Hacker News Reader

Comment by ratling | Hacker News Reader

There is no slippery slope argument when you're talking about literal Nazis.

We went to war on the subject.

This comment perfectly encompasses why it's a slippery slope. The definition of "literal Nazi" is use so broadly in political discourse. Politicians have been called Hitler and Nazi since Hitler and Nazis became a thing.

The massive danger is going to be the countless false positives this thinking generates. Just like the craziness of arresting the guy whose dog made a nazi salute in the video.

He would be denied access to social media because of stupid interpretations of a joke.

This isn't about defending or persecuting Nazis, it's about protecting the public from systems of abuse.

Not to mention the ineffectiveness of online censorship. The only worse thing are Nazis organizing on public platforms is forcing them to congregate only with other Nazis on radical websites where no one will challenge their worldview. But that's a totally different discussion.

The only worse thing are Nazis organizing on public platforms is forcing them to congregate only with other Nazis on radical websites where no one will challenge their worldview.

Sorry, don't agree. Forcing them to congregate on unpopular websites is great because those websites have a terrible reputation and that massively hinders recruitment. Sure, they're echo chambers, but extremists already use private fora for more underground organizing activity and likewise there are people who specialize in monitoring and infiltrating those websites.

If your argument is that they just need to be talked around with reason and logic, you can always go to one of their websites and give it a try. Sure, deradicalization can work and it's great when it does, but generally the odds are poor and it's extremely labor intensive.

That's a lot of words to type to say, "I support Nazis being able to openly operate and recruit on Facebook."

Yes, that's exactly what my comment said. Better ban my FB account! (/s)

If they promote violence or brigade, harass, or attack other members directly on FB then. Then yes, they should have their pages shut down. That is more than sufficient rather than saying any language that can be categorized in a very broad and vague category will be banned.

The simple fact alone if you asked various people in America to define a "literal Nazi" you'll get a hundred different answers of who should fit into that category.

Being a nazi is literally promoting violence and in any case amounts to an end game involving genocide. I agree there should be no censorship. But then you should be very vigilant to not let nazis control the discours as they do now. Nazis are not be talked with, they need to be scared out of the public space so that either they reevaluate their positions and change and can be reaccepted into society or they live pithy lives in solitude.

And for definitions: I think it’s very clear to indentify fascist thought - favorable views on ethnic cleansing and stories about mighty groups of people that can’t be proven should never be tolerated.

> We went to war on the subject.

This seems historically inaccurate, unless from the perspective of German resistance.

Britain waited on the war to come to them, and the U.S. didn't join until Pearl Harbor.

Your comment implies that Nazi Germany had absolutely ZERO redeeming qualities, which no credible historian would agree with. (e.g. no other country since has had the degree of focus on conservationism and environmentalism)

And we went to war because of Japan, whom we put into concentration camps.

> Your comment implies that Nazi Germany had absolutely ZERO redeeming qualities, which no credible historian would agree with. (e.g. no other country since has had the degree of focus on conservationism and environmentalism)

There are plenty of nations, both before and since, that have so much higher of a focus on conservation and environmentalism that they don't compromise those in the interest of conquest and genocide; the Nazi campaigns directed at those aims, leaving aside the moral dimension of their more direct effects on humans, were fairly disastrous from an environmental and conservationist perspective.

Are you really going with, "But think of all the GOOD things Nazis do?"

> But think of all the GOOD things Nazis do?

I was talking about the National Socialist German nation. Not modern "Nazis". Take the good, reject the bad. Since when is it shameful to be a history buff?

You are REALLY going with, "But think of all the GOOD things Nazis (regardless of the era) did."

I mean, there's literally no responses to that. I'll pray for you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com