| ▲ | southernplaces7 3 days ago |
| [flagged] |
|
| ▲ | FrustratedMonky 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| "If you're in a grossly generic way referring to hispanics, african americans, Indian Americans and many distinct and complex others" -> Exactly. It refers to all of them. It isn't a secret that white nationalist, kkk, are Republican, and have been at least since the 80's. So as venn diagrams go, there are not many KKK in the Democratic party, and they are in the Republican party, so... who's ideas do you think align the most? |
|
| ▲ | _kulang 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think lending credence to the idea that their politics are nuanced and complex is disingenuous. If you are going to make the claim that there is nuance, at least provide an example. I’m sorry but singling out the “brown people” comment is a bit of a straw man in this case, as a “brown” person it kind of is really that simple. There really isn’t anything else to it, it is literally about the colour of the skin. Does it reduce countless cultures and experiences to nothing? Yes. But that’s sort of the point isn’t it. |
| |
| ▲ | Chris2048 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > at least provide an example No examples are given in original post.. |
|
|
| ▲ | Arainach 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > A surprising number of people from these and other groups support conservative causes too. Plenty of people (including the vast majority of Republican voters) vote against their interests, yes. Whether it's single issue voting, misinformation, or a variety of causes, "some X vote for this group" does not mean that the overall group does not hate or work against X. |
| |
| ▲ | southernplaces7 3 days ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Arainach 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | It's objectively true. Republicans pass tax cuts which increase the burden on the poor and the middle class for the benefits of the ultrarich (not the majority of their voters). They destroy government programs that benefit the majority of the population - health care, antitrust enforcement, free tax filing, environmental protections, tax audits of rich tax cheats. They oppose any programs which provide benefits to the public - broadband standards, net neutrality, social services, cybersecurity, weather satellites, libraries, public schools, so many more. The vast majority of their voters are hurt by these policies and are quite literally voting against their interests. | |
| ▲ | Chris2048 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | ASOF now, your comment is no longer flagged, and I just upvoted it, so maybe it will recover. I wouldn't underestimate the role of bots, or bot assisted socks, rather than the HN community. You last sentence just sounds like sour grapes in this context. FYI, this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44901875 "Yes, conservative Latin American men like the male supremacy aspect of it" is currently flagged. There is indeed a difference of opinion on HN, but also, sadly, rampant abuse of the flagging system. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Supermancho 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > What a simplistic take on a much more nuanced set of issues and ideas than that from the Republicans and conservatives in general. "brown people"? What the hell does that generic, i'd say even coddlingly racist, label means specifically mean? It's cut and dry. Plain racism, broadly and slowly applied. Don't try to notice, they hate that. > All that said, this list of books proposed for bans is a laughable idiocy from people who really need to get their heads out of their asses. Ah yes, the foolish "state policy don't matter because you can get it somewhere else". Treating the issue lightly, is part of the problem. Now there's 1 less source BY POLICY and the noose tightens. Weaponizing policy is something politicians are prone to do. |
| |
| ▲ | morkalork 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't buy the whole "it's not illegal, just buy it from a bookstore yourself if it's banned from the library" argument after what happened with Steam and payment processors. What's next? "Just buy these books from a physical bookstore (not online) that is cash only because payment processors have booted the store off their platforms. Also, only old/used editions are available because publishers are afraid to print new runs. But it's not illegal so stop crying" | | |
| ▲ | zeroonetwothree 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I don’t think it’s fair to equate private action with state action. The latter is much more dangerous to freedom | | |
| ▲ | AlexandrB 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The latter often leverages the former to work around having to legislate things that are unpopular or unconstitutional. A great example is government agencies buying data from data brokers or the Twitter files where the government leaned on Twitter to downrank "wrong" ideas. With the proliferation of powerful near-monopolies - especially in tech - "the market" has little way to work around these kinds of problems, especially in the short term. I guess my point is that both are dangerous to freedom, and ideally the government would do something to curtail corporate censorship instead of encouraging it. That's the whole idea of a "common carrier"[1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier | |
| ▲ | morkalork 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I am not equating the two, I am pointing out the flaw in the logic of viewing each in isolation and rationalizing. Excusing state-level book bans in libraries with "you can just buy it yourself with your money instead" clearly ignores what has been happening in the private sector. | |
| ▲ | Chris2048 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Gov inaction is just as important, especially when it comes to regulating monopolies. Net Neutrality is a similar issue. | |
| ▲ | TimorousBestie 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | “X is worse than Y” is not on its own an argument against “not Y.” |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | watwut 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [flagged] |
