He's talking about views. Hate speech is chanting "Kill all Jews". A view I would despise would be a well thought out argument why all Jews should be killed, expressed in a way that allows response.
Low-rent ideological noise has no place on HN. It's a combo of boring and inflammatory, leading to internet tedium. That makes it off topic for this site. If you need to post like this, please do it somewhere else.
Since you persist in using HN primarily for ideological battle, which violates the site guidelines, I've banned this account. Would you please not create accounts to break HN's rules with?
A strict interpretation of freedom of speech includes so-called hate speech. A non-strict interpretation of freedom of speech ceases to be freedom of speech.
But then, why should hate speech be a separate category?
Why not treat it as a threat under criminal code, and prosecute it as such? (That's what I think should be done.) What do you gain by censoring "hate speech"?
No. The judge would decide whether it is a threat or not, and the punishment would correspond to that. If it's not a threat, then what is the problem? (See my other comment in this discussion.)
People who chat things like 'kill all jews' are not there to try to argue and dont care about looking dumb in the eyes of larger society, because they already do. people doing things like that are not there to argue
There’s been a lot of talk about “nazis” in the media recently. Like A TON. And I didn’t see anyone in the media actually trying to talk with them.
And yeah sure there are people that are maybe wrong and will not talk with you at all. But in my experience they are a minority. Generally people actually believe what they say they believe and they’re eager to sit down and discuss it.
If you actually talk with people, more often than not their position is more nuanced than “kill all the Jews.” Isn’t that a good thing?
But every time you make even the discussion taboo you just validate their believes. Because if it’s something beyond even mere discussion then it must be something true ‘they’ don’t want you to know about. Or so it seems.
I know the Earth is not flat. Why would I avoid discussing it when truth is on my side?
> more often than not their position is more nuanced than “kill all the Jews.” Isn’t that a good thing?
Which by definition makes it a view they allow a reply to. refer to my original, now flagged comment. If they actually respond to your arguments and questions, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's more than you had the grace to offer.
What I tried to say is that this recent trend of “no platforming” people and even earlier the idea that debating anyone somehow validates their opinion is forcing people with controversial opinions into this “screaming” position.
More to your point: people with minority views cannot “allow” for any discussion to happen. The fact that we’re not discussing their issues and rather try to make them go away is the fault of the majority.
WE make the rules and it seems everyone is more interested in labeling people than hearing what they have to say.
> then you can show that person is an idiot when they have to defend that position.
And then what? Then they change their mind?
If someone in the street calls you a frog murderer, and you ask why they think you are one, and they say they can see it in the distance between your eyes, and keep trailing you and scream frog murderer, interrupting every other conversation you want to have for the rest of your life, where would you draw the line. And would you offer video evidence of everything you ever did to placate them? What if they just scoffed and said everybody knows frog murderers know how to fake video?
When you say "views", you simply don't understand the distinction I'm making. I have spent so much time discussing with bigots of all stripes in the last 1.5 decades. I don't regret it, it's never totally wasted, especially when it's not just trading insults -- but misunderstandings and ignorance are not the cause, that only applies to those on the fringe, not at the core of something like Nazism. "Show that person is an idiot" is referring to someone who would be phased by that, because their opinions come from their own person and thoughts, because they actually are opinions. (By the way, such a person often has their views challenged by at least one person anyway, themselves)
I know and have dealt with those, but have you dealt with those where that isn't the case? Where the espoused belief is not a belief, but a cover for more, and endless abyss, and where the offered arguments hardly register with the person enumerating them? For you it may register when you say something and someone else refutes it. But for some it doesn't, they just register amusedly that you actually spend time and energy on what they can produce without end and at zero cost to them.
> Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it. The assertion that the Moscow subway is the only one in the world is a lie only so long as the Bolsheviks have not the power to destroy all the others.
-- Hannah Arendt
Another way to look at it would be the differentation between an individual person speaking, and a person channeling a mob. It doesn't have to be a racist mob, it can also be a "politically correct" mob, you know?
I remember when a girl strolled into the Myspace forums and said "hi guys, I'm a fascist, let's discuss". I was intrigued, then a bit shocked by her views, but I had to respect the person for being honest about them and open for discussion. But IIRC most people were just assholes to her, she was an asshole back, and got banned shortly after, no idea why. But I remember thinking it sucked, that is was a very poor performance on behalf of "the" group. In that case, the "right-minded people" were kind of acting as a mob, and she was a person speaking as a person.
I'm not arguing for any government banning something here, and unless I'm mistaken, neither is Mozilla. But even as private individuals, we simply should pay more attention and not just lump everything together as "something someone else doesn't like" and all that. Mob psychology and politics are no joke, neither are alienation and lack of perspective, shortening attention spans, inability to form coherent sequential toughts. Networks that datamine people and then influence them for maximum bit-sized engagement, that's no joke. People funneling themselves into "communities" where they play meme bingo, that's no joke.
Being downvoted and shadowbanned on HN for comments people can't refute, now that is a genuine joke, and oh look, my comment got flagged already. Because replying to it is not enough, one simply has to assume I haven't thought about what I said, and punish me for one's assumption. And of course, your reply is kind of the least charitable interpretation of my comment possible, as if I never argued with someone who had opinions they didn't like, without even attempting to understand what I was hinting at, and as such against the guidelines, but hey.
> As citizens, we must prevent wrongdoing because the world in which we all live, wrong-doer, wrong sufferer and spectator, is at stake.
-- Hannah Arendt
Sounds silly, right? Who dat ho anyway, huh? Well, this is not an intellectual climate to seriously elaborate on serious things, so I'll have to just leave it at the suggestion to not judge icebergs by tips while preaching about letting others speak. Thanks for the demonstration of hypocrisy, bye. People so weak and dishonest I genuinely prefer as enemies rather than allies.
