Hacker News Reader

Comment by vorpalhex | Hacker News Reader

Is someone who is a professed neo-nazi using your platform, but not otherwise engaging in abuse, worth banning?

Let's try it with this example. Is someone who genuinely and openly holds the opinion that all men are rapists, but not otherwise engaging in abuse, worth banning?

When we start going down this path of trying to get rid of "undesirables", we start engaging in censorship.

View on HN

When you equate this imaginary feminist position with literally advocating for genocide, you're telling on yourself.

I've been involved in leftist/feminist spaces about a decade both IRL and online and I can assure you that while it certainly never gained mass adoption and may be out of favour now compared to the late 00s early 10s (thank god), calling it an "imaginary" position is disingenuous at best.

Sure, it was a second wave attitude. It's obviously not at all prevalent in the contemporary mainstream, certainly not among people young enough to be active on Twitter. In that sense it's imaginary: it's his imagined view of what feminists on Twitter are arguing for, not an accurate representation of what their views are.

> calling it an "imaginary" position is disingenuous at best

It was never worthy of engagement anyway, so perhaps stop creating strawpeople with it.

I didn't use the word feminist.

You don't think anyone can tell what you mean?

A better example would be TERFs, and they are often worth banning because they act like terrible people.

> Is someone who is a professed neo-nazi using your platform, but not otherwise engaging in abuse, worth banning?

You can't be a professed neo-nazi without engaging in abuse. Nazism is explicitly a genocidal ideology and calling for genocide is abuse.

> When we start going down this path of trying to get rid of "undesirables", we start engaging in censorship.

Yes. Lets get started.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com