Hacker News Reader

Look, I grew up in The South, more specifically in a small town that got swallowed up by Charlotte when the Yankees were moving down in droves due to the banking and housing boom that took place there (ex: when NationsBank and BofA merged) and there was a lot of "city vs rural", "black vs white", "north vs south", "Christian vs secular", "liberal vs conserative" clashes.

Talk to people like they're a person. Stop making generalizations, yelling in people's faces, hell stop fucking posting on the internet. Pick up a phone, write a letter, go meet face to face and do some good old fashioned talking. This applies to both sides.

Yes, supremacists have always been marching, shouting "free speech" and doing their thing. Ignore them, talk to the other conservatives and liberals like they're people, have a rational discussion about very real grey areas, and don't take their positions to extremes. If you have to, ask them where the line is.

Posting shit on Facebook has been the medium by which tiny towns with their single thought leader (typically a pastor) have been thrust into huge cultural and political discussions and have had their views (via the local leader's) shifted because there's too much crap and shit out there. Both sides have bought into the "internet of faces" of the 2010s and don't remember the "internet of never-post-your-real-name" of the 90s and so take anything with a face as a source of truth.

Finally, the invention of unlimited information on the internet means unlimited opportunity to confirm your own biases, so both sides are falling into this trap as well.

Ultimately, it is a problem of unknowingly self-filtering that can be solved by sitting down with a human being and establishing a real connection.

I personally believe people should be allowed to say whatever they want, and violence is never acceptable as a response. We've been preventing hate groups from having a platform for decades, and recent events are only giving them one. It is law enforcement's job to enforce any laws that are broken by actions of individuals, within these groups or otherwise, and the justice system's job to prosecute them to the extent of the law.

Trying to silence words that some may find offensive is a slippery slope, because no matter who you are or what you say, there is always someone that will be offended by it. Attempting to win hearts and minds through civil discourse, and accepting the reality that some people will always be unreachable, is IMHO the only way to move forward without irreparably dividing our society, because "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Hate only breeds hate, and there will always be naturally evil people. Ignore the haters' speech, and keep preaching love an respect. Those that can come around will, and those that can't won't have a voice unless we give it to them.

We hanged Nazis after WW2. Do you believe this was the appropriate action?

We hanged proven murderers, not every member of an odious political party.

We didn't hang proven murderers on our side.

At one point I would have agreed 100% with you, but I think throughout history there's always been a tension whereby tolerant and democratic societies somewhat repress speech that's antithetical to their existence.

Imho, this is a good thing.

Some ideas are too virulent to be fought fairly and will dominate without work in the shadows to resist them. Aka "if you eschew a strictly dominating strategy for moral reasons, and your opponent doesn't, they will win."

So I think there's certainly a back and forth. Neo-Nazi's (or Democrats, or Republicans) shouldn't be allowed to visit public grade schools and indoctrinate children, but they do deserve free speech.

This is a hard question. For me there are a couple of thoughts in my head that are not yet fully formed into a single, coherent philosophy:

1. If you're advocating for the systematic oppression of others based on characteristics they were born with (vs. actions they've taken), then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity that allows the rest of the world to engage with personally you based on your known behavior. I do not want to do business with, hire, or otherwise support someone who would deny the same to others for reasons steeped in racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc.

2. If you're advocating for violence against others, then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity. We should not tolerate physical acts and threats, even levied at those we find repugnant.

3. I strongly believe corporations should be able to make decisions that reflect their corporate values, provided those values are transparently and clearly articulated and don't single groups out based on characteristics they have no control over. Disallowing sites that promote the oppression of others can apply to anyone who has full control over the views they put out into the world. Alternatively, refusing to cover birth control in health plans can apply only to women who had no control over their sex, and are the ones that carry the burden of gestation. This is an unrefined view that requires more consideration on my part, and I am indeed cognizant of a potential slipper slope (fallacy or no).

All of the above is complicated by the fact that the Internet has a long - possibly unending - memory while people possess a capacity to change. I have no doubt many of the younger marchers this past weekend will come to regret their presence there. I don't know what to do about this.

This is half-baked thinking at the moment. It probably doesn't help. To respond to the other commenter: I do not support torture, even if I had a reasonable suspicion that the result would leave to many lives saved. I'd rather 100,000 people die in a world without torture than 50,000 people die in a world with it.

Thanks for taking the time to respond thoroughly. You have as good a position as any, and similar to where I think I am.

The one thorn I have is defining "violence" in the modern age. Specifically in situations of disparite anonymity.

More and more, I'm tempted to classify "dox'd by anonymous strangers on the internet" as violence against an individual. Something like "gross violation of reasonable expectation of normalcy."

Hypothetically, I attend a white supremacy rally. I'm photographed there. Two different situations occur after.

Situation 1) A neighbor recognizes me on the local news. I receive shunning in my community based on those who disagree with my beliefs.

Situation 2) The internet posts a picture of me (let's say through random chance vs others) and decides that I'm the face of racism. Campaigns are organized to disrupt my life as much as possible.

Even though non-physical... there's sometime disproportionate about 1,000 strangers working to ruin one person's life. Especially as more and more of our lives are trivially influenced via automated and invisible information systems.

At the same time, aren't "you as the white supremacist" working to ruin the lives of hundreds, if not thousands of strangers?

Good point! So maybe the moral calculus comes from a weighing of both sides ultimately effected.

It certainly seems more just when looked at that way vs random meme person the internet fixates on.

To be perfectly honest, I tend not to think of it too much because of that. I'm not going to partake in mass doxxing efforts, but I'm also not going to be upset when these people are shunned, or companies choose not to do business with them. There may be some ethics/morality questions that can be raised, but I believe those are more effectively raised when one of the sides isn't openly advocating for the things White Supremacists are advocating for. I don't really believe in the slippery slope argument being presented; if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance, the discussion can still happen then.

> if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance

It's the "more moral nuance" criteria that terrifies me though. Because that's ultimately a proxy for "I feel good / bad about this group".

If rules as usual are suspended for dealing with a group, I'm not going to rest it on "Yeah, but they're bad... right?"

Advocating systematic oppression is a concrete reason. But what degree rises to forfeiting normal rights? Does the local judge who's pretty racist qualify?

I think you're overthinking the extent of things. Nobody is saying these people should be shot on site, for instance. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if they're shunned by society. As long as government is not imposing anything, I'm ok with businesses not wanting to be associated with them.

Also, if you're going, "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" That implies that maybe there is nuance. I would argue that nuance is not present with Nazis.

Agreed on the former. On the later, it's the why the nuance isn't presence in Nazis that I want a firmer grip on.

Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them.

But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?

HelloMcFly's "actively and publicly working towards the oppression of others" seems like a decent standard.

I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend).

"On the later, it's the why the nuance isn't presence in Nazis that I want a firmer grip on."

Read about WWII. Read about what these people actually believe. Generally, people aren't willing to give nuance to a group that actively calls for genocide.

"Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them."

Yes, they do. Because their set of beliefs is inherently evil and violent.

"But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?"

I don't know, and I honestly don't care.

"I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend)."

I mean, you do you. But again, Nazis are bad because they are Nazis. There is no such thing as a good Nazi. They are working to do harm to others.

(Fwiw, one of my hobbies is reading military history)

And yeowch. Is it not apparent that your line of reasoning just as easily leads to "Jews are evil" if that happens to be the prevailing sentiment / news / way you were raised?

I think by actively and publicly working towards the oppression of others, one sacrifices a reasonable expectation to being treated respectfully. By publicly seeking to undermine the equality of others and ensure their living experience in society is "lesser than", you've implicitly invited reciprocation. It may seem disproportionate for 1000 people to work against you, but it's also disproportionate that you are working against all 1000 of them.

Hypothetically-speaking, of course. And obviously the risk of false positives is troublesome.

> I'm honestly looking for a way to find a shred of solid footing here that makes me feel more morally comfortable than "white supremacy is bad, therefore anything done against white supremacists is good."

Don't look for it. There is no moral way to justify it.

Look: The alt-right is evil in ideology, and it's evil in methodology. (Ideology: If you can't buy "all men are created equal", you're un-American. You're also dehumanizing those different than you, which is immoral under almost any reasonable theory of morality. Methodology: Threatening violence against those you disagree with, and being eager to do more than threaten, is for those who are pretty sure that their position can't persuade others.)

Antifa sees this, says "that's wrong and must be opposed" (which is valid), and then adopts almost the exact same methodology. (Trying to deny those they disagree with the opportunity to speak via physical force, rather than clearly and convincingly pointing out for all to see that their position is evil.) The intent may be better, but the methodology is just as evil. "We're going to beat up the people who need beating up, and it will be good when we do it, because we're right about who needs beating up."

No, the methodology condemns antifa. Don't try to find a way to rationalize it. It's wrong. The alt-right needs to be opposed, but don't become like them in opposing them.

> It's not a lie if you believe it.

-George Costanza

And even if it was a lie, lying is generally not illegal.

The courts generally uphold the right of these groups to express their ideologies. I think correctly.

My opinion is that the best way to deal with this stuff is not outrage. I think people who disagree should politely contradict these sorts of opinions when they're broached and otherwise ignore/disengage from this nonsense.

I don't think overtly or covertly trying to suppress this kind speech is good. Legally speaking these people have a right to express themselves and, pragmatically, I don't think trying to suppress their speech or loudly condemning it actually helps anything.

I think this line has been toed up to several times in the last few years, on both sides of the political spectrum.

There was a huge backlash to CA prop-8 a few years ago, and an effort was made to 'out' its supporters. One of the key reasons old CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla was fired. [0]

In WI a few years ago, there was a recall attempt against the governor, and there was a large effort to identify all the petition signers, and people lost jobs, had appointments to govt panels rescinded, etc. [1]

As much as I can't stand it, and I think it ruins their message (and makes them look like thugs) I'm starting to understand why people at rallies for antifa wear something covering their faces..

[0] http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-c... [1] http://iverifytherecall.com/

Who is calling for "anything"?

I've recently seen Republican presidential hopefuls talking about nuking an entire region to deal with terrorists, killing their families, torturing them, even if not effective, because they deserve it etc.

I've not heard anything worse than "it's okay to punch Nazis" or "the death penalty should apply for this murder" about these particular terrorists. (Neither of which I particularly agree with, but let's keep some sense of scale here).

I haven't heard anything overt bubble up in popular discourse yet, but some of those verbally attacking fascists on news don't fill me with confidence that if "fascists are subhuman scum" were an accepted social narrative they would restrain themselves.

The discourse seems to be drifting more towards "Well, we all know what they are like, so we have to do whatever it takes to oppose them" on both sides day by day.

I struggle with this too. I felt it especially during the "first wave", when the clip of Richard Spencer getting punched in the face was being circulated.

On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech. I believe that any view should be able to expressed without fear of persecution, bodily harm, or death. Even those that constitute as "hate speech". I believe, at a fundamental level, that expressing views and putting them out will do less harm than keeping them repressed due to fear until they boil over into action.

However - I also believe in consequences. If you choose to be an alt-right/neo-nazi/*ist you must also suffer the consequences imposed by other people you are surrounded by.

I felt a sense of happiness and justice when Richard Spencer got punched. But I also felt like the attacker should have suffered consequences instead of being hailed as a hero. I was also disturbed by the general "he deserved it, and probably more" sentiment that was going around.

Personally, what you're alluding to was part of the righteousness of MLK Jr and Mandela. To their own detriment, they faced the consequences of their actions multiple times.

For whomever answers this, it would be interesting if they also gave their view on the CIA torturing of terrorists. For the sake of argument, let's assume their "terrorism" is beyond any doubt (ie, multiple very credible witnesses saw them decapitate an innocent woman or throw a gay person off a roof)

White supremacists should be doxxed, and the CIA should be disbanded.

I'm also concerned about who determines that someone is "a bad person". In the recent Google memo, everyone condemned the author as a horrible person based on things he never said. People wanted him burned at the stake and were willing to believe absurdities to justify it. This sort of craziness happens all the time. Slate Star Codex has a post from 2014 where Scott points out that he was reprimanded for expressing relief at Bin Laden's death--a life lost is a terrible thing, even though he was a terrible person. Then a couple years later when Thatcher died, the same people who reprimanded him were celebrating in the streets and shrugged indifferently when challenged about their "a life lost is a terrible thing" philosophy. An angry mob triggered events that culminated in the forced resignation of two Yale educators who dared to (politely) suggest students could choose their own Halloween costumes. We use "Nazi" and "racist" and "misogynist" to describe people who dare point to inconsistencies in our social justice theories or rhetoric.

There are definitely very real bad guys out there, but recent events tell us in no uncertain terms that the moment the standard of proof is lowered, it will be abused.

Morally, the comments I've agreed with most so far are those that pin resistance on two underpinnings: (1) the sheer scale of oppression by the white supremacy position espoused (ie "everyone else") & (2) the fundamental incompatibility with a pluralistic democratic society.

Of these, I think (2) is the more common argument, but also the weaker. It's pretty abstract to justify concrete actions.

The former does jive with my internal morality though. It feels like it at least starts an answer to "Why are outside-the-norm means justified now, but not at other times?"

Well, for one, take a look at what they're advocating. White supremacists advocate for genocide, for slavery.

"Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them?"

For me, while I don't participate in doxxing and such, I can't be upset at what's happening to these people. For one, they've been doing it themselves for years. All the way back to the days when many of them were in GamerGate. So I can't really be upset that they're getting a taste of their own medicine.

"Just because someone is a racist, sexist, * ist piece of shit doesn't give someone else the right to shoot them in cold blood... does it?"

No. But no one is advocating for that.

"And if not, then how far back does that walk before our response is back at "reasonable American citizens striving to live in a harmonious culture that allows for diversity"?"

This is what you have to decide as a human. You make decisions like this every day. You go to a restaurant and find a hair that's not yours in your food. What do you do? It's the same kind of thing. But with Nazis.

But Nazis are not just a hair in the food of democracy.

They are at least, like a bug that crawled onto your burger. Maybe not all the way to cockroach but, unquestionably at least a scary spider.

Yeah, I think I like that better. Although I may put spider as worse than cockroach.

I find this article relevant: https://stratechery.com/2017/cloudfare-and-stormfront-free-s...

PS: If anyone reads this, thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I hesitated to post anything that essentially started with "Hypothetically, if I were a skinhead..." for obvious reasons.

The tone of discourse is a credit to the site and all of you.

You might be interested in Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky.

TL;DR: enemies are people too.

I read Tolstoy before I tried to read Dostoyevsky. I think the sheer boredom of the former soured me on Russian literature. It's been a minute though, so I should give it another go.

Doxing white supremacists is hardly the same as going out and running them down. What are you suggesting here?

These people go out in the street and burn crosses in front of families' homes. They absolutely should be doxxed.

I hadn't heard anything about these protesters in Charlottesville burning crosses in front of peoples homes. Do you have a link? And the OP never said doxing people is the same as running them down.

https://www.google.com/search?q=charlottesville+cross+burnin...

I don't know what the OP is saying. Nobody's going out killing white supremacists either...

I feel like counter protestors illegally toppling Confederate statues in mobs in other cities isn't a great direction to be going.

Breaking the law for moral reasons still lessens its protections when you find yourself on the other side of someone oppressing you.

Such was Gandi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr's realization.

And yet, nobody's ever seen change without breaking the law...

Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges

That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system.

Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.

Almost all involving civil disobedience

Some. Brown v Board was initiated as a lawsuit against government. And many of those that were started as a result of civil disobedience then pursued legal means to resolve the dispute.

My point being that one of the great features of our government is that there are methods of changing things that do not involve breaking the law.

One of the most effective efforts for Civil Rights as a whole in the 1960s was increasing minority turnout to the ballots, as suddenly their interests had to be taken into account by those wishing to be elected.

> That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system.

All of them involved someone breaking the law on the books, and either being held accountable (e.g., Duke Power)—which I'm not sure is actual progress, though the passage of the law, which, in these examples, was usually a result of civil disobedience, might be—or having the law invalidated after the fact (e.g., Roe).

So I'm not sure how that supports progress without lawbreaking.

See my reply below, and I'll concede that some of the cases may have been provoked by breaking the law. But I still feel like there's a big difference between:

A) Breaking the law and then appealing to the judicial or legislative or executive for redress

B) Repeatedly breaking the law in pursuit of justice because it's inconvenient

The latter furthers dissolving the rule of law. The former supports it in an odd sort of way.

Check this video out. https://youtu.be/P54sP0Nlngg

We put people in Guantanamo Bay mostly without proving they've carried out terrorist acts. I disagree with this, but I believe that sect of White Nationalism that would use violence to achieve their goals are no less dangerous than ISIL, ISIS, etc. and they should be scrutinized just like people with those motivations or sympathies since they are already among us.