We all have to be careful to pay our tributes, or we'll be ostracized. Can you think of any other reason for such widespread repetition of these useless words?
(And of course I must, too. I'm speaking here from a completely abstract standpoint which shouldn't be construed as support for neo-nazis or anything vaguely like them.)
It's a bit more than that. Trump has had no problem condemning Antifa thugs and violent radical Islamists, so it is noteworthy when he equivocates on violent white supremacists, especially when some of them are claiming that he supports them.
This is par for the course for Trump, who (only when under extreme political pressure from his own party) will belatedly condemn right-wing extremists with one corner of his mouth, but give them a verbal wink with the other.
(Corollary: arguing for the removal doesn't make you a violent Antifa Communist.)
Condoleeza Rice, an African American woman with political clout and experience, has argued we should keep the statues. Others have made a strong case for removing statues of people who committed treason.
But whatever your view, this should be done legally and peacefully. No mobs tearing down statues, no pitchfork-wielding defense of statues. We live in a democracy. Exercise it.
President Trump equates the alt-right racists and the Antifa violent Communists for political purposes. President Obama equated Israelis and Palestinian terrorists for political purposes[0].
People find it hard to condemn violence when their side is doing it; they point out wrongs in the other side to soften or excuse their side's violence.
[0]: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/227669/re-cairo-speech...
Also they are used to how politicians typically do whatever necessary to appease their constituents till the horse is dead. Not saying this is bad, but that's the expectation and one he doesn't follow.
I also think he's not attuned to people's sensitivity toward race.
I said no new taxes. No new taxes. No taxes. I won't raise taxes. Taxes will not be raised. Over and over and over and over.
Not being a pol hurts him here in that he does not get that aspect of governing.
You don't just do what you think is right, you have to continuously signal your intention, otherwise your intention is suspect.
I'm not, I just think it opens up some interesting discussion as to what we can or can't discriminate against.
I'm glad there's a place like Hacker News where people who disagree can still speak to one another civilly.
Not that HN karma matters, but it's very well possible that that is already going on.
The only civic discussion forum I know of is the extropy chat email list.
Edit: Can't even post now. Saying this place is "no better than Reddit" may actually be a little insulting to Reddit.
> But what's the end game? Do service providers have to morally support those who they provide service to? Because that's how things are looking.
And what do you know. That's exactly what's happening.
Apparently the concept that providing your services to Nazi's could be thought of as evil totally escaped their thoughts.
It seems like quite a lot of people have deeply internalized the opinion that "Free Speech" is an unalloyed good, and are confused by anyone who sees this as a matter of shades of gray.
I'd argue, the people looking at things in black and white are the ones' being ridiculous here. Is child porn free speech? Is a direct threat free speech? Is copyright infringment? etc. No matter how hardcore a free speech advocate you find, there's going to be a line for them. But apparently anyone who draws their line one step to the side of that is evil and/or stupid because that is the point where the slippery slope starts, conveniently just to the side of their own line, which is on firm and solid ground.
Not accidentally letting a few slip through, not being overwhelmed by scale and doing a crappy job, but as a point of principle not following the rules you are trying to enforce.
free speech must be absolute, so yes, in this case it is black and white, sorry you don't see it that way.
There it is again. Wow, this is a really interesting social phenomenon we're seeing.
While well some people might put disclaimers on everything others are simply giving up. This started during the Trump campaign where everybody was called racist. The same with anti-semitism, especially against the current president who has a Jewish daughter. When people sling these around just as general insults and as a way to say you're wrong, then they lose their power.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/intense-emotions-and-st...
It is why I've argued that the current toxic atmosphere is adding to the problem.
I thought that was profound, but I struggle to fit overuse of the word Nazi online into the same framework, indeed I find it much easier to fit the kind of opinions and behavior that people might refer to as 'Nazi'-like into this framework:
https://lakesideconnect.com/anger-and-violence/the-link-betw...
"Gilligan notes literally dozens of synonyms for shame: feelings of being slighted, insulted, disrespected, dishonored, disgraced, disdained, slandered, treated with contempt, ridiculed, teased, taunted, mocked, rejected, defeated, subjected to indignity; or, experiencing feelings of being weak, ugly, inadequate, incompetent, a failure, losing face; and being treated as if one were insignificant or worthless.
Based on his research and other expert opinions, Gilligan concludes that “the most potent stimulus of aggression and violence, and the one that is most reliable in eliciting this response is not the frustration per se, but rather, insult and humiliation (page 32).” In other words, the most effective, and often the only way, to provoke someone to become violent is to insult them."
That got me accused of being a sympathizer.
Now imagine if it was filled with accusations of being a racist, I'd probably just be curled up in a ball under my desk waiting for the fallout to end.
What I meant was that the meaning of terms like "white supremacist" and "racist" has changed dramatically in recent years. To the point where it's very difficult to speak clearly about these types of things.
As long as we keep up this attitude, we're going to continue - and deepen our political divides.
I'm from South Carolina and after seeing all of the conflicting historical information on the internet since the Dylan Roof shooting, I decided to pick up a bunch of books on the subject from both sides. My main driving force was a strong belief that people are inherently good and I had a really hard time believing that all of my ancestors were the evil scum of the earth portrayed in assorted narratives.
As it turns out, there's some critical details left out and now that I understand the build up to the war better I can at least rest easier. It's virtually impossible to have a conversation about though.
Sure there were economic factors at play and those are interesting in their own right, but in the south the biggest thing that people fail to understand is the element of fear. I don't want to do a historic nose dive, but the 3 things you can read about to understand that better are The Haitian Massacre of 1804, John Brown, and The Cherokee Declaration of Causes.
Of those three, only John Brown is mentioned on the Wikipedia timeline. The other two provide context.
It's fascinating to read about though.
What I've found is the easiest way to find where there are holes that need to be explored is just by asking "Why?" anytime you hear of an event. If you're given history and just told, "this happened, then this happened..." the quickest way to get an answer to something is to simply ask "Why did they do that?"
That simple question will point you in the right direction more often than not. When you start answering enough of those questions, everything that happened makes a lot more sense.
Although it's popular to bash "there's no single truth" people, the more and more I look into history, the more I think that's true. Everyone has a very complicated history which is a product of what did or even didn't happen. Which results in totally different point of views and everybody see truth differently. It's truly fascinating to see how different timelines merge and separate and the today's politics and policies they cause.
Apparently the vast majority of people on the planet aren't enough to stop fascists from threatening, beating, and murdering people.
In order to actually stop people from doing those things, society would have to give up a lot of freedom to prevention through force ("stopping"). In a free society, the focus is usually on prevention through dissuasion (influence) or through reactive means (punishment, rehabilitation).
What are your thoughts on how society could physically prevent these actions while maintaining freedom for all its citizens ?
If not, I believe taking it down would do more harm than good.
Apparently the post that identified some of the bands is here: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2017/08/14/white-supremacis... Googling a few, they do seem to be strictly "national socialist" / white nationalism oriented bands.
The trouble is, this easily can lead to a very slippery slope on one hand, and charges of "double standards" on the other.
There is a lot of music that directly depicts violence (hip hop and metal in particular are loaded with violent imagery). In most cases, the people making it are not directly involved in said violence. Sometimes, the violent imagery is actually there for anti-violent reasons, even.
That being said, there is also some music is made by people with actual criminal histories and/or nasty opinions. This includes well known figures in genres such as black metal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varg_Vikernes) and hip-hop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Shmurda). Even on simple "racism", you'd definitely be excluding certain music from a well known country musician (the infamous, IMHO mostly cringe-worthy, "underground" albums from David Allan Coe.)
The few bits of music I've heard that trade heavily in white nationalism is very poor quality -- which of course seems quite the likely outcome to me. Such music is atypically metal or punk, genres which are considerably influenced by the blues. Most of the best musicians keep an open mind to all sounds; rock and roll (which historically was a fusion of "hillbilly music" and R&B) doubly so.
So I think removing these obscure white nationalist bands does more harm and good. Such makes them "more underground" and probably more appealing to those "rebelling" for whatever reason. In contrast, keeping the music around lets most people see just how awful and cringe-worthy these type of bands typically are.
Sadly that is a bold assumption that the facts do not necessarily support.
So while the "freedom to speak, whatever" side has a point, they're also being naive.
Besides - You think the other side is having a conversation in the first place?
No they are not. They're busy making in roads and winning audiences.
People thinking this is a discussion are under a mistaken impression.
It's a popularity contest. Has been for decades.
A bit off topic but how many bytes are spent on prefaces like this on responses to this topic?
I assume that the vast majority of people on the planet don't support Nazis or anything related. I find it interesting that any discussion of them has to include that line lest the speaker/writer be labeled as one (which happens quite a bit anyway but that's a different topic).