I feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social change. Remember its not "them" we need to convince and get back onto the straight and narrow, its the people listening, the children and those waiting to make their own decisions on the subject. To give those people a persecuted underdog to sympathise with isn't going to improve the next generations ways of thinking. Racism isn't like polio, we can't eradicate it because its the natural condition of homogeneous communities.

Oh and the false positives for the solution you offer are terrifying by putting the judgement into the hands of everyone. Imagine being wrongly accused of being a neo-nazi?

> I feel like love is a better tool than hate in trying to affect social change.

Please do not argue for this position based on "feelings"... In my own country, most social change was the result of war, credible threats of violence and technological progress. Natuarally, I "feel" the opposite.

Since we're discussing the US, I'd wager that's probably true there too: white culture became dominant over Native America culture because the Native Americans were wiped out, and the survivors were sent to barren reservations.

Slavery was brought to an end because its supporters were defeated in a literal war. Also, the social change that gave rise to salvery was based on the forceful kidnapping of people, too.

Worker rights are the result of strikes and often literal violence.

Were I familiar enough with the History of the US I think I could bring up other situations.

(If I'm wrong on any of these historical points I'll be happy to be corrected)

I'm not at all comfortable talking about 18th and 19th century social issues through a 21st century lens. It's not going to be productive at all.

Slavery ended in the Northern US states without any war. It's an oversimplification to say the US Civil War ended slavery--it ended the southern plantation culture that supported slavery, but that's about all it did and the effects lingered until at least the early 1960s! Had there been no war, the abolitionist argument probably would have eventually won out and social change may have been more rapid.

As far as Native Americans go, they were not viewed as noble savages as they are today. Again, in a 19th century struggle for resources, the more technologically advanced culture won out. We are looking at the actions of whites and trying to apply 20th and 21st century principles to their behavior and I don't think you can.

I just visited The Little Bighorn and did a lot of reflecting on these issues. If nothing else, I am not to blame for whatever several generations past did to others and I feel no guilt over it whatsoever. I can only control my own behavior. As an intellectual, I value the diversity of ideas as superior to the identity diversity being promulgated by those with a political axe to grind.

If anyone wants to wage war against me or my family, expect to receive an equivalent amount of force applied in response.

Where am I looking at this through a 21st century lens?

I'm just saying that in all of these cases, the strong won and imposed their will on the weak, thus suppressing their ideas and culture... Love doesn't seem to have been very important in any of this.

I don't understand your criticism, sorry.

> Had there been no war, the abolitionist argument probably would have eventually won out and social change may have been more rapid.

Maybe, I'm not comfortable speculating about such things. I don't know nearly enough to even start :)

I get your point (I'd argue that velvet revolutions are longer lasting on average though) but you can't kill racism like this. It is the default state of homogenised communities. Its not like Muscovy killing off the Great Horde and purging or exiling the Mongols so the people of Rus could rule themselves.

Racist nationalism is within every one of our children and is only expelled through individual education or positive exposure to people that are different. You cannot kill it off like you can Polio.

There are a few hundred neo-nazis in the US. There are 50,000 in Austria and they have seats on the European Parliament from Austria, Greece, and Germany, despite the much harsher rules there.

We've asked you many times not to post pure inflammation on Hacker News, so we've banned the account.

There is nothing inherently bigoted about Islam or Muslims. Neo-Nazism however...

Are you saying Islam doesn't teach Muslims to behave preferentially toward (some of) their fellow Muslims in any way?

The fact you just call them "Muslims" speaks volumes about you and your beliefs. Educate yourself #notallmuslims

You should educate yourself because what you ask for is basically what happened to jews in the third reich. Not even something toned down or a "behind the curtains" deal, by doing this you are not better than the nazi's themselves, you stoop to their level.

Insert point about the slippery slope fallacy here.

There is no debate amongst the vast majority of our society that neo-Nazis are provocateurs of hate, racism, and violence. Their beliefs (the suppression and murder of Jews, people of African descent, etc) cannot be tolerated in a civilised society.

The same debate about the role of Islam in terrorism in the Middle East and here in the US is nowhere near as settled. Therefore, I am not sure the slippery slope can be claimed here.