Hacker News Reader

Comment by lapcat | Hacker News Reader

The article talks about Salman Rushdie. The MSM didn't put a fatwa on Rushdie, and then stab him nearly to death. That was ultra-religious conservatives. Ultra-religious conservatives are also responsible for much of the censorship in the United States, especially in schools, refusing to allow kids to read certain books or be taught certain subjects.

Getting "called all kind of names" is not censorship, it's just criticism. That's actually an exercise of free speech by the name callers, don't you think?

[EDIT:] The irony of voting this comment down until it's effectively censored. Sigh.

View on HN

I'm guessing Rushdie is the only specific case referred to in the article because they can assume that the vast majority of their audience will consider what happened to him abhorrent.

However, they then slip into much more general terms, as though by induction any writers facing any kind of social consequences for expressing their bigoted views is the same as the fatwa.

That they neglect entirely to make any mention of Adichie's own case seems disingenuous.

It was indeed mainstream in Iran though. I mean, the fatwa was issued by the Supreme Leader - can hardly get more mainstream than that.

> ultra-religious conservatives

As an atheist I have to object to this comment.

There's a vast difference between what you call "ultra-religious" across cultures and religions. For example, I have Born Again Christian friends who never miss an opportunity to try to bring me out of the dark side. I also have "ultra religious" Jewish friends. In both cases some of the nicest people you will ever meet.

We have to be careful not to classify-and-vilify. Every single one of us could easily fit into a classification worth of some level of vilification. That only serves to create further division and friction and does not make for a better society.

Notice that I said "ultra-religious conservatives" and not "ultra-religious people". It's both a religious term and a political term. It describes people who bring their religion in an overt way into a certain brand of politics.

There are a lot of religious people who mainly keep religion and politics separate. And there are a lot of religious people — especially outside the United States — whose religion inspires them into more left-wing politics.

In any case, I said nothing about "nice people" and "non-nice people". But that's always a spectrum anyway. People are complex. They can be super nice to some groups of people and super mean to other groups of people.

> ultra-religious conservatives

I noted that. Same objection. Conservatives are not evil. Democrats are not evil. The ideological extremes in these schools of thought are represented by a very small minority, just like the ideological extremes in any religion.

We need to get away from hating people by attaching labels to them. The vast majority of Trump and Biden voters are the same people, with the same problems in life and the same dreams and hopes. The only people who work hard to divide us are the politicians. They need you to hate the other side and vote for them. They need division, not unity. By characterizing people with labels such as "ultra religions conservatives" (and equivalent labels on the other side) and then applying blanket negative qualities to entire groups labeled this way all we do is provide fuel for politicians to divide us further.

This, in my opinion, is one of the most egregious negative results of social media. It has provided political masterminds with the tools necessary to divide the population with amazing granularity and drive votes based on the hundreds, if not thousands, of categories they are able to provide.

While all of this happens we lose sight of what really matters. Politicians have been talking about fixing healthcare, education, jobs, etc. for a century, and here we are. If they actually were in the business of getting things done (rather than gathering votes) none of these issues would exist today. That's the great lie. That's what people need to wake-up to. We divide. They win. They do none of the things we all care about and need them to actually get done.

Do not label, subgroup and vilify people. This is unfair and inaccurate. It is no different from applying the average to an entire population, which sounds great and yet it is one of the worst mistakes (or lies) anyone could make in statistics.

I find it very ironic that in a discussion about self-censorship — remember, that was the original topic? — you want me to censor my usage of any labels to describe people.

So, what are we supposed to say? There's a problem, involving some people, and... [censored] that's all I can say.

[Edit:] LOL I just read one of your other comments in this thread:

> And, yes, I am sorry to say, the blood is entirely, 100% on the hands of the ideological left.

Wow, hypocrisy much? Incredible. What happened to "We need to get away from hating people by attaching labels to them", "The only people who work hard to divide us are the politicians", and "Do not label, subgroup and vilify people"? SMH.

> you want me to censor my usage of any labels to describe people

You misunderstand. I am saying that applying labels to groups AND THEN using those labels to broad-brush is wrong.

Are all ultra-religious Muslims terrorists? No! Of course not! Yet, in some circles that very association was created. Can a Muslim be deeply religious and not be labeled a terrorist? Well, in my world, yes, absolutely. And I am an atheist. I don't agree with any religion at all. However, I am not going to take that to the deep dark level of labeling people and then characterize the entire group in various negative ways.

I am not asking you to self-censor. You can say whatever you want. More importantly, you need to understand that the reason people self-sensor is because of the very real threat of violence, professional and financial ruin that has been created over the last decade or so. That is not a all what is happening here. You can say whatever you want. I don't care and I will not hurt your in any way for it. Unlike others on HN, I never downvote someone with whom I have a disagreement. I am, however, pointing out that applying these labels in such ways is not fair or even accurate, just like applying the average to the entire population often leads to seriously flawed conclusions.

>> And, yes, I am sorry to say, the blood is entirely, 100% on the hands of the ideological left. > Wow, hypocrisy much? Incredible.

Who controls the vast majority of universities and the media? Which ideology is being pushed in these environments?

There's unfair broad-brushing and then there's the truth. If the characterization is truthful than it is not only fair, it is, well, the truth. "Most crimes in some cities are committed by gang members". True. This isn't broad-brushing, it's the truth.

Same issue with regards to what the ideological left has been doing. Example: The US border has seen over five million people pour through without any real controls over the last two years. This has brought with it a massive increase of human trafficking (a sterile term for "rape", "sex slavery", "abuse", "exploitation", "child porn", etc.) and deadly illicit drugs.

You have politicians --all of whom are on the ideological left-- as well as the leftist media and leftist universities (where are all the human rights folks?) completely and utterly ignoring this tragic reality. If you only consume news from the ideological left you probably have no idea whatsoever about any of the above. And yet, this is real, as real as young girls being sold into sex slavery by the thousands --in the US-- and dangerous drugs like fentanyl coming into the country unabated quite literally disguised as candy for our kids.

All of this is on the ideological left. 100%. In other words, that is not unfair broad-brushing, it's the truth. When you have Secretary Mallorcas and the White House lying to the American people about the southern border every day, well, the death and misery, the blood, is in their hands, and that's just the truth. Like it or not. And, frankly, if you are American and vote for these people, the blood is in your hands as well, because you enable them. And that is also the truth.

> What happened to "We need to get away from hating people by attaching labels to them"

The distinction you need to make is that (sometimes fine) line between the truth and unjust characterizations.

Both Liberals and Conservatives are culpable of saying that people on the other side are dumb. That's just not true. It's unfair. If, on the other hand, I say that Liberal politics is resulting in a massive increase in rape, murder, sex slavery, child pornography, mutilation, drugs, death, etc. at the southern border and that this blood is 100% in their hands, that is 100% verifiably true. The MSM ignore this on ideological basis. Human rights groups ignore this on ideological basis. Feminists, ignore this on ideological basis. And while they all look the other way masses of people suffer, kids are raped, killed, sold and abused. Unless people are willing to stop being tools of their respective ideologies these tragedies will continue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com