News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF. Parent comment

Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by pmoriarty on Friday August 18, 2017 @11:22AM (#15046979)
Not only that, he then went on to complain[1] about the removal of "beautiful" Confederate statues, effectively siding with the Neo-Nazis, who were in Charlottesville specifically to protest the removal of a Confederade statue.

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.

[1] - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40965029

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by judah on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:30PM (#15048109)
Arguing against removal of Confederate statues is not siding with neo-nazis.

(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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by foota on Saturday August 19, 2017 @04:17AM (#15052315)
Nit: it does quite literally mean you are on the same side as the neo-nazis, at least in that case.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google's stance on neo-Nazis 'dangerous', says EFF by vim_wannabe on Friday August 18, 2017 @01:09PM (#15047938)
Ah, yes, complaining about the removal of statues is siding with neo-nazis now.
[ Parent | on HN ]