Substack Has a Nazi Problem | Hacker News Reader

Substack Has a Nazi Problem

theatlantic.com

11 pointsjasonhansel9 comments

Says “The Atlantic”, the biggest competitor.

You can publish blogs on the atlantic?

Attention economy?

The US really needs an anti-nazi law similar to germany. If we can't kill them outright, lock them up. I fully support outlawing nazis, and any other groups that support mass genocide of fellow citizens and armed insurrection/civil war (outlaw as in outside the law's protection).

> The US really needs an anti-nazi law similar to germany.

No, it doesn't. Anyone should be able to say any stupid thing they wish, believe in any stupid thing they wish, etc. That's not a path you want to go down. When they act on those beliefs -

> armed insurrection/civil war

there are already protections against that (life, liberty, property).

Stupid things? Sure, nazi things == you die.

Threatening violence gets you jail time already.

Agreeing with Nazi views should be fine, calling yourself a nazi, organizing neo-nazi groups, displaying symbols and speech with intent to further murderous/genocidal propaganda, much like "screaming fire in a crowd" should not only be illegal and criminal but worthy of capital punishment imho.

Sounds like a stance the Nazis would have taken.

Not really, they won't kill other Nazis. If you mean Nazis would kill anti-nazis, yeah, of course, either you are a nazi or you are anti-nazi, america killed and defeated nazis so we are anti-nazi and we should kill them because they will kill us. They want to kill us because they are evil.

Free speech is for speech made to express views not cause harm.

You can kill them now, join them or wait until they kill random innocent people.

For what it's worth, people who have verbally expressed allegiance and intent to materially support terrorist groups will get locked up for conspiracy and I think they should get the violence they crave and receive capital punishment instead. Hammas supporters (not supporters of palestine but specifically hammas) for example should either be executed or the public should be allowed to harm them.

With nazis, keep in mind that I said nazis not white supremacists or racists, those are just expressing their views. Nazis desire racial violence. The only language you can use with such people is violence. To those who crave death, give it to them as they so wish.

If you want to kill someome simply for existing, the consequence should be your death simply for expressing that intent. If you don't consider other people human and therefore worthy of death then you no longer have rights as a human.

In my view, killing them is humane, the wrong natural thing to do would be to torment them and humiliate them in public first but I don't support that. If you think hitler is cool and some people are subhuman and you hate those people you should be left alone. If you organize a group with intent to murder those people then I fail to see the controversy around killing them. Outlawing them might be best if folks like you don't want to advocate killing, that way people who are willing to get blood on their hands can do what needs to be done.

Unwillingness to meet such abominations with a full measure response early on results in many wars, millions dying and atrocities that are unspeakable. If a few germans a hundred years ago did this, 50-70 million lives could have been spared and 3 holocausts averted.

Exactly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com