Hacker News Reader

Comment by minimaxir | Hacker News Reader

I didn't think Hacker News needed an explicit "calls for violence are bad" guideline but the comments here have shown otherwise.

View on HN

It would be extremely difficult to have politics discussion without condoning violence. Deciding what sorts of violence is ok is an inherent part of politics. In practice, there's no way to ban calls for violence without banning the discussion of wide swaths of political topics.

Do you feel the same way about comments that support the US military action in Iran? Why or why not?

It is unnecessary, and it was an obvious offense, not defense. Of course it is "bad". We (Trump) need(s) to stop creating wars and fucking up the economy, while killing others. It is bad all the way down.

Which one is more bad?

Trump bombing hundreds of people or someone throwing a bomb at Trump because he keeps bombing hundreds of people?

People think the trolley problem is easy.

If you grind people into a paste long enough, eventually some of them may object in one manner or another.

I’m sorry, which specific people were “ground into paste” and when?

Everyone too poor to thrive.

I agree with the idea that calls for violence are bad; however most people in the world are more than happy to support both violence and calls for same against people and organizations they believe to be sufficiently significant threats.

Are calls for violence against Hitler during WW2 bad? How about the Japanese imperial navy?

How about calls for violence against Putin during his war of aggression?

This isn’t rhetoric; I’m just pointing out that it isn’t as black and white as people seem to make it. (It is black and white for me, as I’m with Asimov on the matter, but it isn’t for most humans.)

If you can't think of a single occurrence in history that directly disproves your proposed guideline, it's time to drop whatever you're doing and study history.

If you can think of one, then you shouldn't be proposing introduction of guidelines that are blatantly false. Or would you like a "1+1 is not 2" guideline to accompany it?

Are calls for violence bad when you're calling for throwing a molotov cocktail at a child? At an adult? At a serial killer? At someone who's about to shoot you unprovoked? At someone who murdered your family? At someone who's about to?

If you said "yes" to all of the above, I'd love to know your reasoning.

The general tone here is that freedom of speech is absolute and nothing should curtail that.

Not my personal view.

I’d like to know your reasoning for answering “no” to all of the above.

I guess we'll just have to find someone who answers no to all of that and ask them!

I think my point was obvious. What is your justification for answering no to any of them?

Alright, I'll explain. I don't think violence is bad against someone who's about to kill my family, because:

* I care about my family more than I care about a stranger.

* I care about people who don't kill people unprovoked more than I care about people who kill people unprovoked.

* My family are more than one person, versus the one killer.

That's why I answer no to that one.

Sure, I care about certain people more than others and I’d be willing to use violence to defend myself or my family. But that’s not the same as cheering on or advocating for an attack on someone else that may or may not have done something to harm someone totally unrelated to you.

It gets much more complicated when the person being harmed is someone who made and sold AI targeting systems that might be used against my country.

Yes.

If you want a molotov cocktail thrown so badly, throw it yourself. Don't put it on other people to do it for you.

Are the two choices "accept that violence is unconditionally bad" and "throw a molotov cocktail at Sam Altman's house"? Because that dichotomy seems a bit... false?

Your question was about calling for violence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com