Hacker News Reader

Comment by vore | Hacker News Reader

You're trying to make a "both sides" argument about this: a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content.

There is no cosmic balance between left-wing and right-wing. What are the consequences of the left-wing rabbit hole vs the right-wing rabbit hole? Not all viewpoints are equal or even valid.

View on HN

>You're trying to make a "both sides" argument about this: a "left-wing rabbit hole" is not equivalent to a "right-wing rabbit hole" in terms of content.

Really? Why? Because conservative/right = bad, and liberal/left = good?

Because the deep-right youtubers are white supremacists?

That's a cyclical argument if I ever saw one - plus adding the weasel term "deep-right".

Yeah, white supremacists are scum. Why mention them though?

We were talking about right/conservative youtubers here (in fact my question asks exactly about right/conservative). Where does the "deep right" come in?

Are the ones shown in the screenshots "white supremacists"? E.g. Shapiro, Watson, Peterson, for a few I recognize. Have they shown any such tendencies?

Or does being concervative/right automatically means one can be labelled "deep-right" and thus "white supremacists"?

What word would you prefer I use? I was trying to avoid painting the right wiht that brush by using it, but I'll not use that term then. The guy in the article watched a lot of Stefan molyneux videos and he's a white supremacist. That's what the article was about, that's why I brought up white supremacists. You go down that youtube rabbit hole and you just get the "race realists" eventually. That's the topic of the article.

I'm not a native English speaker, but isn't there a huge difference between "race realists" and "white supremacists"? Isn't a "race realist" someone who argues that there are significant genetic differences between races while a "white supremacist" is someone who argues that whites should rule over the other races?

The word "significant" is doing a heck of a lot of work there. Statistically significant? Maybe, but even if that were the case, the actual, plausible consequences are really subtle - they're there of course, but most "race realists" like to talk about other things - go figure! "Significant" in an everyday sense? No way - that's so wildly implausible (keep in mind, we're only talking about what the innate difference might be, after screening out all of the environmentally-caused divergence!) that one can safely say that people who argue that this is what's going on, really are just parroting white-supremacist memes. I.e. they might not be white supremacists themselves, but they're ideologically-possessed memebots who are spreading a white-supremacist memetic infection.

Yes, you are right. This is just a re-definition of language so that you can't talk about it without being labeled a white supremacists.

Correct, believing some races are inherently superior does get you labeled a white supremacist because there's functionally not much of a difference between the two.

Barely a difference . Race realism is the same thing, sugar-coated to avoid openly admitting your racism and belief that some races are inherently superior .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com