Hacker News Reader

Comment by KGIII | Hacker News Reader

It's really, really not easy to stand up for the rights of Nazis. If you're a Nazi, you can use voat.co as they are very free speech oriented. You don't have to be a Nazi to participate, but it's a good idea to have a thick skin if you do go there.

I go there and talk to the White Nationalists. They are pretty much Nazis. They know I'm not white and that I don't agree with them. They don't scare me. They are scared and powerless, looking for meaning in their empty lives, easily swayed, and not entirely unaware of some of the ironies.

I've actually invited a few of them to my home, but no takers so far.

Point is, I'm not sure banning does any good. Reddit can legally do so. I still think there's a better way to deal with the mentally ill and disenfranchised.

View on HN

there's a better way to deal with the mentally ill and disenfranchised

Enabling them is not a good way to deal with them. Allowing easily discoverable safe spaces with which to reinforce their neuroses and paranoia only adds to the problem as new users can more easily be recruited, preyed upon, etc.

This goes for much more than just violent white supremacists, it also applies to things like pro-ana, which creates an extremely dangerous feedback loop for vulnerable, damaged people.

Private sites not only have no obligation to provide the resources for these extreme codependent communities, but as we're learning, they actually hold a moral obligation to remove them when they form in order to prevent their growth.

I'd argue they have no moral obligation to do any such thing. However, they should probably make a pretty clear warning sign.

I fear we will digress too far. In short, I'm very pro freedom of expression. I'm glad voat exists, for example. The people there are often horrible, that is true. But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.

I don't understand why anyone deserves server space and labor resources. They are free to express themselves, but the cost of running a service is not free, and they have no right to those costs.

They can stand in a public square and say what they like. They can have debates in their own living room. They can print up manifestos on their own dime. They have a right to do all of that, and nobody's arguing against that.

It's a bit of a problem, really. They take URLs away, they refuse to host them, etc...

So, I'd say what good are rights if you can't reasonably exercise them?

Don't get me wrong, I really don't like Nazis. They are pretty much the definition of bad people.

So, I try to empathize. We all want to belong to something. They like firearms. Me too. I love a good explosion, though I'd much prefer it not actually hurt anyone.

If I can humanize them, I can understand that they too deserve basic human rights.

Reddit is not a basic human right.

You have a right to free speech, but society has no obligation to provide you a megaphone and a soapbox.

You didn't read what I wrote. Reddit is absolutely free to do this. Voat exists, if they want a place to speak.

I did read what you wrote. You are not arguing for the right to free speech, you are arguing for a right to a platform (yet referring to such as an appeal to free speech).

And there is no such thing. There is no right to a platform for your speech. You are allowed to say it, but nobody has any obligation to repeat, produce, disseminate or validate your speech.

Again, I ask what good is a right if one can not reasonably exercise it?

I also suggest we are veering too far from the topic. To be very, very clear - Reddit is under no obligation to allow anything they do not wish to allow.

No one's rights are being infringed upon. The right to free speech is certainly still in their hands. Their audience is then anyone within earshot.

Your question seems to me to be a red herring, and doesn't seem relevant in the discussion surrounding web-based fora. While "the internet" in some abstract form could be construed as a human right in this modern technological world of ours, the World Wide Web as it stands today very much is not that. The infrastructure is privately maintained, and as such is not granted the protections that the 1st amendment provides. Likewise the services that are built upon the physical infrastructure, namely websites and data-transmission services, are not obligated to enforce rights.

Let's try something.

Do you believe that the Internet should be a basic human right, that affordable access should be made reasonably available for everyone on the planet?

The question is, access to what?

Access to encyclopedic knowledge? Sure. Access to academic literature? Would definitely be a net positive.

Access to the ramblings of every human in existence? Not sure why this would be so necessary.

Quick edit to add: anything that requires instantiation to justify said "right" doesn't seem like it vibes well with the definition of the word "right." For instance, how could the right to internet exist if the internet didn't exist? This is opposed to people's need to communicate (free speech), their need for a safe place to sleep, or to satiate their hunger and nutritional needs. All of these problems exist by nature of us being human, and are inescapable in life by definition. Thus the rights, that we have today to protect people from succumbing to painful and undignified suffering when these needs aren't met, are justified. The same cannot be said of a recent technological invention. No one needs the internet to live.

So, we have a starting point. Now, would you then agree that the primary purpose of a networked group of computers is the exchange of information?

If you will agree to that, will you also agree that communication is information?

If you will agree to that, and to the general concept of the freedom of expression, as an ideal to aspire to and not just a government restriction, would you then agree that even the shittiest people on the planet should be allowed some method for self expression on said connected network of computers in a reasonable manner, so long as said expression is lawful and up until due process, in accordance with their local jurisdiction, takes away said rights?

In other words, they deserve the right to say their vile crap.

Before you say no they don't, I'd like to point out that not that king ago, and in some parts of this world, is censored speech. I'd like to point out that I absolutely guarantee there are those who would silence even you. They find your views absolutely reprehensible. You offend the very fiber of their being. They hate everything you stand for.

Be careful which rights you cede, for you will not always be the decider. Pendulums swing and the repercussions are mighty.

I've traveled, a lot. I've been in combat, war zones, in the midst of refugees, in camps, and in ruins. I've seen what happens when people dehumanize others. I've seen what happens when we lose empathy.

I'm not trying to change your mind. It's the Internet. Nobody ever changes their mind. I am trying to demonstrate a good accounting. Someone has to speak for the rights of all humans. Someone has to have empathy for even the worst among us.

Don't get me wrong. Some folks need killing. But, due process matters, as does empathy, dignity, and honor. Meh... It is just what it is. Things go to hell without it.

As for your point, you don't need a right to bear arms to survive. You don't need a right to speech to survive. You don't need a right to your property, your right to avoid self incrimination, etc... You need those to have liberty.

Edit: email in profile, if you want. I'm quite happy to have rational discourse.

So if you agree that the providers of service on the internet are under no obligation to provide a soapbox for everyone who signs up, what do you recommend that that look like should one be established?

A pretty common sentiment is that you neuter trolls when you remove any chance for anonymity, i.e., you put their reputation on the line. I would be happy to belong to a "free speech-oriented zone" on the internet that required real-life verification. Then people wouldn't be so quick to spread virulent, violent ideologies in such a space. IMO this provides a secondary effect, namely that people would stop taking so seriously those areas where anonymity is provided. Perhaps the interactions can be strongly weighted toward local ones, to provide more accountability. Such a platform would need to be free from any sort of money transactions, especially Facebook's current business model.

Furthermore, empathy has nothing to do with advocacy. The ingredient missing when comparing refugees with white nationalists is that of the fundamental power imbalance. One is certainly free to express empathy for both, but tuning the narrative to equivocate people who are being exterminated with their exterminators is pretty dishonest. Your moral obligation (imo) when presented with people who are being systematically denied requirements for life is to spread and advocate for their survival. Notice that white nationalists are only being challenged on the lines of "liberty" whereas refugees are being challenged on the lines of "life." The DoI says it best, and puts them in a specific order not haphazardly, but deliberately: life comes first (and thus the removal of threats to it), then liberty, then the pursuit of happiness.

This comment might help:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15566320

Right now, they have Voat. But, the recent trend has been more and more aggressive censorship - including from sites that used to tolerate the truly deplorable.

It is a worrying trend. Homosexuality was once deplorable. Transfolk were once deplorable. Atheism was once deplorable. In some parts of the world, they still are. To some people, in your own country, they still are.

Cheer on.

I am not afraid of the deplorable on Voat. You know what does scare me? Children with access to real military weapons, not their daddy's AR. A keyboard warrior with bad grammar and a Nazi flag is a pretty horrible person. I've seen worse.

You're not scared. That's fine. For all I know, you have no reason to be scared of white nationalists, because to them, you're not the threat. That doesn't make it any safer for a large portion of the United States or other Western countries where these sentiments are popping back up.

We know Africa and South America and Southeast Asia are still relatively dangerous. That doesn't excuse the sentiments that are building here in the US whatsoever. It actually doesn't factor at all into this discussion because they are totally off the radar for people who should be provided the liberty of living without constant breathing down their neck and "go home" and "jews will not replace us." Where does the liberty from harassment and execution factor into your liberty ethics?

The issue is also not what happens right this moment, but what happens in 10 years' time when people have been surrounding themselves and their family and friends with this rhetoric. The history of the Nazi party following the fall of the Weimar republic doesn't span months, it spans a decade or more. What reason is there to deny some people the "right" to demonize and alienate minorities solely on the basis of inaccurate judgments when things could get a lot worse down the road? The slippery slope, after all, has two faces. We can just as easily say that granting some liberties now causes a lot of hurt down the road as removing them.

I'm not white. I'm quite distinctly not white. They would harm me, if they had the courage and means.

You would deprive them of their liberties without due process and you would do so out of fear. You justify it and call it rational.

That is how I see you. That is what I see when I read what you write.

I don't expect to change your views. I will point out that that sort of thinking is how the US ended up with things like the PATRIOT Act and FISA courts. Fearful people are not rational people, they are rationalizing people.

In ten years, do you want to live in some authoritarian society where every thought and expression must be approved by the public? Where no dangerous thought must be expressed? Where those declared deplorable must be silenced and shunned? Where there exist an oppressed class for their very thoughts, without acting on them?

I do not. I am not afraid. I am more afraid of ceding my liberties and my empathy. I am more afraid of a day when you are not allowed to speak out against Nazis.

A group could set up their own server, but then their DNS provider drops them, so they solicit funds but then payment processors drop them. Sometimes the post stops delivering physical mail to your house because you wrote a book they don't like. There are a lot of choke-points.

> But, they still deserve to express themselves freely.

Um, why. What makes you think this. If someone's opinions are stupid and abhorrent, why should they not experience an immediate and firm response, in ban-hammer form.

Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into crowds).

Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society.

I don't expect to change your mind. It's okay. I'm just really, really pro human rights. I've seen places with massive deprivations of rights. That's not okay.

Please explain what human rights have to do with anything in this thread.

As another commenter pointed out, there is no human right to post racist bullshit on a privately run online forum.

I don't think you actually read what I said. Please do so. You will note that I point out that no rights are violated and even provide an alternative. You asked a question, I gave you the answer.

Please, really, read all the words and what I write, not what you think I write. Start from the top post, as all my replies are contextual.

I read what you wrote, and I read the whole thread, and the context.

You brought up human rights in the context of this discussion more than once, what else are we supposed to take from that, than that you think 'human rights' are remotely relevant to the topic of banning nazis from reddit, which they aren't.

What happens when there is no place left for the deplorable? The 'net was meant to work around censorship. Look at what it has become.

Reddit is just another brick in the wall. They can do this. Indeed, perhaps they should. But should we cheer it on? What happens when there are no reasonable means left for the deplorable to speak? What happens when censorship isn't fraught, when empathy is eschewed, when due process is forgotten?

Those are not Reddit's responsibilities. They are our responsibilities, as a society. It is very much a human rights issue, but not Reddit's sole responsibility. Right now, registrars refuse to even host domain names.

I'm not saying these are good people. Quite the opposite, really. Cheer the censorship on, it is your right. I'll stand up for your rights too.

This is what I wrote about content I allow on my Mastodon server: https://blog.freeradical.zone/welcome-to-my-living-room/

In summary, I totally defend your right to say anything you want, however abhorrent. But if I'm hosting your content - especially when you're not paying me to do so - then I have a right to decide what I'll allow you to say from the platform I own. Your words reflect both on you and me.

I would never support a law like "Nazis can't post stuff on the Internet". I absolutely, 100% support a private organization's right to say "say what you want, but we're not going to help you".

You are conflating the “least” among us with the “worst” among us. We actually only have sympathy for the former.

I'd argue your use of 'we.'

Have you ever seen what happens when we dehumanize our enemies? Have you seen what happens when we lose empathy?

These people you hate are, without a doubt, able to exhibit some pretty poor behavior. Most of them are children looking to belong, mentally ill, and those who prey on them - also probably mentally ill. Those that are adults were usually reached as children and come from abusive childhoods.

And you have no sympathy. It's okay, you're not required to. It isn't easy to empathize with Nazis. I can understand the unwillingness to try.

How do you empathise with a actual Nazi?

Would you empathise with Reinhardt Heydrich? How?

Well, I empathize with Hitler because he wasn't treated terribly well by those around him who should have been supportive. His dietician reportedly added bone marrow to his soups without his knowledge because she "despised" his vegetarian diet, and his Austrian cook would sometimes add animal broth or fat to his meals, which would then be noticed by Hitler who insisted on clear soups from then on. Despite Hitler disapproving of cosmetics since they contained animal by-products, Eva Braun had a habit of wearing makeup which Hitler would frequently tease her about.

I think that Eva should have made some sacrifices to make Hitler happier, and it's not like she didn't know the reasons behind it because he was very vocal about his reasons as he would give vivid and gruesome descriptions of animal suffering and slaughter at the dinner table to try to dissuade his colleagues from eating meat.

I have gone through similar experiences so I can empathize with Hitler. This doesn't mean I agree with him overall, but that I understand and share his feelings on a specific subject.

If you strip the humanity from individuals, then you are refusing to try to understand them, which means you don't actually learn anything from the atrocities. When there's a shooting, you try to learn the motives and see where the system failed them. If they were exhibiting symptoms of an untreated mental illness, that lets us know that we need to work on providing better care and diagnosis. If we don't learn from history, then we are doomed to repeat it.

How does any of that about Hitler relate to his policy of exterminating Jews? It's not as if his dietician and Eva Braun were nicer to him he would have decided not to implement the final solution. That's ridiculous.

Once people start actively calling for the deaths of others based on race or religion or creed, that's where the fundamentally opposing ideologies are found that are only resolved through violence.

The lesson we should be learning from history is that appeasing racist fascists doesn't improve things, it only emboldens them by validating their beliefs as acceptable.

I'm not advocating stripping humanity from anyone, because I am fully aware that it is humans who create and commit these abhorrent acts. White nationalists, neo-nazis, whatever you want to call them are absolutely human. They are also all total shithouses that pose a threat to stability and harmony in the same way ISIS do.

They either stop what they are doing, or the blood of both sides runs in the streets. They are the only two options when it comes to beliefs like this. The problem is, the blood running in the streets is often what they want, and what we get.

There's a huge difference between appeasement and allowance of basic human rights, dignity, due process, empathy, and even sympathy.

I have had to lay down suppressive fire. I was willing to do so, but I hoped anyone I hit was killed quickly. I hoped they were killed quickly because, well, I didn't want them to suffer. I hoped they were killed because they were trying to kill the other scared young Marines beside me. Killing them was the only logical thing to do.

I'm not some hopeless naive child. I've personally witnessed human depravities that scar people for life, a fate worse than death.

You're scared of the people on Voat? Go there and read for a week. Go there and talk to them. Go there and belittle them, if you want. Have fun with it. Amuse yourself at their expense. Toy with them and make them dance for your amusement.

When you're done with that, maybe try to change some hearts and minds. You'll have gotten that out of your system and realized how powerless and ineffective they really are. They are powerless keyboard warriors spouting memes and racist slogans in an echo chamber full of logical errors and bad science and bastardized religious quotes.

Also, they hate fat people. Reddit kicked out FPH. No, really, those folks seriously hate fat people, but they tend to stick in their sub.

One sub really likes trees. Like, real trees, not pot.

They are humans. Deplorable humans, I agree. They even have a Linux section. As a Linux user, that makes me pretty deplorable too!

Seriously, go visit them. They are horrible people. However, they are mostly scared children. There's no need to be afraid. They are pretty universally powerless and reviled, even at the national political level - really. No need for hyperbole.

If you want, I will even introduce you on voat.co and you can go harass them until you realize they are just a bunch of really, really stupid, inept, confused, probably insane, brainwashed, morons with a poor grasp of reality and basic literacy.

You're more likely to die on your toilet.

> Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms and those aren't taken away without due process in a just society.

Basically, we're pandering to the mediocre. I don't think we should be doing this.

> Because we as a society have decided even the least among us deserve a base amount of human rights and freedoms

And people who advocate against that (like Nazis, racists, homophobes, misogynists, transphobic, etc.) don't deserve a voice.

What's the point of liberalism if everyone does not get to express themselves?

"Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots"

Because the only way I can guarantee that "my side" can say whatever it wants, is to guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want.

We have, over many millennia reached a point where tolerance is considered a pretty high virtue - we believe that even if we don't agree with someone, we can live and work side-by-side with them. This is one of the reasons we have stopped trying to kill each other for believing in the wrong religion. This is a good thing.

Note: my first sentence is taken from this clip of the West Wing: https://youtu.be/jmhC9e39aP0?t=181 .

> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want

The thing is - the Nazis can say whatever they want. No-one is obliged to give them a platform to do that. Which means you actually want to modify it to

> guarantee that all sides can say whatever they want [and be heard]

Which is an entirely different kettle of fish and something we don't have currently (and never will, really, whilst there is an imbalance in money and power.)

I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. I'm saying that maybe we, as a society, shouldn't be so quick to call for bans of certain views, or for using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things. It starts with Nazis, and ends with e.g. people on HN saying that Twitter should censor the president. Which at the very least, shows that there is some kind of slippery slope here.

That said, I'm completely sympathetic to companies who choose to kick people off - I'd probably do the same in their shoes! I'm not saying I have a solution for any of these problems - I'm just saying why I find it difficult to so easily throw out the idea of "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it".

> slippery slope

Oh come ON.

> I'm not saying anyone is obliged to give them a platform. > using our power as consumers to pressure companies to remove such things

Those two are contradictory.

> Why do you want to give ignorant idiots a platform to spread their ignorant idiocy to other ignorant idiots (and e.g. provoke easily influenced mentally ill idiots who might want to drive cars into crowds).

Because otherwise you would be shocked to wake up and realize that it is your views that are in a bubble and not theirs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzJfMsbe7Ks

Edit: It must be fun downvoting reality. Here: blast from the past - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/23/hillary-clinton-s...

Those who did not pay attention to the unpalatable media had conniptions on TV when Podesta came out.

Yeah I'm quite happy in my bubble of civilised, grown-up, non-idiot racists thanks.

Because it easily becomes "let's prohibit any small minority group the people in power find distasteful or unpopular." The net hates/hated Scientologists, for example, but I'm sure you could find others. Jehovah's Witnesses generally are disliked or have only negative public perception.

1. Don't slippery slope this, we're talking about hate speech. 2. Private company, Reddit can do what they want. 3. Scientologists and Jehovah's witnesses both earned their reputations.

The effect your are talking about seems legit. The flip side about that is if you force these groups out of the public and then into the shadows, that's only proving the paranoia. Does that radicalize things even more? The same kind of viewpoints existed in the mid 90s, underground, and that lead to OKC which was one of the worst terrorist incidents in US history.

Is it better or worse that this is happening in public?

It is worse.

Before it took a bit of effort to work in the shadows, but technology has facilitated a disproportionatly loud 'voice' with little effort.

It would be considered crazy to even have this conversation a decade ago.

That's because a decade ago we pretended that it did not exist by trying to muzzle them. In the absence of the avenues for us to see those nutcases the so called "educated population" believed it was a totally fringe group as no traces of them were visible in the liberal coastal towns not because 10% of their neighbors were not barbarians but because NYT acted as a gate keeper preventing barbarians at the gate from entering. So the population did not realize there were barbarians at the gate. 10 years later, NYT failed as a gatekeeper and there they were, pillaging.

Now instead of saying "Ok, there are barbarians here, we should deal with it reality" we say "Hey, we have a new set of gatekeepers - put on these glasses and you won't see the barbarians raping and pillaging"

I'm really torn on this. On the one hand, these are humans, not monsters; their views can be changed, perhaps, but not if we force them into hiding and radicalize them. On the other hand, giving them power and influence in public spaces, the ability to disrupt other people's discourse and lives at will, is not okay.

I'm not sure there is one best solution. We need to give bigots a chance to change their views, and we also need to protect their victims and potential victims, and those things are sometimes mutually exclusive.

Thought experiment: Replace pro-racism with pro-anorexia. Do you feel the same way? Do you think there are positive results of public, easily accessible communities which advocate and provide support for people to further their eating disorders?

Forcing them into hiding isn't what radicalizes them. We dealt with hidden KKK groups in a pretty stable manner for 70+ years. Maybe it made the worst of them even more extreme in their views due to the persecution. But it kept their numbers limited and their opinions from becoming mainstream.

It's giving them an easily accessible echo chamber that radicalizes them and allows them to recruit. The internet has changed everything.

> these are humans, not monsters

Humans can become monsters.

Nazism and fascism metastasize in open societies. If they have a forum, if they're allowed to congregate online or in real life, they self-radicalize.

I'm extremely pro-free-speech, often to a fault -- but that doesn't apply to actual Nazis or other people who promote hate and violence.

This is really toxic shit and can be impossible to control once it gets going.

> I'm extremely pro-free-speech, often to a fault -- but that doesn't apply to actual Nazis or other people who promote hate and violence.

So you're an hypocrite.

Nazis seek to silence others through violence or threats of violence.

If you believe in freedom.of speech you should seek to protect these minority voices that are being silenced by violence, you shouldn't be protecting people making death threats.

They are not the only ones.

But the problem is saying that Nazis, without violence and threats of violence can silenced. And if you silenced people even before the threats, how can you say you're for the freedom of speech?

According to a study about Reddit itself, banning can do some good:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/business/reddit-limits-no...

The general principle is sound - people get sucked into extremism when they stumble upon it on a large site like Reddit. Voat, on the other hand, you're not going to find unless you're looking for it.

I mean overall. It helps Reddit maintain their goals. I meant more specifically the problem with, you know, the fact that we still have Nazis.

Perhaps. But at least those who are looking for it are full exposed and easy to see. They are the true extremists. Remove the honeypots (e.g., Reddit) then what?

They didn't ban all Nazis. They banned subreddits that posted content (not comments) advocating violence. That included one or two "nazi" subreddits. The article says this in the first paragraph.

That said, thanks for trying to find positive ways to deal with things.

The effect is largely the same, now isn't it? In fact, they recently published a study showing the efficacy of their sub closures from a couple of years ago. People leave, effectively silenced.

They can do that. It is their right. It's okay.

I would guess that people left because there weren't many other subreddits with similar topics to the ones that were banned. But there are other nazi subreddits, and the mods made it clear that it's acceptable to be a nazi as long as they're not advocating violence too much. So I would be surprised if that many people actually left this time compared to last time.

Everybody is running into the same issue. Even voat is is banning "subreddits". Turns out managing UGC is a really hard problem.

https://voat.co/v/announcements/163288

Yeah, that was a couple of years ago and a clear line in the sand. No illegal content. A good choice. Free speech doesn't include illegal content.

Well, it doesn't to most rational people.

> Free speech doesn't include illegal content

Isn't that kind of begging the question? "Illegal content" is just a bunch of types of expression that the government has decided to ban.

They are all exceptions to free speech which you accept, which brings your free-speech-absolutist stance into question.

You assumed I was a free speech absolutist. I am not. I am not an extremist. Rights must have reasonable restrictions. They are things like libel, slander, child pornography, classified material by a person who has clearance, etc...

Those are unlawful and are reasonable restrictions with very, very few restrictions. They may be published for use in the court, whistle blowing, or otherwise outlined affirmative defenses established by law or precedent.

I am not an extremist. I am not an absolutist. The right has reasonable restrictions. The question is where those restrictions are. I think I've explained where I believe those should be, though they are scattered in a bunch of comments.

There was a study a while back that suggested that reddit's banning of hate groups really did reduce the amount of hate on reddit. That is: GreatApes didn't go and infect other subreddits, and there was a real reduction in the hate on reddit.

That doesn't mean that everyone didn't go off to voat or whatever, but then they have to rely on voat for growth, and can't piggyback on reddit's MAUs.

I thought voat.co was good in theory, a place like Reddit without limitations.

Went back the other day after a few months of not visiting and read through some threads. The amount of racism was really noticeable. Seems to be descending into a place where an individual can let their ignorance and bigotry fester among like-minded peers.

I suppose that's the ugly side of having freedom of expression.

Being a Nazi isnt a mental illness. Sane people were nazis. Last time Nazis were in power they, in fact, murder quite a lot of mentally ill people.

Nazis also dont need to be in power to kill people. Nazis already kill people. Being organized and in sufficent numbers is enough. Being in power mainly means they have less resistance and more ability to do so.

What's your opinion of people wearing Che T-shirts?

> I go there and talk to the White Nationalists. They are pretty much Nazis.

Nazi is a term loosely used today. Actual 3rd Reich Nazis commandeered by America & the Soviet Union after WW2. Wernher von Braun was a committed Nazi & was allegedly a willing participate in WW2 war crimes. See Operation Paperclip for more info.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Operation_Paperclip

> They are scared and powerless, looking for meaning in their empty lives, easily swayed, and not entirely unaware of some of the ironies.

White Nationalism is the natural response to Identity Politics. In a sense, I don't blame them for not taking the high road, since Identity Politics has not been kind toward white people & the majority of white people think they are discriminated against. Btw, every racial group thinks they are discriminated against, so it seems like Identity Politics leaves nobody happy.

http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559604836/majority-of-white-am...

This leads to the real problem being Identity Politics. White Nationalism, Black Power, La Raza, various Jewish groups, etc. are all entities that create dissonance in the communities of America. Whether the members have valid points or not, there is a sense of tribalism & the inherent backlash.

While it's healthy to promote heritage, legacy, & the positive aspects of a cultural identity; Identity Politics sows division by redistributing opportunity (which is unfair from a merit standpoint) & transferring wealth via government policy.

If we are to have a society based on hard work leading to just reward, where opportunity is given to all, then Identity Politics has no place in it. Even if Identity Politics were to balance opportunity, the underlying issues within communities are not addressed. Instead, the government manages opportunity leading to a culture of entitlement, laziness, dispute, grudges, & group hostility.

Hmmmmm weren't we talking about Nazis, not identity politics...

What's your definition of a Nazi? It's difficult to talk about a word that has a fuzzy meaning.

To some elements of the the modern left (i.e. Antifa), it seems like anybody who does not agree with certain ideologies, such as "Equality" (in the Identity Politics sense; again "Equality" has a fuzzy meaning), is equated with being a Nazi.

To paraphrase what I wrote above, the White Nationalist (aka "the Nazis") movement only gains followers due to the prevalence of Identity Politics being used to affect policy benefiting certain minority groups. White Nationalism is Identity Politics for White People; seeking to use politics to benefit White People and/or creating a white ethno-state. Are you seeing the connection?

Is this any different from groups such as La Raza, the Black Panthers, or any other ethno-state group? If so, how?

Why is Equality an ideology? Isn't it basic human decency?

Lots of people disagree on the exact type of equality humanity should be aiming for.

> Lots of people disagree on the exact type of equality humanity should be aiming for.

It's a complicated domain. There are other measures of humanity, such as Freedom, Liberty, & Incentives for Fitness (i.e. Morality).

The root question is do the ends justify the means?

Do you want Equality of outcome so much that you are willing to adopt Fascism to achieve those aims? Even then, you won't have Equality. As in Animal Farm...

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others"

The only way we can possibly achieve Equality is through death, & even then, the dead are unequally remembered.

re: measures of humanity;

I meant humanity as in the species, not as a quality.

>The root question is do the ends justify the means?

I do not believe the ends will ever justify the means, but that is just my opinion on the matter.

>Do you want Equality of outcome so much that you are willing to adopt Fascism to achieve those aims?

I'm personally satisfied with equality of chance such that everyone has an equal chance of doing what they want but are not guaranteed to succeed either.

I would say equality vote is very important it was missing in this country not long ago. I would say that demonstrates an unyielding vein in this country that seems to be against equality. However, equality was achieved without violence. Why is violence required for your argument?

>I would say equality vote is very important it was missing in this country not long ago.

If you mean equality of vote; it's just another version of equality of chance. Everyone gets a chance to vote and be voted for, the outcome may not be equality.

The other option is equality of outcome, which is antithetical to equality of vote.

>Why is violence required for your argument?

It's not. I recognize that sometimes violence is an inevitable outcome but everyone should be looking for non-violent means that make the least amount of people unhappy.

I don't think I ever made violence necessary for my argument tbh...

> Nazi is a term loosely used today.

Not by me. When I say Nazi, I specifically mean someone who publicly identifies with that group, uses their words, wears their clothes, and carries their flag: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/09/alt-weaken...

If you show up to a rally carrying a Nazi flag, I'll unapologetically call you a Nazi. It's only identity politics in the sense that I'm identifying the politics someone espouses based on the symbols and words they're using.

> since Identity Politics has not been kind toward white people & the majority of white people think they are discriminated against

That's true... before Identity Politics, white people had most of the money and power and authority in this country. But now thanks to Identity Politics, white people have only... well, most of the money and power and authority in this country.

Huh.

White people can practice Identity Politics as well. The ultimate expression of Identity Politics is genocide. It has happened many times & is still happening in some parts of the world.

I hope that you can see that this is not a road that we want to go down.

I’ve know a few white surpremacist in my life, same take. All scared, powerless, in bad health, drinking and eating bad, love conspiracies.

All say “You don’t talk like your color, etc, etc.”

I do not endorse or share their views however I believe they have a right to self organize and believe what they do.

That being said, businesses have rights to deny services to whoever they please. Especially people who are bad for business!

Full disclosure: I'm a white male.

With that said, I agree with you. That is, bringing these things into the light will do more good then empowering them by marginalizing them.

As you've experienced, by shining your personal flashlight (so to speak), they wither in the light.

Yes, what they're selling is deplorable. But if you believe that the arc of the universe bends towards justice, then letting them stand in the spotlight will show how weak their arguments are.

On the other hand, pushing them into the shadows is where they find their strength.

p.s. Kudos to you for being so brave.

Meh, the thread is dead so I just wanted to say thanks. I am kinda passionate about certain things like liberty. I'm actually pretty moderate, just verbose.

I'm not scared. They don't scare me. They put on a tough face. I've been in places like Somalia. I've stomped all across South America. I've been all across Latin America. I've done South Africa, most of the Middle East, much of Asia, etc...

American White Nationalists marching in parades scare me exactly none. 14 year old American children copying their older brothers on Voat saddens me, not scares me. It doesn't make me very angry. Not anymore. I'm pretty desensitized to it. It mostly just makes me sad.

Seriously...

Think about it... Put yourself in a White Nationalist shoes. You don't even have any real good movies to watch. Even documentaries end with Hitler always getting his ass kicked. In every movie, you're pretty much the asshole. You're, at best, redeemed before dying or going to prison for life.

Man, a White Nationalist can't even really enjoy American History X.

I make fun of them for reading Mein Kampf. "Oh, you expect it to somehow turn out different this time?" I point out the horrible flaws in their race war logic, about how they are horrible out numbered, unpopular, and simply lack the technical expertise or the logistics to achieve even a remote victory in any meaningful numbers.

I make fun of their horrible use of statistics, inaccurate understanding of science and history, and teach them to speak better English. After all, if you're going to convert people to you're side, you're going to have to speak better English. They really aren't very crafty and it's actually kind of amusing that people think they are a serious threat to the fabric of the country.

But, I digress... I just wanted to let you know that there's no bravery. I'm not scared because there's no reason to be scared. I've really invited a few of them to my home. They have my address and a standing invitation. I'd let them visit but not like hold a Nazi rally at my house. The few I have invited are a few that I believe are able to change.

I wasn't doing anything better with my time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com