Hacker News Reader

Comment by skinkestek | Hacker News Reader

dang has commented on this a lot lately and he says it is because we see the other side much easier than our own side.

I agree with him to a large degree:

I personally see mostly problematic content from the left[0] but I guess that is partly my bias.

[0]: for example this comment earlier today that I thought[1] was absolutely crazy "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe" - just try to turn that phrase around to "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe" and see if it wouldn't be flagged to death immediately by everyone including me.)

[1]: someone had to tell me that this is basically an euphemism for nazi, to which I had to reply that I would prefer if we just said nazi then because then I could join in despising it.

View on HN

> "I don't want to participate in spaces where religious white nationalists feel safe"

> "I don't want to participate in spaces where atheistic colored globalists feel safe"

The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other. I am inclined to think that there have been historically much less concerns of safety for "religious white nationalists" than for "theistic colored globalists"

> The weight there is different though, in the groups you analyse the violence has historically flown in one direction more than in the other.

I think you are wildly underestimating the violence of a number of non-religious groups: recommended reading includes the reign of terror, Stalin and Khmer Rouge.

... and also non-whites by the way.

While it's a euphemism for nazi, I hope you don't just assume that it's appropriate to use "white nationalist" to mean "nazi". Just because other people are being stupid doesn't mean we have to. A white nationalist could be from any political faction and could have different ideas for economic policy. A National Socialist is a very specific kind of person.

Totally agree in case there should be any doubt.

I prefer to call nazis "nazis". It is short and simple and we can all agree that we don't like them.

But then they reply that "whoever you think are Nazis are not Nazis" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14034920).

Well, it's a fair point - if the only people who get banned are actual Nazis, everyone will get called a Nazi before too long.

Actual Nazis are rare. They were rare during WW2 and they're really rare now.

Religious white nationalists want me deported or killed. Of course I don't want to be in a space where they are safe.

People say white nationalist instead of Nazi because white nationalists will always deny being Nazis. Someone being nationalist for a race should immediately bring up red flags. There are also small differences. For example some white nationalists are not necessarily antisemitic, which is a characteristic of Nazis, or might even support Israel (though you can be pro-Israel and antisemitic of course), instead focusing their hate on black people, Muslims, etc...

> Religious white nationalists want me deported or killed.

Where do you get that religious thing from? Because for all their faults all major variants of the mainstream religion in US and Europe is pretty clear about not supporting that -to the point that a number of clergy got in real trouble with nazi Germany.

I'm taking the religious part from the OP.

Also yes, while a lot of religious people are very good, the religious people that also happen to be white nationalists tend to be even worse than the garden variety white nationalist.

"Someone being nationalist for a race"

This makes literally no sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com