Hacker News Reader

Comment by atchoo | Hacker News Reader

I think they kind of have. Musk replied "that's fine" to Ye posting the Musk yacht photo and "that is not" to the Star of David Nazi symbol which suggests that was the final line for the ban. The "going deathcon one on the Jews", which led to the pre-Musk ban, is arguably a more explictly a violent threat than the symbol.

View on HN

The swastika itself represents historical violence on the Jews. I would argue it alone is an explicit threat of violence because I can't see what other meaning today it could have?

My parents have a vintage carpet with some eastern (counterclockwise) swastikas on it. That said, the context around your comment is completely apparent and the downvote are troubling to say the least. I hope it's just unhelpful pedantry rather than pedantry as a cover for bigotry.

The swastiska has had a very long history, before the Nazis misused it for their purpose.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

So when kayne used it, of course he referred to the Nazi symbol and just wanted attention and strongly hint at his antisemitism.

But other people can mean something very different:

"In several major Indo-European religions, the swastika symbolises lightning bolts, representing the thunder god and the king of the gods, such as Indra in Vedic Hinduism, Zeus in the ancient Greek religion, Jupiter in the ancient Roman religion, and Thor in the ancient Germanic religion."

I'm aware, I'm sure most people are because this tidbit is always brought up when the swastika is discussed. The context is clear all around though

"The context is clear all around though"

Then why make this generalised statement?

" I can't see what other meaning today it could have?"

Because I know people who are into germanic livestyle and they are NOT nazis, but they would like to use that old symbol freely. So that is one counterexample. There are people today who use the swastika who explicitley do not refer to the nazis.

But like I said, when people like kayne use the swastika, their meaning is very clear and different.

Should we be burning school books and cancelling movies about the Holocaust because they have swastikas? Like it or not it is free speech and shouldn't be banned.

I'd stand against a government doing that.

If an individual book owner decides to have a backyard barbecue of all their pro-Nazi propaganda or an individual theater owner doesn't feel comfortable running Jojo Rabbit, that's up to them.

Yes, but when they claim to support free speech and then turn around and do the opposite it is best to call them out on it. The reason for my hyperbole response was because here we are talking about Twitter and free speech, and some people are avidly in support of banning things and people they don't like.

Within the law, Twitter is well within their rights to ban things and people Musk doesn't like.

Stanning for the swastika is one of the weirdest modern internet fetishes.

Oh don't get me wrong, they are both unacceptable and I haven't and don't want to see the symbol tweet. I personally find words more impactful, revealing of intent and suggesting action than symbols. I say arguable because I don't which was worse, or if it's a worthy discussion, but the deathcon tweet is enough for me to see an unwell/dangerous person that needs a ban just to save them from themselves let alone anyone else.

Defcon levels have to do with defense not attack.

yes but we're talking about deathcon levels, which are an entirely different thing!

Well, it's still mobilizing the army. Plus, "death con".

That isn't true in common parlance.

It literally stands for defense readiness condition

And yet humans aren't computers, and the meaning of phrases in popular culture isn't always determined by strict literal definition.

Most people would interpret the phrase "I’m a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I’m going (def) con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE" to mean preparing to go to war or enter into conflict against, not preparing to defend against an attack from, jewish people.

Defense against the jews which implies they act as a group to attack.

No it doesn't. Defense implies that you are planning to be attacked. Regardless though, it is free speech because the word can mean a lot of things. There are countless videos of Democrats like Pelosi saying we are going to "beat" Republicans. I guess those Democrats should be banned from national television for inciting violence.

"I'm going to beat them in a race"? The word is commonly used to mean win a competition and in fact I'd argue it's use meaning physical violence is rarer.

Also being a republican (politican) is a choice and therefore valid to be a target of hatred. People aren't born Republican , however bring Jewish is considered both an ethnic group and religion. This is the key to why it's acceptable to attack a political group verus an ethnic group.

Jews have different views, they don't act as one group, they don't have a hierarchy like republicans, nor don't put out group statements.

Beat is just the tip. There are countless videos of Democrat leaders saying people has to fight, that they're at war, etc. Kanye wasn't telling everyone to go Death (DEF) CON 3 on the Jews, he was saying he was. He could have literally said he hoped that people would die and it still isn't isn't inciting violence according to the law. Conservatives are good at that, where they are constantly advocating for the murder of trans people which according to Musk is okay cause I still see it frequently from many of the right-wing people he is now associating with and their followers. While I don't agree with his statement, it is far from inciting violence and doesn't break any laws in the US.

It's was death con 3 not 1. Which makes it even weirder since 3 is the middle. But that's also assuming he meant defcon which is something we probably shouldn't do. Should stick to the words he's actually saying and w.r.t. the "going death ... on jewish people" is pretty black/white on inciting violence. But it was only a temporarily ban that he got following that tweet (which twitter1.0 did claim to do )[1].

Afaik, nobody at twitter2.0 has made a clear statement as to what tweet caused the permanent suspension. Just commenting "that is not" is not at all the same as saying "and this will get you banned".

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/10/10/kanye-wests-twitter...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com