Hacker News Reader

> But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. [...] "They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert."

This is exactly the mechanism of people who don't _really_ want to discuss anything. They throw badly compiled thoughts at you, and laugh at you if you struggle to explain why they are foolish.

I particularly like the irony of:

-- the claim that "Steve Bannon used the Facebook platform to call for the execution and public display of the corpses of two public officials" and "This is unambiguously true, Steve Bannon's Facebook page reiterated the claims the same day..."

...combined with...

-- "...for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play."

...when what Bannon wrote on Facebook was a direct quotation of what was said about him, here:

https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...

He even linked to the site where it was said.

I'm not supporting what Bannon has said here by any means, but it boggles my mind why there seems to be this recurring pattern over the last several years where rather than simply using the actual, already more than bad enough words of Trump and his gang to criticize him, instead people seem to need to hyperbole-it-up for added effect. Claiming that Bannon was unambiguously not using a provocative/hyperbolic figure of speech, but rather was literally calling for someone's execution...seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face (note: I am using that expression figuratively - I do not mean that people here or elsewhere are literally cutting their noses off).

To me, much of Western civilization seems like the Movie Lord of the Flies [1].

Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize-winning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality.

Except in our case, I don't think there are going to be any adults showing up on the scene to stop us from killing each other. Sadly, real life is often not rescued at the last moment as it often is in the movies, as anyone who has read history would well know.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

The word you're lacking is accountability, in case someone takes it on as a great idea. Then, the speech is not protected, but can be considered conspiracy. So reaction to it must come, even if it sinks everyone to the scum's level.

I read this several times but I'm absolutely not getting your intended meaning - can you say it in a different form if it isn't too much trouble?

If someone acts on that idea, the speech may not be protected.

Ok I see now (if someone was to act "due to" speech like this, it might be used as "justification" for more censorship - if I'm not misunderstanding).

But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote, which was regarding the pattern of "dishonesty" when it comes to the discussion of reality.

I consider this to be a very dangerous break from our cultural history. There are many examples in history of where this road can lead, but not only are we not exhibiting caution, the overwhelming sense I get is enthusiasm at this development. One probably shouldn't judge the general public in this regard too harshly, but thinking is what the HN crowd is supposed to be good at.

History has examples of previous times when populists flirted with the idea of abolishing democracy and using violence as means for "might makes right". Taking it lightly or in defense of free speech blindly, is not prudent. I don't believe we can or should ban divergent speech either, but maybe such people should make their own platform. Trying to make a rational argument when all they do is ridicule, insult and make hyperboles, making policy on feelings like abuse and threats, doesn't lead to anything positive.

Democracy need a balance and spectrum, otherwise there'll be a One Party System, and people will be rationalizing that too.

History shows us what happens when these sentiments leap out of control.

It's interesting how you keep replying as if you are reading text other than what I actually write.

What I wrote was primarily:

> But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote, which was regarding the pattern of "dishonesty" when it comes to the discussion of reality.

It is especially interesting when done while accusing someone else of doing the very same thing (the fascinating pink elephant situation in this thread).

Perhaps your goal is to help by even further illustrating this pattern on HN? If so, thanks!

This is known as the Gish gallop.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The Brits are pretty good at countering this.

Bannon has admitted that this is a strategy he uses. Although with his eloquence he coined a different phrase for the practice: "flood the zone with shit"[1].

[1] - https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/963076380505370624

That Sartre quote is great. He totally nailed Internet trolls before they ever existed.

You seem to be writing in good faith, but it is mind-boggling to me how anyone could take what Bannon said as anything other than a metaphor.

Ironically, to me the Sartre quote better applies to your own comment than Bannon's bit.

Perhaps this is the rhetorical version of "the dress". (We seem to be stuck in general in some sort of political version of the dress.)

Why is it mind-boggling?

So I'm going off of this clip:

https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/13244858190427054...

It's hard for me to believe that someone can watch that and think that Bannon is literally suggesting we put Fauci's head on a pike, when it's clearly intended to be a metaphor.

If I get exasperated with this conversation and say something like "kill me now," I guess you'd call the suicide hotline?

But for many people it's a metaphor for taking their AR15 and paying Dr Fauci a visit.

It was not a metaphor, it was hyperbole. “I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put their heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the program or you’re gone.”

It is a call to violence. He is saying that these people deserved to be killed for what they have done to Trump. That in his estimation, the world would be a better place if someone were to kill Fauci and Wray as examples to the rest of Washington.

Sure, he's not really suggesting that he would actually do it, but he is certainly asking someone to.

Like the "punch a nazi" thing?

Labelling yourself a Nazi is confessing to conspiracy to commit genocide. This is a crime, whereas being disloyal to the president is explicitly not a crime.

I'm not a fan of vigilante justice in general, but at least the targets in the "punch a nazi" case have confessed, and the punishment called for isn't death.

However, I do not believe that posting "punch a nazi" is a conservative enough position given that the standard of evidence for labelling someone a nazi, in practice, is that they disagree with you on the internet.

You do know that "heads on a pike" is a figure of speech? Colbert depicts Stephen Miller's head on pike in one of his shows[0]. Are you going to have the speech police cancel him too? I doubt it. You just don't like ideas you disagree with and you're just looking for an excuse to get rid of them.

0: https://youtu.be/IXUMbz3U920?t=70

This is exactly correct.

I've seen as nauseum posts accusing Drumpf and his cohorts of treason, for which the penalty is death, not to mention more recently scads of Twitterers gleefully posting photos of the mutilated corpse of Mussolini and expressing desire for the same to happen to the president and his "collaborators".

It's getting to the point where AOC's recent calls for lists of said collaborators be compiled for harassment and ostracization seem reasonable, as at least she's not calling for their execution.

We could have seen this coming several years ago with calls for violence against "Nazis" (and btw a Nazi is anyone who disagrees with me politically) but big tech looked the other way because they support it.

I'd expect more cogent analysis from the top intellects if HN, but apparently the stereotype is true: "It's acceptable when our side does it".

You do know that "heads on a pike" is a figure of speech?

The phrase can be used in two contexts, one as a figure of speech. The figure of speech context does NOT have any threats involved.

Now, here is Bannon's statement:

"I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games."

In this context, Bannon does not seem to use it as a figure of speech, it is a threat - maybe not literally - but a threat nonetheless. That's what's wrong, and why people are angry. Not because they don't like his "ideas".

Tudor England was a nasty place. Henry VIII and Liz I were murderous despots persecuting Catholics and pursuing genocide in Ireland. Suspect Bannock likes that 'directly approach to opponents.

Yes, the right to play, great point. That’s similar to yesterday when Pompeo made the “joke” that there’d be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration. “Just joking” for me but not for thee.

America’s big problem is lack of consequences for stuff like this. The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy, and yet Americans take it on faith that it’s somehow the key to everything good about America.

Edit: and 30s later this comment is at -2. It’s bizarre to me that so many Americans simply cannot entertain that the First Amendment might not be a net positive for the country.

We don't need to tear down the First Amendment, but our society does somewhat depend on civil society rejecting and not amplifying dangerous, uncivil, undemocratic ideas.

I think the freedom of speech Bannon has is fine. He's welcome to make whatever calls he wants - though I do wonder if he may have strayed from merely "uncivil" into "incitement".

But Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times... they don't need to amplify it. He is not entitled to their audiences too.

> but our society does somewhat depend on civil society rejecting and not amplifying dangerous, uncivil, undemocratic ideas

I would argue that this is exactly what legal and democratic systems that work but that don’t give such primacy to 1FA offer.

Other democratic countries are not that far behind in ideology. There is however more wiggle room with more parties in play.

The amplifying point has been spreading in discussions.

Facebook, twitter must not amplify one content over another or it loses it's neutral status. If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status and should be regulated like those other entities and not be treated as neutrual platform.

The New York Times is a newspaper and doesn't belong.

There is no legal basis for this. Facebook and Twitter are explicitly permitted to amplify or suppress whatever content they wish.

Maybe there should be!

I disagree!

Even if their algorithms threaten to destabilize society by amplification? Bear in mind these platforms come with many forms of moderation already.

So I believe we're mostly talking about a spectrum of what mechanisms there are and their consequences. Ie. is it OK for the entire planet to bully anyone in public until they lose everything? This is actually hard to prevent, if no mechanisms to do so are in place, while communication is as "free" as possible.

Ultimately, if a platform is big enough that its policies have society-destabilizing consequences, I would much prefer to see it broken up than reined in. Benevolent dictators are still dictators.

> If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status

It can't lose what it never had to begin with. Information services post Section 230 have 0 obligation to be "neutral". You should read the law instead of listening to Internet commentators' fantasies and wishlists of "neutrality" and "censorship makes you a publisher". This is all bullcrap.

I've entertained the idea... and rejected it. Is it bizarre to you that someone might not agree with you?

If there was any serious discussion in the US about the utility of 1FA I would be willing to believe Americans were able to entertain it. What weaknesses with it did you come up with when you entertained it?

What weaknesses? You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects.

But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects, and those effects are worse. Such as, for example, creating a world where your post could be deleted merely for suggesting that the Constitution had a weakness.

I'm going to say stuff. Some of it will go against the prevailing narrative. I want to be able to say it anyway. Sometimes, I'll even be right. I think the right to do so is important.

> You know, look around. It's pretty clear that the First Amendment is having some negative effects.

None of which you enumerated

> But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects

Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?

> None of which you were willing to enumerate...

Because it's pretty obvious. You're trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, and I decline to give them to you.

> Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?

They don't at the moment show up strongly in most of the rest of the free and rich world. They show up in, for example, China. (Though negative effects show up in England from their libel laws, for example. They just aren't as flagrant as what you see in China.)

To put the burden of proof on the other foot: Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? If not, I'll keep the guarantee, because I really like being able to say what I please.

> Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world?

Yes. It's the negatives you were unwilling to enumerate.

But I suspect that some of the exact same negatives were showing up in Britain during Brexit, for example. (Can't say for sure, since I wasn't there and didn't see what the local conditions were.)

And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify. Sauce for the goose...

> And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077547

Anyway, in short, I'm sure (and I mean this) you're a smart and well-read guy or gal, but from your entirely circular arguments here I don't think you've ever seriously spent time considering what the alternatives to the first amendment are. Everything you've claimed to like about it is just as true in other free, rich countries, and the negatives you repeatedly decline to mention are largely absent. You've brought in libel as an example, which of course is _not_ protected by 1FA. The importance of 1FA at this point is a national religion.

From yesterdays news, Norway has now criminalized "hate speech" in a private context: https://www.out.com/news/2020/11/11/norway-has-made-biphobic...

If you don't think this is negative, I guess we aren't talking about the same thing.

> Norway has now criminalized "hate speech"

Did you actually read the article before reposting it? It's been illegal there since 1981. The article simply says it's been extended to include new groups.

Yes, I absolutely think hate speech should be restricted, and the laws of most countries agree with that, with the USA being a notable exception:

> A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom

Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.

> Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.

So you _probably_ agree with me? This is the exact point. Many people that might agree that some public speech should be outlawed would recoil at the idea of private speech being similarly restricted. Yet this has been the case in Norway for 40 years. Now you might reply that it has caused no harm yet. And I admit I don't know the number of convictions for this type of private speech, but this is the very definition of chilling effect. Criminalization of private speech has been normalized. When the ratchet is tightened there will be no room to complain.

I’m not sure what you think we’re arguing here. Yes, as I clearly stated, my instincts are against the criminalisation of non-public hate speech.

Freedom of speech is complicated and subtle, and that’s why a several hundred year law that binds the hands of the legislature to refine and update laws around it is a bad idea.

Posting this from one of Norway's many gulags, I don't believe jailing people is the way to combat extremists.

Maybe we've entertained it and we still disagree.

I would agree with the parent poster that the downvotes represent a lack of entertaining the idea, because instead of engaging and arguing against it, it's merely immediately downvoted.

Look how often constitutional ammendments were proposed in the past compared to today. We're fossilizing the idea of our country into a religion instead of continuing to have useful debate on why today isn't like yesterday and on what updates we need to make now.

Well, first off, from the site guidelines:

>"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]

But to address your key point, I'd bet a lot of people are down-voting the grandparent's superior/condescending tone, as exemplified by the following fragments:

>"America’s big problem... yet Americans take it on faith... Americans simply cannot entertain"

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Lots of comments are downvoted quickly without replies, I don't think you can infer that much from it.

I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually?

> I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually?

I don't think that's obvious at all, especially given changes in population, technology, and international situations over the same timeframe as that nation's institutional stagnation.

The two party system is outdated. While Democrats fight for unlimited abortion up to birth, republicans fight to end the world. There's no sane middle ground. There is political room for a third middle party.

>The First Amendment has long outlived its utility when you compare the US to any other well-established democracy

What could you possibly mean by this? Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way?

You are free to full throatedly criticise the government in any Western democracy while unlimited political dark money and pharmaceutical advertising so pervasive it literally stops testing against placebos working is largely banned.

Can you elaborate on the part about advertising and testing?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/placebo-effect-gr...

First we need to remember that this isn't a binary question of freedom versus no freedom. It is a question of where to place the line on a spectrum. Or perhaps more specifically where does the line exist between your rights and my rights.

Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion?

Does your right to spend $1B on amplifying your political speech drown out my political speech and effectively nullify it?

Other countries have answered yes to those questions while the US has answered no.

> Does your right to spend a $1B on political advertising drown out my political speech?

On this specific one, it’s not a matter of drowning you out, it’s being able to compete with someone else spending $1B endorsing the opposite opinion. Or more importantly, being able to pay for your message to be distributed rather than having to own a media empire to get it published.

If it weren’t for the Citizens United decision being decided in the correct direction, you’d be a the media landscape would be a slave to whoever owns it. People or organizations that make their money elsewhere would be stifled from expressing their opinions through advertising purchases.

Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better? That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything. I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech.

> Are you saying that the result of Citizens United is that instead of being a slave to the people or organizations that own the media landscape we are slaves to simply the richest people or organizations. How is that any better?

The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear.

More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message.

> That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything.

It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own.

> I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech.

If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.

>The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear.

That outcome is one alternative, it is not the only alternative. We can put laws in place to regulate how the media talks about political issues. We used to have the fairness doctrine for example. I wouldn't necessarily want that reintroduced exactly how it existed, but something along those lines would help the US political system.

>More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message.

So what? These organizations are free to advise their people how to voice their opinion and they can even facilitate doing so through internal programs such as voter registration drives or petition drives. We don't have to allow them to pool money to voice their opinion to the general public.

>It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own.

"When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced.

>If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.

You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?

> "When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced.

It is equality of opportunity. What you seem to want is equality of outcome.

Nothing stops you or your politically minded allies from pooling your own resources.

> You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?

Why should the unemployed or those on the dole, with all the time in the world, have an advantage over the employed?

> Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion?

Does your right to criticize my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? No. Even if the criticism is harsh, even hateful. I find this a particularly curious example, because there's a long history of criticism of religion, from Nietzsche to Dawkins, much of it harsh, even hateful. I'm not aware of any countries that ban these writers, though apparently Dawkins got cancelled for also applying his criticism to islam. And what if your religion itself entails beliefs that makes other people, such as women or homosexuals, fear for their rights? Then they are not allowed to hate on your religion, because that makes you fear for your freedom of religion?

We aren't talking about "criticism". I am not asking for laws on blasphemy. I am asking for laws on hate speech.

It is legal in the US to say that all Muslims are terrorists that deserve to be shot with bullets dipped in pig's blood. How would you feel hearing that if you were a Muslim? Would you feel that you could safely and openly practice your religion?

> We aren't talking about "criticism". I am not asking for laws on blasphemy. I am asking for laws on hate speech.

You say this as if these are clearly defined categories. Take the charlie hebdo cartoons: Criticism, blasphemy or hate speech? At any rate, your argument applies even to criticism. Criticism can lead people to infringe on your freedom of religion.

What is the line between criticism and slander? Why can we draw that line when dealing with individuals but it is impossible to define categories when dealing with groups of people?

We can't draw that line when dealing with individuals either. Laws against libel and slander should not exist.

>Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way?

Not the OP but here in Germany the guiding principle of all lawmaking and action of the state is human dignity, as laid out in the first article of the basic law.

Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.

and freedom of expression while enjoying numerous protections reaches its limitations when that dignity is under attack (article 5):

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.

(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.

There is a pretty long list of Americans who've faced consequences for what they've said. Calling it "America's big problem" is hyperbole, and certainly not justification for overturning a founding principle of the country.

The civil rights movement in America would not have made any progress without the First Amendment.

It did everywhere else, so why not in America?

Civil rights protestors were beaten, attacked by dogs, sprayed with firehoses, and put in jail. MLK had his phones tapped and his mail read. Where was the First Amendment for them?

Your archive.org link is elided FYI

Thanks, fixed!

Judge for yourself, everyone, whether this is a "call" for execution, etc: https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/13244858190427054...

> I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put the heads on pikes, I'd put them on the two corners of the White House, as a warning to Federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program, or you're gone.

If the conversation ended there, in it's most favorable light Bannon could be assumed to be using "heads on pikes" as a euphemism for "getting tough / serious".

However, immediately after this quote, the other speaker and Bannon discuss historical political hangings and how the death penalty for treason is necessary during a civil war.

And Bannon appears to double down in his own FB post: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776

> Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack > - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray

Regardless of where you come down on the free speech side of calling for a public figure's execution, Bannon seems to concede that he meant what he said.

> And Bannon appears to double down in his own FB post: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776

An alternative interpretation of his Facebook post is that he was quoting this:

https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...

>> "Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray"

Considering Bannon claimed: "Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack", and the next line (...After Calling for Execution...) is identical to that used on populist.press, and he included a link to the site (which seems to be broken), this interpretation (that he is quoting populist.press, as opposed to doubling down) doesn't seem too far fetched to me.

If, for the sake of argument (and I mean that very literally), he was actually quoting them (and therefore not doubling down), could Bannon, as you said, "...be assumed to be using "heads on pikes" as a euphemism for "getting tough / serious"?

For more clarity on what actually occurred, here is the link to the full story, and the relevant text and quotes:

https://www.thewrap.com/steve-bannon-suspended-by-twitter-af...

>> In the episode, posted Thursday morning, Bannon was discussing a hypothetical second Trump term. After advocating that among Trump’s first second term orders of business should be firing both Wray and Fauci, Bannon said, “I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes, right? I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the program or you’re gone.”

>> Shortly after, Steve Bannon and his co-host Jack Maxey offered some additional thoughts on the matter that certainly suggested they might actually be serious.

>> “Just yesterday, there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia,” Maxey said. “These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors.”

>> “That’s how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war,” Bannon replied.

> An alternative interpretation of his Facebook post is that he was quoting this: https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...

Regardless, he quoted it as a call to action for supporters to come to his defense, so it's reasonable to assume he felt it accurately captured the fact that he called for the execution of two public officials.

I think it's less in doubt what he did and more in doubt what social media should do in response. Twitter took one approach and FB another.

He quoted it because his website (I assume) quotes headlines in full when linking to them.

> Regardless, he quoted it as a call to action for supporters to come to his defense, so it's reasonable to assume he felt it accurately captured the fact that he called for the execution of two public officials.

This is an interesting sentence, particularly the one word: fact.

This word seems to have some sort of a strange quality to it - very mysterious, almost magical.

It's a popular word, people use it all the time. And they seem to really enjoy using it, almost like it has a kind of...reverence to it, for them.

But if you ever talk about how they use it (like, the context they are using it in, and various details related to that), everyone seems to start acting....weird. Like, the passion and interest that was just there 5 seconds ago, kind of vanishes into thin air. There one moment, gone the next. Kind of like cherry blossoms in the spring, or that first crush you have as a teenager (no Mom, it's love, you just don't get it!!!) - so fleeting.

Oh well, it's probably nothing..."just my mind playing tricks on me!" lol

A fact check would diminish the statement as hypothetical. But the damage is already done when rabid gunslingers already ingested the idea that might makes right. These people are dangerous for stable democracy and fair chances for everybody.

Oh yes, there's no doubt about that. Bannon can say things, and who knows what person already near the edge for whatever reason might fly off the handle and do something crazy. It's more than just "a legitimate concern".

But that's obvious. Seeing the risk inherent in people like Bannon doesn't even require effort. Thinking like that (and only that) is kind of the equivalent of "phoning it in" [1].

Reality is very complex. Infinity complex, some people say. Managing it skilfully is a hard problem. There is risk, and problems, everywhere. Attributing it all to cartoon evil characters like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump is pretty low effort thinking. Not even trying to be correct(!) (as opposed to "right").

My point is, why make this problem (just as one example - it is a recurring theme if one pays close attention) even harder by talking about it inaccurately &/or imprecisely? I think most of us wouldn't dare to write software at our day jobs this way, for all the obvious reasons, so then why do we accept it (or sometimes even insist upon it) when it comes to a far more complex problem, which is arguably more important than what we do from 9 to 5?

I am "on the spectrum" (in case it wasn't obvious). I do not understand why people behave like this - in general, but especially programmer types, who possess logical and systems analysis capabilities far beyond what general public can even imagine.

Why do people do this? Human behavior seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Like, backwards from what it should be. Can you explain it to me in some way that might make sense, to someone like me?

[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phoned%20it%...

He says things he's going to do then does exactly that, without any basis in truth, facts or consequences. That's the problem. People don't believe he would be so inclined. However, there's no sign of him not meaning what he says, even when it's to troll for attention. The risk there is him going through with what he says, and not standing up for principles but rather tearing them down. Why? His agenda is simply to satisfy his own infinite craving for attention and likes. Though where are the limits to the means for attaining such a goal? They seem to diminish in time, which is pathological.

Such populists play on the fears and anger of the people. There is real inequality in USA, but the masses bet on the wrong horses again and again. Why? Because the privatization of media assures that billionaires set the agenda every day.

It seems high time for a third party, a middle ground, to be made. Because Democrats are too wide, too divided, and thus end up being too extreme. Ie. their stance of unlimited abortion until birth, is extremist in any country. But with the failed two party "system", they end up alienating most of the republican voter base.

This is all frustration playing out due to failed two party political system and the billionaires that ensures the status quo on both sides. The problem is when people become too frustrated, but it is a hard problem who to turn to for aid.

Does this have anything to do with what I wrote?

This is what I do not understand about the culture on HN, and mainstream "right thinking" culture in general: if your ideas really are so proper and correct, then why is there so much dishonesty in your words? If your case is sound, why not just stick to facts? Why can you not reply to direct questions, but instead act as if you did not read them?

Why do people do this? I mean, the text is right here on the page. Do neuro-typical people not feel embarrassment or shame, or is that kind of offset by the feeling of security that comes with being a member of the majority, a kind of "normie privilege" I guess you could say? The lack of self-awareness seems stark to me, but maybe I'm the only one that sees it.