Comment by ranger_danger | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ranger_danger | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Except they have already done this for other sites. But if they actually agreed with you, then I think they should remove the relevant language from their ToS that claims they have moral control over what transits their network.

But SJWs have previously used this tactic (providers' own ToS) to get websites they don't like taken offline. It has been happening not only to reverse proxy providers, but also to Tier 1 ISPs (who blackholed kiwifarms just like CF), DNS providers, domain registrars and colocation/hosting providers.

It starts with the worst sites first, the ones many people will not be upset about having taken offline, and then slowly gets more and more obviously authoritarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_They_Came&l...

Activists have done this sort of thing, but fortunately their power has waned. I’d rather chalk that up to an isolated set of mistakes from a difficult time in history than accept it as a new norm.

Not sure how you expect to be taken seriously while using the term “SJW”

Not sure how you expect to be taken seriously while your personal website is a weeaboo homage to anthropomorphized cartoon ponies.

I can believe that in heavily left-leaning social circles unironically using the term "social justice warrior" is grounds for social excommunication.

I hope you can believe that most people outside those circles--in other words, most people--understand it as a more-or-less neutral descriptive term and won't think twice about it.

I can believe it, though I believe it to be untrue. SJW is not a neutral term. In the same way that the word "woke" has been corrupted, SJW now almost exclusively refers to dyed-hair screaming women making mountains out of molehills to try to strongarm people into policing things they don't like. It did not used to mean that, but it is now used primarily pejoratively, not descriptively, like "woke".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com