Hacker News

points by cyberjerkXX 1 day ago | 0 comments

The same political groups that support hate speech laws are now looking for support from the freedom of speech groups? That sounds like a temporary alliance at best. They aren't going to support you long term because they know leftists are authoritarians of a different color. AKA your rhetoric isn't going to work because you have no principles and they do.

[–] kannanvijayan 1 day ago

I see you brought up the freedom of speech group, but didn't address the potential implications of other similarly important groups such as fursuit afficianados and PETA and, most egregiously, the Taylor Swift fandom.

[–] harimau777 5 hours ago

Most people recognize that the freedom of speech is not absolute. Leftists arguing for hate speech laws are generally doing so from a reasoned position that hate speech falls within the "not absolute" area. You may disagree with them, but that doesn't mean that they are hypocrites.

On the other hand, there's not an apparent principled reason why the government's actions here wouldn't fall under the arguments made by the 2A advocates that the parent is referring to. Therefore, it appears to be hypocracy.

That being said, I run in fairly left wing crowds and the idea of passing hate speech laws almost never comes up. I'm sure that there are people who would support that, but there simply isn't any meaningful movement to actually try to make it happen.

[–] ecocentrik 1 day ago

Are "principles" how this administration justifies its less than principled behavior or how you justify rewarding that behavior?

[–] LightBug1 1 day ago

It's not "looking for support", it's pointing out the abject hypocrisy. But what's new. Have a great day.

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

No, it's Leftist rhetoric to use their principles against them. Leftists are trying to weaponize principles even though they don't share the same ones. They don't actually care about "hypocrisy" of their political opponents, it's a guilt tactic for political leverage.

[–] harimau777 5 hours ago

With respect, I think you might not spend much time in leftist spaces. Leftists are notoriously vicious in attacking people for ideological impurity. Is it possible that you are conflating leftists and liberals/mainstream democrats?

[–] LightBug1 1 day ago

I note that you do acknowledge the hypocrisy.

That's enough for me.

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

Double downing on it I see. Nice, makes my point.

[–] LightBug1 1 day ago

You literally have no idea what you're talking about.

But I'm pleased you live up to your profile name.

All best,

[–] bediger4000 1 day ago

Freedom of speech is a first amendment issue, my friend. The "second amendment types" OP refers to are the people who claim that citizen ownership of any and all types of firearms is a buttress against tyrannical government. Since the Trump admin is at least arguably a tyrannical government, it seems legit to at least ask where the previously vociferously pro-gun people are right now. Many should be at least warning of potential tyranny, but appear not to be doing so.

[–] throwawayfifo 1 day ago

>Since the Trump admin is at least arguably a tyrannical government, it seems legit to at least ask where the previously vociferously pro-gun people are right now.

False premise. The Trump administration is doing exactly what he was democratically voted in to do by the "vociferously pro-gun people": close the border and deport illegal immigrants.

[–] FireBeyond 1 day ago

By repeatedly ignoring the laws of the nation, because of the edicts of its leader, i.e. literally the definition of tyranny, "a ruler who governs without restriction".

DHS has been dragged into court hundreds of times now and literally stood in front of federal judges and said "we're ignoring your court order, what are you going to do about it?"

[–] bediger4000 1 day ago

This is an illegitimate argument in the context of Second Amendment. The "second amendment people" are pretty vocal proponents of strict adherence to the US constitution - hence the name of the group.

Whatever reasons Trump was voted in for, second amendment people should insist on him following the constitution. He's not. That's not even arguable on rhetorical grounds. Trump regularly defies court orders, spends money on things not authorized by Congress, and impounds money allocated by Congress. That behavior is the constitutional definition of tyranny. Therefore second amendment people should be at least metaphorically, if not literally, up in arms about him.

Again inarguably, they are not. Therefore their self proclaimed basis is a lie. They are just blowhards and we should disarm them ASAP. They have no sound reason for existing as an armed group.

[–] buellerbueller 1 day ago

The OPs point stands; why would anti-tyranny types want to stand with people who are (in their example) linguistic tyrants and thought police?

[–] watwut 1 day ago

Previously, they claimed they stand with nazi solely for free speech of everyone purposes, not because they would share the oppressive authoritarian ideology of nazi.

If that was true, that is why.

Now in reality, that was not true, they stood with nazi cause they themselves are nazi who want to bully others.

[–] cyberjerkXX 1 day ago

You keep using the term Nazi but I don't think you actually know what it means.

I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

[–] buellerbueller 1 day ago

>I can gauge how much of an authoritarian you are with one simple question, is it immoral to privately own the means of production?

You keep using the term authoritarian but I don't think you actually know what it means.

[–] watwut 1 day ago

I meant nazi. Yes I know what it means. Yes they exist and even on the rise.

And they were go to example of important free speech for years. The gauge was always defending nazi free speech, never defending communist free speech, radical feminists free speech or whoever else free speech.

Your question supposed to determine authoritanianism shows the same fallacy - nazi and other fascists wont count as an authoritarian. If I think all women should be locked at home and be under control of husbands, you wont count me as authoritarian either.