by jacquesm | 2026-03-14 22:48:18+00:00
> So yeah you're on a US platform americans don't think like europeans.

I know lots of Americans, both online and in person, I see very little difference between 'how Americans think' and 'how Europeans think'. What I did see is that you automatically assumed I was on the other side of you politicall, and that isn't the case, we are at least an ocean (and in many ways a world) apart and I figured you deserved a heads up so that at least you can calibrate your arguments. Besides that, I've lived on the other side of the US border for quite a long time and probably have more friends in the USA than I do in Europe.

> 1. Racism is Legal in US, disagree if you want but that's a core stance baked VERY deep into our system.

I don't care about racism (or, racist speech) being legal in the United States in the sense that I think it should not be legal anywhere, but I'm more upset at the fact that there are a number of outright racists active on HN who for some reason are not shut down. This bothers me at a very fundamental level because it's the Nazi bar problem: if you visit a bar and there are Nazi's there then you are visiting a Nazi bar. It risks guilt by association and I'm here under my real name.

HN has a serious problem that it refuses to acknowledge and this goes way beyond what is legal and what is not, it boils down to 'is this the kind of community that we want to create'. I think the best way to address that is - as you are finding out - to speak up against this as much as possible, though I have to admit it is getting more than a little tiring.

> 2. My point was literal free speech attacks justified or not happen.

That's true, but there are times when your right to 'free speech' can be temporarily trumped (I hate that word, but we're stuck with it) by the right of others to want to stay alive. This is perfectly fine and only the most ardent free speech absolutists will hold that there should be no limits at all (usually, they are also the first to apply for legal protection when those free speech rights are used against them, especially if they're wealthy and/or powerful). If you think free speech is so holy check out who are clamoring the loudest for it in the present and then study - as someone else in this thread already mentioned - Popper and see what he has to say about this. Everything in moderation, even absolutism is a good starting point.

> The intent to stop racism/xenophobia is moral but the mechanisms are bad.

No, the mechanisms are just the tools to not stop it but to stop its spread and as such the experts are the Germans. They have experienced first hand what it is like to have no holds on how far you are willing to let the freedom of speech go before you are on a path that will harm you for generations to come. It's possible that every geographic region has to learn this lesson on its own time, the problem is that we as humanity can not afford that luxury.

Racism, xenophobia, nazism: all of these are very bad things and if we all recognize that and realize that mental viruses spread through the same vectors as all of our other information that it is a good thing to combat them in the arena where they dominate and fester. Turning a blind eye and saying 'it is only speech' is the same as saying about Anthrax 'it's only a couple of molecules'. You can't outlaw molecules, but we definitely have ruled out the use and possession of Anthrax.

> If EU swings far right and the same tools to attack racism are flipped to attack liberal beliefs the EXACT argument you hold will be used against you.

No, they won't be. I believe there is a time to talk and that there is a time to act and that would be a time to stop talking.

> They will say: "lgbt is morally wrong and therefore any pro lgbt statements on social media are now an arrestable offense" without true free speech baked in that's possible.

I will be right there on the barriers, you can take that to the bank. I'm not the kind of person that just sits around and yaps, stuff gets done.