capacities. There were vetting committees, job prohibitions, and other direct government interference including using intelligence agencies to gain information on US citizens. They didn't let Charlie Chaplin enter the US.

That's very different from a private company that ceases to make business with a Nazi website due to violations of their ToS.

On a side note, John von Neumann suggested to government officials to pro-actively launch a nuclear strike on Moskow. That tells you how different the climate was then as opposed to now.

Communists have started WW2 along with Nazis and are responsible for a big chunk of those deaths. They killed a lot of people in gulags as well.

If people with the this mindset would get to official government, how long would it take to launch McCarthyist-like policies?

This is complete and utter nonsense. WW2 was started by the Germans under direct supervision and order of Adolf Hitler, by attacking Poland under false pretense. Later on Hitler attacked Russia despite a peace treaty he had signed, and yes, a large majority of the victims of WW2 were Russians who had the highest death toll among all nations.

Your comment and many others in this thread are a shame for humanity, and I mean that seriously without hyperbole.

Soviets attacked Poland few days after Nazis and split it exactly as described in peace treaty you mention. Soviets later rolled through Baltic states, Bessarabia and attacked Finland. Exactly as agreed in said peace treaty. While Nazis did their part of the deal in the West.

A big part of Soviet deaths were thanks to utter mismanagement and not paying much attention to human life. Even catastrophes like Leningrad siege may have been avoided (or at least greatly reduced) if Soviets were more humane.

It's a shame to humanity to call USSR a victim of WW2. Not only they started it, but they also took home the most. For a half of Europe, WW2 ended only after the fall of Iron Curtain. After nearly 3 decades, the division is still huge. It will take a long time to get rid of USSR legacy.

Twist it as you like, fact is that Germany started WWII - as you also admit, since the facts you mention fully support that and not your point of view.

What fact? That Nazis and Soviets had a pact on how to split Europe and started WW2 together acting on it? And then had a parade to celebrate splitting Poland?

But yes, technically Nazis started WW2 few days earlier and then Soviets joined in :) I doubt that makes much of a difference.

By the way, just to mess with your mind more... It was Soviets who attacked my country first and started terrorising civilians. Nazis were sort of liberators when they attacked from the other side although they soon turned out not much better. Then Soviets came back, fucked shit up even more and forgot to leave for 50 years. Cool, huh? Sorry, saying that WW2 was Nazi job and claiming that Soviets didn't start it hand-in-hand with Nazis is just a disgrace to thousands for people who died at the hands of either.

Nothing you're saying is new to me, all I wanted is to correct your false statements, which I did.

> It seems to me that such a business owner would seem in hindsight to have been acting virtuously,

No it wouldn't - There is a large percentage of population joining Nazi parties for convenience, for their career or even out of fear. Are you going to deny them the food you sell from your shop? If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?

Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even?

The moment you dehumanise vast swathes of the population, you've already lost and dropped to the level of "Nazi's". It's not wise to let your enemies turn you into them.

Well, I might ask whether you think there is a difference between selling food to an individual who happens to be a member of the Nazi party, and catering for a Nazi party event?

The bottom line is: Am I going to let a man starve himself to death while I have a shop full of food? No.

What if that man is, for example, threatening your family or friends?

In 2017 we have prisons and we don't starve anyone in there.

Well, actually...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/spoonuniversity.com/news/the-di...

If letting this man starve himself to death could save hundred of others I wouldn't hesitate.

> If they are Nazi's, are they still not human beings deserving to access food in the market?

No, they can stop being nazi's at any point. Literally in less than a second.

Blacks, jews, gays, disabled people can't.

Stop trying to equate the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

People can abandon their religion at any time, but we still protect peoples' religious rights, no matter how odious their beliefs.

No we don't, not when the religion (badly interpreted) promotes murder, ie radical islam.

Are you pretending that nazism can be interpreted charitably?

I can kill someone and claim it's for buddhism or my local sports team, but there is no basis for either of those promoting murder.

Nazism not so.

The penalty for leaving Islam (apostasy) is death. Many muslims believe it (like, the majority of the populations of places like Pakistan and Egypt). I guarantee you that you could not, consistent with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, deny service to Muslims merely for expressing the belief that apostates should be put to death.

I actually agree with you, and Christianity has the same problem in writing.

But the difference (or similarity?) is that only a diminishingly tiny fraction of practitioners for either religion believes in stoning.

If I asked you to give me a few key points of the tenets of Islam and Christianity, would any be about killing, eradicating, or persecution of people?

If I asked you to do the same for Nazism? Are you going to pretend it's comparable?

First, that's not true: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi.... In Bangladesh, where my family is from, 82% of Muslims favor making Sharia the law of the land. Of those, 55% (over 40% of the population) believe in stoning as a punishment for adultery. 44% (over 30% of the population) believe that apostates should be executed.

Second, it's irrelevant. In my hypothetical, I'm talking about specific individuals who have conceded to believing that apostates should be executed. If they invoke their religion as a shield for having that view, and have done nothing otherwise illegal, you can't refuse to serve them under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Alright, I'll gladly concede that I did not know that, but I strongly disagree that my comparisons you neglected are "irrelevant". I think that's the key discriminator.

The view on stoning in Bangladesh could be religious, but it could also be cultural, as it's not equal elsewhere where practicing muslims reside.

And if it, as I posit, isn't a core tenet of the religion, and if it is, as I posit, one in nazism, it can't be solved through cultural tolerance.

An atmosphere of free speech that allows for satire and conversation are the best weapons against extremist ideology.

I agree. I'm glad that's not challenged here.

I dispute your point - not everyone could have chosen to stop being nazis and live.

"Approximately 77,000 German citizens were killed for one or another form of resistance by Special Courts, courts-martial, People's Court and the civil justice system. "

"Almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps. As early as 1935 there were jingles warning: "Dear Lord God, keep me quiet, so that I don't end up in Dachau." (It almost rhymes in German: Lieber Herr Gott mach mich stumm / Daß ich nicht nach Dachau komm.)[17] "Dachau" refers to the Dachau concentration camp"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

Which would still be a technicality because it's a specific edge case to the rule

- Given EXTENUATING circumstances, the choice may be difficult to exercise.

And even then - many people exercised that right, even knowing the risks - because it was just the right thing to do, and being a nazi wasn't.

I think the time to address the "staving Nazi" problem is when there are staving Nazis. Until then, keeping them out seems fine.

I'd note that I'm pretty sure by the time Nazi's owned the government in Germany it was too late.

I thought this was about the present.

The comment I replied to mentioned: "let's say a German business owner in the 1930s".

And how do you know they are not nazis anymore?

They may stop looking and acting like nazis, but still believe the same ideas.

What do you really oppose? Nazis? People who look and talk like Nazis? People who perform horrible actions like the horrible actions the Nazis did?

>Does someone being a member of the Nazi party mean we can let them starve to death? Shoot them and push them into a trench even?

Historically, yes.

Let me ask you this then. If a homeless Nazi begged me for a dollar to get a McMuffin (not sure if those are on the dollar menu but take it as part of the hypothetical here) so they won't starve that day and I refuse to give them a dollar because they are an unrepentant Nazi, am I a bad person?

At what point do I as an individual have the right to not associate with a group or ideology that's seeks my destruction? Because that's really what's at the heart of the matter whether we're talking about Cloudflare or just me because I'm sure that Cloudflare has Jews, racial minorities, and LGBT folks on their staff. And I'm sure even some of those folks are even investors. So why should the investors and employees of Cloudflare protect Nazis who seek their destruction? For money? I can accept that it's a matter of profit, but if you're asking for a moral basis to aid those that want to kill you I can't see there being any argument in favor of protecting or aiding them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com