Hacker News Reader

Comment by zeveb | Hacker News Reader

You're ignoring the subs which are the same thing, from a leftward slant. It does say some pretty nasty things about mankind, that so many of us love to hate.

View on HN

Which ones do you have in mind? What left-wing sub is there advocating racism or misogyny?

/r/srs advocates misandry, which is just as hateful as misogyny. /r/atheism can be viciously anti-theist. /r/politics is full of anti-conservative hatred & bile.

I'm not going to blame those nasty subreddits on the left; I'm going to blame those & all other nasty subreddits on the general nastiness of people, no matter what their philosophy or politics.

I am Christian and dislike /r/atheism as much as the next guy (especially when you consider how little they actually seem to understand about what they're condemning), but I think it's one hell of a stretch to equate that with hate speech. And considering there is no shortage of libertarian guys there the qualification as left-wing is dubious in the first place.

"Anti-conservative hatred" as equivalent is ridiculous on its face and whatever "misandry" the SRS guys promote should probably be understood in a context where there is no country on Earth where men are oppressed in comparison to women.

I'm not even saying any of those subs are good, but nobody in their right mind is going to equate them with people advocating genocide or "incels" advocating rape.

> And considering there is no shortage of libertarian guys there the qualification as left-wing is dubious in the first place.

Libertarians can be left-wing, so the premise seems irrelevant to the conclusion.

Are you really confused about what I meant (the type of extreme free-market politics advocated by figures like Ron Paul or Penn Jillette -- incidentally the latter is a prominent atheist) or are you just being a pedant for the sake of it?

Well, not being familiar with /r/atheism, I wasn't sure if you actually meant what you said and we're drawing an invalid conclusion based on the popular portrayal of libertarians (at least in the US) as anti-bear, or if you meant specifically right-libertarians.

Had I been familiar with /r/atheism, I might have been able to guess which of those was correct.

For future reference, when people say "libertarian" without further clarification, at least in American politics, they almost always mean right-libertarian.

IME, the split is much closer than you suggest between people meaning right-libertarian and not realizing there are more and meaning libertarian more generally, but perhaps associating that with opposition to the left (exluding the use of “Libertarian”—capital “L” in writing, at least when not sloppy—to mean “member of the Libertarian Party", which itself leans right—but not exclusively, I've met left-libertarians who are in the LP.)

But thanks for your “help”.

You think half of users of the word not realizing it doesn't exclusively mean right-libertarianism is an argument against interpreting unqualified use of the term in that way? That's not how I see it.

Sanders for President if we are to believe the wall street journal from 2015/2016.

try posting "It's OKAY to be white" in a popular subreddit

Wow, people react negatively to a catchphrase of avowed racists? You can't really expect people to completely ignore context.

How can you post such a racist comment?

Because that statement has a pretty big white nationalist connotation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com