Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicchains | Hacker News Reader

>Hmm, do we really want to open this conversation to making broad generalizations about groups based on small groups of extremists within it? Neither side wins in a conversation like that.

I'd argue it's still a better outcome than if only one side is allowed to make broad generalizations about groups based on small groups of extremists within it, while the other side is silenced.

View on HN

I don't think either side is being silenced. Both sides equally like to accuse the other of:

- Ignoring "facts and logic"

- Suppressing free speech

- Being hateful

- Blindly following mainstream media

- Being agents of foreign influence

>I don't think either side is being silenced.

Did you see the part where the person calling all Trump supporters full of hate was upvoted while the comments I made highlighting some hateful acts by non-Trump-supporters was heavily downvoted? Maybe not literal silencing, but seems people here would definitely rather only hear one side of the story.

Or, perhaps, they just disagree with you?

https://xkcd.com/1357/

There is a tremendous difference between silencing, disagreeing with someone, and only listening to one side of the story.

Dude, the moment you realize whose side neo-Nazis are on, you really don’t want that argument.

So we musn't support anything that's also supported by Nazis? Then we should oppose vegetarianism and bans on smoking, because Hitler supported them?

Isn't this taking things to a logical extreme?

No, my point is exactly the opposite: choosing the worst possible examples of someone who supports X to argue that's the norm is bad thinking. If you want to play the 'broad generalization' game, then you have to be able to suck it up and admit that on one side of the argument we have neo-Nazis, so if you identify with that side you'll be called a neo-Nazi.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com