430 karma · joined January 13, 2022
> slamming anyone down as ignorant is not constructive.
It is when they are reducing it to a he said/she said instead of, I don't know, providing evidence? Begging the question is a way to reduce the credibility of an argument with zero evidence. It's far less constructive than my reply to it, but yet people have taken more issue with my reply.
The fact that you assumed I was talking about targeting conservatives just goes to show that they happen to be the ones rocking the boat with violent rhetoric, which occasionally gets backed up by actions.
Yes.
> vague "stocastic terrorism" arguments that are used to justify censoring pretty much any culturally conservative speech.
The arguments aren't vague when mass killers have mentioned right-wing talking heads in their manifestos and suicide notes. Maybe conservatives (people of all political affiliations actually) should watch what they say instead of crying when they face consequences for their speech, no?
The article I linked has as many citations of primary sources as you could ever want.
The parent comment seeks to poison the well by casting doubt on the claims that KF is a hate site and pushed people to suicide. It is well-documented and there is no disputing it. Instead of "begging the question", just perform a quick Google search. That way you can:
1. Inform yourself. 2. Not cast a shadow of doubt on easily provable claims.
That's exactly what these people did by getting Cloudflare to take action. Kiwifarms still has the "liberty" to host their hate site elsewhere, which just so happens to be the freedom-loving nation of Russia.
If you can understand the distinction above, you should be able to understand the difference with Taylor Lorenz vs Libs of Tiktok. Unless you're operating in bad faith or just trying to be a contrarian in which case, more power to you.
Do you really think that doxxing and harassing schoolteachers is the same as doxxing someone who goads others into suicide?
"Kiwifarms was taken down by the Twitter mob"
or
"Kiwifarms was just freedom of speech"
Those people either have clearly never visited the site, or are operating in bad faith. I would visit Kiwifarms occasionally to catch up on obscure drama, get updates on Chris Chan, or just look at the deranged posts from users on the site.
Kiwifarms had always been instrumental in coordinating attacks on people, not just "mean words" but swatting, doxxing, getting people fired, mass well-poisonings (aka "cancel culture"). It was not only a cesspool, but a source of what would probably be called "active measures" in the 20th century.
As for Joshua Moon, he has never been the voice of reason beyond damage control for the site. When eyes are on the site you best believe he's trying his best to control optics. But even then, he's such a deranged psycho that his letter to the press on why Keffal's was "targeting him" used the "Jewish parentheses" and multiple slurs. Taking his arguments in good faith isn't playing centrist, it's extending an olive branch to a holocaust-denying antisemite, whose hobby is running a site that bullies trans people into suicide.
I'm sure it's because Hacker News has a contrarian streak, but people are so willing to buy into this idea that free speech is being persecuted online that they are willing to defend KiwiFarms. If you haven't visited the site before, I implore you to listen to the people who have for years. What KF engaged in was not protected speech.
Again, you ignore the actual realities of politics. Obama promised to codify Roe v Wade his first day in office. He then refused to, since it was better for democrats to keep it on as a political bargaining chip.
Now, what are US liberals supposed to do? Not vote and lose? Vote for the Republicans and see abortion criminalized federally? No, they have to vote for the Democrats again and maybe hope they finally try to pass their agenda. There is a false choice presented. It was urgent to the voters, but not to the politicians.
For example, Colorado and other states have legalized weed. They don't need to wax poetic about separation of powers etc to defend their position, because everyone understands that this is exactly what the Federal system was designed for. To allow states to augment their economies and taxation systems as they see fit (going back to colonial era reasoning).
Throughout US history the most vocal proponents of states rights have been those who attempt to limit personal liberties. They first use the constitution as a jumping board, arguing that "it's not explicitly stated in the constitution!" because the constitution is limited and vague (The founding fathers intentionally kicked the can down the road for racial issues). Technically, the regressives are right here, but they are hiding behind legalism to protect their abhorrent viewpoints.
"If it's so popular then just vote on it then!"
Unfortunately it's not so simple. At the Federal level, a filibuster proof majority is required in the Senate (non-proportional) as well as full control of all three branches of government (president and congress are also non-proportional, although in a different way). So it's incredibly difficult to pass overwhelmingly popular legislature/amendments in the US. Which is precisely why we have seen most of our civil rights gains over the last 50 years be accomplished through the court system. At the state level, there is no filibuster (mostly) and so there is no mechanism for a minority to halt legislation at the state level.
This kind of game has been played out for the last 200 years. Yes rules are important, but the reactionaries in US history have typically "meta-gamed" the flaws in our system that were overlooked by the founding fathers in order to preserve horrendous practices. That's not to say that there is no benefit to our checks and balances, but when it comes to things like civil rights, gay marriage, and abortion, the opposing side is mostly meta-gaming and exploiting checks and balances negatively.
To sum up, corruption in the third world occurs by circumventing the laws. Corruption in the US occurs when you put someone in a position of power to interpret the laws the way you want them to. If you need sources, I can provide.
> No other developed country has approached the abortion issue by saying "pfft the rules don't matter."
The Roe decision was not made on "rules don't matter" it was an extension of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. The overturning of it was made on interpretations of common law going back to the 14th century, the main point of argument being that there was "no innate protection of abortion as a fundamental right".
> The rule of law exists precisely because of the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains.
Assumptions galore are made here. First off, the rule of law exists because of power heirarchies. People create laws to protect THEMSELVES and THEIR interests. Monarchs didn't create laws for the benefit of everyone, neither do dictators. Furthermore many laws exist to augment our empathy. Speeding laws exist because many people are incapable of comprehending the danger they could pose to someone else. Animal cruelty is illegal because the majority of people understand it's wrong, and we will force that wisdom upon others who don't.
> the temptation to think with our "empathy" instead of our brains
Where do you think empathy comes from if not our brains? Empathy is a tool of reason, not orthogonal to it. Would you praise someone for only using one of their senses? Or would you think they are ridiculous for constructing a worldview based only around their sense of smell? Thinking that empathy is somehow a trait to be overcome and not a tool is the same as eating soap regardless of how it tastes, because it "smells good". Empathy allows us to consider the conditions and experiences of those outside of our immediate sphere of influence. In a democracy this is especially invaluable, since individuals make decisions that influence society at large.
The inability to see outside of your every day experience is not logical or rational, it's the exact opposite. Empirical evidence can be a great tool for analyzing macro trends, but empathy allows us to better understand the causality.
It's not legal to secede from the US, we fought an entire war because it was not a right of the states. Most of what you say ignores the reality of our political system, voter suppression, who draw districts, filibuster, etc. Which makes it more difficult than "just vote". Which is why the Republicans went the route of Supreme Court justice appointment, so they could legislate via the court.
My second paragraph expands upon the reason and justice aspect.
Also the current constitutional crisis we are in demolishes the legalist justification anyways. States being able to ban travel to other states for abortion, states allowing private citizens to sue others for getting abortions in other states. States limiting access to websites that are legal in other states and limiting the first amendment.
Because repealing Roe was done on an ideological basis it has caused a cascade of problems around how much power states should have, one that has been largely settled since the Civil War.
Our early industrialization contributed massively to global warming. It allowed us to become extremely wealthy, but also we incurred a "carbon debt" to the rest of the planet, since our atmosphere is a shared resource.
Now that others are trying to industrialize, we should repay that "carbon debt" to offset the cost of allowing them to industrialize cleanly, since we had the benefit early on of not having to worry about our impact on the environment. The gains that we made early on were at everyone's expense.
It's a game of cat and mouse. Like in the Lee Atwater video I linked, the arguments for racism have become so abstract that it requires intimate knowledge of reactionary talking points to call them out. Red-lining, means-testing, austerity, and voter ID laws come to mind. These policies seem innocuous at first but they are an extension of Jim Crow into the modern day. My frustration with you in the other thread has been trying to point out that these tools are often defended under the guise of "election security" and "states rights" but are just tools to continue suppressing minorities.
Furthermore, segregation wasn't ended until a full decade later when the federal government started withholding funding for schools in the South.
> If it was a success this wouldn’t be a discussion. You can’t legislate things better. What we can say is since the 60s, there are more drugs, more single parents, reduced cultural strength, and supposedly still lots of racism. It doesn’t seem better.
Non-sequitur. How is a law from 1964 to combat Jim Crow supposed to account for a concerted effort by the US government to ship drugs into the US during the cold war, and then hardest criminalize the drugs used by minorities, then pass the crime bill under the Clinton administration and militarize the police and expand prisons massively?
I must repeat myself, your desire to play "devil's advocate" or whatever is happening, causes you to appear naive or willingly ignorant. Saying that the Civil Rights Act was the cause for African American drug use and incarceration is laughable and ignores the drug war started under Nixon, ramped up under Reagan, and given sharper teeth by Clinton. How is that argument supposed to be taken seriously?
Did the CRA usher in a post-racial utopia? No. To claim that it was ineffective because other factions in the government continued to undermine it is silly.
I see no issue with states having the ability to make laws that contradict the federal government, so long as it is an expansion of rights. Allowing states to constrict the rights of its citizens will always result in a tyranny of the majority. Again, I don't care about the mechanisms I care about the outcomes. "States Rights" have always been a thing, but it is only invoked as a rallying cry when trying to pass legislature that goes against the moral grain of the majority of the country. Californians don't need to say "States Rights" to pass weed and immigration laws, it is understood that they can mind their business. Southern States need to cry about "States Rights" during slavery, segregation, abortion, and now voter suppression, because their views are nationally unpopular and considered backwards my a majority of Americans.
Again, your inability (or unwillingness) to understand the difference between a state increasing net freedom and encroaching on human rights is the source of my frustration.
> Regardless, the condescension is think in this conversation is breathtaking
Whatever you perceive as condescension is because you have so far seemed incapable of understanding that my entire point has been about the outcomes rather than the process of legislation. I don't care who has what power if that power is only being used for negative means. Do you really care about the structure of government if the outcome is bad for everyone? Your inability to reconcile that fact leads me to believe that you are either naive or hold reactionary viewpoints that you wont explicitly list. After all you have said that you think the 1964 Civil Rights act was overall bad. There is no "both sides" to human rights, that is what you continuously fail to understand and why I assume you are either naive/uneducated or a reactionary.
> I don’t need to actually take stances to have discussions. I enjoy mulling over ideas and considering others viewpoints. Unfortunately, this has devolved to name calling.
Except you're incapable of factoring in the real-world harm that occurs to people. Politics is not something that you can look at like a mechanical system to be arranged in any sense. Certain arrangements cause untold human suffering.
You also immediately referred to The 1619 Project pejoratively as "Marxist". You are defensive of reactionary policies like abortion bans and hesitant when it comes to anything left-of-center like the Civil Rights Act or a history book on Slavery. YOU have shown me your bias and only take offense when I ascribe it to you. If that's name calling then show some objectivity.
Whatever partisanship has come through on my side comes through in the defense of human rights. I despise both parties as corporatist and would vote for whoever is trying to maximize human liberty. However in the current paradigm the Republican party seeks to restrict it more than the Democratic party, although I would consider both to be fascist.
> Such as the above ^ states are closer to a democracy in the US. The federal government is a republic, state governments are closer to and can be a direct democracy (e.g. Californians propositions).
This may have been error on my part. I was using "anti-democratic" as shorthand to mean "harms minority groups", a democracy is better for the majority in-group, but allows them to have tyranny over minority groups. A republic may restrict the majority group from total control, but it allows minority groups to have some protection. Again, I don't care if a system is a republic or a democracy, I care about how that power is used.
Not a personal attack, it was just an observation.
> You realize this was a democratic rallying cry until the 60s? Democrats were the ones trying to limit who votes, hanging, and burning towns.
I don't like the Democratic party either, but this ignores the party switch that occurred during the Nixon election. If you want to learn more about the Southern Strategy look up Barry Goldwater and Republican campaign strategist Lee Atwater. "States Rights" has traditionally been the rallying cry of racist regressives, regardless of party affiliation.
> I encourage you to read source material. What I’m reading from you is exceedingly partisan and not really a balanced view or even historical view; it’s mostly propaganda.
I don't like either mainstream US party, also you don't know anything about the history literature I consume. The primary sources I consume inform my views. Here's one from the mouth of Lee Atwater, the aforementioned strategist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ
> Ah that 1619 project… the Marxist rewrite of American history.
I have never read the 1619 project. I mostly read books written about the specific histories of commodities like lumber or tobacco or oil, but if you know anything about US history you understand why Slavery is so important and how it shaped our institutions and discourse. It's not "Marxist". But being so quick to dismiss a retelling of US history with slavery is a giveaway that you might be a little bit of a right-leaning reactionary. How is it any more of a rewrite than the deification of George Washington in our K-12 education?
It appears that you've exhausted your arguments at this point. You have no refutation so now you're claiming I'm biased when you are trying to make a "both sides bad" and "you're biased" argument to claim victory. You also failed to respond to my other comment in this thread because whatever stance you have taken crumbles under any scrutiny.
You are either being intellectually dishonest because you are too cowardly to take a hard stance on your regressive views, or you're just unaware of history. Either way it's not very interesting, I could have the same argument in a thousand Youtube comment sections.
After the Civil War, the role of the states was severely limited. But the famous cry of "states rights" rang out any time groups wanted to defend regressive legislature. There is a reason why the Republican party, who cling to power through anti-democratic means, constantly bitch and moan about states rights.
In 2022 does it make sense that a state like Georgia, should be able to set the rules of a Federal election? Given the history of our country where states ONLY exist because of colonial charters? There is nothing inherently unique about states other than some Englishman 400 years ago was given lease to them.
States Rights has always been an anti-democratic rallying cry, and the main mechanism that the Republican party uses to stay in control is by limiting who can vote. The outcome will be large-scale disenfranchisement of poor people and African-Americans in southern states.
After responding to a lot of your comments it seems like you don't have a great grasp of US history. A lot of it seems sanitized/centered on Civics but without an actual understanding of why the system is set up the way it is and how the power dynamics have played out under that system. I would encourage you to read about the history of the Southern US starting from the earliest days of Virginian and Carolinian tobacco plantations. If you want to understand why a lot of your arguments serve only to embolden anti-democratic reactionaries, and have been for the last 200+ years.
First leap of logic, attributing these issues to the civil rights act and not to years of systemic injustice in the US (and backlash to the civil rights act). This is like looking at the US before and after the civil war and pointing to inequality afterwards saying: "look how bad the inequality was after the civil war" due to slaves becoming sharecroppers. Do you actually think African Americans are worse off post-1964?
> Localized governance would not have had the same negative impacts.
Second leap of logic. Localized governance would have had slavery and Jim Crow laws still enacted. The reason why the Civil Rights Act was implemented at the Federal level was because it WOULD NOT have ever been implemented at the state or local level.
There is no "libertarian" solution when it comes to dealing with racism or similar conflicts. Consider any genocide, be it the Bosnian genocide or the Holocaust, etc. How do you combat that through a libertarian framework?
"Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to enforce segregation. Let the states decide."
"Well, it would be government overreach to limit their ability to do mass murder. Let the states decide."
Finally, consider why the concept of libertarianism exists in the first place. It exists to maximize personal liberty. If one person is meaningfully limiting the liberty of another, be it through violence, or economic means, ostracization, or intimidation, then wouldn't that be the BEST time for government to intervene to maximize the overall liberty of the system? I think we can all agree that the freedom to not be oppressed is more valuable than the freedom to oppress others.
There's a reason why "states rights" has typically been used to justify inequity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceau%C8%99escu#1966_de...
> I think the federal government does maximal harm anytime it passes any laws.
This is why I don't take libertarians seriously. Do you honestly think that the Civil Rights Act was maximal harm? Or the 1934 Firearms Act? Or the 14th Amendment? What a ridiculous hill to die on.
Instead we should serve to minimize harm, in which case legalizing abortion is the obvious choice, since criminalizing abortion has never decreased the number of abortions. It has only led to unsafe abortions and higher rates of infanticide.
This statement is in conflict with itself. If a red state bans abortions then they are imposing their will onto others in that state. Why is it only "imposing will" when the Federal Government decides to dictate to a state what to do?
By this logic why not let a municipality decide to ban abortion? The state shouldn't impose its will onto the people in that city. Why not let people decide at the neighborhood level, or within their houses, or at the individual level. Why not let every individual decide what is morally acceptable and abide by their own set of laws?
Trying to intellectualize the argument about who can and cant criminalize abortion ignores the hard scientific facts that we know: Criminalizing abortion does not decrease the number of abortions, only the mortality rate.
I think something like animism would be more apt. Start with a rock or a grain of sand-- how much respect should it be shown? Well one grain of sand doesn't mind being moved. But eventually if you take too many you can destroy a beach, or flatten a mountain. There is something to be said about treating everything, inanimate or not with respect. There doesn't need to be sentience or consciousness for us to be aware of our impact on our environment.
"This sounds like some hippie bs" well just like in the sand example, the negative externalities of moving sand may not be apparent at first, but over time they could lead to something like a Roko's Basilisk situation or an AI killing all humans to prevent its exploitation.