This is exactly the mechanism of people who don't _really_ want to discuss anything. They throw badly compiled thoughts at you, and laugh at you if you struggle to explain why they are foolish.
[1] - https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/963076380505370624
-- the claim that "Steve Bannon used the Facebook platform to call for the execution and public display of the corpses of two public officials" and "This is unambiguously true, Steve Bannon's Facebook page reiterated the claims the same day..."
...combined with...
-- "...for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play."
...when what Bannon wrote on Facebook was a direct quotation of what was said about him, here:
https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...
He even linked to the site where it was said.
I'm not supporting what Bannon has said here by any means, but it boggles my mind why there seems to be this recurring pattern over the last several years where rather than simply using the actual, already more than bad enough words of Trump and his gang to criticize him, instead people seem to need to hyperbole-it-up for added effect. Claiming that Bannon was unambiguously not using a provocative/hyperbolic figure of speech, but rather was literally calling for someone's execution...seems a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face (note: I am using that expression figuratively - I do not mean that people here or elsewhere are literally cutting their noses off).
To me, much of Western civilization seems like the Movie Lord of the Flies [1].
Lord of the Flies is a 1954 novel by Nobel Prize-winning British author William Golding. The book focuses on a group of British boys stranded on an uninhabited island and their disastrous attempt to govern themselves. Themes include the tension between groupthink and individuality, between rational and emotional reactions, and between morality and immorality.
Except in our case, I don't think there are going to be any adults showing up on the scene to stop us from killing each other. Sadly, real life is often not rescued at the last moment as it often is in the movies, as anyone who has read history would well know.
But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote, which was regarding the pattern of "dishonesty" when it comes to the discussion of reality.
I consider this to be a very dangerous break from our cultural history. There are many examples in history of where this road can lead, but not only are we not exhibiting caution, the overwhelming sense I get is enthusiasm at this development. One probably shouldn't judge the general public in this regard too harshly, but thinking is what the HN crowd is supposed to be good at.
Democracy need a balance and spectrum, otherwise there'll be a One Party System, and people will be rationalizing that too.
History shows us what happens when these sentiments leap out of control.
What I wrote was primarily:
> But I don't see what that has to do with what I wrote, which was regarding the pattern of "dishonesty" when it comes to the discussion of reality.
It is especially interesting when done while accusing someone else of doing the very same thing (the fascinating pink elephant situation in this thread).
Perhaps your goal is to help by even further illustrating this pattern on HN? If so, thanks!
Ironically, to me the Sartre quote better applies to your own comment than Bannon's bit.
Perhaps this is the rhetorical version of "the dress". (We seem to be stuck in general in some sort of political version of the dress.)
It is a call to violence. He is saying that these people deserved to be killed for what they have done to Trump. That in his estimation, the world would be a better place if someone were to kill Fauci and Wray as examples to the rest of Washington.
Sure, he's not really suggesting that he would actually do it, but he is certainly asking someone to.
I'm not a fan of vigilante justice in general, but at least the targets in the "punch a nazi" case have confessed, and the punishment called for isn't death.
However, I do not believe that posting "punch a nazi" is a conservative enough position given that the standard of evidence for labelling someone a nazi, in practice, is that they disagree with you on the internet.
https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/13244858190427054...
It's hard for me to believe that someone can watch that and think that Bannon is literally suggesting we put Fauci's head on a pike, when it's clearly intended to be a metaphor.
If I get exasperated with this conversation and say something like "kill me now," I guess you'd call the suicide hotline?
The phrase can be used in two contexts, one as a figure of speech. The figure of speech context does NOT have any threats involved.
Now, here is Bannon's statement:
"I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England, I’d put the heads on pikes, right, I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you’re gone – time to stop playing games."
In this context, Bannon does not seem to use it as a figure of speech, it is a threat - maybe not literally - but a threat nonetheless. That's what's wrong, and why people are angry. Not because they don't like his "ideas".
I've seen as nauseum posts accusing Drumpf and his cohorts of treason, for which the penalty is death, not to mention more recently scads of Twitterers gleefully posting photos of the mutilated corpse of Mussolini and expressing desire for the same to happen to the president and his "collaborators".
It's getting to the point where AOC's recent calls for lists of said collaborators be compiled for harassment and ostracization seem reasonable, as at least she's not calling for their execution.
We could have seen this coming several years ago with calls for violence against "Nazis" (and btw a Nazi is anyone who disagrees with me politically) but big tech looked the other way because they support it.
I'd expect more cogent analysis from the top intellects if HN, but apparently the stereotype is true: "It's acceptable when our side does it".
Edit: and 30s later this comment is at -2. It’s bizarre to me that so many Americans simply cannot entertain that the First Amendment might not be a net positive for the country.
What could you possibly mean by this? Can you provide any examples of how other nations have codified freedom of speech, expression, religion and peaceful assembly and in some different and superior way?
Not the OP but here in Germany the guiding principle of all lawmaking and action of the state is human dignity, as laid out in the first article of the basic law.
Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
and freedom of expression while enjoying numerous protections reaches its limitations when that dignity is under attack (article 5):
(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship.
(2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour.
Does your right to spout hate speech about my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion?
Does your right to spend $1B on amplifying your political speech drown out my political speech and effectively nullify it?
Other countries have answered yes to those questions while the US has answered no.
Does your right to criticize my religion infringe on my right to freely and safely practice my religion? No. Even if the criticism is harsh, even hateful. I find this a particularly curious example, because there's a long history of criticism of religion, from Nietzsche to Dawkins, much of it harsh, even hateful. I'm not aware of any countries that ban these writers, though apparently Dawkins got cancelled for also applying his criticism to islam. And what if your religion itself entails beliefs that makes other people, such as women or homosexuals, fear for their rights? Then they are not allowed to hate on your religion, because that makes you fear for your freedom of religion?
It is legal in the US to say that all Muslims are terrorists that deserve to be shot with bullets dipped in pig's blood. How would you feel hearing that if you were a Muslim? Would you feel that you could safely and openly practice your religion?
You say this as if these are clearly defined categories. Take the charlie hebdo cartoons: Criticism, blasphemy or hate speech? At any rate, your argument applies even to criticism. Criticism can lead people to infringe on your freedom of religion.
On this specific one, it’s not a matter of drowning you out, it’s being able to compete with someone else spending $1B endorsing the opposite opinion. Or more importantly, being able to pay for your message to be distributed rather than having to own a media empire to get it published.
If it weren’t for the Citizens United decision being decided in the correct direction, you’d be a the media landscape would be a slave to whoever owns it. People or organizations that make their money elsewhere would be stifled from expressing their opinions through advertising purchases.
The alternative is that only billionaires that control media empires get to pick what messages you hear.
More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message.
> That is trading one devil for another. I don't want a good guy with $1B battling a bad guy with a $1B. That doesn't fix anything.
It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own.
> I want everyone's political speech to be on a more even playing field. That currently can't happen due to the First Amendment and the interpretation that says money is equal to speech.
If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.
That outcome is one alternative, it is not the only alternative. We can put laws in place to regulate how the media talks about political issues. We used to have the fairness doctrine for example. I wouldn't necessarily want that reintroduced exactly how it existed, but something along those lines would help the US political system.
>More importantly, the CU ruling was that groups of non-billionaires (ex: a union or PAC) could pool their resources together in order to amplify their combined message.
So what? These organizations are free to advise their people how to voice their opinion and they can even facilitate doing so through internal programs such as voter registration drives or petition drives. We don't have to allow them to pool money to voice their opinion to the general public.
>It sounds like you just want to silence voices that may be louder than your own.
"When you're accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression." I want voices to be equal. The people who have the loudest voices will probably feel like I want them silenced.
>If I spend my time making and selling widgets but feel strongly about a political issue or candidate, why can I not spend the money I earned (and paid taxes on!) to promote that issue or candidate? Must I purchase a TV network or a newspaper in order to push my agenda? That's what CU addresses.
You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?
It is equality of opportunity. What you seem to want is equality of outcome.
Nothing stops you or your politically minded allies from pooling your own resources.
> You can still promote your issue or candidate. I just want the medium of exchange to be your time and not your money. That would help even out the balance of power. Why should the people with more money be able to spread their message further than people without it?
Why should the unemployed or those on the dole, with all the time in the world, have an advantage over the employed?
Look how often constitutional ammendments were proposed in the past compared to today. We're fossilizing the idea of our country into a religion instead of continuing to have useful debate on why today isn't like yesterday and on what updates we need to make now.
>"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."[1]
But to address your key point, I'd bet a lot of people are down-voting the grandparent's superior/condescending tone, as exemplified by the following fragments:
>"America’s big problem... yet Americans take it on faith... Americans simply cannot entertain"
I also don't think the rate at which amendments are proposed is a good indication of how healthy our country is. Shouldn't things stabilize and require less revision eventually?
I don't think that's obvious at all, especially given changes in population, technology, and international situations over the same timeframe as that nation's institutional stagnation.
I think the freedom of speech Bannon has is fine. He's welcome to make whatever calls he wants - though I do wonder if he may have strayed from merely "uncivil" into "incitement".
But Facebook, Twitter, the New York Times... they don't need to amplify it. He is not entitled to their audiences too.
I would argue that this is exactly what legal and democratic systems that work but that don’t give such primacy to 1FA offer.
Facebook, twitter must not amplify one content over another or it loses it's neutral status. If it begins make decisions based on what it prefers content wise it would lose a common carrier status and should be regulated like those other entities and not be treated as neutrual platform.
The New York Times is a newspaper and doesn't belong.
It can't lose what it never had to begin with. Information services post Section 230 have 0 obligation to be "neutral". You should read the law instead of listening to Internet commentators' fantasies and wishlists of "neutrality" and "censorship makes you a publisher". This is all bullcrap.
So I believe we're mostly talking about a spectrum of what mechanisms there are and their consequences. Ie. is it OK for the entire planet to bully anyone in public until they lose everything? This is actually hard to prevent, if no mechanisms to do so are in place, while communication is as "free" as possible.
But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects, and those effects are worse. Such as, for example, creating a world where your post could be deleted merely for suggesting that the Constitution had a weakness.
I'm going to say stuff. Some of it will go against the prevailing narrative. I want to be able to say it anyway. Sometimes, I'll even be right. I think the right to do so is important.
None of which you enumerated
> But my position is that not having the First Amendment also has negative effects
Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?
Because it's pretty obvious. You're trying to score some cheap rhetorical points, and I decline to give them to you.
> Protections of free speech are much weaker in most of the rest of the free and rich world. Why don’t those negative effects show up there?
They don't at the moment show up strongly in most of the rest of the free and rich world. They show up in, for example, China. (Though negative effects show up in England from their libel laws, for example. They just aren't as flagrant as what you see in China.)
To put the burden of proof on the other foot: Is there any reason to think that the absence of FA-type free speech guarantees is making things better in the rest of the free and rich world? If not, I'll keep the guarantee, because I really like being able to say what I please.
Yes. It's the negatives you were unwilling to enumerate.
And I note with some amusement that you are now the one unwilling to specify. Sauce for the goose...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25077547
Anyway, in short, I'm sure (and I mean this) you're a smart and well-read guy or gal, but from your entirely circular arguments here I don't think you've ever seriously spent time considering what the alternatives to the first amendment are. Everything you've claimed to like about it is just as true in other free, rich countries, and the negatives you repeatedly decline to mention are largely absent. You've brought in libel as an example, which of course is _not_ protected by 1FA. The importance of 1FA at this point is a national religion.
If you don't think this is negative, I guess we aren't talking about the same thing.
Did you actually read the article before reposting it? It's been illegal there since 1981. The article simply says it's been extended to include new groups.
Yes, I absolutely think hate speech should be restricted, and the laws of most countries agree with that, with the USA being a notable exception:
> A majority of developed democracies have laws that restrict hate speech, including Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom
Do I think hate speech in private should be restricted? I think _probably_ not, but I think this is for the elected legislature to decide, not an idea that is edict from several hundred years ago.
So you _probably_ agree with me? This is the exact point. Many people that might agree that some public speech should be outlawed would recoil at the idea of private speech being similarly restricted. Yet this has been the case in Norway for 40 years. Now you might reply that it has caused no harm yet. And I admit I don't know the number of convictions for this type of private speech, but this is the very definition of chilling effect. Criminalization of private speech has been normalized. When the ratchet is tightened there will be no room to complain.
Freedom of speech is complicated and subtle, and that’s why a several hundred year law that binds the hands of the legislature to refine and update laws around it is a bad idea.
> I actually want to go a step farther, but I realize the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I'd actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I'd put the heads on pikes, I'd put them on the two corners of the White House, as a warning to Federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program, or you're gone.
However, immediately after this quote, the other speaker and Bannon discuss historical political hangings and how the death penalty for treason is necessary during a civil war.
And Bannon appears to double down in his own FB post: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776
> Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack > - Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray
Regardless of where you come down on the free speech side of calling for a public figure's execution, Bannon seems to concede that he meant what he said.
An alternative interpretation of his Facebook post is that he was quoting this:
https://populist.press/steve-bannons-twitter-account-suspend...
>> "Steve Bannon’s Twitter Account Suspended After Calling for Execution of Dr Fauci and FBI Director Wray"
Considering Bannon claimed: "Steve Bannon Under Massive Attack", and the next line (...After Calling for Execution...) is identical to that used on populist.press, and he included a link to the site (which seems to be broken), this interpretation (that he is quoting populist.press, as opposed to doubling down) doesn't seem too far fetched to me.
If, for the sake of argument (and I mean that very literally), he was actually quoting them (and therefore not doubling down), could Bannon, as you said, "...be assumed to be using "heads on pikes" as a euphemism for "getting tough / serious"?
For more clarity on what actually occurred, here is the link to the full story, and the relevant text and quotes:
https://www.thewrap.com/steve-bannon-suspended-by-twitter-af...
>> In the episode, posted Thursday morning, Bannon was discussing a hypothetical second Trump term. After advocating that among Trump’s first second term orders of business should be firing both Wray and Fauci, Bannon said, “I actually want to go a step farther but the president is a kind-hearted man and a good man. I’d actually like to go back to the old times of Tudor England. I’d put the heads on pikes, right? I’d put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats, you either get with the program or you’re gone.”
>> Shortly after, Steve Bannon and his co-host Jack Maxey offered some additional thoughts on the matter that certainly suggested they might actually be serious.
>> “Just yesterday, there was the anniversary of the hanging of two Tories in Philadelphia,” Maxey said. “These were Quaker businessmen who had cohabitated, if you will, with the British while they were occupying Philadelphia. These people were hung. This is what we used to do to traitors.”
>> “That’s how you won the revolution. No one wants to talk about it. The revolution wasn’t some sort of garden party, right? It was a civil war. It was a civil war,” Bannon replied.
Regardless, he quoted it as a call to action for supporters to come to his defense, so it's reasonable to assume he felt it accurately captured the fact that he called for the execution of two public officials.
I think it's less in doubt what he did and more in doubt what social media should do in response. Twitter took one approach and FB another.
This is an interesting sentence, particularly the one word: fact.
This word seems to have some sort of a strange quality to it - very mysterious, almost magical.
It's a popular word, people use it all the time. And they seem to really enjoy using it, almost like it has a kind of...reverence to it, for them.
But if you ever talk about how they use it (like, the context they are using it in, and various details related to that), everyone seems to start acting....weird. Like, the passion and interest that was just there 5 seconds ago, kind of vanishes into thin air. There one moment, gone the next. Kind of like cherry blossoms in the spring, or that first crush you have as a teenager (no Mom, it's love, you just don't get it!!!) - so fleeting.
Oh well, it's probably nothing..."just my mind playing tricks on me!" lol
But that's obvious. Seeing the risk inherent in people like Bannon doesn't even require effort. Thinking like that (and only that) is kind of the equivalent of "phoning it in" [1].
Reality is very complex. Infinity complex, some people say. Managing it skilfully is a hard problem. There is risk, and problems, everywhere. Attributing it all to cartoon evil characters like Steve Bannon and Donald Trump is pretty low effort thinking. Not even trying to be correct(!) (as opposed to "right").
My point is, why make this problem (just as one example - it is a recurring theme if one pays close attention) even harder by talking about it inaccurately &/or imprecisely? I think most of us wouldn't dare to write software at our day jobs this way, for all the obvious reasons, so then why do we accept it (or sometimes even insist upon it) when it comes to a far more complex problem, which is arguably more important than what we do from 9 to 5?
I am "on the spectrum" (in case it wasn't obvious). I do not understand why people behave like this - in general, but especially programmer types, who possess logical and systems analysis capabilities far beyond what general public can even imagine.
Why do people do this? Human behavior seems completely counter-intuitive to me. Like, backwards from what it should be. Can you explain it to me in some way that might make sense, to someone like me?
[1] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=phoned%20it%...
Such populists play on the fears and anger of the people. There is real inequality in USA, but the masses bet on the wrong horses again and again. Why? Because the privatization of media assures that billionaires set the agenda every day.
It seems high time for a third party, a middle ground, to be made. Because Democrats are too wide, too divided, and thus end up being too extreme. Ie. their stance of unlimited abortion until birth, is extremist in any country. But with the failed two party "system", they end up alienating most of the republican voter base.
This is all frustration playing out due to failed two party political system and the billionaires that ensures the status quo on both sides. The problem is when people become too frustrated, but it is a hard problem who to turn to for aid.
This is what I do not understand about the culture on HN, and mainstream "right thinking" culture in general: if your ideas really are so proper and correct, then why is there so much dishonesty in your words? If your case is sound, why not just stick to facts? Why can you not reply to direct questions, but instead act as if you did not read them?
Why do people do this? I mean, the text is right here on the page. Do neuro-typical people not feel embarrassment or shame, or is that kind of offset by the feeling of security that comes with being a member of the majority, a kind of "normie privilege" I guess you could say? The lack of self-awareness seems stark to me, but maybe I'm the only one that sees it.
This is unambiguously true, Steve Bannon's Facebook page reiterated the claims the same day, and may this cursed, bad-faith argument about whether he meant what he said be over and done with. Steve Bannon knows what words he said, he used the Facebook platform to repeat those words, and he is not a nobody but an individual who rose to prominence and is a former senior White House official, in fact, he was among the most senior one can be, on par with the chief of staff with privileged access to the President and the National Security Council. Whatever you think of him and how he may have fallen, he has a platform and he speaks to many millions of people and his words carry weight.
I am reminded yet again of a Jean-Paul Sartre quote from Anti-Semite and Jew:
"Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.
"They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past."
Here are the receipts: Facebook post here: https://www.facebook.com/SteveKBannon/posts/376710023761776
archive.org snapshot here: https://web.archive.org/web/20201106185230/https://www.faceb...
Here's the text of that post in case it is removed: