Comment by testtest124 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by testtest124 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Stupid HN denied me commenting "You're posting too fast". But it let you know that only when you submit the comment. So I'll post the comment from the fresh account.

> the fact that you equate protesting getting killed with looting and rioting rubs

Sorry, I could not understand that phrase. Who is getting killed, and what I equate to what?

> Oh and then denying racist policies are, in fact, racist just because they don't meet the dictionary definition of it.

It's really hard to talk to people which like to redefine words. Calling everything and everyone racists and literal nazis just because they don't like it.

I'll stick to the dictionary.

> And left-leaning activists shutting it down? Jesus dude. Read the constitution. You clearly have no idea what freedom of speech (in America) is.

Freedom of speech is far broader term than US constitution even in the US.

For example, UK has freedom in speech, but it is not in the constitution.

On the other hand, many authoritarian countries have more more freedom of speech in the constitution than the US. But they don't really have free speech.

"Cancelling" people for speech reduces that free speech even if it does not violate constitution.

I must say, you have no idea what freedom is speech is.

> I mean, Florida (a state run by a pretty right-wing governor) just passed a law essentially denying tech companies freedom of speech. The projection from the right is absolutely ridiculous at this point.

Denying companies right to deplatform people might be a limitation of business freedom or whatever, but calling it attack on freedom of speech, this is a hot take.

Yeah, we definitely have very different understanding of freedom of speech.

Just in case, this is a quote from wikipedia:

Freedom of speech: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

Censorship: Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. ... Censorship can be conducted by governments, *private institutions*, and other controlling bodies.

Emphasis mine.

> Sorry, I could not understand that phrase. Who is getting killed, and what I equate to what?

People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments - along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right!

> Freedom of speech is far broader term than US constitution even in the US.

Right, that's why I said "in America" - which is commonly where people make up complaints about supposed leftists trying to get rid of it - when nearly every law limiting it in my lifetime has been proposed by either Republicans or Democrats - neither of which are leftist.

>"Cancelling" people for speech reduces that free speech even if it does not violate constitution.

No, it doesn't. If I choose to shop somewhere else because I think your products suck, or because I disagree with your views, I'm not reducing the total freedom of speech - I am using my right, in a semi-free market, to give business to whomever I choose. If you come into my house and say things I don't want being said in my house, it's my right to ask you to leave. If I go into a business with no shirt and no shoes - guess what - I get no service. I broke the rules, they don't have to serve me. This does not "reduce free speech" in any way. Free speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, and besides which, there are already limits on it - speech that incites violence, things like yelling "fire", making false statements under oath, threatening to kill someone, we had all kinds of anti-smut laws for decades here, on and on. I mean, do you bitch when AMC won't show a movie that isn't rated by the MPAA? Is that "censorship" or is it a business exercising their right to not show something they disagree with?

Political belief is not (and should not be) a protected class, therefore nobody is required to transact with you, they have a choice. It's also your choice to get butthurt and complain about being cancelled (on the very platforms that are supposedly doing the cancelling, just like Marjorie Green wearing a "censored" mask while speaking on national TV).

I get the the right has never really had to suffer any consequences ever, at least in America, for anything, so this may be a little disconcerting. Go ahead and look up how many right wing groups the FBI/CIA infiltrated just for being right wing, and compare that to America going out of it's way around the world to disrupt anything even remotely left of liberal. Or how many left wing publications have been targeted over the years by the government. Or how communism (as much as I disagree with it) was the biggest scare in the world and would get you blacklisted ("cancelled") here in the 50's for even being remotely associated or making someone think you might be associated with it, even if you were a famous physicist who led the development of the atomic bomb. Or you know, the Bush years, where I was teargassed and arrested for peacefully protesting the fact that my tax dollars were being used to bomb people who didn't do anything to me. Have you been teargassed or arrested for exercising your supposed right to free speech? I know the people arresting me DEFINITELY weren't spending their nights reading Chomsky, so if they weren't leftists "cancelling" me, then who were they?

> People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments

No, I referred to people who were looting and rioting.

Also, it was not murder. George Floyd case was manslaughter at best. I think it is not even manslaughter, but I'm not a lawyer. Again, as I said before, it's hard to talk to people who redefine words for their advantage.

> along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right!

It is called deplatforming, not cancelling. If that's true, shame on them! Show me the proof, I'm condemn both of these platforms.

> If I choose to shop somewhere else because I think your products suck, or because I disagree with your views, I'm not reducing the total freedom of speech - I am using my right, in a semi-free market, to give business to whomever I choose.

Yes. But if you dig 10 years old tweet, and then demand a company to fire an employee, and gather a big crowd, that is cancelling.

By the way, my personal policy is to ignore companies which participate in any political activity, whether they support gay rights, christian rights, nazi rights, black rights, human rights, animal rights or whatever, I don't care, I would pick a company which just sells a product. Simply because dividing society is bad, and I support companies which do not do that.

> Free speech doesn't mean you get to do anything you want, and besides which, there are already limits on it - speech that incites violence, things like yelling "fire"

Technically it does limit free speech. And limiting free speech is sometimes acceptable, when it is universally acceptable. Only a dozen of knuckleheads would support freedom to shout "fire" in a theater.

> do you bitch when AMC won't show a movie that isn't rated by the MPAA? Is that "censorship" or is it a business exercising their right to not show something they disagree with?

It is not freedom of speech issue for several reasons: they are not monopoly, their resource is limited, there are children who watch TV etc.

> I get the the right has never really had to suffer any consequences ever, at least in America, for anything, so this may be a little disconcerting. Go ahead and look up how many right wing groups the FBI/CIA infiltrated just for being right wing

Technically it was never? just because they are left wing, US has so many laws, there's a law to harass anyone. Ruby Ridge was one of many case where right-leaning people were harassed by the government. But I agree, until recently, left wing were harassed by the government more often.

That statement of yours looks like you are willing to retaliate against rights for injustices of the past. This is very shortsighted, let alone inhumane. Those FBI/CIA agents and their bosses are long dead. Don't punish children for the sins of their fathers.

> Have you been teargassed or arrested for exercising your supposed right to free speech?

I can tell you my story, and there are unpleasant parts in it, believe me, I know what I'm talking about. But that story is not for this website, we can continue in e-mail if you wish. farright@altmails.com is a redirect e-mail.

Anyway, I'm always on the side of those oppressed. When free speech is restricted for someone, I'm all for them regardless of their political views, lefts, rights, jews, arabs, blacks, whites, gays, christians, nazis, doesn't matter. When peaceful protesters get arrested, again, they have my full support regardless of their views. But when people start burning buildings because of police incident resulting in non-intentional killing of junkie criminal resisting arrest, they have no my support.

Yeah no thanks. “Junkie criminal” as if you knew him personally. And to think the protests were about a single person - clearly you don’t care enough to be informed.

I am of the opinion that you should not be on the side of nazis, ever. Siding with people who want to take away the rights of everyone who doesn’t look like them is kind of a little hypocritical on your part, oh great defender of free speech who also somehow supports people who want to take away the speech (and lives) of people who disagree.

Also, the civil rights movement is not the distant past. Ruby Bridges is still alive. The FBI did what they could to fuck that up. Occupy too, and now BLM. These are not ancient history, these are events within (some of) our lives.

> “Junkie criminal” as if you knew him personally

I did not get that. Do I need to know him personally to know that he has junkie and a criminal?

> And to think the protests were about a single person

Sure protests were for all good and against all bad.

But there were too many posters about George Floyd and other black criminals, there was too many lies in crime statistics posted by left-wing media supporting these protests, so let's say these protesters were misinformed at best.

> clearly you don’t care enough to be informed.

Well, you have formed your opinion about what I know and what I don't (not the first time in this thread). It's not my job to convince you otherwise. Continue living in an imaginary world where everyone who disagree with you is literally nazi.

> I am of the opinion that you should not be on the side of nazis, ever.

Thank you for your opinion, but I'm not on the side of nazis. I'm on the side of freedom of speech and other human rights.

> Siding with people who want to take away the rights of everyone who doesn’t look like them is kind of a little hypocritical on your part

I'm not "siding" with these people. I try protect their rights and freedom as well as rights and freedoms of anyone else.

I'll try to explain the difference, but it is so obvious, so explanation might be hard.

There are two reasons: humanist and practical.

First, even serial killers and rapists deserve humane treatment, right to fair trial etc. Including free speech. Abandoning eye for an eye principle is also a great achievement of the western civilization.

Second, if society today decides it is acceptable to take speech rights from nazis, tomorrow it will decide it can take speech rights from communists, day after tomorrow you won't be able to talk freely. It happened too often throughout history, even in modern times, literally in the last decade (I'm not talking about the US, but it applies to the US to some degree).

> I did not get that. Do I need to know him personally to know that he has junkie and a criminal?

Yes, since you only seem to know what right wing media tells you. Rush Limbaugh was also a junkie and a criminal by those standards, yet he gets a medal of freedom or whatever.

> George Floyd and other black criminals

This is why you are an uninformed racist. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't really change the reality of it.

> everyone who disagree with you is literally nazi.

I never called you or anyone who disagrees with me a nazi. I said "defending nazis is reprehensible" basically.

> I'm on the side of freedom of speech and other human rights.

Again, no you are not. If you defend those who would seek to take away the lives of others, you are not on the side of human rights. Right to life and all that.

> serial killers and rapists deserve humane treatment, right to fair trial etc. Including free speech. Abandoning eye for an eye principle is also a great achievement of the western civilization.

I agree, but this isn't a trial.

>decides it is acceptable to take speech rights from nazis, tomorrow it will decide it can take speech rights from communists

I mean, it did? Look at the 50's. Rightwing cancel culture and deplatforming at it's finest. Also, taking away the rights of those who don't respect the same right in others is kind of ok - that's sort of what our justice system is based on, since you likened this to a trial.

> Yes, since you only seem to know what right wing media tells you.

You cannot seriously believe he was not a criminal and a junkie.

Here the left wing sources about his criminal history: https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-who-is.html

Here is left wing source about his drug use: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/08/us/derek-chauvin-trial-ge...

> Rush Limbaugh was also a junkie and a criminal by those standards, yet he gets a medal of freedom or whatever.

Many criminals junkies walk free regardless of their skin color. George Floyd was just too unlucky to be high on several drugs, committed crime and resisted arrest on the same day. This combo could not end well.

> This is why you are an uninformed racist. You can disagree all you like but it doesn't really change the reality of it.

I'm not a racist, and I don't talk with people who throw insults, and generally don't talk to people who cannot conduct a constructive dialogue.

So this is my last reply to you. You may reply, and I'll read that reply, but I won't reply to you again. It was an interesting conversation. Thanks!

> I never called you or anyone who disagrees with me a nazi.

I was speaking figuratively. It just happens way to often by left wing people. In fact, you just called me racist in the same message. There's irony in that.

> If you defend those who would seek to take away the lives of others, you are not on the side of human rights.

I must say, you don't understand the modern meaning of human rights. Even criminals have these rights. Like UN requires it, all of the western countries signed it, most of the world countries signed it. It is universally agreed on in the western society. Well, I thought so, until I read your comment, and was quite disappointed. I thought better of left-wing people.

> Also, taking away the rights of those who don't respect the same right in others is kind of ok

So it's OK to rape the rapist, I got it. And I already replied to that: fortunately eye for an eye was abandoned by the western civilization, but unfortunately left-wing people are pulling civilization back to the dark ages.

> left wing sources

The NY Times is NOT left wing, it is liberal. Same with CNN. Also, the Times article says he moved away to get a fresh start. Do you believe a person is ALWAYS a junkie or criminal? I've been to jail. Does that mean I am a criminal, permanently?

Since when are police allowed to be executioners? How can you be ok with that? Why can't non-lethal force be used, a person brought to jail, and then charged with a crime. He wasn't charged with anything, and in America I thought people were "innocent until proven guilty."

>I'm not a racist,

So you are one of the only humans I have ever met who has no unconscious bias, is perfectly aware of the entirety of their mind, and does not need anyone else to hold up a mirror for them to show them their blind spots. Got it.

> It just happens way to often by left wing people. In fact, you just called me racist in the same message.

You should hear what I've been called by right wing people. And I'm not saying all racists are nazis. Some racists are just racist without knowing it, some are "culturally racist" like much of my family - ignorant, usually. Some are just racist and don't want to exterminate other races, but believe all sorts of bullshit bell-curve garbage. There are plenty of other categories.

>Even criminals have these rights.

Yes, we agree. And what was being protested last year was the unequal application of those rights, and police forces acting as judges, juries, and executioners, when they are supposed to be people who apprehend (not kill) criminals or gather evidence to use at a trial. I used to live in a 99% white neighborhood. My former roommate was a black man. I never had a front license plate on my car (illegal here) in the three years I lived there and never had a problem. He drove without one for a week and got pulled over three times. By cops who "weren't racist" according to them. You think those cops thought they were racist? You could have even been one of them for all I know.

>So it's OK to rape the rapist, I got it

No, I don't believe in an eye for eye but you keep putting up straw men to try to make me into some caricature of what you think a left wing person is, like how calling people nazis happens often so I'm obviously doing it, when you were the first person to mention them at all anyways.

In fact, every single person on the left that I know of is pretty against retributive justice and instead prefers rehabilitative justice. In a rehabilitative system, someone like George Floyd would have gotten addiction counseling, support as he was getting back on his feet, and help keeping his life in order, and the protests of last year would likely never have happened. This is just more projection from you. The right wing is always the one who is all about eye-for-an-eye - how many right wing people are calling for the abolition of the death penalty? Isn't "tough on crime" usually a big hit with the right wing voting bloc? Even liberals are on board with that garbage. How many prison abolitionists can you name on the right or even center? It's how we end up with shit like the Clinton crime bill or whatever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com