Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What about "kill the {terrorists|Vietnamese (circa 1960)|germans (circa 1940)|japanese(circa 1940)|rebs (circa 1860}"

My response is clearly whatboutism, and I understand that jewish, muslims, and hispanics are greatly different than naming the belligerents of armed conflicts, but this very slippery slope is why historically the US Supreme Court has resoundingly only made the most narrow rulings regarding limiting speech.




This is a terribly laid out argument. It's not kill the Germans/Japanese/Vietnamese. Hell in Vietnam we had Vietnamese allies. In Okinawa we routinely tried to stop civilians from committing suicide. There's a massive, massive difference between calling for erasing an entire people simply for existing and fighting a declared military force. No one in the US is going over to wipe out all Arabs, they are going to protect civilians and our own people under a strict set of rules of engagement meant to minimize civilian and not combatant casualties. These people are advocating violence against a people who don't even know they exist or have no defined I'll will against them. You're also conflating government protections for free speech and requirements to support said speech by civilians. No one has to provide your microphone to tell through. The mail will still deliver their racist pamphlets, they can still shout their horrors in public spaces. They don't have a right to have their hate hosted online.


Your reply is a straw man.

The original statement was building consensus that "reasonable people" agree killing {some group} is intolerant.


There's a massive, massive difference between calling for erasing an entire people simply for existing and fighting a declared military force. No one in the US is going over to wipe out all Arabs

The clash of civilizations rhetoric makes this assertion dubious to most people that are not in the USA. That coupled with the large-scale widespread bombing of much of the world since WW2 and the support of despots engaged in torture and repression makes your fine distinction a cold comfort for hundreds of thousands (we think the price was worth it) of children.

The tendencies revealed in 8chan are a reflection of core values of US civilization.

To pretend otherwise, and agonize over the origins and supposed abnormality of racist genocide in the USA is copper-bottomed duplicity.

I suppose it makes it easier to sleep at night -- _this_ particular genocide is abnormal for us nice folks.


> The tendencies revealed in 8chan are a reflection of core values of US civilization.

To some extent, yes. But then, US civilization is sadly not all that unique.

The major issue is that the US is collapsing. Gradually, over the past few decades, but steadily. And that always creates lots of angry, nihilistic young men. Eventually they'll become cannon fodder.


All those are speech in the context of support for a declared conflict perpetuated by the government. We don't have to all agree, obviously, but yes: stated support for policies of our elected representatives has to be OK. I don't think anyone reasonable would disagree.

If someone were to talk about personal killing of gooks or japs or krauts or secesh for ethnic and not military reasons, even in a war, that would be different. But that's not what you seem to be talking about.

The distinction is precisely why we have the Geneva conventions, and this is well established law.


Your posting really gets to my core frustration with our Western political establishment: We have "rational", "moderate" politicians like Hillary, Biden, Merkel, or the late John McCain, who were in favor of the illegal attack on Iraq, well knowing that civilians would die, and that the area would be destabilized (hello IS).

But because the US didn't attack Iraq based on a protected class like race, and because the Geneva conventions exist, everything is magically okay. No reason to deplatform these heroes of bipartisan politics.

I worry about the end of radical free speech on the internet precisely because I feel deeply disconnected from "mainstream morality". As internet censorship progresses, I'm sure I'll be kicked out before any of the high-status war criminals.

(I'm referring to the 2003 Iraq war because I still remember who supported it, but I assume the handling of Vietnam was similar in its time.)


"I worry about the end of radical free speech on the internet precisely because I feel deeply disconnected from "mainstream morality". As internet censorship progresses, I'm sure I'll be kicked out before any of the high-status war criminals."

Same :(


Situations where Germans were killed for just being Germans, as opposed to being soldiers, are being talked about as injustice today. The rapes done on German women after WWII are not defended as rightful today either.

There is big difference between military action against Germany, ISIS, what have you and "kill Germans" in general.


> Situations where Germans were killed for just being Germans, as opposed to being soldiers, are being talked about as injustice today. The rapes done on German women after WWII are not defended as rightful today either.

I am glad you stressed "today", because back then, I bet, they weren't talked about the same way.

It is much easier to look back at distant actions and condemn them. At the time when they actually happen, however, things aren't always as clear-cut. I am certain that a lot of "totally ok" today things will be "totally not ok" once we are removed far enough from them.


In what way they were not clear cut back then? It is not like people at the time were confused over meaning of rape or confuscation of property and so on.

These were debated as issues from the first moment. You had those who push for these kill all policies and those who oppose them. Sometimes one side win, other times the other and result is controversial from start for years.

There is this idea that "judging by the time" means judging by the perspective of worst person available, but that is not how history happened.


I was talking about generally accepted opinions by the population. Today, as the quote said, "Germans being killed for just being Germans are generally accepted as injustice".

Was it the case back in the day, though? I am not so sure about that. Of course there were plenty of people who thought this was a great injustice, but I don't think the general public back then would even raise a brow of condemnation towards a person claiming that this was ok and totally justified.

P.S. this is a total speculation about this specific scenario, but I had similar conversations about atrocities committed on the eastern front by soviet soldiers with my older family members who were young adults in 50s-60s in USSR. What I got was that their whole generation was pretty much on board with it, because, in their words, "Nazis deserved it" (with the implication being that every German person was a nazi, of course, even civilians). Not so much of a popular opinion these days.


Try putting yourself in the shoes of someone in the US in 1940.

Would the statement "kill germans" be intolerant?

///

When I was in grade school, a holocaust survivor was invited to speak at my school. At the time we had a german foreign exchange student. As a joke, one of his friends baited the speaker into going on a vitriolic rant about how much he hated Germans. The speaker than paused, and gathered himself and said he did not blame today's generation for the previous ones horror, but that the terror inflicted upon him and his family would be with him forever.

I was chosen to ask a question, and asked him what it must feel like when he sees young people today wearing Nazi paraphernalia and glorifying the Nazi regime.




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: