Hacker News Reader

"a persecuted group in the USA right now are gun owners."

Pardon?

That stretched the meaning of 'persecution' past the breaking point and into the realm of meaninglessness. Every driver needs a license, and the car needs to be registered and with a license plate. Car licenses are used for taxation purposes and to help the authorities identify the owner of a vehicles.

Watch out! Come the next revolution, when the cyclists, skateboards, and horseback riders take over, all you murder machine operators will be the first against the wall, and they'll use your driver's license to track you down! Slowly!

(Hint: in general, persecuted groups don't tend to have majority of the government, with full legislative control, a president who goes skeet shooting and a vice president that says 'if you want to protect yourself, get a double barrel shotgun'.)

It really depends on the state. Making blanket statements about guns in the US is simply ignorant and stupid.

In NJ, for example, it's not even safe to move your guns when changing residences, let alone taking them out of the house at any other time for any other purpose (taking a handgun off your property is equal to committing robbery with it in the eyes of the law for example). There are some protections under the law, but those only apply after you've been arrested, charged, and had your life ruined--if you're lucky to have a judge who lets you bring them up, that is. With hollow point bullets, you can't even legally move them when you change residences, and have to leave them at your old residence (which might also be illegal). To even own a gun, you have to be a legal expert. NY, MA, CA, have similar, though perhaps slightly less draconian laws. You won't be able to get a carry permit (concealed or otherwise) even if you prove you have multiple stalkers who intend to do you harm or kill you.

NJ especially, I assume, is a model the anti-gun lobby wants for the whole country. There are no guns (especially handguns) legal outside one's home or place of business. We have such a peaceful state with no gun violence at all. I guess it's a small price to pay for persecuting all those gun owners.

Yes, and I grew up in Florida where shooting off fireworks more exciting than sparklers and snakes, without a license, was illegal. As a loyal firework-American, I lived under the threat that my bootleg North Carolina bottlerockets could land me in jail.

Many Americans have no legal way to practice the traditional craft of moonshine. There are penalties for getting caught with even a part of a still. In Florida it's a http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-05/news/fl-wilton-m...

This reply is just inane drivel.

Yes, it is. I'm sorry about that. It was a partial start, I realized it was silly, then I thought I threw it away for the other response I made. A couple of hours later I saw that I had somehow submitted it, and it was too late to delete.

And this is persecution (in the meaningful sense) because ... why? Or are you changing the topic to complain about NJ gun laws?

I mean, I'm from Florida. Moonshine is illegal in Florida. Even owning part of a still is illegal. Here's a report of someone charged with "among other counts, possession of more than a gallon of illegal liquor and possession of a still", which are "third-degree felonies, which carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison" http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2014-08-05/news/fl-wilton-m... .

Owning an unauthorized still in NJ is also illegal. Here's an arrest from a couple years back - http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/01/police_medford_man_... .

If you think that gun owners, and moonshiners, are both persecuted due to complex or draconian laws, then your definition of persecuted is rather meaningless.

Yes, this is persecution because possessing firearms is protected under the second amendment and moonshine production isn't. I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Your view, if I take it correctly, is that any restriction on firearms is an infringement of a protected civil right and thus a should be treated as persecution? Because my point is only valid if one accepts that some restrictive laws are allowed.

The question is still, what does "persecution" mean?

As another civil justice issue, free speech is protected under the first amendment. But we also accept that there are time, place, and manner restrictions on the right to free speech. Someone who violates those restrictions may be jailed.

Do you consider these people to be persecuted? If so, then I again suggest that your definition of 'persecuted' is so broad as to be unusable.

If you do not consider them to be persecuted, then why is it okay to sometimes stifle free expression, but never okay to stifle gun ownership? Both are equally constitutionally protected, no? Why does one have limits and the other not?

It's really weird to see a suggestion that the solution to Muslim persecution in the US is for them to take up arms and be seen to be doing so. I can't see how that is going to help their current social situation.

> there are other groups as well that are often forgotten... in fact I can only think of the Roma. Shouldn't we all know all the groups the Nazis systematically murdered?

The Jehova's Witnesses come to mind, too. This is probably not complete, but it does give an indicator at least: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Kennzeichen_f%C3%BCr_Sch...

Top row, from left to right:

"Political", "Professional Criminal", "Emigrant", "Jehovas' Witness", "Homosexual", and "Antisocial"

Left column, top to bottom:

"basic color", "badge for repeat offenders", "prisoners of the punitive regiment", "Jews".

Then there are some more badges listed, for special cases if you will :/

> That's one lesson people don't seem to learn from this era-- its the mechanism by which a peaceful, tolerant society (as germany had) becomes fascist.

Having read Sebastian Haffner's autobiographical book about the time from 1914 to 1933, I have a somewhat different picture, in which both WW1 and the inflation played a huge role in fertilizing the soil for craving adventure and outside stimuli (that craving for example expressed in the sports craze in the 20s). The Nazis didn't have to transform all of society -- they just needed enough people willing to be brutal enough on their behalf, that's what they had and that's how they took over. I would say the Nazis chiseled more than they transformed, and then the others either rationalized and became willing Nazis, or were unwillingly in their power. But by the time resistance seemed like a good idea, it was pretty much too late, people could only save their souls by standing up, or save their lives by fleeing, but not really change the course of things. When that was still possible, people just looked on and hoped for the best. Seems familiar, huh?

Maybe my impression is totally wrong, but that's my impression. Here are some quotes form said book (the English title is "Defying Hitler")

> A generation of young Germans had become accustomed to having the entire content of their lives delivered gratis, so to speak, by the public sphere, all the raw material for their deeper emotions…Now that these deliveries suddently ceased, people were left helpless, impoverished, robbed, and disappointed. They had never learned how to live from within themselves, how to make an ordinary private life great, beautiful and worth while, how to enjoy it and make it interesting. So they regarded the end of political tension and the return of private liberty not as a gift, but as a deprivation. They were bored, their minds strayed to silly thoughts, and they began to sulk.

[..]

> To be precise (the occasion demands precision, because in my opinion it provides the key to the contemporary period of history): it was not the entire generation of young Germans. Not every single individual reacted in this fashion. There were some who learned during this period, belatedly and a little clumsily, as it were, how to live. they began to enjoy their own lives, weaned themselves from the cheap intoxication of the sports of war and revolution, and started to develop their own personalities. It was at this time that, invisibly and unnoticed, the Germans divided into those who later became Nazis and those who would remain non-Nazis.

and:

> Indeed, behind these questions are some very peculiar, very revealing, mental processes and experiences, whose historical significance cannot yet be fully gauged These are what I want to write about. You cannot get to grips with them if you do not track them down to the place where they happen: the private lives, emotions, and thoughts of individual Germans…There, in private, the fight is taking place in Germany. You will search for it in vain in the political landscape, even with the most powerful telescope. Today the political struggle is expressed by the choice of what a person eats and drinks, whom he loves, what he does in his spare time, whose company he seeks, whether he smiles or frowns, what pictures he hangs on his walls. It is here that the battles of the next world war are being decided in advance. That may sound grotesque, but it is the truth.

(Almost a perfect Jared Diamond reference..)

This is a substantive riff on the original article that provides food for thought. When it only talked about the fact that gays were killed in the holocaust it was accruing upvotes. But now that it also talks about he mechanism by which groups are smeared it is rapidly accruing down votes. I'm guessing because of the defense of gun owners. If HN is a place where substantial discussion is warranted, I've given ammunition to a substantial discussion. IF HN is a filter bubble, where only politically correct perspectives are tolerated, then my post will fade into nothingness as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking. Why should I invest time in a community if only certain thoughts are tolerated by that community?

Oh, and this whole idea of "thought crime" is a mechanism by which prejudice is fostered and spread-- you saw it in Germany, Orwell wrote about it. We have it in action here in the USA... and on this site.

Surely you know where this will lead. In fact, anecdotally it already looks like this site has lost %80 of its participation... it used to be you needed hundreds of uproots to get to the front page, now only 10 will do it.

I downvoted you because I frankly think implying that gun owners, men, Christians and gamers are persecuted in the United States (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same radical feminists you claim to oppose.

Why does persecution have to reach epic proportions before it becomes safe to acknowledge it?

Facing disadvantages and being persecuted are differences of a significant magnitude.

Besides, we're currently in the middle of several moral panics. Most of them come and go, but it feels like things are really bad when you're in the midst of them.

>facing disadvantages v. being persecuted

Seems like a distinction stemming from perspective. Are women persecuted or do the face disadvantages in the workplace?

Firstly, we must draw an important subtle distinction between oppression and persecution. Oppression implies a deliberate and prolonged attack on a group's rights, whereas persecution implies some active vendetta against a group on top of that, beyond merely enforcing the oppressed status.

As for your question, that strongly depends on which jurisdiction we're talking about. Where the United States is concerned, I would say the latter is true, but not the former.

To imply that Christians or gun owners are in the least bit persecuted in the US is stretching the meaning of the word to include "People expressing different opinions to me".

Just because legislation that you do not agree with is implemented (Checks on individuals before they can buy a gun, or rights of homosexuals to get married for example) this is not persecuting a group.

To imply so is disingenuous.

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered. Instead, you both thigh-slap about how silly it is for Christians to feel persecuted. My question still stands.

Secondly, I am no Christian. Indeed, I personally feel that religious beliefs of any flavor are a mental illness.

Thirdly, I am agun owner. I advocate the ownership of guns as a check/balance on the central government. I accept the gun deaths that accompany ownership (accidents, suicide, murders) as I believe the benefit far out ways the cost. I believe this because of what I have seen in countries where there are severe limitations on personal gun ownership. For me it comes down to this: when weapons enter the equation, you are either a Player or you are Furniture. I choose to be a Player.

Fourth and finally, I believe in complete free speech, no exceptions, and as such I in no way wish to limit you, or any person's expression. Still, any time people choose to scoff instead of respond, I can't help but feel they need to return to their seat and pay better attention in class before raising their hands.

First off, I asked a question about what the tipping point was in regards to "persecution", a question neither you nor vezzy-fnord have answered.

I did below.

I've both bought a gun and gotten married. It definitely took much more government paperwork and time to buy the gun.

However, I'm not sure the bureaucracy surrounding either really comes close to "persecution".

Buying a gun really only requires filling out a tiny slip, it took me less than 5 minutes and was not invasive in the least. Maybe this varies between states.

Does that tiny slip get filed somewhere, indexed and archived, triggering an invisible trawl through your personal record? Maybe it's the behind-the-scenes stuff that has gun enthusiasts worried.

Getting married certainly does end up getting filed somewhere, etc. It's part of the public record. So does having a child, or buying a house. Advertisers pay good money to figure out who new parents are. Voters are also registered, as are drivers.

Who should be more concerned about the behind-the-scenes stuff, gun enthusiasts, newlyweds, new parents, homeowners, registered voters, or drivers? And why?

Who should be more concerned about the behind-the-scenes stuff, gun enthusiasts, newlyweds, new parents, homeowners, registered voters, or drivers? And why?

I suppose it depends on what threats you consider realistic.

Well, you brought it up as something "that [might have] gun enthusiasts worried." Why do you think they consider it realistic enough to mention?

Is it because they don't know just how much data mining governments and companies do to us, and prefer to limit themselves to issues that might reduce their enthusiasm?

In which case it's not really a meaningful objection, since it's true of nearly every hobby. I'm sure that back in the early 1900s some ham radio operators objected to licensing requirements and power limits placed on them. That doesn't mean those were unreasonable restrictions.

This varies a lot between states. Your description sun's like NH?

Your question is unanswerable. By most definitions (see "Defining Persecution" at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1941006 as one example):

> Demonstrating that harm has occurred is not, in and of itself, sufficient to establish that the conduct in question amounts to persecution. Rather, the harm experienced must meet the requisite level of severity.

Things already need to be serious before it can be labeled persecution, which means that any persecution is "safe to acknowledge".

The problem is, "persecution" has a many lay meanings, including "any negative social consequence". Felons, for example, face social negative social consequences even after their sentence is over. Free speech and free association require that some free speech leads to negative social consequences. Someone who stands on the street corner and advocates the return of miscegenation laws will likely get a cold shoulder from others, and may describe themselves as being persecuted for their beliefs. That doesn't mean it fits the sort of persecution described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution . Or at http://z9.io/2005/04/14/debian-sarge-php4-and-apache2-why-do... we see someone saying "Debian Sarge, PHP4 and Apache2.. why do you persecute me?", where "persecute" is not meant in the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses have been persecuted for not following participating in flag pledges.

If we go with that lay definition of persecution then clearly some forms of persecution are not only acceptable but encouraged. However, that definition is mostly meaningless and unactionable. Just because the local golf club members feel persecuted because they the city law prevents them from getting enough water to keep the grass green doesn't mean they are a persecuted social group, even if others in the town chastise them for wasting water during a drought. Using that very broad definition we can see that extremely few types of persecution end up with death camps. Or for that matter, rarely grow at all.

"I frankly think implying that jews are persecuted in this country (which was the implication) makes you just as laughable as the same communists you claim to oppose."

Of course you downvote me, you're a bigot and I'm your target victim. You advocated my persecution, and in this case, despite providing a substantive comment you downvoted me-- an act that works to silence me-- because not only are you a bigot you are anti-intellectual.

Thanks at least for admitting it.

> as I am silenced for the crime of critical thinking

I love this sort of "If I lose, I called it, so I'm actually right!" hedging.

The implication is, of course, that rather than you perhaps being wrong, that your unpopular opinion is actually 'critical thinking' and your opponents are all incapable of it.

Oh, I could be wrong, and if that were the case, people would have arguments that point out the errors in my thinking.

However, consistently, on Hacker News, and among leftists, instead of making arguments that refute my arguments with logic, facts or reason, they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally.

Since you can't argue to the point and you did argue to the person, and you downvoted to try and silence my opinion-- yes, I think it's a slam dunk that it's an inability to engage in critical thinking.

Also, I have been on this site since around 2007, and so I have many years of experience to draw from... the left teaches anti-intellectualism as much, or more, than the religious right, and it is pervasive on this site.

That you smugly said what you did above is proof positive of it. But you'll never see it, because you've been trained to be unable to see it.

> they choose to do like you do-- and attack me personally.

You are being a hypocrite. By saying "downvoters aren't critically thinking", you are attacking people who haven't even responded yet. You're setting up a pre-response trigger. It's an immature, adolescent way to debate. If you were a good at critical thinking as you say you are, you'd see that and understand why.

> you downvoted to try and silence my opinion

Are you psychic? HN doesn't provide a mechanism to see the modders, up or down, and I usually don't downmod and respond, myself. I do one or the other. So much for your 'slam dunk'.

> That you smugly said what you did

You really aren't above this 'personal attack' thing, you know. I actually attacked what you were saying, not you personally, pointing out your hedging. Even if you took it as 'personal attack', that you chide me for doing so, then do it yourself? Hypocrisy.

Your 'critical thinking' is rife with errors, so your pre-response strike against people who disagree with you is entirely unwarranted, and a very non-critical-thinking way to conduct your argument.

More name calling, no argument. Plus you also lied about what I said, which shows you feel you need to deny reality, which means you know you're being anti-intellectual.

Thanks for proving my point.