You're putting words in their mouth and then arguing with those words. Seeing as you're responding to a single sentence, this is an impressive amount of extrapolation.
You're suggesting that right-wing white males are an oppressed minority in the USA. It takes a serious amount of ignorance and mental gymnastics to sincerely believe this. I suspect you are trolling, but if you're not then I don't know what would convince you otherwise because the amount of information you'd have to discard or ignore to reach this conclusion is alarming.
If you're just going to lie, you could at least pick something everyone isn't versed in. As opposed to implying the US has no oppressed minorities, which is by now so well and extensively documented to be the case nobody sane will take you seriously after reading you say it isn't.
It happens on very few of my comments, usually when I'm a bit too forceful while pointing out something that can be construed as politically left-leaning. Thank you :)
White vs Black was something that was ripping the United States apart since the arrival of the first slave on the continent, so I'd have a hard time crediting the KGB for it.
What could you possibly mean by 'no chance for consensus'?
Let me get this straight. One group of people has all the political power in an area. That group of people repressed another group. The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
To me, it seems that if you want to avoid conflict and strife, the first group should immediately give in to those demands. Those demands are just, and the status quo is indefensible, and the first group has the political power to solve the problem, and anyone obstructing the immediate implementation of those demands is the one causing strife.
Since they have a monopoly on power, the onus is on them to make the society they built just, not on the people they are repressing.
>The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment? You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems...trans vs woman, democrats vs republican, man vs woman, white vs black, vegans vs meat-eater those are some of the other ones. You always hit your nearest made up "enemy" not the one thirteen steps away. Keep the dump's entertained with problems so they don't see the bigger picture, and at one point they start to entertain themself with made up problems.
Segregationists, and their various flavors of racist allies of the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. I don't really care which party they belong to. They had a monopoly on power, they built an unjust system, and I will firmly put all arising strife on their unwillingness to treat people of other races as human beings.
> Who is that? The Citizens or the establishment?
African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right? The KGB operated between 1954 to 1991, so I have to assume that whatever black versus white 'conflict' you are talking about is somewhere in that time period.
> You have much deeper problems in your society, and it's not skin-color, that's just the game to distort you (yes and the police) from the real problems
I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains, train cars, classrooms, and suburbs, your society's problems include skin color. They include it incredibly prominently.
Are you arguing about real issues that real people faced? Or are we going down some weird, theoretical rabbit hole? I have no patience for the latter.
>They had a monopoly on power, they built an unjust system, and I will firmly put all arising strife on their unwillingness to treat people of other races as human beings.
Had? Have, is the right word or did that changed i the last 2 month? But yeah absolutely, human are humans and everyone has the same right and has to be treated the same way.
>African Americans during the broad civil rights era. You are talking about the KGB, right?
I was talking about that one of the KGB strategies was to heat already existing conflicts up to the point where no consensus is possible, that just works in democratic systems where consent is the ~only way to achieve something.
>I assure you, when your society has no-n_____ water fountains
Look that's the problem, i NEVER said that skin color or religion (especially muslims...remember the hate after 2001, but also jews) is not a problem in your country, again for me there is no race just humans. But ATM it's white vs black etc, that's the opposite what Martin Luther King said like "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that", atm your countrymen create borders between community's which creates a downward spiral, and the profiteer is for sure not "we the people" but we the media and the party (the two same ones) which can profit out of it and in the meantime easily maintain the status quo (both the democrats and the republicans...they have the exact same goal, they just play different so you have the illusion of choice).
> the first black slaves were brought over by the ethnic group we now call Latinx.
No, they weren't. Latinx (or the equivalent combination of Latino/Latina) is not synonymous with Hispanic, and more to the point, even if it was, the slavers were (by modern American terms) racially White ethnic Hispanics, so it wouldn't change the White/Black racial dynamic.
That’s some pretty impressive mental gymnastics. It’s likely that the crews of those first Portuguese and Spanish slave ships included plenty of mixed Hispanic/North Africans too.
By the way North Africans raided as far as the south coast of England in order to capture slaves of their own.
This is simultaneously a fair point (the Portugeuse were the first slavers) and a miscategorization (puritans/white european invaders were quite racist and violent from the moment they landed on Plymouth rock and began stealing from / killing Natives).
This pro-slavery attitude was huge from you people.
Black people enslaved other blacks in Africa, Latinx shipped them to America where the natives were also enslaving each other. White people put an end to all 3 of these activities, everywhere. This is historical fact.
Welsh, british, scottish, all the same. All three groups were slavers, both of Africans and of the Irish, not to mention countless other Asian cultures.
You rewrite history, white wsshing it to make yourselves out to be the great white saviors despite having participated for many centuries.
“Hey the Africans sold their enemies to us so it must be Ok.”
I know people are going to mad about this because tech boys loooove him but google it he's a eugenics supporter and endorses far-right race philosophers.
On Gab daily. Never seen a single Nazi. Seen some unorthodox/thought-provoking views for sure, but that's part of why I visit and one of the same reasons I visit HN.
Andrew Anglin, operator of The Daily Stormer is famously one of the biggest 'influencers' to move to the original Gab platform, and he remains fairly active there. Gab's front page has been tuned over time to be less egregious, but I have been poking around the site for a long time and remember when even in logged out view the home page would be a lot of altright / TDS type of posts filled with general /pol/ tier takes.
And though the main feed / explore page is not quite as openly tilted toward that audience today, the 'groups' features not one but three QAnon groups, which appear to be some of the largest on the site.
In short - if you've been looking at Gab's content since their inception, it be hard not to see activity from some prominent altright/stormer users, and there remains a large quantity of both weird political extremism and general cultism promoted at the top level of the site.
So what? If you happen to see an obnoxious Nazi posting, simply mute them and move on with your life.
Personally, I usually don't even do that, because it's useful to occasionally comment on their posts (which are a tiny, tiny fraction of Gab's content) to point out to them that Nazi totalitarian tyranny is in no way preferable to socialist/Communist totalitarian tyranny.
I wonder if anyone here has ever even seen either site, because the vast majority of the comments here are simply regurgitating national media talking points about the sites - and those talking points bear zero relationship to reality.
America used to be about the free exchange of ideas.
There are a handful of Nazis on Gab, as I'm sure there are a handful of Nazis on HN. One of the nicest things about Gab is its Mute feature, which allows you to easily to never see the really obnoxious idiots again.
As for myself, I hate all totalitarians - Nazis are no worse than Communists, but they are no better, either. (Arguably, as horrible and inexcusable as the Nazis were, by the numbers they are in the flyweight class for genocide in the 20th century compared to their Communist counterparts...)
Ok, give this some thought for minute: you’re a normal person going about your business everyday and sure, you have your personal views. Let’s say you strongly believe in having your own network infrastructure vs going to the cloud. It’s better for your business than cloud XYZ, which will eat into your profits too quickly. Now, imagine having a rational discussion about this topic on HN and it makes you feel good that you’re able to project your thoughts in a positive manner. However, the next day you find out that you’re banned. All of the sudden, your views are being titled “extremist” as if you’re against the society if you’re not hosting your app in the cloud.
Would you say that this kind of a pushback on your views, which to me don’t seem extreme, have any significance in actually making you an extremist?
> The point is there’s nothing inherently “far right”...
The point being made is that the application of censorship on some platforms results in a uneven distribution of users with such views in platforms that don’t due to self selection.
If the entire population has an X% rate of folk with extreme views, and 0% are allowed on platforms A, B, C... but platform D allows it.
The regardless of the overall distribution of users you cannot deny that the rate of folk with extreme views on D will be more than the 0% on A, B, and C.
Like, it’s not a matter of opinion; that’s just a fact.
So it’s fair to say Gab has higher proportion of users with extreme views simply by allowing them; that is, it is inherently controversial to even allow controversial discourse on your platform.
I don’t care if you don’t like that; that’s irrelevant. It’s simply not correct to assert that the platform is not to blame; when different platforms enforce different rules you get different content on different platforms.
It’s the same for porn, under age users, pictures of dogs ffs.
If you allow it, you’ll get it... and if you do when no one else does, you’ll get attention for being the “only
Platform with [whatever]”.
The argument to here is about if the content is good or not; whether Gab is “far right” or “far left” is just arbitrary bs labels that distracts from the actual discussion of the content itself.
> Protection of offensive speech is a bedrock classical liberal view.
So is the protection of personal freedom, and yet no one claims we shouldn't put people in jail. Protection of speech is not an absolute principle of liberalism; just one principle that is weighed against others. Plus, in this case, most of the speech banned by Twitter is protected and can't land you in jail. It is also not at all a principle of liberalism that any publisher must publish any speech. Quite the opposite, the reputation of institutions like newspapers and universities are entirely predicated on their freedom to filter out and not disseminate certain things. The liberal view is that institutions should be able to build their reputation by choosing which speech they want to disseminate and amplify.
> Tech's obsession with hating on Gab/Parler is based upon on the identity of the people in them, not on whether offensive or not-sanctioned speech should be allowed in general.
Because it’s often one and the same: the “identity” of the people on them are the ones spreading hate speech and disinformation. You don’t need to sugar coat it as “not-sanctioned speech”, nobody is banning anyone for saying “hey I support Donald trump!’ They are banning people for saying “trans people will burn in hell” and “the Jewish cabal that run the world are eating babies and that’s why Biden stole the election and the democrats will be executed on TV by trump”.
Unfortunately this kind of speech comes from mostly one side of the political spectrum. Yes, I’m sure you can cherry pick random left-leaning Twitter users saying dumb things, but it’s not quite on the same level as you can find on ParlerWatch[1] for example.
Two irrelevant niche forums banning you does not make an argument.
Go to /r/conservative and say “I support Biden” and you will be banned within a minute. Does that mean liberals are being brutally silenced by oppressive moderators and therefore we have no choice but to helplessly become radicalised by racists?
That is exactly the point. People that define their identity by feeling superior because of their race, religion or their sexuality are not the kind of people that are known for their differentiated, non problematic comments.
People have suggested re-education camps or other "deprogramming" for Trump voters, including elected Democratic representatives.
And yeah, it is often one and the same. Don't remember who it was, but someone said that the problem with free speech is that you'll spend most of your time defending scoundrels.
As far as hate speech goes, people literally lecture that people who happen to be born like me are "born into not being human", say the lives of people like me don't matter. We are told we should not speak and yet that our silence is violence. Trainings for "diversity" across a wide range of institutions have started segregating along racial lines, and the list goes on. During the Grievance Studies hoax, for example, one of their papers was sent back because it was too sympathetic and not sociopathic enough. Said paper advocated making white students sit on the floor and putting them in chains as a learning experience.
Yet open racism is fine, because the target ethnic group and sexual orientation are acceptable to the activist class.
Likewise, people who get kicked out for "transphobia" will often not be people who hate transpeople in any proper sense, but have policy disagreements where there are no win-win solutions. Yet anything but being completely on board with the activist class's 100% no limits pro-trans policy agenda is "phobia". The claim holds up as well as wet paper.
How about gender affirming treatment for kids who cannot physically know what sexuality properly is because they haven't been through puberty? Someone's a bit off their gender role? Tomboy, nah, they're a boy, time to stuff them full of hormones. Concerns that this just might be insane are again, labeled hate.
Said cultists insist on mantras of trans(wo-)men are (wo-)men in an explicit denial of biology that the best of our medicine can't alter: We just craft a facade that eases dysphoria to care for our fellow human beings. As Buck Angel put it: "I use testosterone to masculinize myself so I feel more like me." He's routinely called a transphobe.
This is basically the biology equivalent of flat eartherism or young earth creationism, but not subscribing to the creed is stamped hate speech. The mantra wouldn't even be necessary if its claim was actually true. It's even worse than flat eartherism, since a human can't at a glance confirm that the Earth is indeed round, but TWAW/TMAM asks us to baldly deny the input of our eyes in everyday life.
Hate and disinformation do not at all come "mostly from one side of the political spectrum" - science denial in the "party of science" is alive and well.
So one is from a leftist journal condemning their own (thanks for the context! I’m glad the leftists are policing themselves from violence it seems!) and the other is a clip? What about the multiple paragraphs about trans people?
> nobody is banning anyone for saying “hey I support Donald trump!’
If that person says they don't believe the results of the election they are. If that person says that they don't believe the vaccines or lockdowns don't work, they are.
Twitter, Facebook, and tech in general have lost this card to play. They've been banning people for things that have nothing to do with racism and everything to do with them being not-Democrat.
In a world where 95+% of tech companies are Democrats in the U.S., it's easy to believe all the head-nodding and congratulations that your views are the only morally correct ones. It's also easy to deliberately avoid any sense of nuance or context because that would require overcoming cognitive dissonance that half the country isn't a bunch of racists.
> If that person says they don't believe the results of the election they are. If that person says that they don't believe the vaccines or lockdowns don't work, they are.
The political spectrum of tech is pretty centrist. Leaning fiscal-conservative, even.
It's the right wing of American politics that has swung so far to the right of where it used to be that it's made tech look Democratic in contrast. If tech employees are supporting Democrats, it's because the alternative has come to look insane.
Because he routinely harasses other trans people and has a coterie of cis people chomping at the bit to bully trans kids he retweets and mocks. He's not called that for the quote you chose. I think similarly the rest of your points are warped and exaggerated to fit your view that you are under siege by "open lunatics" because you're tired of certain people you find undesirable having a collective voice all of a sudden.
