Hacker News Reader

Comment by slg | Hacker News Reader

>management banning a project that was raising money to support violence against conservatives (the actual physical kind, not words)

What? The article you linked says this is about a comic book about punching Nazis. How is this "not words" ? We are seriously getting angry at comic books about punching Nazis? Captain America comics have been doing that for 80 years. Is there more to the story that I am missing or are people just equating a comic book about punching Nazis to literal "violence against conservatives"? This sounds exactly like the "words are literal violence" idea that conservatives are always mocking.

View on HN

Here's what the book says,

"Sometimes they're called Nazis. Other times, they're the far-right or alt-right. White Nationalists. No matter the name, hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies.

SCREW THAT.

ALWAYS PUNCH NAZIS".

What is your objection to that passage? Most Nazis today do not call themselves "Nazis" because almost everyone agrees the Nazis were the bad guys. That is all that passage is saying. Saying sometimes Nazis go by "the far-right" is not the saying all far-right people are Nazis. You are the one reading "hateful groups are spewing vile, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" and immediately equating that to all conservatives.

I was just quoting from the book to provide missing context. My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition to include anyone that disagrees with their ideology.

>My read is that they are casting a larger net than the traditional definition

I doubt the book is about punching near centenarians who were members of a specific political party in the 1930s and 1940s. "Nazi" is now colloquially used as a general term to describe fascists and bigots.

Here is the Merriam-Webster definition for the word[1]. The traditional definition is definition 1. The definition the book is using is definition 2.

You don't need to wear a swastika to be fairly categorized as a Nazi according to that second definition. Some people espouse Nazi and Nazi-like ideals without self-identifying as Nazis. That seems to be the underlying meaning of the above passage.

[1] - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi

The way I read the passage, merely holding any position perceived by them as "racist, anti-immigrant, anti-POC, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-anything-but-white-Christian-views ideologies" constitutes Nazism - regardless of whatever term you may choose. Therefore, holding such views rightfully subjects you to well-deserved violence.

Given that most conservatives hold positions that are perceived by the nazi punching crowd as one or more of those evil stances above, I feel like the concern is genuine. Emphasis on perceived, because there is a tendency to exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are.

You edited "hateful groups are spewing vile..." out of the beginning of that quote which is important because even if people "exaggerate just how "anti" such stances are", there is still a difference between an anti stance and a hateful and vile stance. It isn't talking about opposing affirmative action, being against more immigration, or disagreeing with gay marriage. If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end.

>"If you hear words like "Nazi", "White Nationalist" "hateful", and "vile" only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."

And there's the issue, front and center. If someone like me is worried that labels are getting thrown around in a wanton and haphazard manner, and such labels are used as justification for violence, why is it seen as a character flaw for me to worry that such labels might be foisted upon myself in the future?

>"only to immediately think "they are talking about me" that is a problem on your end."

Honestly, part of why I'm so concerned is that I can't read this as anything other than an insinuation.

The character flaw isn't worrying about the labels being foisted wrongly upon someone. The character flaw is someone worrying that their personal politics can't clearly be distinguished as not being motivated by hate. Odds are that is a marker of a bad and unjust political opinion.

No, odds are that you see the world in black and white when that's not how people are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com