Hacker News Reader

>Nazism - The belief ( on pseudoscience i may add )that other races ( a term that has no scientific basis ) are only worthy of extermination ( death, MDK )

I would correct that.

Nazis didn't wholly think that. Not all races where "worthy of extermination". For example, black people in the Reich were largely ignored as a non-problem and left to their own devices and people from the Middle-East were recruited as part of the armed forces. "Honorary Aryan" is a thing they did too when someone proved to be useful (Japanese have been declared as such). Just a short history FYI.

Racism is the more correct term, believing any human inferoir based on their race, and some racists demand extermination. Nazis are a specific subgroup of racists.

Of course people are going to question your definitions when you've gone overboard in making one absolutely wrong and the others absolutely right.

There's bad in both sets, which is why banning 1 group could have an effect on the other 2, eventually.

Really? You think that Nazis are unfairly characterised? That's the hill you want to die on?

If by unfairly characterized you mean every white guy and their jewish grandmother having been called a Nazi in the past year, then I might consider it.

Well to be fair, one is entirely bad, jut to be clear thats the Nazis. There may be some rogue elements in the other groups who perhaps would use violence to further their cause but it is not their fundamental belief. Whereas Nazi ideology specifically calls for the extermination of others, neither of the other 2 groups are anywhere remotely near that position.

There are no good Nazis. Sure there were some Nazis in WWII that were Nazis because they were German soldiers and not necessarily because they wanted to exterminate Jews and gypsies, so some of them did good things (not in the name of the Nazis but because they were not entirely evil people) but anyone claiming to be a Nazi today is doing so because they believe in Nazism ideologically and everything that goes into with it.

This is part of the problem with these debates that I've noticed: it's an attempt on the one hand to carry on the debate purely in terms of free speech, abstracted from the contents of any particular ideology.

And yet, part of what makes you "wrong" to oppose speech of particular groups is that you are just as bad as them. That's a judgment of the "wrongness" of a particular ideology, being directly appealed to, to justify a position on free speech.

For some reason that's supposedly not a slippery slope toward widening the scope of "free speech" to include things destructive of democracy.

Funny how the "slippery slope" argument seems to only get used by people resorting to false equivalencies immediately upon commencement of discussions on this topic.

Right, this is precisely my point. I can't count how many times I've seen people defending hate groups resort to slippery slopes and false equivalences. If you don't give hate groups unrestricted access to audiences, they claim 1984 is supposedly right around the corner.

But if you confront them with the slippery slope of equal logical validity which supports the opposing argument, suddenly they're mindful of the dangers of slippery slope arguments.

If democracy can't stand up to a laughable idea then it was a nice run. If we start taking away fundamental human rights the moment we hear some words we don't like, they probably deserve to destroy our democracy.

What's the point of putting an argument out there and then saying not to nitpick your points? Your entire argument is based around definitions.

Of course your definitions are loose and biased, you know that. You're just venting and telling people you don't care if you're wrong.

You're going to have to point out the specific biases you see, because those definitions look quite accurate to me.

Definitions aside, you're just listing "groups" or "ideologies" or whatever you want to call them and then acting like you can objectively determine which are acceptable and which are not. That's also what reddit is doing.

Look, I think Nazism is wrong, I think cops should stop shooting black people for no reason, and I don't really know what "Antifa" is. But I think all of these groups should be able to have subreddits.

I could argue about definition here, and based on your own definitions, "Antifa" might be advocating violence. That aside, the real issue here is that this whole thing seems dishonest to me.

Reddit is banning stuff that generates bad PR. They're banning things that aren't mainstream and things that could be portrayed as advocating/glorifying violence. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for advocating war with North Korea/X country. They aren't going to ban a subreddit for encouraging people to beat up Nazis.

Reddit can do what they like, but I think it's a bad call.

It's not a matter of them being equal. It's whether they are categorized under the new policy and will eventually be banned or not. There's no need to have this false dichotomy where one side must be good and one must be bad. It's possible for both sides to be bad, and it's also possible for one side to be more bad than the other.

In the end, my personal opinion is that any form of inciting violence against civilians should be banned, regardless of what your cause is and how much more "in the right" you are than Nazis on a relative scale, which is a pretty low bar.

I don’t want to nitpick your definitions, but nazism usually refers to the ideology of the NSDAP, a party that was disbanded at the end of WW2. You probably meant to say “violent racism”, in which case the comparison to antifa, and to a lesser extent blm, seems justified (they are linked by violence).

Nazism calls for the death and extermination of other people, antifa and BLM don't.

There are people in this thread claiming antifa and BLM are responsible for most violence in the last few years. The arguments being put forth by 'the other side' are not what you claim, and 'these folks' are going to couch their arguments the way they want.

What you're basically saying is "No reasonable person would think this", but the world isn't exactly short on unreasonable people. There's already tension with some social networks where countries want them to censor protest groups, report atheist blasphemers, and so on.

Antifa is certainly not anti-hate. They very much hate anyone that doesn't agree with their narrow-minded worldview, and they condone violence against those they hate. While they are anti-nazi, they are aligned with them in their level of bigotry and violence. Violence is never okay.