And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
And this is an excellent example of how "polite" fascists come to power. After all, the one with the more "civilized" rhetoric must be the one to support, regardless of why people are so strongly opposed to them.
Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
> Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and side with with people who aren't openly calling for horrible deaths of those that disagree with them.
And there it is - this is why fascists coach their language in a veneer of politeness. After all, they didn't say it out loud, so whatever they're doing must certainly be the right thing to support. Why is the other side so eagerly opposed to them? Well, that doesn't matter, because they weren't polite about it.
It's important to look at what organizations/corporations/groups are actually doing, not just what they're saying.
Meanwhile, the other side is just openly calling for the horrible deaths of people who disagree with them. So, I can choose the 1) openly homicidal fascist, or 2) the maybe fascist (so you say) who is not openly homicidal.
So, I'm gonna go ahead and side with the people who aren't openly homicidal.
You should side with the people that aren't homicidal, not the ones that are polite and closeted about it.
But also, homicidal is doing some heavy lifting here, isn't it? It may be accurate in this case, but someone saying we should go kill all the Nazis in WW2 because they're actively genociding their people would also fall under that umbrella.
You're arguing that being an open fascist is better than being someone you suspect to be a fascist, even though they haven't said anything that confirms it.
Weird take.
Not at all. Please try reading more carefully and avoid being reductive. I'm arguing that you're confusing the tone of rhetoric with the meaning of it and drawing the wrong conclusion from that. Just because one side is more polite and shrouded by the structure of a corporation doesn't mean you should reflexively support them because of that.
If you are arguing that "siding with the others because of rethoric is dangerous", you are right in general. But to a very surprised reader of this thread, you are arguing with someone that responded to
> Anyone deliberately facilitating that certainly deserves the worst fate imaginable.
That came in a thread started with a now (justly) removed
> might wake up to their family chopped to pieces
This sets the tone I (and possibly others) interpret that message.
I know we are supposed to charitably interpret what people write on here, but a thread like this makes it really hard, given the tone.
You're right, I did pick a bad example. It was extreme, and I'm sure many HN users work for corporations like this and felt targeted.
But it's also worth considering exactly what the mass surveillance state we've got is directly leading to - deaths of many people. How many people have been disappeared or killed by ICE because of technology like this? That's just one group actively targeted by surveillance tech, and the government intends to go after millions more, as they've publicly stated. That's not to mention how many millions of people have had their lives worsened or ruined directly or indirectly because of tech like this.
These sorts of things aren't an innocent startup consisting of a few nerds in a garage, they're shaping the world and setting the stage for the expansion of horrible atrocities. This is ultimately what I mean - you have to look at the effects of what they're doing and the actual consequences. Once you see that and know people who are more directly affected/targeted by these technologies, it becomes a lot more clear why people are so angry at them.