Hacker News Reader

Comment by zo1 | Hacker News Reader

Another aspect is that a lot of non-left, or right-leaning viewpoints have been categorized into "naughty idea" territory, despite a lot of reasonable people holding them. E.g. Things such as: Being against mass-migration from 3rd world countries to the west, wanting racially homogenous societies, removing welfare, building a wall, racial profiling, there being no gender pay-gap, protesting spreads the virus, BLM are agitators, etc. All non-inherently "evil" ideas, but we've moved into a territory where they're seen as hateful and as such the mainstream is primed to attack them. That is now manifesting (or stared in?) the internet, and we're seeing the consequences everywhere as a result.

View on HN

The problem with most of your "reasonable ideas" (except racially homogenous societies which is straight up racist) is that they have consistently been used for racist reasons in history. I think if you hold almost any of these (except perhaps the first), you should take a good long look in the mirror and research the history behind these.

Wanting racially homegeneous societies is an "evil idea" because to create one, you have to remove groups of people from a society based on their race.

Isn't it what liberals want to do the other way around, when they say that there are too many whites here, too many whites there... gradually pushing for quotas, etc ?

I agree with you, people shouldn't be removed, ejected, forced to move, etc from a society based on their race or at all for any matter (though we kinda collectively agreed that that's okay for criminals? Separate discussion I guess.). What is evil is forcing people to do things against their will, period. But people wanting to be in groups similar to them isn't inherently evil, and I think we need to get past that in conversation. E.g. right now I would definitely prefer to be with people I share common nationality, interest, culture with.

I fear we're in dangerous territory where all such distinctions and nuance are lost in the shouting, essentially making us all "evil" in some way or another.

Eastern Europe is still homogeneous and they are being vilified for wanting to keep it that way.

Eastern Europe has never been homogeneous, except in myth. There have been waves of different peoples coming through since the ice ages, and there has been mingling all along.

The population of Hungary is 98.3% ethnic Hungarians. Other Eastern European countries are similar.

We actually seem to be creeping past "holding those viewpoints results in cancellation" into "not actively condemning those viewpoints results in cancellation".

If presenting these viewpoints misrepresents the views of your employer, they're fully entitled to cancel you.

Judy Woodruff couldn't drop the n-word in anger on national TV and expect to keep her job.

Baffled that you’re being downvoted; there’s plenty of arguments for and against those ideas. It’s difficult to come a consensus when the debates surrounding them increasingly turn to shouting matches, Internet rumours and “cancellation”

You're baffled that the person suggesting that creating a racially pure ethnostate is a reasonable idea worthy of discussion is being downvoted? Really? This was literally, not in any sense being hyperbolic, the goal of Hitler and the Nazis. What baffles me is how this talking point has apparently become normalized enough not to be immediately shouted down by every user on this website.

They've suggested that there's a variety of ideas that are no longer discussable for fear of being seen as hateful or evil. You've chosen just one of their many examples and immediately jumped to Nazism and Hitler, in doing so you're proving the parents point.

> You've chosen just one of their many examples and immediately jumped to Nazism and Hitler

It's not exactly a jump to get from "wanting racially homogenous societies" to Nazism; it's more like a short shuffle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com