Yes, It's Fascism
theatlantic.comIf you are debating whether to read this article, read it. It’s comprehensive and precise, and although political in substance, not political in form — test-fitting an imprecise definition. The fact it also reaches a firm conclusion (spoiler alert right there in the title) is depoliticized by allowing for malleable application. A benchmark article I will now go share elsewhere.
What’s left to talk about? How to react. How it ends. Where we likely go from there. Where we should go.
People are dying on broad daylight and who knows what Anne Frank atrocities we're going to discover in the years, even decades, to come in this year alone. Yes it's political. No, this isn't really red vs. blue anymore.
If nothing else it's very clear we need to bring politics back to the dinner table. And not he afraid to talk about it in 'nonpartisan' spaces. You can ignore politics, but it never ignores you.
> How it ends. Where we likely go from there.
I highly recommend Anniversary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt12583926/
If this interested you, here is another detailed and precise article by a historian, on the same topic:
https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
…and another one, much less academic in style and substance, but no less informative and relevant:
https://scribe.rip/@carmitage/i-researched-every-attempt-to-...
To be honest I didn't find the historical parallels as convincing in this article. I'm glad the author did recognize that we are in uncharted waters, but I think another potential reason to believe that our current fascist government is a little bit more restrained than earlier ones is due to the same forces that allowed it to rise in the first place - that is, social media and instantly viral videos.
What has happened since the Alex Pretti shooting was simply impossible in previous fascist governments. The administration can tell all the lies they want about it, but most of us have eyeballs, and we can see the multiple videos with frame-by-frame analysis. In the past, government propaganda would have been more effective in cases like this - it would have been a case of "who do you believe, team A or team B?" I don't have to believe either team, I just have to believe my own eyes.
> The administration can tell all the lies they want about it, but most of us have eyeballs […] In the past, […] it would have been a case of "who do you believe, team A or team B?"
Damn I wish I could share your optimism. If one thing, social media has induced more division, and generalised the idea that "if you are not with me, you are against me". We are at a point where many are demonstrably more comfortable staying in their bubble of lies than willing to seek the truth out of it. And truth is unfortunately overrated.
Add the Umberto Eco Ur-Fascism linked below.
> I researched every Democratic attempt to stop fascism in history. the success rate after fascists were elected was 0%.
Ergo Trump isn't fascist since he already was elected and democracy removed him once before. Otherwise they have to say that there has been one successful attempt for democracy to remove a fascist. Only reason Trump won the last election was that the democrats failed so hard at coming up with good candidates, if they had someone as good as John Biden before dementia Trump would have lost, trying to hide his dementia is why Trump rules today.
Well he did try to overturn that election, but he failed. So I guess that makes him a failed fascist last time around. This time he’s trying much harder. Let’s make sure he fails again.
It's nice but also endlessly frustrating and very very late, because what he regards as overuse of the term is really just people who were applying the term correctly for the past 10 years as people like the author refused to call a spade a spade. If the nascent fascist were discarded, people would have stopped saying it so much.
The problem for people like the author is that other more astute individuals [1] correctly diagnosed the issue over a decade ago. All it took was for her to have grown up in Poland and to be a clinical psychologist who knows how to spot malignant narcissism. The rest fell into place because human nature is so... predictable.
So while it's welcome for the author to finally catch up to the rest of us, it's a little late at this point. Also If people like the author had listened to more sensible people when they had started using the F word instead of dismissing them as hyperbolic, then we wouldn't be here.
Also this bit:
> Although Trump is term-limited, we must not expect that he and his MAGA loyalists will voluntarily turn over the White House to a Democrat in 2029, regardless of what the voters say—and the second insurrection will be far better organized than the first.
shows the author is still a step behind. The correct framing is that the first insurrection succeeded. It continued after Jan 6 for 4 years, as Trump waged an information war contending he was the true winner of the election, and also a war on the judiciary to evade accountability. In that battle he evaded all accountability, nullified the impeachment clause of the Constitution, and also gained "Presidential Immunity" from his appointees on SCOTUS. He also nullified Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits anyone who has previously taken an oath to support the Constitution from holding state or federal office if they have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the US. Trump caused an insurrection, and yet somehow he was allowed to run and hold office again.
So the first insurrection was successful, the perpetrators got away with it, and they assumed total power over the government they attacked after evading judicial accountability and waging an information war on the population.
Anyway, next time there won't be a need for an insurrection, because the only reason there was one in 2021 was because plans A through G failed -- they couldn't get votes in Georgia, they couldn't overturn any state, they didn't win any court cases, they couldn't get people to go along with their "alternate electors" theory, and they couldn't get Pence to go along with the scheme. So they caused an insurrection as a last ditch effort to delay certification.
In 2029 every Republican will go along with plan A. They've already purged everyone who did the right thing in 2021 from the party. So they won't need an insurrection because any Democrat that wins in Georgia will just be erased, as they've made sure to take state control over county election boards after county election boards there went against Trump's wishes in 2020.
This is it. Trump doesn't really matter anymore, he will likely be dead by the next election. Why it doesn't matter is because its all project 2025 people now, they're using Trump to further their goals and those hove some overlap with Trumps wants. Their main goal is that there will be no transfer of power away from them again. Like the 2020 election they will try many different things, but will likely succeed as the party now is mostly loyalists, the entire white house cabinet as well, so does most of the government as a goal of project 2025 wasn't just RAGE, it was also to hire replacements. And now they have very well funded goons in training to deploy when needed.
Back in 2024 after reading project 2025 and about its authors and backers (federalist society, Thiel, Vance, other tech CEOs, Curtis Yarvin, etc) it was already clear that this was going to happen. I was already convinced that the only way out of this was a general strike and/or military coup, and it doesn't look any better now. I fear an Iran like crackdown is in the deck now.
I wouldn't rule out elections. They may try to cancel/rig them but in a place like the US that won't be easy.
Yeah I assume no one will be stupid enough to try that because I don't think it would end well for anyone and I think everyone knows that. For anyone trying to gauge the general level of crazy here recall that there was a guy who landed a helicopter on the whitehouse lawn a few years ago.
> The correct framing is that the first insurrection succeeded
If you redefine success to whatever you want, then sure.
> In 2029 every Republican will go along with plan A
If you treat people as enemies, they’ll become one. The arrogance in the assumption that every Republican will allow Trump to get elected for a 3rd term might spite them into it.
If Republicans are as easy to manipulate as you state, the original statements is correct regardless, just through separate causation.
>If you redefine success to whatever you want, then sure.
The definition ModernMech actually uses in their comment would seem to be accurate. They did get away with it, they did assume power, and they are waging "information war" on the population. Although I might expand that to say they are waging war, in general, on the population. And government.
They're getting just about everything they wanted except AOC at the end of a rope, that seems like success to me. They're certainly having a better time than liberals or leftists. Or immigrants. Or black people. Or women. Or anyone else.
What part of this definition do you object to, and for what reason?
>If you treat people as enemies, they’ll become one. The arrogance in the assumption that every Republican will allow Trump to get elected for a 3rd term might spite them into it.
...which would mean they were enemies all along and ModernMech's assumption was correct?
People who actually had strong moral objections to Trump would oppose him regardless of the assumptions being made about them. People who lean into the evil because someone assumes they're evil are just looking for a justification.
And the assumption about Republicans seems justified given that they have the power to stop Trump and... haven't. At all.
> If you are debating whether to read this article, read it. It’s comprehensive and precise, and although political in substance […]
Also perhaps worth noting that David Frum, former speech writer to Dubya Bush, writes for The Atlantic (and has been against Trump from the start: see his book Trumpocracy):
* https://www.theatlantic.com/author/david-frum/
So we're not just talking about 'leftists' criticizing these actions and policies.
The left / right split isn't really meaningful in the United States right now.
The split is currently between people who believe in and want a functional and equitable government, and those who are fine with a kleptocracy as long as they are personally the beneficiaries (or at least, the people they dislike suffer worse).
People like Frum were quick to notice this and get on the correct side of it. Unfortunately, there are not enough Republicans who feel the same way to make much of a difference.
It must just be a coincidence that literally everyone supporting this is on the right politically. Isn't this sort of weasel wording part of the problem? Conservative voters are the problem. Full stop. Without them, there is no Trump.
nit: Fascist voters who think of themselves as "conservative" are the problem. Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump attacking institution after institution, both domestic and international.
My point isn't to defend the behavior of the people who have called themselves conservative for the past ~forty years. Rather it's meant to reclaim the term for what has now clearly become the middle of the Overton window. For example, never before having voted for a major party candidate in a national race in my whole life, I voted Biden in 2020 and Harris 2024. I consider these solidly conservative votes, and partially attribute them to my getting older and more conservative.
> Actual conservatives wouldn't support Trump
It's quite honestly amazing how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind. So many liberals actually believe that conservatives just want a slow measured pace of change and to balance budgets, but that's literally never been what they have actually legislated for or accomplished. Liberals are the only people in my lifetime who have actually held those values. They are also the only ones who believe conservatives hold those values. Conservative's know better. And they demonstrated it with their vote. You can no-true-Scotsman until you're blue. There has literally never been a time in this nations history when that was an accurate depiction of conservatives.
Consistently throughout this country's history, conservatives rally to oppose rights being shared with a broader group of people. Conservatives fought a civil war to maintain slavery. They fought for Jim Crow laws. They fought against anti-miscegenation laws. They fought against women's right to vote. They fought and are still fighting against gay rights and recognizing trans people as humans. Literally every single time there is a minority "at risk" of having a better lot in life, there are conservatives turning out to fight against it. When the fuck will you give up the benefit of the doubt on conservatives?
> and recognizing trans people as humans
Actually, the policy proposal is to recognize in law that women and men are defined by sex, not self-declared gender identity.
Or we could have less government in our lives. That's the approach I generally lean towards, especially regarding my genitals.
> how much conservative propaganda has warped the liberal mind
Maybe? I feel like my only real assumption is that there is some coherent set of values that describe conservatism. But maybe that is still falling into a trap of applying a liberal value of intellectual consistency to the "conservative" position (cf "Wilholt's law").
I would often read conservative media / forums from about 2008-2016, and saw merit to many of their arguments. And for others I could at least put on my empathy hat and see where they were coming from. At the same time I would see plenty of excesses and blind spots in progressive media and forums. So it really did feel like a "both sides" dynamic, where they both earnestly wanted freedom but always failed to catch the roadrunner (thanks to corrupt politicians that tended to only move in the corporate-authoritarian direction).
But sure, with the whole-hog rise of Trumpism I'm now confronted with the possibility that perhaps the kernel of conservatism isn't based on any sort of lofty ideals at all, but rather the starting point is always the ingroup-outgroup thing - even if locally-coherent logical arguments branch off of it.
But even if this is true for the vast majority of conservatives, surely it is not true for at least some "liberal minded" conservatives who do apply those values consistently? And even if they're only a small segment, with the way elections get decided isn't it still worthwhile to try and reach them by pointing out the failings in what they're ultimately supporting? (eg flagrant rejection of the 2nd amendment, previously with Breonna Taylor and now with Alex Pretti)
> Consistently throughout this country's history, conservatives rally to oppose rights being shared with a broader group of people. Conservatives fought a civil war to maintain slavery. They fought for Jim Crow laws. They fought against anti-miscegenation laws. They fought against women's right to vote. They fought and are still fighting against gay rights and recognizing trans people as humans. Literally every single time there is a minority "at risk" of having a better lot in life, there are conservatives turning out to fight against it.
Let me explicitly state that I agree with where you're coming from morally on these specific points - I'm certainly not trying to whitewash or defend these things. But I don't see how these points support your main point - they're all instances of trying to prevent social change. But before Trump, it doesn't seem like they were openly trying to turn the clock back (at least more than one lifetime). Now perhaps that's just me viewing the past with rose-tinted glasses. But it really feels like there was a sea change with Trump, and I think it makes sense to try and appeal to people for whom the reality distortion field may be fading - especially as the Trumpists continue to shamelessly kill American citizens.
> But even if this is true for the vast majority of conservatives, surely it is not true for at least some "liberal minded" conservatives who do apply those values consistently? And even if they're only a small segment, with the way elections get decided isn't it still worthwhile to try and reach them by pointing out the failings in what they're ultimately supporting? (eg flagrant rejection of the 2nd amendment, previously with Breonna Taylor and now with Alex Pretti)
This is cope, they don't exist, it's just comforting to believe they do. And if they ever existed, they would never, ever vote for a Democrat.
The "principled" conservatives will never save us. There are fewer of them than principled liberals. Go watch The Bulkwark. The anti-Trump conservatives have had their balls cut off and they have zero influence on anything. Nor should they. They still want the fucked up things conservatives want. They just want a more polite face pushing it.
And was a pretty rabid conservative until the Trump era. He only left the Republicans in 2024, he was around for the first term.
Maybe he's grown a spine.
> He only left the Republicans in 2024, he was around for the first term.
Yes, he hoped to fight from the inside, but recognized that the GOP had been taken over my inmates.
In 2016 he voted for Clinton and urged others to do so:
> Surely the American system of government is more robust than the Turkish or Hungarian or Polish or Malaysian or Italian systems. But that is not automatically true. It is true because of the active vigilance of freedom-loving citizens who put country first, party second. Not in many decades has that vigilance been required as it is required now.
> Your hand may hesitate to put a mark beside the name, Hillary Clinton. You’re not doing it for her. The vote you cast is for the republic and the Constitution.
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...
This should not have been flagged off the front page.
I really worry for the people in the US, but I'm hopeful it's hegemony is ending.
Techno accelerationists don't like to be reminded of their complicity.
I don't think accelerationists would mind - even if they believe that what's happening is wrong, going further in is the backbone of the whole ideology, so why would they be having second thoughts?
I think the real group behind this is people who are capable of sensing that this is wrong at least on some deeper level, but who are so complacent that they just want not to think about it too much. Maybe it's because they're in too deep, maybe they make too much money off of it to care, maybe their heels are too dug in on social issues for them to ever try to reconsider. Possibly a combination of any of the three.
Every thread about US politics has this comment, and the same response: this is not the right outlet, and some people feel like this content does not fit the topic of the website.
If you are not American, it’s rather tiring to have every website and news outlet talk about it ad nauseum, and have it take over every subreddit and conversation. Americans get all uppity when you tell them that you don’t want that, as if their news are so important that they transcend categorisation.
I care. It’s important. It’s just not the right website.
You will be affected by the (hypothetical) fall of American hegemony, whether it’s increased aggression in spheres of influence (Russia, China, India), market failures, or even a fracturing or collapse of digital services (Azure, AWS).
I don’t understand the insistence that this isn’t on topic. Hard not to paint it as anything but willfully ignorant.
I'm not ignorant. I just don't want it in my morning cereal when it's also everywhere else.
Awareness of your country's politics definitely isn't the issue here. I am keenly aware of the US presidents' threats to invade my country.
The issue is the insistence that it has to be discussed in every community, all the time, and that the importance transcends categorisation. Every website just becomes another dumping ground for US politics, and when you bring that up, Americans get indignant.
It's Hacker News. I am here for news for hackers. The guidelines are pretty explicit: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic".
Okay so you didn’t really argue against it being on-topic, just that it bothers you / puts you in a bad mood.
IMO it sounds like you’d be better off reading Linux mailing lists and open source READMEs if you want to avoid politics. Just so happens that right now politics is uncomfortable, but it wasn’t 10 years ago when the interest rate was effectively 0% and the US gov and SV had still some semblance of separation.
To be fair, “guidelines” and “rules” are two different things. There’s no strict prohibition on politics in the guidelines. If you read the whole thing in context, it’s trying to discourage topics that are mundane, frivolous, or vacuous — not to prohibit all politics.
“MOST stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
Emphasis mine
I'm looking at the front page right now and it's entirely "news for hackers."
You had to go out of your way to find this thread and make multiple comments complaining about it.
Just ignore the thread, or hide it and move on.
Yes, because the flagging system works. I'm advocating for things staying that way
One can see flagged stories and the vast majority including the flagged aren't political in nature. Yet people like yourself single out the minority that are, regardless of how civil the discussion is, and flag them anyway.
So the visibility of these stories isn't the issue, and the quality of discussion isn't the issue, since neither matter.
I wonder what is it that people actually object to?
Then maybe go to a subreddit on embroidery instead? The world is going to pieces and you are worried about your breakfast?
The web site already has a tool for this: The "hide" button. If you don't want to see an article, just click it and go on eating your cereal.
That can be said about any post that goes against the guidelines. At that point, why even have guidelines in the first place?
Guidelines are for comments and post. If I don't comment nor post it's not my job to care about that. If it drains all the curiosity off the site (which I doubt), then I migrate.
I'll make sire not to male the park dirty and maybe pick up a litter or two. But I'm not a ranger.
If you don't like my constant screaming, just get ear plugs
Yes, the internet is a loud place. Adding to the noise never helps. People who really care about this should male a quieter space for themselves, or start really pushing on mods and admins. Arguing among the rabble is the slowest method to achieve change.
If someone screams at you, they are actively invading your space.
On the other hand, if you actively click on an article, read it, and make multiple posts on it, well that’s on you.
Despite the name, this isn't a community for only "hacker" articles. It's overall to promote curiosity and engage those curiosities. There is no hard "no politics" policy here. The spirit of the rule is to not turn this into a 24 hour real time report of the state of the world.
But this article isnt that. If you don't find any of the last years of happening this year curious at the bare minimum, I wonder how deeply aware someone really is of it.
>If you are not American, it’s rather tiring to have every website and news outlet talk about it ad nauseum
I'm sure greenland sees it as tiring too. But of there wasn't such a huge pushback, "tiring" would be the least of their concerns. Why can't we then have a deeper discussion after that to analyze how it came to this (and how to prevent it)? We sure can't have that discussion on Twitter.
Also, I'm pretty fundamentalist when it comes to posting on social media: if I don't like it, I don't click in. If I clicked into every AI buzzword post, I'd go insane. But others want it, who am I To judge? Certainly not a moderator. If you want me to moderate, we can discuss pay.
Then go ignore it on your country’s version of HN.
When your political reality becomes scary. Confronting reality is scary. Politics is scary but honestly living in facism is just about the worst thing for founder culture imaginable
I really wish there was more transparency around mod actions
I think it isn’t mod actions but rather the very likely fact that there is a small, but large enough group of flaggers who will act in unison to remove any such post from the front page. If you want an affirmation of the efficacy of the moderation system, what you should want is transparency into the voting behaviors of the population. If you see a heavy voting correlation between flagged posts and either a specific set of users, voting timing (these types of posts get flagged much earlier than those that lean the other way politically), or both, then there is cause for concern that the algorithm of HN’s self moderation tools is being gamed. My bet is that it’s not the mods doing anything, but rather that there is already a critical mass of flag happy users that are controlling what gets to stay on the front page. I think it would be very interesting to see a write up on this topic, but it’s highly unlikely because I think it would violate privacy and user expectations of anonymity.
Close. Takes tenured accounts to unflag and any schmohawk can flag. That dicotomy alone makes things way more likely to be flagged on average.
There are enough trump supporting idiots on HN that flags on such articles are meaningless. They really don't like being confronted with the truth.
Very tenured apparently. I certainly can't unflag and I'm relatively active on a mature account.
I do wonder of boosting the flag threshold for posts to double that of a downvote would change much. Probably not depending on the flag threshold and of this truly is coordinatied
> it isn’t mod actions
It's intentional inaction. From the mods.
This post, and many many others, ought to have been unflagged.
So, so, so many popular and active stories about Musk and DOGE and Trump have been removed this past year, while at the same time Garry Tan and PG were cheering them on on their Twitter feeds.
People who call this out too much get banned. For super unrelated reasons, apparently.
Dang has explicitly disallowed any and all posts talking about the weaknesses of the flag system. IT'S PROTECTED.
Let me see if I can outline how we approach this in a way that might make sense to you...
People use the word "transparency" to mean different things. Here are the ways in which I think it's fair to say we're transparent about mod actions: (1) we explain the principles that we apply, frequently and at length; and (2) we're happy to answer questions, including about specific cases.
What we don't do is publish a complete moderation log. To understand why, it's probably easiest to look through my past answers about this at https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu.... Here's one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39234189.
In our experience, the current approach is a reasonable balance between the tradeoffs. It's true that we don't see all the comments like the ones you posted here, and we can't address what we don't see. It's also true that, as volume has grown, we've found it harder to reply to absolutely every question. But it's still eminently possible to get an answer if you want one—especially if you're asking in a way that signals good faith*.
(*I add the latter bit because some people use the format of "asking a question" as way of being aggressive and in such cases we may respond otherwise than by taking the question literally. That's pretty rare though.)
The problem is that a relatively small group of people (flaggers) just veto what we see and don't see. This made sense when we relied on flagging to just remove spam, useless posts, etc. but its now being used to remove anything that goes against MAGA.
I'm pretty sure that if you sqldump the list of flaggers of this and other posts (like the MN posts) you will find it's not a uniformly distributed list of users.
You've replied before I even had a chance to add a second sentence! Edit: admittedly it is taking longer than usual...
I've answered that point many times, e.g. recently here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818. If you take a look at that and have a question that isn't answered there (or here), I'd be happy to take a crack at it.
I haven't had a chance to look at the flaggers of these recent stories to verify that they fit the same pattern, but the pattern is so well-established that it would be shocking if they didn't. Btw, when you say "anything that goes against MAGA", the converse is the case as well (possibly even a bit more so). And when I say (quoting the comment I just linked to):
> There are some accounts that abuse flags in the following sense: they only ever flag political stories, and their flags are always aligned with the same political position. When we see accounts doing that, we usually take away their flagging rights.
... I didn't add that we do this the same way in either political direction, because that goes without saying, or ought to. But I'm saying it explicitly here.
This is a really rough spot, giving users the tools to remove visibility from a post will eventually get abused. I would genuinely be interested in some form of anonymized stats on the individual accounts and the posts they are flagging but that's a whole deal.
Am I wrong that there used to be a flagged option on the lists page, or am I missing where that is?
Honestly I don't ask for anonymized stats but rather public stats.
If you flag a post, you are inadvertedly trying to push a hn post away.
That's fine if the current moderation finds it okay and I respect HN moderation but once again another post gets flagged & dead.
If someone flags a post, they should have a reasoning why. So have it public, so that its easier to call people out if they are being unfair and it would make people more aware of who they are flagging and actually why.
Flagged articles should just list the usernames that flagged it--in a queryable way so anyone could do an analysis and see who is operating in bad faith.
Sorry, but I can't imagine doing that - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46581665.
You could publish hashes of the flaggers' usernames rather than the usernames themselves. The point is not to go on witch hunts--it's to stop the endless discussions and questioning around whether what we are all seeing (certain topics always seeming to disappear quickly) is the result of flagging activity that is evenly distributed across the site or coming from a relative handful of brigaders.
Everything I know about internet dynamics and human nature tells me that that wouldn't work—it would just exacerbate the conflict.
The problems we're talking about come from the fundamentals: how HN is defined (i.e. its mandate), how the site is structured (one front page that everyone shares, only 30 stories per page, etc.), how people feel, and what's going on in the world at large. Given those fundamentals, these conflicts are inevitable. All we can do is work on how we respond to them—trying to respond better, more creatively, more relationally. By "we" I mean all of us: mods qua mods, users qua users, mods qua users, and users qua mods.
That's not going to happen to anyone's satisfaction, but if it can happen at all, that has to be good enough.
I feel like Freud telling you guys you're all doomed to frustration!
Thanks. Ultimately, as users, we need to trust that you guys are taking the right actions to defend against what appears from our point of view to be a sustained and coordinated cyber attack on the website. I hope I speak for a lot of my fellow users, that we trust it is being treated with the seriousness that you'd treat any other security vulnerability.
I went through and looked at all the accounts that flagged the current thread, which took a long time since there were many of them. I found a handful (about half a dozen) who looked to be flagging for exclusively political reasons. That's a small fraction of the total.
In other words, the situation on this story turns out to fit the usual pattern as I described it a few weeks ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46378818):
The accounts that flag these stories are almost always established accounts, so I'm not too worried about them being sockpuppets or paid influencers.
From everything we've seen, flags on political stories are a coalition between (1) users who don't want to see (most) political stories on HN, and (2) users who don't like the politics of a particular story they are flagging. In other words, users who care about the quality of the site, and users who care about a political struggle. This dynamic shows up on all the main political topics.
There are some accounts that abuse flags in the following sense: they only ever flag political stories, and their flags are always aligned with the same political position. When we see accounts doing that, we usually take away their flagging rights.
This, so far, seems sufficient to me. If we start to see indications that it's not sufficient, we'll take more action.
To make the point clearer, I went through all the other accounts that flagged the OP (i.e. not including the half dozen abusive cases) and collected examples of other stories they had flagged. I'll put that list in a reply to the current post since it's so long. I think anyone who browses that list will see what I mean when I say that most of these accounts are not flagging for purely political reasons.
I don't know if that assuages your concerns—probably not, because it's in the nature of the internet that people feel this way and explanations, data, etc., don't address those feelings—but we can at least try.
Ultimately we have to trust you, dang. Thanks for the example posted here.
Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46763052 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Gold Breaks $5.000/Oz - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46761853 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Werewolf Romance 101: quick trope map and what to watch for - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46761315 - Jan 2026 (1 comment)
Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46760329 - Jan 2026 (152 comments)
Tell HN: I cut Claude API costs from $70/month to pennies - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46760285 - Jan 2026 (20 comments)
Introduction to PostgreSQL Indexes - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46751826 - Jan 2026 (16 comments)
Alex Honnold completes Taipei 101 skyscraper climb without ropes or safety net - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46750470 - Jan 2026 (137 comments)
Show HN: QuantDinger – AI-driven, local-first quant trading platform - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46745801 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Show HN: Build agents via YAML with Prolog validation and 110 built-in tools - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46731256 - Jan 2026 (11 comments)
I'm 34. Here's 34 things I wish I knew at 21 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46718086 - Jan 2026 (106 comments)
Steam "Offline" status leaks exact login timestamps (Valve: Won't Fix) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46698687 - Jan 2026 (96 comments)
Idiocracy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46679515 - Jan 2026 (13 comments)
Show HN: Minikv – Distributed key-value and object store in Rust (Raft, S3 API) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46661308 - Jan 2026 (39 comments)
Scott Adams has died - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46602102 - Jan 2026 (1794 comments)
Shopify CEO vibe codes an MRI viewer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46587741 - Jan 2026 (21 comments)
Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46587536 - Jan 2026 (950 comments)
I'd tell you a UDP joke… - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46580946 - Jan 2026 (50 comments)
A Unique Performance Optimization for a 3D Geometry Language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46573566 - Jan 2026 (4 comments)
I Hate Go, but It Saved My Startup: An Architectural Autopsy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46567151 - Jan 2026 (15 comments)
Inside the women's prison where violent male inmates have their way - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46555705 - Jan 2026 (0 comments)
Show HN: Various shape regularization algorithms - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46549333 - Jan 2026 (5 comments)
Eat Real Food - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46529237 - Jan 2026 (1638 comments)
Everything You Need to Know About Email Encryption in 2026 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46492810 - Jan 2026 (11 comments)
Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin, usr/sbin split (2010) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46487921 - Jan 2026 (157 comments)
Show HN: Dealta – A game-theoretic decentralized trading protocol - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46464133 - Jan 2026 (36 comments)
Tatiana Schlossberg, granddaughter of John F Kennedy, dies aged 35 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46438216 - Dec 2025 (1 comment)
Tell HN: I write and ship code ~20–50x faster than I did 5 years ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46436872 - Dec 2025 (103 comments)
VSCode rebrands as "The open source AI code editor" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46403073 - Dec 2025 (76 comments)
OrangePi 6 Plus Review - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46401499 - Dec 2025 (180 comments)
I have to give Fortnite my passport to use Bluesky - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46327818 - Dec 2025 (69 comments)
How, and why, I invented OnlyFans. In 2004 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46302892 - Dec 2025 (5 comments)
Couples rate honesty/trust/sex/money 1-10 → AI coach closes every gap - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46190219 - Dec 2025 (0 comments)
Growth Marketing Manager - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46152463 - Dec 2025 (1 comment)
Dark Mode Sucks - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46024894 - Nov 2025 (159 comments)
Owning a Cat Could Double Your Risk of Schizophrenia, Research Suggests - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45946707 - Nov 2025 (14 comments)
The Anatomy of the Least Squares Method, Part Two - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45923755 - Nov 2025 (1 comment)
Hi, it's me, Wikipedia, and I am ready for your apology - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45733430 - Oct 2025 (152 comments)
Say Goodbye - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45476371 - Oct 2025 (106 comments)
Times New Dumbass - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45392811 - Sept 2025 (1 comment)
Supermicro server motherboards can be infected with unremovable malware - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45363465 - Sept 2025 (145 comments)
Ruby Central's Attack on RubyGems [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45299170 - Sept 2025 (249 comments)
JIT-ing a stack machine (with SLJIT) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45257241 - Sept 2025 (7 comments)
Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45202200 - Sept 2025 (3317 comments)
Internet Archive is now a federal depository library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44685342 - July 2025 (58 comments)
2025 Recession Indicators Hit Fashion and Wall Street at Once - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43573488 - April 2025 (151 comments)
Show HN: Paste a Zillow URL and get a property analysis - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43180130 - Feb 2025 (22 comments)
Pushing the whole company into the past on purpose - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42650732 - Jan 2025 (125 comments)
The risk of cancer fades past the age of 80 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42487301 - Dec 2024 (48 comments)
The Pentaconta Crossbar and Exchange - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41977353 - Oct 2024 (13 comments)
Un Ministral, Des Ministraux - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41859466 - Oct 2024 (99 comments)
The Flexipede Revisited - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40828223 - June 2024 (2 comments)
Secret Hand Gestures in Paintings (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40606924 - June 2024 (162 comments)
Direct Solar Power: Off-Grid Without Batteries - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37500708 - Sept 2023 (86 comments)
Anonymous Hacks Epik - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28532464 - Sept 2021 (249 comments)
Herdwicks: The 'smiley' sheep that shaped the Lake District - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27172193 - May 2021 (13 comments)
Fucking, Austria changes name to Fugging - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25223633 - Nov 2020 (239 comments)
I flag a lot and I would be absolutely fine with those flags being completely transparent.
I understand you're between a rock and a hard place on this one but I also notice that this thread has not had its flags removed, which you could easily do.
I understand what you are talking about but trust me when I say this that HN users are genuinely really really frustrated about current flag situation of HN.
Please don't just say that the system is as is and no change can be upgraded.
I feel so frustrated at times whenever I comment in posts and I am observing a lot of the articles themselves getting flagged effectively killing the discussion.
I spent an hour today trying to find HN api to build my own custom HN alternative on which people can respond after a post turns dead for not much apparent reason.
It frustrated me because it was about Children's safety & how EU's taking action against Grok in this case... I mean I just want to share my frustration right in here that people aren't thinking of even children but an us vs them dynamic or some reason and flagging and deadding posts. This is a new low that really really frustrated me & I feel like you might understand why too.
Please change the system. I beg of you to fix it because I am seriously frustrated by not even knowing what can get flagged or not or even Dead. I am not against the moderation but can we make it so that instead of auto flagging atleast, its a flag that moderators have to pass?
Please dang, I know you want the best of HN community too. Let's work together, I feel like much of HN community really appreciates you (myself included) but we are all frustrated about it. How do we convey such change in any way where the idea of change seems feasible because It just seems that the idea of change seems like something which doesn't feel possible in HN from whenever I read such threads and that does depress me because HN is the best community i am part of. I am proud of being part of HN and many others are too and this is why we are vocal about some need of change. Some need that moderators are willing to hear our demands of frustrations and fix some aspects with change.
Once again, thank you for your moderation efforts. And I hope we can have a fruitful discussion about my comment in which I have tried to express my deep frustration today...
I am a minor dang, I have got female friends my age and If any one of these photos would've been abused by Grok, I will tell you that they would've been scarred for life, maybe worse. These could have been someone's sisters and daughters.
And what HN community flagged was a post about EU trying to levy a 6% fine on Grok...
My blood boils thinking that there are people in the community I am proud of being whose first thoughts were to flag such an extremely important discussion to make it dead.
I don't come here for politics but I still discuss about them often. I primarily come here to enjoy tech but man oh man I hope you realize my frustration and other users frustrations & are able to implement some thing which can satisfy us well instead of doing nothing please!
I know you aren't a corporate sellout and are passionate about this community, I just hope that something can be done. I believe in you & trust you after writing this message that you will do what you feel is right.
Have a nice day dang.
Edit: Looks like the other thread got reopened again. If Dang opened it (maybe after reading this?) then thanks a lot broski! This is absolutely great that you fixed it man!
But I hope that Hackernews can have such that things like these just don't happen ie. wrongful flags of genuine topics in the first place etc. or something can still be done or atleast some discussion about it within HN discussions or if possible, please discuss it with a community by creating a ask HN just once and discussing it with other (moderators? if I remember I think you are the only one paid moderator, or maybe tomhow iirc) but my point is please just involve the community just once and weigh in for this problem once again.
Modern problems require modern solutions. I just hope that Hackernews keeps on growing and false positives can be stopped and such system can be generated to prevent such as I must admit that the amount of frustration at that time was seriously immense.
Thanks once again for opening that discussion again and once again have a nice day dang!
100%
Phrasing political flaggers as "those who care about the quality of the site" already shows the hand here. You can argue downvotes are for disagreement, bit Flags are for slop and spam, not blocking what I don't agree on.
Flags are basically me waving my hands in the air calling for a mod. That's not something I do unless I feel it's outright harmful to the site. I'm a late commenter so I pretty much never have to flag postings (mostly just comment responses that come straight out of Twitter).
>>When we see accounts doing that, we usually take away their flagging rights.
I have observed that any post that is negative about Musk gets flagged. Almost 100% of the time. In that regard, it has certainly occurred to me that someone with Musk's wealth would find it trivial to hire millions of people to monitor and attempt to influence his image on social media - and imo it would be quite surprising if he didn't have massive numbers of people whose full time job was to do precisely that.
In that regard, I find it obnoxious someone of his wealth should be entitled to such personal privileges on HN. I don't mean to imply HN is actively supporting that - just that I believe HN should be taking affirmative steps to prevent the removal of 100% of things that would annoy Musk from ever reaching the front page.
Any post that is positive about his muskness gets flagged as well, and even harder IIRC.
I hear you about privileges and I don't disagree, but we're mostly just trying to optimize for interesting discussions.
>but we're mostly just trying to optimize for interesting discussions
Thanks for taking the time to respond - and I certainly agree with the above. It's what makes HN pretty unique.
dang, first thank you for the moderation explanations
Besides those who flag political posts they don't agree with (which is a problem), I see a conflict in the comments between
those who think HN should be "politic-frei" because this is a "tech site" and "if I wanted to read about politics I'd go to reddit",
and those who agree this is a "tech/science/expand-curiosity-about-the-world site", and that's what makes HN a great community, but that it's sometimes, and especially recently, not possible to disentangle politics and tech. Musk/DOGE is a great example. No one asked Musk to drag politics into tech, and I wish I never had to read any articles about it and we could just talk about EVs and SpaceX, but he did, and so it's important to be able to talk about the impact which that has on tech, and on society, because this directly impacts us who are involved in tech/science. Tech/science does not exist in a vacuum.
Yes, both of those positions are ones that one hears in the comments, among others.
The 'official', if I have to call it that, position of HN is closer to the second than the first, although I wouldn't say identical.
[flagged]
>I flag them because they're trying to establish the use of a highly subjective and derogatory term as fact.
Fascism isn't a subjective matter. We have loads of definition and the article makes a serious argument. If the quality of the article matches the subject matter, it's not flag worthy.
That's why I don't flag on ideology. I flag based on if 1) this inspires curiosity and 2) does not inspire hate (which is usually built into 1. You can't be curious of your biases are clouded by prejudice).
>or because I point out the legal basis for justifying an LEO's use of lethal force, etc.
There's a time and place. I'm very critical of Charlie Kirk, bit I gave it a week before o really went full hog on my tjoughts and actions. I have to look it back up, but I believe here I left it at "no one should be assassinated for their thoughts, even if those thoughts don't follow the golden rule" and left it at that.
Now, months later I will happily say that it quite the coincidence that so many Kirk articles here weren't flag while calling the situation what it is still gets flagged.
> Fascism isn't a subjective matter. We have loads of definition and the article makes a serious argument.
The article makes an argument because it cannot follow a consensus-accepted decision tree. We have many conflicting definitions from multiple sources, and there is all sorts of room to debate whether any given incident actually evidences some point of some definition. It is dictionary-definition subjective.
But more importantly, trying to fit something under a definition doesn't change what the thing actually is. Labelling things as "fascism" encourages lazy argumentation, and makes one prone to motte-and-bailey fallacy and the noncentral fallacy. For one example, people are now going around referring to ICE as "gestapo", prompted by this "fascist regime" framing. The central defining feature of the actual Gestapo is that they were secret. ICE agents are not hiding themselves in general, and even on the relatively unusual occasions that they are in plain clothes on video footage, they are not thereby doing anything that would be out of order for, say, local law enforcement.
This rhetoric also primes people to perceive "1A violations" when people are arrested for reasons clearly other than what they were saying, or "4A violations" in cases where a warrant is not legally required, or "10A violations" when federal law enforcement officers attempt to enforce federal law and happen to be within a state (or DC or Guam or whatever, you know what I mean) when they do so (as if there were any alternative). And it primes people to perceive ordinary law enforcement actions that have always happened and were always expected to happen in similar circumstances, in other developed countries like Canada as well, as some kind of fascist oppression. Most importantly, it has always been a federal crime to obstruct federal law enforcement; and 1A clearly does not and never did empower people to physically block the path of LEO to wave a sign in their face; and nothing ever legally empowered people to resist arrest.
> I flag based on if 1) this inspires curiosity and 2) does not inspire hate (which is usually built into 1. You can't be curious of your biases are clouded by prejudice).
I am not flagging based on ideology when I flag submissions like this one. I am flagging because they do not inspire curiousity and do inspire hate. Labelling people with terms like "fascist" (including vague political outgroups) is hateful. The fact that I can get responses like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46768495 and (in another thread) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46754655, and the fact that I can get flagged on comments like (in another thread) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46749406, makes the lack of curiousity-inspiration clear. As does the fact that every attempt I make to point at legal code and case law goes ignored in favour of people telling me that I'm out of line for daring to contradict their assessment of who is or isn't a fascist. Cogent arguments against the article's point of view are summarily rejected; threads fill with propaganda about "summary executions" (in ignorance of what self-defense law actually says) and pithy statements that don't seem to require any clear argumentation as long as they come to the right conclusion; and the ingroup gets more and more worked up.
>There's a time and place. I'm very critical of Charlie Kirk, but
People were openly celebrating the assassination; and they were spreading propaganda that blatantly misrepresented many different things he said, in many cases coming across as if they had had talking points prepared. And they also baselessly tried to associate the shooter with their political outgroup, despite that narrative barely making any sense.
Outside of HN, I saw all sorts of people call for more political violence, say that certain people "were next", etc. It was the first time in nearly a decade of being on Discord that I ever felt compelled to report anyone's messages to Discord Trust & Safety.
None of that should be accepted in the first place. To say that "there's a time and place" to call out such egregious behaviour is appalling.
You may notice that neither I nor anyone else justifying the shooting of Renee Good here on HN have been speaking ill of her. I have in fact been careful and explicit in not ascribing malice to her (because any resulting case is about Ross' perspective, and Good's mens rea is not relevant to an LEO's self-defense claim.)
(May I please also just say that it's especially galling to hear current appeals to 1A used to defend protesters who were impeding officers and resisting arrest, from the same political direction as the people who were happy that someone engaged in an act of protected speech was shot and killed by a sniper who politically disagreed with that speech? I didn't record any instances of the same person making both arguments, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it happened, either.)
I don't at all mean to come across as angry or belligerent. I simply want to explain why it hurts to read these things, and why I think they aren't in keeping with the intended spirit of political discussion on HN.
> quite the coincidence that so many Kirk articles here weren't flag while calling the situation what it is still gets flagged.
This is not about sides. This is about the tenor of rhetoric in submissions and comment sections (and the reasonable expectation of how comment sections will play out based on the submission).
They flag what goes against the topic of the website, and the HN guidelines. Not everyone wants every website to be about US politics, and that is not a right wing conspiracy.
The mods (dang and tomhow) have written probably 50,000 words on the subject. I've also emailed the mods and promptly received personal replies.
Transparent as you could ever hope for: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=dang
So the explanation for this removal condemning the ongoing fascist revolt in the US is where?
At least that's what it looks like to an outside observer from elsewhere in the world. It's been fascinating as an outsider to watch your republicans suddenly unsure about the second amendment after the last few days.
Mods didn't remove it, user flags did.
The issue isn't the flaggers per se. It's that moderators show no interest to seriously investigating flagging patterns.
Its very similar to ICE. Obviously they are guilty, but I place the real blame on lawmakers' hesitancy to tale actions to reel this in. They have the power to do so and won't even investigate the issue in ways the public cannot. That's complicicy.
Mods didn't restore it either.
There's no uncertainty. Republicans now openly assert the 2nd amendment belongs to supporters and defenders of the regime, and no one else.
The movement opposes equality because equality stands opposed to their need for hierarchy. It is a domination and submission movement. It boasts about its application of double standards. Double standards are not logical fallacies, when they use them they are virtues. To enjoy for themselves what they deny to others is a display of dominance.
I think generally the mods like to avoid anything involving "politics" since it's likely to start a flame war.
The issue, of course, is that literally anything can be "political", and moreover by trying to actively avoid political discussions you sort of tacitly endorse the status quo.
It's a tough line to draw, and I'd be lying if I said where I knew where to draw it; HN is a fun forum specifically because the moderation is generally very good. They're not perfect but they do try and shut things down before they devolve into flame wars and personal insults. If there weren't aggressive modding, HN would devolve into 4chan or 8chan, and it wouldn't be appealing to me after the age of ~17.
It is a difficult issue. For the longest time, the status quo-favoring position of not complaining about anything divisive too much worked well because the status quo had been relatively unchanging - most people grew up with it so everyone took it for granted, and even most types of pushback was far more reserved than what we see today.
But now that the status quo of Western countries had begun rapidly shifting into something completely different, the other side of that initial ruling is starting to bear fruit. I really think that at this point they should revisit this policy - not to abandon moderation, but make amends that try to distance this place from the current political establishment. What was yesterday's implicit favoring of the boring consensus is now a defined position that's supportive of whatever the current powers do. But, being more cynical, given how close HN is to Y Combinator, I'm not sure if that option is on the table.
The main reason to avoid flamewars is to protect the atmosphere on HN but you can't make the case that if the world is on fire we can just sit here and pretend it isn't happening and discuss the latest tweak to react as though it is the most important thing in the world.
I've long argued for a 'other' category as one overflow method or a homepage that is generic and subject specific pages for those that only want LLM news or Apple. I'm sure we could agree on a 10 level 'top' set with 'All' the default. That's one step closer to Reddit of course, but with the growth that HN has seen over the years you can't continue to pretend that the 'small town' measures still apply to this big city. A lot of this really is just about scale and you need to adapt to scale.
We would have curtailed the AI discussion years ago of preventing flame wars was the primary issue. I do think that they simply cling to outdated sentiments that politics is "dirty laundry" to take out instead of properly cleaning hoise.
I've been frustrated by the flagging (because fascism is so real right now) but I've been a moderator in the past and I know it's impossible to keep a large majority happy. It's hard for me to criticize the mods much.
Yeah, I’ve been a mod on a relatively small Discord server (~60 users) and even in that scope it can be difficult to keep people happy with stuff I’ve done.
Best way to mod is to strive to keep discourse civil (by setting up a policy) but at the same time let people talk about what hey want to talk. Not letting them talk because they may fight or disagree is a patronizing behavior.
Makes enough sense. I'm not a mod of that server anymore because I got an in argument with the server's owner, and decided to leave, so I haven't gotten to practice my mod stuff in awhile.
> the mods like to avoid anything involving "politics" since it's likely to start a flame war.
You're correct that we like to avoid flamewars, but not correct to say "anything involving politics". We don't try to (or want to) avoid politics altogether—a certain number of threads with political overlap have always been part of the mix here*. For (reams of) past explanations see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
What we want to avoid is HN being taken over by politics altogether, and thereby turning into an entirely different site. We want HN to adhere to its mandate, which is to optimize for intellectual curiosity (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). That certainly includes some political discussion, but (a) not beyond a certain threshold, and (b) not every kind of political story or article. (For example, opinion pieces are usually less of a fit than stories which contain significant new information, and so on.)
Unfortunately, this way of doing things inevitably generates conflict. For politically passionate users, that "not beyond a certain threshold" bit is far too little—especially in turbulent times, as now. Apart from that, there's no agreement on which particular stories deserve to be on the frontpage, and even if there were such agreement, there's still no way of making sure that the most deserving stories get the spots (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787306).
Everyone has the experience of being frustrated when a story that they care about gets flagged or otherwise falls in rank. When feelings are running hot, people jump to the conclusion that we're secretly on the opposite political side, or trying to suppress discussion on a particular topic. That's not the case at all—it's all explicable by the principles that we've been repeating for years—but that none of that changes how it feels.
Then there are the users who feel like HN has gotten too political and is a shadow of its former self—this also has always been with us: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014869.
Double unfortunately, I don't know of a fix for any of these binds, because all of them derive from the fundamentals of what HN is - e.g. a single frontpage with only so many slots (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
(* Or to put it differently, note the words most and probably in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, as pg once said: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922426.)
Let me just preempt this by saying that I think you and tomhow do a very good job at moderating, and I'm just some goober on the internet sitting on a high-horse, so take what I say with as much respect as possible.
Hacker News is my favorite forum in no small part because this forum's users are, on average, a lot more educated than the average internet user. If not formally, a lot of the people here still do value learning and education as a whole. Those environments aren't organic on the internet, and it is largely due to efforts from folks like you to cultivate this audience and I do not want to dismiss that.
The concern, then, is that when the educated people can't discuss (and let's be honest, argue about) politics, then the only people who will be discussing politics will be the uneducated people. Politics is inherently contentious and we can't make progress (however you want to define it) without occasionally hurting feelings.
Now, a perfectly valid counter to this is "we're not stopping you from discussing contentious political issues, you're welcome to discuss it on one of the many other forums on the internet, just not here". That's fair enough, but it can come off as a little arbitrary, because virtually anything can be deemed "political"; I could argue that disagreements with type systems or the ISO standard of C or complaining about SQLite could be construed as "politically motivated".
I do realize that a line has to be drawn, though. The last thing I want is for the forum to devolve into 8chan or The Drudge Report or something, so while I don't completely agree at where you draw the line, I do understand why it is drawn.
>The concern, then, is that when the educated people can't discuss (and let's be honest, argue about) politics, then the only people who will be discussing politics will be the uneducated people. Politics is inherently contentious and we can't make progress (however you want to define it) without occasionally hurting feelings.
I completely agree. That's why ultimately I abandoned the mainstream stuff (outside of YouTube. Yay monopoly) for discussion and go to Tildes for a lot of political talk. But Tildes is small by design and will have some blind spots.
I feel denying a quality article like this (or rather, upholding the minority's rule of denying) cracks into the idea that these policies work to keep HN high quality. Especially when what's on the front page right now is "I ported typescript to rust in a month with Claude!". These don't feel quality driven.
I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for.
If not, they're wrong for this site; more than wrong, corrosive. The stories themselves aren't bad (I have a lot of strong political beliefs too), but they're incompatible with the mode of discussion we have here: an unsiloed single front page and a large common pool of commenters.
(For the record: I don't believe there's a productive conversation to be had about ICE in Minnesota and wouldn't care to argue with anyone defending their actions. All the more reason not to nurture threads about it here.)
PS: I'm a longstanding "too-much-politics-on-HN" person, and even I'm a little annoyed that Jonathan Rauch's piece won't work here, if only so I can annoyingly noodle on the varying definitions of fascism. But flags are the right call here.
>For the record: I don't believe there's a productive conversation to be had about ICE in Minnesota and wouldn't care to argue with anyone defending their actions.
Funny because I'm probably very radical about ICE and I can still find subtleties on how to reform this. I've never been "Defund the police", quite the opposite. I believe LEOs should have standing, qualities, and training that makes them stand by their emergency peers. Truly the best of the best. Getting that badge should be a similar thrill to being accepted into a top college. They should have years of schooling before truly starting to gain their title.
Getting into a firefighting isn't easy, so why should an LEO see of as a career as a backup for failing to graduate high school? That's where all this falls apart. And now the standards barely get these ICE goons a month of "training". That needs to change.
But with current times, that's not a topic I can discuss on X nor Bluesky. That makes it all the more frustrating that HN plugs its ears on such subtlety instead.
I probably agree with like 90% of this but feel like if we actually tried to hash it out we'd get drowned out pretty quickly by vitriol.
If that's the case, then I suppose this community is no different. And I don't like saying that because 1) I don't personally believe that and 2) it's against guidelines. But reality can be disappointing at times.
Then maybe you should put that assumption to the test.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46762767
Is a pretty good comment, but it got flagged, there is a degree of unfairness here.
I didn't flag it, but it's not an example of the kind of productive comment I was talking about either.
I recall us having a conversation about checks and balances long ago and you were pretty strongly trusting in those keeping the US safe in the longer term. I am quite curious what your expectations are for the mid-terms and the presidential election three years from now based on the recent past, are you willing to write about that?
I don't understand what you're trying to do here but think at this point it'd be best if we just disengaged. Sorry, and thanks for understanding.
> do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs?
When I see a submission like the current one, I get the impression just from the title that the OP doesn't believe it.
The easy fix is to let go of the unsiloed concept and to add a couple (<10) main subjects and an 'all' page. That way whoever wants to can discuss what they want and flags can go back to their original meaning.
You should go build that site! It's exactly what HN isn't.
> I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for.
I think this is a poor litmus test, because there are plenty of stories on HN where the majority perspective is going to be either agreement or disagreement. For example, zero day exploits, leaks, anything related to Tesla circa 7-8 years ago etc. The notion that every conversation needs to have multiple perspectives is a common fallacy; I think we can agree that things like companies ignoring security holes is bad for example and someone saying 'actually, it's good' isn't actually adding anything productive.
> If not, they're wrong for this site; more than wrong, corrosive. The stories themselves aren't bad (I have a lot of strong political beliefs too), but they're incompatible with the mode of discussion we have here: an unsiloed single front page and a large common pool of commenters.
That ship sailed long ago with stuff like the Google Manifesto or companies like Palantir. People rightfully point out ycombinators (and by extension, HNs) connection to the current political environment which means people here, especially long standing users, will find themselves more and more agitated.
For me at least, these kind of stories are increasingly unavoidable because they aren't just things I read on the internet, they're directly my life. Schools have gone into lockdown here in Seattle when ICE activity flares up, stores I've gone to have needed to prepare and think long and hard about what to do when ICE knocks at the door. Naturally this means people are going to gravitate towards stories here that are directly related to their life, and when those stories get squashed people start to notice the disconnect. People might go on HN to avoid these stories, but I literally cannot avoid my life.
>> I think a useful litmus test for these kinds of stories is: do the people who most actively participate on them believe there's a conversation to be had, with multiple perspectives, not all of which agree with theirs? That's what this site is for.
This would disqualify more than half of AI/LLM/<insert_tech_person> stories. This seems like a cope out. It is our inability as tech people to embrace the discomfort that is not rational and engage with it.
Huge problem on those stories, too! A lot of those threads are dreadful. My point exactly.
Yes, I've been flagging a fair amount of them too.
Although generally I think the un-nuanced AI hype/doom articles are not nearly as damaging as the flood of one-shot LLM projects being presented under "Show HN" with apparently none of the framing text (HN post, project README, responses to feedback) being human-written.
I think Show HN was due an overhaul even before vibecoding jammed it up, but I agree that's an issue too.
I'm happy to hear your ideas about this, including off-site (I could email you if you like) if you don't want to go further off topic here.
This thread isn't a great place for it, but I think we should formalize Show HN a bit (don't let people post freeform "Show HN" posts, have a submission queue) and then I have a lot of thoughts about community-based coaching.
My point is that the discrimination to flag one and not the other seems arbitrary. It has nothing to do with promoting/preserving intellectual curiosity etc. We are deluding ourselves by repeating that.
In that we are practicing the very doublethink we criticize in the society.
I flag overheated AI stuff all the time.
I was referring to the general zeitgeist on the site rather than you specifically. Apologies if it seemed personal.
Oh, I didn't take it personally, I just disagree with the premise.
And Dang will take action any day now...
What makes you think he isn't? That's a rhetorical question; he and Tom obviously do intervene with those stories.
I've read his responses here and in other topics over 2025. He still seems to maintain that politics is something to avoid, regardless of quality. Not explicitly, but the way he talks about it gives that impression.
Having a tepidness when it comes to the dozens of slop articles on some trivial Ai blogs contradicts this mission to encourage curiosity and encourage a quality discussion. It feels outright contradictory and feeds into this sentiment that "anything tech is fine, nothing political is". Having flaggers do the work and promoting it as "community vote" is a convinent smokescreen, even though we all know flagging is based on a super minority of the community.
I know it feels knee-jerk, but I had this sentiment for a few years now as AI rose, and it of course hit a fever pitch in 2025. I think seeing a Tesla earnings call flagged because it wasn't stellar earnings really made me go from quiet apathy to being more vocal on the phenomenon. The actions (which I disagree on) simply do not match the words behind it (which I overall agree with).
> I think seeing a Tesla earnings call flagged because it wasn't stellar earnings
This is a perfect example of imagining or assuming our (or the community's) motivations or allegiances then criticising us for what you imagine or assume.
Tesla is far more commonly criticised than praised on HN these days. The moderators have no allegiance or care for Tesla, its reputation or its stock price.
If a ”Tesla earnings call” story was flagged, it would be for the same reason that almost all earnings call or stock price stories are flagged on HN; they usually don't qualify as great topics for curious conversation.
The quality of threads in politics discussions is absolutely dismal. Just the worst. Many of the flagged stories are quite good! But good stories are a superset of good HN threads, and threads are the point of the site.
I think it's noteworthy that we couldn't even keep a metadiscussion of this topic completely civil. This shouldn't surprise anyone. "Don't bring up religion or politics"; it's a rule of etiquette (and probably the most common bit of advice in the "Respect" section of every page on WikiVoyage). Why do we think we're exempt?
It's very difficult to talk about, because it's important and people have strongly held beliefs. Respect that, and the purpose of this site.
Amen.
For what it’s worth, I visit HN before my first coffee, and I am fine with not getting a faceful of US politics first thing in the morning. If I need that I can look in any other direction already. I visit this website specifically because it talks about other things.
Tying your flagging behavior to your first coffee is abuse of flagging. There are at any given time 100's of people drinking their first coffee, if that's the criterium then HN will become a wasteland.
I'm tying it to the Hacker News guidelines, if you care to look at them
The limit should be outright fascism. It's not a tough line to draw if you've any inkling of 20th century history. The USA isn't sleepwalking, it's goose-stepping into a fucking nightmare.
Yeah that's fair. I mean, you can look at my comment history, I'm not above commenting on the bullshit from the Trump administration.
Does this help?
Can we have a discussion that improves in quality if people dissent to the view of the article, agree with the article, or hold a view that is something in between?
If the answer is no then the risk that someone will flag the article increases dramatically. If the discussion environment isn't open and peaceful then how much more likely isn't it that people will just disengage, flag, and then move on.
Open and peaceful isn't the same as accepting an objectively incorrect viewpoint as equally valid. But I agree that what you describe as how some people read it is likely what is happening.
No one has to be accepting to have an environment where people feel safe to participate in a dialog. Civil disagreement is a good thing and can improve a discussion just as civil agreements.
If however a large portion of comments get flagged or downvoted to the point of being killed, or met with hate rather than polite and constructive discussion, the result becomes a hostile environment. Repeat that experience a few times and many people will stop engaging in the discussion and just use tools like downvote and flag without making a single comment. It becomes a battle ground where moderation tools are a weapon, rather than a forum where moderation is there to improve the quality of those wishing to participate.
There has been a few times where dang has removed the flags of an article but also done some more heavy handed moderation with a seemingly focus on civility and tone. Personally I would also like to see them remove downvoting for those articles, leaving only upvotes as a way for people to appreciate other comments. It is a nice way to give people room to have a serious and open discussion around political topics here on HN, but with some supervision.
Considering how often I’ve been seeing people on HN ardently defending everything Trump and “owning the libs”, I somehow doubt “open and peaceful discussion environment” is the deciding factor in flagging submissions of this nature.
I read through every comment in this thread and no one seems to be addressing that the people voted for this. They'll probably vote for it again in the midterms and/or 2028. You're despairing over a democratic outcome. What do you actually propose that would fix this? Disenfranchise half the country? Outlaw things people are voting for to happen? Any criticism needs to address how we democratically counter this regime, how this makes sense when this is the voted upon regime, or perhaps make an argument for why democracy has failed.
My perspective is that a scale has tipped, a critical mass of people decided they want this sort of thing, and they got it. It wasn't rigged, it wasn't fraudulent, it was a democratic election. Critique democracy itself, or the criticism is incoherent. Make an argument for why a government should be disallowed from doing things that the voters want it to do.
> Disenfranchise half the country?
Way more than half the country was disenfranchised in the last election. Best case scenario (and very unlikely scenario): blue sweep in the next elections and then massive electoral reform.
Electoral reform is really hard for parties just voted in by that election system. Suddenly they see the good in that which they had previously seen as bad.
> Way more than half the country was disenfranchised in the last election.
Over 152 million votes were cast, representing more than 64% turnout among those eligible to vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...).
The USA has about 342 million people, and over 18% of them are age 14 or younger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...) and at least some of them are 15-17 (citation needed). So clearly, doing some arithmetic, there are fewer than 304 million adults.
Not only was "half the country" not "disenfranchised", literally a majority of adults actually voted (and this is not even considering that not all adults were statutorily allowed to vote in the first place).
Because of the electoral college, gerrymandering, and other reasons (e.g. District of Columbia) many votes don't count at all or count far less.
If that is what you're referring to, then it's nothing particular to Trump. Not all of it is even particular to the US; for example, Canadian electoral "ridings" function like single-EV states.
But also, Trump won the popular vote this time.
No dispute there. It's just a terrible system that has no reason to exist. No telling what turnout would be if more of the country new their vote might matter.
Only republicans are actively destroying federal voter protections. Many red states already run elections with ridiculous voting restrictions. It's up to the federal government to discourage those practices, not encourage them. Luckily, they cannot mandate such changes.
You can't vote away the Constitutional rights of other people. ICE is regularly violating the Constitution and being encouraged to do so by those in power. Unless multiple amendments were removed from the Constitution without anybody noticing, your point about "the people voted for this" is an absurd and ridiculous attempt to justify real abuse of power and anti-democratic actions.
If we can't agree as a people that the Constitution applies to everyone equally then it isn't a problem with democracy, it's a problem with fascism and must dealt with as such.
There might be Gandhian/Nelson Mandela way of handling this. Both fought to change system and didn't teach hatredness towards individual a Racist person. Get arrested peacefully.
Others can work for immediate protest for release of the arrested.
Appeal to common values that they also have, and show how they are violating the religious values they profess.
Technically someone can make some app, that can easily help in getting the citizenship proof for an individual.
I am not from USA.
I think a lot of voters were fooled (or foolish) into thinking that Trump would limit himself to go after other people; he got a higher percentage of minority votes in 2024 then prior elections. That's not good but the mask is off and I think Trump has lost a lot of those voters.
It's also hard to quantify how much the pandemic and inflation moved some voters away from Biden/Harris.
I think Dems will win big in the next election. The question is how long this lesson will last with voters.
If your definition of Democracy is based on how we elect our leaders, then Hitler's Germany was a Democracy because Hitler was elected Chancellor by a majority. You need to define Democracy based on how we replace our leaders. In that case, Hitler's Germany was not a democracy since it was impossible for the people to replace the Fuhrer had they wished to. In Trump's case, we may still be a Democracy but there are worrysome indications ("Trump’s recent musing that there should be no 2026 election may or may not have been jocular").
I actually think disenfranchisement is the only solution. Nazis didn't change their worldview after the war ended, they were shamed for them and learned to hide.
Republicans are now defending straight-up murder in broad daylight by federal forces. I doubt there's anything that could change their minds at this point, they're too far gone.
The people voted for border control and law and order, shooting random protesters in cold blood was not part of Trumps platform. It was an obvious conclusion after some thought, but many didnt think that far ahead.
I thought a lot of the rhetoric was around economic issues during the 2024 campaign season? I see this argument a lot, and while it's true that a sizable percentage voted for punishment of their political opponents, I don't think independents (in the immigration and "egg prices" camps) wanted this. Trump 2.0 voters should be ashamed because the signs were obvious, but the notion that we need to put kid gloves on for the vile, murderous fascists is asinine.
The next chapter of America needs to be punishing anyone who was apart of these death squads and the officials who allowed it to happen. That's it. There is no statute of limitations on murder or treason. We can't make the same mistakes as we did after the civil war (leniency towards confederates and various compromises)
Yeah Americans don't want to face that their culture is the problem. Trump is still slightly more popular than he was at this point during his first term
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-sil...
They'd have to change the fundamental nature of business. Most US companies are run like tiny little fascist dictatorships, which is a great training ground for the real thing. The relationship between capital (owners/management) and labor is usually adversarial with "at-will" employment. Contrast in Norway, where businesses operate within a 3-way Agreement (Trepartssamarbeidet) - a formal cooperation between the government, employers' associations, and trade unions.
Americans would have to change capitalism too. The most reliable way to prevent the rise of the far right is to implement robust safety nets and low inequality, to reduce status anxiety and grievance.
But even in this thread they don't want to do that.
If someone is able to access this, would it be possible to copy-paste the article content somewhere else? I'm stuck in a broken captcha loop.
That happens with that site if you're using Cloudflare's DNS. Here's a gift link to the original:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-tr...
this gift link work? https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-tr...
It does :). Thanks!
Everyone is Cloudflare anti-DDoS protected these days. Even pastebin. But perhaps it works https://pastebin.com/fHXz3eHG
I wouldn't bet on the holding, the cloudflare CEO didn't seem above licking the ring
https://x.com/eastdakota/status/2009654937303896492
he's even using their rhetoric ("DISGUSTING")
Crazy that I had to still defend him in one of the posts when I mentioned cf vs italy. but in no way or form I endorse cf
I do have my domain name in them but I have been lazy to migrate out with cf tunnels but I definitely hope that I can have courage to muster to migrate my domains and cf tunnels alternative and everything.
Edit: Looks like we were talking about the same thing, y'know what's crazy is that there are some points in which I can justify cloudflare but in no way or form should they try to speak the rheoteric or something.
Like just call spade a spade and we can understand it that in this case italy is wrong but the fact that he had to speak in the rheoteric or even spoke in first place is why I also don't really like cloudflare & think that the internet should move away from 12% traffic being in cloudflare
Hope that I am able to explain that italy vs cf, I feel like italy's in the wrong but overall cf with its CEO rheoteric is wrong too and as you mention, he isn't above kissing the ring and we probably need alternatives too.
Everyone having doubts, just wait until it’s time for the new presidential election, and see if power will be given up willingly.
Hopefully old man won’t be around that long
Is this common belief grounded in reality? We're well past the notion that the "old man" (and his VP, as well as most, if not all of his cabinet) believes in the law and he has stacked the deck in his favor.
To beat a dead horse, propaganda works. And it's so much more pervasive than an occasional misleading message.
Millions in the U.S. get "information" from a firehose of propaganda.
That defines the reality they see. Others perhaps just feel hopeless but... want to believe that our constitutional democracy somehow manages to hold on and rebound.
It is exhausting and frustrating. What level of evidence is required here? And why? It's not unlike the article. Do we need to wait around for firing squads or something? What does it take for people to wake up?
A man doing no more than holding a communication device in the presence of federally assigned bounty hunters was shot at, and executed, by several of them.
Not a big delta between that and firing squad.
People are kind of missing the fact that you can draw a line from slave catchers and slave patrols to ICE. You don't have to go through Germany.
If anything, there's lots of writing on how Germany was ultimately inspired by socio-political events here in the USA on how to conduct their fascist behavior.
Read "Hitler's American Model". He loved what the American South was doing; the Nuremberg Race Laws were directly inspired by Jim Crow.
Not really.
Slaves were brought here against their will.
Illegal immigrants snuck in against ours.
So what? Are you're saying what ICE is doing is justified somehow?
Let me check.
Population of democracy vote for something.
President of democracy enacts stronger power for that something.
That something gets done.
People who disagree with democratic powers doing what they said they were going to do want to stop it by force.
That something now gets done, by force.
---
Sounds justified because it is.
No one, absolutely zero people, voted for giving the president the power to ignore all checks and balances, taking a dump on the democracy you’re so fond of.
We know for certain no people voted for it, because the option was never on a ballot.
The same should apply to all the laws ICE 'agents' are breaking in their "enforcement".
What, do you think they should not be punished, or should be immune from following the law? The laws passed by the representatives and president of the democracy you're so keen on?
If you think they are following the law, you sound crazy, because you are.
I am glad that atleast some journalists writes about this in the US+West. In India, there is little to no resistance, contemporary culture is flooded, institutions are tamed, media houses are strong armed or bought entirely and there is no one on the streets fighting the tyranny.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-nation/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/atlantic-media/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_porn
https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditForGrownups/comments/dvyd48/w...
https://therapygroupdc.com/therapist-dc-blog/why-we-snap-und...
If you're unable to make an actual comment in your own words, then perhaps you might take your link regurgitation to an appropriate link aggregator site. Elsewhere.
I'm guessing the existence of two sites, both rated [HIGH] for factual accuracy, give you a sense of outrage when you read accurate facts?
It's not just Trump. Look at how even the weak Republican pushback is framed. They have no moral objection to his actions, only for the risk of blowback.
See Ted Cruz's remarks on Jimmy Kimmel: "[W]hen it is used to silence every conservative in America, we will regret it."
Or Brett Kavanaugh on Lisa Cook: that Trump shouldn't dismiss her because "what goes around comes around [...] if there's a Democrat president".
This is the moderate Republican position: no concern for the harm caused to people on the political left, only concern that they on the right might not get away with it. The MAGA position is, as this article shows, much worse.
Imagine voting for a party that wants to build more housing to solve the housing problem.
Now imagine the people who don't want more housing (for some reason) end up burning all new houses being built in a state.
Now imagine crying about how the people who want the houses to be built to solve the problem are still wanting more houses to be built.
Turns out it's harder to solve a housing problem when the houses keep getting burnt down. Who'd have thunk?
I am so terribly disturbed by the ICE shootings (and killings). There is no justification for them. This is supposed to be a nation of laws and the rights of those shot (to say nothing of those abducted and harassed, beaten, or removed without due process) has been so grossly violated that it's hard to believe.
My heart aches for the countless victims of this band of fascists in the executive branch.
The killings are horrifying in their own right, but the most disturbing part to me is how quickly the Trump administration will just declare these people as "terrorists" before any kind of investigation has happened.
This suggests to me there is some level of systemic intent (or at least ambivalence) with this administration's use of ICE's use of lethal force. It is beyond concerning. This admin is now very literally murdering us and will immediately try to justify it.
It's appalling how they go straight to making things up to suit their narrative, as if video evidence doesn't exist. They know the MAGAs will believe them, and may shed doubt on interpretation for people who aren't that curious about truth. A lie can travel halfway around the world, as they say.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
I remember reading 1984 when I was a kid and enjoying it, at no point did I think it was more than sci-fi though. I suppose it goes to show how much we took for granted the last 80+ years.
It also makes me respect Orwell so much more. Which was already very high based on how he makes tea. How was he able to see you presciently?
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
If you haven't already seen it, I highly recommend the documentary film "Orwell: 2+2=5", it's considerably better than its IMDb rating would suggest and frames a lot of his writing around recent / current events. It also gives a little insight into his prescience.
Sounds doubleplus good! Will try to find it streaming somewhere!
Like a lot of 'sci-fi' it's really about the time it was written in, extrapolated a little. Orwell came up with 1984 in around 1943 when Hitler and Stalin were hard at it.
I find it so surreal that people are so willing to believe the lies of someone who was literally convicted of lying in order to make himself look better.
There's nothing surprising about it given US history.
The US administration has always labeled any resistance against it as terrorism at least ever since 9/11. You might remember the justification of killing young Afghani males, who were posthumously labelled as terrorists. They drone strike an apartment complex and report 25 dead terrorists, conveniently omitting to report on dead children or women, because there were 25 males between the age of 15 - 25 among the dead. No evidence of terrorist activity required.
The only change is that the same justification is now being used within the US borders.
The dead are still, however, The Other, which is how it's being justified now as it was when the dead were foreigners in a war zone.
Since before then, as well.
think of ELF/Earth First in the 90s with "ecoterrorism"... plenty of stops between that and, say, the Haymarket affair. Or hell, much of the anti-indigenous genocide could probably be described using the term "counter-insurgency", which is closely related to how the US gov. thinks of terrorism.
>some level of systemic intent
It's 100% the intent of this admin to use their secret police to drive fear and terror
> the most disturbing part to me is how quickly the Trump administration will just declare these people as "terrorists" before any kind of investigation has happened
Imperial boomerang. After enabling Israel/IDF which routinely just shoots unarmed people and officials on all levels simply justify it with "Terrorists.", and also routinely denies ambulance access to victims shots, it was only a matter of time until such and similar tactics come back home. Because politicians back home saw that the world was okay with it, so why not do it home.
People are supposed to defend their rights from far away, so that they don't have to defend them uncomfortably close when it's too late to avoid many casualties.
Well done on finding a way to link this story to your favorite scapegoat.
The U.S. itself has been engaging in similar behavior around the world for a long time. The specific relevance of Israel may only be a combination of recency and amount of U.S. attention.
But “scapegoat”?
“Israel did 9/11” is treating them as a scapegoat. “IDF often calls men they killed terrorists with no justification” is just stating a fact.
Yeh, the poster should have also at least name checked the administrative detention system of CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam, which seems like a reasonable test-bed for many of the recent and horrific systems and a kind of common ancestor to both of the US ICE agency and its cousins in the Levant.
Leaving that bit of history out certain seems like a missed point of history, and absent that your parent post's point might indeed seem a little reach-y.
When going back into history, examples become too abstract, a thing that other people did, in different times. The example I used is not only recent, it is still ongoing. It is right there in front of domestic authoritarians, showing them how it can be done in this day and age. And it is right there in front of the general population, showing them what can and will be done to them if they do not make it clear to their governments that they will not tolerate such conduct. Therefore I insist that I used the correct example.
I think I agree with you- I was just adding in some context because, from my position your point is very fair.
It's not just declaring them terrorists before investigating - it's persisting after evidence is out that they are blatantly not. An unarmed mum and a male nurse assisting someone in recent cases.
> I am so terribly disturbed by the ICE shootings (and killings). There is no justification for them.
I think they are simply poorly trained people that are given free reign. The results are disastrous. They probably don't wake up thinking "Today I'm going to murder someone" but they just don't realize what they're doing. I'm not sure how it's at the destructiveness scale at this moment, but these organizations can and it probably will get much worse as their internal culture morphs into more directly aggressive stance.
The shootings were incredibly dumb, and it's pretty much what one would expect when they create this kind of situation. Listening to the "Revolutions" podcast I realized situations like these are incredibly common all along history, you have armed people with tense spirits, a gun goes off and tragedy ensues. The most terrible part of all of this is the reaction of the authorities that lie, gaslight and support these people, get them off the hook and this reaction will only generate more violence and more deaths as ICE realizes they _really can_ act with impunity.
They are also instructed illegally. They are told they don't need warrants signed by a judge in order to arrest someone.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a good analogue to what we are seeing with ICE. People empowered to be cruel.
And they are given the message (from the president!) they have absolute immunity, and instructed to regard the law as a set of nonbinding guidelines.
The Supreme Court played a role in this too. They made it harder to stop by halting the long-established precedent of nationwide injunctions.
The people pulling the trigger are still not blameless. They are murderers no matter how badly misled. Your common murderer is misguided too. That doesn't mean they are absolved. I don't think that's what you were saying, but it bears mentioning.
I think the results of the Stanford Prison Experiment have been pretty heavily disputed, and it cannot be re-tested due to ethical concerns.
I personally don't think it's making the agents worse, but rather that it's very heavily selecting for very bad people. If you have a job where people can be violent and abusive with little-to-no oversight, you are going to select for people who want to do violent and abusive things. Keep in mind, these people aren't being "drafted" into ICE, they're voluntarily joining, meaning that they had to demonstrate some interest in it.
This doesn't imply that every ICE agent is a terrible person, just like how not every Catholic priest abuses children, but if you create a selection pressure then it isn't surprising when you get what you selected for.
Sample size of one but bear with me; I am an asshole but I am a decidedly non-violent person. I genuinely do not want to commit any form of violence on people. Law enforcement doesn't seem appealing to me because it pays worse than software and I wouldn't view physically attacking people with impunity as a benefit.
Milgram's a better example, without the baggage that Zimbardo brought to the table. Milgram's lesson: if an authority figure calls for an illegal, harmful, or unethical action, they won't have to go very far down the line until they find someone willing to carry it out, even if the first couple of people refuse.
ICE is said to be paying signing bonuses up to $50,000 [1]. That must seem like a fortune to the sorts of people they are recruiting... people who would happily do stuff like this for free if given permission.
Lots of ICE were recruited from the BOP (Federal Prison). It's going to be interesting when they go back to that job with the current ICE culture ingrained. I foresee a lot of Bivens lawsuit payouts.
> They probably don't wake up thinking "Today I'm going to murder someone" but they just don't realize what they're doing.
Jonathan Ross (the ICE agent who shot and killed Renée Good) is an Iraq war veteran who has served in military and paramilitary units (National Guard, CBP, ICE) for over two decades. He intentionally engaged in a behavior that has been documented as far back as 2014 [1] to manufacture a reason to shoot the person in front of him.
Did he premeditate killing someone while getting out of bed that morning? Probably not.
Did he make the decision to kill Ms. Good in advance? No reasonable doubt.
[1] Even by CBP internal reviews, no less: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-i...
>They probably don't wake up thinking "Today I'm going to murder someone" but they just don't realize what they're doing
They absolutely woke up thinking that. This is the happiest these monsters have been in their lives
Bovino has said the agents involved in the shooting are back at work today. Even if you believe that they were 100% justified in their actions, they killed a man, any decent organization that cared about human life would believe that has an impact on people and would put those involved on some sort of paid leave to process it. But that isn't how this organization works. This organization believes that taking a human life is just something that might happen over the course of your average workday and you'll be back at work the next day like nothing unusual happened.
Yeah, I have felt guilt for not doing enough to prevent an acquaintance's suicide for more than four years now [1], and literally every day it bothers me a little bit. If I directly killed someone, even if it were 100% justified, I am quite confident that it would really fuck me up for years.
Granted, I've been accused of feeling too much empathy by people, but I don't think that that's an atypical reaction. The fact that this officer was able to brush it off without blinking is extremely concerning.
[1] If you want you can read about it: https://blog.tombert.com/Posts/Personal/July-2023/Guilt-and-.... That said, please do not feel compelled to tell me stuff isn't my fault. I know you mean well when you say that but my emotions are complicated and I am seeing a therapist about this stuff.
I think it's more than just poorly trained agents. Also framing it as "a gun goes off" doesn't track with the video footage I saw.
The point is, when tense situations happen, you need to have everyone keep their cool. If someone flinches, people die. Repeat this situation many many times over a day, and tragedies will happen.
The shooting of Alex Pretti was a long chain of escalatory and poor decisions on the part of ICE (well, assuming here that "good" is defined by not shooting people, I'm sure some in this admin might disagree). I might come off too sympathetic to ICE. I am not, but the real killers here are the ones creating these kinds of situations, the ones using ICE as a political gain machine. I'm sure that ICE has its shares of psychopaths, but giving them reign in the first place... those people empowering them have blood on their hands.
> The point is, when tense situations happen, you need to have everyone keep their cool. If someone flinches, people die. Repeat this situation many many times over a day, and tragedies will happen.
Except that "flinching" is not happening. An earlier comment of mine:
---
On the most recent event, a reduced-speed video showing one agent (centre, bent over at beginning) removing the victim's firearm from his waistband, then a second agent (left) waiting for the first to get clear, and then pulling his pistol (video stops before any shooting):
* https://x.com/TheWarMonitor/status/2015272806636736647
* https://xcancel.com/TheWarMonitor/status/2015272806636736647
The actual shooting of the victim; view discretion advised:
* https://x.com/TheWarMonitor/status/2015335743443378660
* https://xcancel.com/TheWarMonitor/status/2015335743443378660
---
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46754974
The second waited for the first guy to be clear, then drew, then started shooting. He was waiting for his opportunity.
I saw the video, it was horrifying. My (admittedly, attempting to be as charitable as possible to murderers) take is that the one taking the weapon must have said he has a gun, and the first shooter reacted to that. It's a very sad day for the US, Alex Pretti seemed like a great person and what happened was disgraceful.
I still think that the most dangerous thing from this whole situation is how this admin frames it and effectively encourages ICE to kill people further, because there will be no consequence for them. Essentially, same thing they did with the Jan 6 protesters.
Call me crazy, but I think the most dangerous thing about people killing people is that people are killing people.
>The point is, when tense situations happen, you need to have everyone keep their cool.
That's why we train law enforcement to de-escalate instead of doing what they are doing right now, which is antagonizing and brutalizing. You absolve them of their crimes when you pretend that this was all inevitable.
I am totally against ICE, but I came here to say that I agree with the parent. In situations of stress like this, you never know how one may react. It takes a great deal of training to be able to stay calm and rational in such situations.
Obviously, the ICE agents have to rationalise what they do. "We are the good guy, we work against the bad guys". But I don't think that they wake up in the morning hoping that they will have an opportunity to hurt what they themselves consider "average americans".
Looking at the video, I could totally imagine that the first shot fired was a mistake, and then one or more of the agents panic and shoot... well... a LOT of times. That doesn't seem rational, or professional. I don't think that the agent thinks "ahah! Here is my opportunity, I'll shoot him 5 more times". Still, they killed someone for no apparent reason (it's not a proportional defense, quite obviously) and they should be judged for that.
> It takes a great deal of training to be able to stay calm and rational in such situations.
Then why are they letting people take these positions without specific training and why are they letting them return to work immediately after making fatal mistakes? Why are those above them immediately covering up their mistakes and why are their colleagues illegally tampering with evidence after the events take place?
I totally agree.
"In situations of stress like this, you never know how one may react."
Yes, please don't give those people guns.
They have made it so abundantly clear that they absolutely do not see these people as "average Americans" that i genuinely do not know how you can say so.
Yep, I also have been a bit alarmed how this is pattern matching to early phases of the many revolutions covered in the Revolutions podcast. A U.S. revolution is a frightening proposition, even if it’ll seem warranted at some future point.
There are absolutely people in this group who woke up hoping they got an excuse to murder someone. You interact with the entire gamut of human experience every day, but you never know which ones are the secret heroes and which ones are the secret concentration camp guards until they're presented with the right set of circumstances. It's as much a mistake to assume that everyone is relatively moral as it is to assume that everyone is relatively evil.
I agree with you, I just assume that the percentage of completely evil people is much smaller than most people think, but large enough that you interact with them regularly. And that you can get good people to do evil things if you put them in the right situation.
My comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46751234 and the link to a Coroner's report might be of interest.
Most LEO's are lawful well intentioned, but they do stand by and cover for a good many who are not, those that these days have encrypted chat groups dehumanising those they interact with and swapping notes on what they can get away with and come out smelling of roses.
Those rotten apples corrupt new recruits and normalise harshly putting the boot in, curb stomping, and other extremes.
An acquaintance of mine has seen the full roller coaster over the past 45 years, first defending police that were unquestionably exuberant in violence, later shunned for having had enough and pulling the rug.
> They probably don't wake up thinking "Today I'm going to murder someone"
Oh they absolutely fucking do
> They probably don't wake up thinking "Today I'm going to murder someone" but they just don't realize what they're doing.
Maybe not explicitly, but I do think there's a selection bias towards people who do want to do that. If you know you can get away with exerting violence towards a group of people you don't like, then that career is going to be very appealing towards people who want to do that.
It's the same thing with priests and their abuse of children. It's not like being a priest turns you into a child-abuser. It's just that priests are in a situation that they're constantly surrounded by kids unsupervised, can live alone unmarried without anyone questioning it, and when they do something horrible and abuse their power then they're often just moved to another parish. Of course a job like that is going to be attractive to people who want to abuse children.
I think ICE is similar. I do think there are people who join ICE with genuinely noble intentions, like getting rid of cartels and whatnot, but the Trump admin has made ICE something extremely appealing to people who have worse intentions.
These Nazis know what they’re doing.
No doubt with that, ICE seems to be able to kill when and whomever they want. ICE looks close to the brown shirts in Germany in the 30s.
They're basically jackboots, I have to imagine almost entirely composed of the republican far right. Just imagine the echo chamber that exists within their ranks.
They literally just murdered someone in cold blood. Textbook execution without trial. And have some of the most powerful people in the world saying how brave they are and how great of a job they did executing their duty.
Their entire recruiting process has the effect of self selecting for the exact kind of person who is significantly more likely to shoot an unarmed nonviolent protestor.
If I recall correctly they even have notably higher salary and signing bonuses compared to similar agencies, which could be (decent pessimistically) interpreted as a way to hoover up more recruits with questionable moral bases. "Oh I really don't think ICE is doing the right thing, but oh boy sign me up for that cash baby".
ICE being the highest funded U.S. law enforcement agency is so sad, and so fucked
https://www.kuow.org/stories/how-ice-grew-to-be-the-highest-...
> So the United States, once the world’s exemplary liberal democracy, is now a hybrid state combining a fascist leader and a liberal Constitution; but no, it has not fallen to fascism. And it will not.
That's some optimism right there.
> world’s exemplary liberal democracy
this has never been the case either, unless you're listening to USian television/movies
European, not accidentally, also mostly deliver the same, misleading, narrative.
And once Trump feels secure enough, he will also behead Congress, or at least many of its members. Maybe he wants to keep it as a convenient puppet show. Remember that this is just 1 year into his 2nd term. There is still much time for making things worse.
An additional short read which is really worth it: Il fascismo eterno by Umberto Eco, in which the author describes 14 properties of fascists regimes.
It's been translated in English as Ur-fascism and is available online for free at the anarchist library: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fasci....
To be honest, I found this essay a bit meandering and I lost interest in reading the whole thing (coming off the heels of re-reading Civil Disobedience, which by comparison is immediately forthright and to the point).
Skipping ahead to the 14 properties, however, points 5, 7, 11, and 12 are probably the most evident in the present moment.
Bret Deveraux, the American historian, did an analysis in 2024 of Eco's essay with focus on Trump and found all 14 were already a check: https://acoup.blog/2024/10/25/new-acquisitions-1933-and-the-...
Oh, having a historian's translation of the essay is legitimately helpful for understanding how the the points relate in the current climate, thank you. And I love acoup.blog, separately (tangentially related, I was legitimately crestfallen when he linked the formations of the orc army to the enduring, permeating, trans-generational success of Nazi propaganda https://acoup.blog/2019/05/24/collections-the-siege-of-gondo...)
I think flagging thresholds might need to raised. It's way too easy to supress anything controversial nowadays.
I don’t understand how there aren’t demonstrations happening almost everywhere in the US by now.
There are though. Regularly.
Seriously lol. MN had HUGE protests the last few days, as did LA when the DHS was there (and why they probably went to somewhere less hostile like MN and soon Maine).
Could you point please to several of them? I am aware of the Minnesota ones but there are 50 states in the US.
Yea let me go protest the government on behalf of foreigners illegally crossing the border!
Because most people don't care enough to protest
Itis horrendous by any measure. But Fox and conservative media amplify and support it all. Trump voters by and large love the deportations; I know this from my in laws over the holidays. If a few eggs get broken they really don’t care. Notice red states have none of this because Trump focuses ICE on blue states.
Protests are what Trump wants. He would like nothing better than marshal law and cancelling the mid terms. He has said so many times.
You are not wrong. But history also somewhat shows that appeasement is even worse.
I also wonder how politically weak the US could be if its rivals and adversaries see this level of internal violence as an opportunity to step up pressure or exploit divisions at home.
You think they don't already do this? Social media is astroturfed to hell, even HN is being manipulated. Look how political submissions get flagged. I honestly think the current internet is irredeemable for real conversations about this.
I'm of the opinion that the Russians, through paid online trolling, are responsible for starting this 10 years ago. They helped stoke the fears that got Trump elected the first time.
The fears that got Trump elected the first time have been a part of American culture since the civil war, if not the founding of the nation itself. You can find echoes of him all the way back to the John Birch Society. This is an entirely American problem.
Don't forget to give CNN the credit it deserves.
Because most people are happy to see immigration laws enforced.
Then why isn’t ICE in the states with the most immigrants?
They are. (see e.g. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/are-cities-ice-raids-ar...) And they have been, the whole time.
ICE has arrested and deported far more people from Texas than Minnesota (e.g. https://www.texasstandard.org/stories/texas-immigration-crac... https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-states-ice-arrest-immigra... https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/im... many other sources can easily be found).
You don't hear about it so much (unless you go looking) because Texas isn't a sanctuary state. Texas law enforcement supports and assists ICE, and Texas government officials don't encourage protests (and would tell protesters, if asked, not to obstruct and not to resist arrest). So there is no major conflict, minimal protest, and essentially no news coverage.
Minnesota government officials, on the other hand, seem to be interpreting 10A well beyond any precedent I ever heard of, and don't seem particularly interested in the consequences of the Supremacy Clause. In fact they have repeatedly falsely claimed that ICE are "not real law enforcement".
Oh, good to know. Executing law abiding citizens in cold blood is fair game then.
Immigrants? or illegal immigrants? There’s a huge distinction between an immigrant coming with a visa/green card with a set job and education (net positive to the country)
logic would indicate that its either (or both) (1) its not about immigration (it's about power and control thru fear) or (2) they're idiots
> logic would indicate that its either (or both) (1) its not about immigration (it's about power and control thru fear) or (2) they're idiots
Let's not forgot and/or (3) going after Minnesota voter roles (per this letter from Pam Bondi):
* https://archive.is/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/...
* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bondi-minnesota-voter-rolls-wel...
I see that as a subset of 1 (power & control thru fear), but yeah, clearly, and obviously not the 'stated' reasons
Agreed. If this were about enforcing immigration law, they would first focus on red states with huge immigrant populations, where they would have full cooperation from the local government and citizens who overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Those supporters who care about enforcing immigration laws would directly benefit.
This is obviously violence directed at Minnesota, who is led by a political opponent. It’s capital F Fascism and everyone on the right has grandfathers that are ashamed of them.
> everyone on the right has grandfathers that are ashamed of them.
There's plenty of German heritage in the US. There was a decent number of grandparents who thought the US was on the wrong side of WW2.
> If this were about enforcing immigration law, they would first focus on red states with huge immigrant populations
They did; see my other reply.
How about business owners who are hiring the illegal immigrants? When aren’t they going after the supply?
1. They do that too; see e.g. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5411184-ice-crac... .
2. Are they really "the supply"? There are so many illegal immigrants in the US now (so many that they have to prioritize the ones who have committed violent crimes, hence the "worst of the worst" propaganda) that it seems entirely reasonable to imagine they could start their own illicit businesses and employ each other.
3. Even habitually hiring illegal aliens doesn't appear to be a felony (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324a section (f)), so immigration officers such as ICE agents require a warrant to make an arrest for that specific case (unless they witness the crime per https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 section (5)(a), and I'm not even sure what that means for the case of unlawfully employing someone).
4. Yes, of course realpolitik also plays a role. Clearly these businesses aren't part of some conspiracy to overrun the country with illegal immigrants, so it wouldn't make sense to get the owners on Trump's bad side. These businesses would hire citizens if they were willing to work for the same pay and under the same conditions, and generally it's been the Republicans opposing things like minimum wage increases.
Who can resist a little schadenfreude.
LOL that lesbian bitch who got shot had it coming. amirite?
We know what it is you really want.
You can be pro-immigration enforcement, while also anti whatever-the-fuck-this-is.
It's called being pro-rule of law.
You're not allowed to just shoot people in the back that are very obviously not a threat, even if their idiotic lack of proper training makes them feel like they're in danger. It's literally South Parkian "they're coming right for us!!!" -- BANG -- as justification for lethal force of an unarmed person in custody.
source?
The mainstream media is not covering the many daily protests I see in my area, and hear and see from friends and family elsewhere. However, I do think the majority of Americans do not have the luxury (or fear of losing their job, and thus their healthcare, etc) to just walk out on their jobs or responsibilities, and the social safety nets here are limited (and being further cut by this administration).
I do think a general strike is the last chance at a non-violent resistance, but the oligarchs and powerful can weather that storm much more easily than the average American.
They literally voted for it.
They voted for something else, they were conned by populist messaging.
I didn't bother to vote in 2016 because I wasn't paying attention. I was used to politics being about two nearly identical groups who both wanted what was best for America. By 2020 and 2024, everyone should have known who this guy was. He thrived on media attention. Even during the 4 years of Biden, every news article was about him. Everyone knew what he wanted to do, and they voted for what they wanted.
If you voted for Trump and is surprised by anything that's happened the past year, that's like trying to say you thought the 12 year old girl was actually over 18.
Immigration was a pretty big topic during the election. People knew what they were voting for. I find it sad that you find it hard to believe people have civic pride they want to defend.
Considering citizens have been executed by the state, I would say people did not know what they were voting for.
Unless, of course, you're insinuating they do actually want that. In which case, your outlook of Trump voters is significantly lower than mine. Call me generous.
Now, of course, a lot of people saw this coming and have been warning about growing authoritarianism from Trump and his administration. But his administration is also built almost entirely on lies, so I can't be too critical of people who are confused.
The Trump administration has gone so far down the path of fascism and crime that I'm convinced they don't simply want to be in power indefinitely -- they need it. Otherwise, the moment a law-abiding president gets elected, there will be criminal charges against all involved. And there's no statute of limitations for murder.
I believe this country will need massive investigations and criminal trials to heal. I am concerned with what happens in between, but this is reality as I see it.
No chance in hell Democrats do a single thing to these people when they're out of power. If anything it'll be a Democrat justifying more ICE shootings so as "not to look weak on immigration"
> I believe this country will need massive investigations and criminal trials to heal. I am concerned with what happens in between, but this is reality as I see it.
Trump learned his lesson and pardoned every Jan 6 terrorist. If he leaves office, he is going to pardon every single person in his administration for anything they did from 2025-2029. There will be no investigations and no criminal trials. They all know this to be true.
Murder can easily be brought up as a state charge, which cannot be pardoned by the president. Only governors can pardon state charges.
Biden did the pre-emptive pardon thing. Trump will take that precedent and run with it.
Unfortunately liberals seem to care far more about "unity" than justice in any sense. They have been letting conservatives get away with damaging our country repeatedly throughout the decades and always welcome them back with open bipartisan arms. Maybe we could have nipped this in the bud if the confederate states were forced to de-radicalize like Germany was. Instead literal traitors to our country were right back to running for national office again and have been sowing dissent literally ever since. How many Democrats just voted for even more ICE funding for fucks sake?
Didn't the same happen after Biden was elected? And see, it achieved nothing, regrettably...
No, it didn't. Order was not restored, criminals were encouraged, and here we are.
There were investigations. There were indictments (including four of Trump himself). Here we are. What we learned is that the only constitutional remedy is impeachment (which was also tried twice). What has disabled all the checks and balances is the knife-edge Congressional majority, the takeover of the judiciary, and the purging of the civil service. Changing the President stops the active craziness but doesn't address the underlying problem.
I should have put it differently. I'm afraid that maximum what will be realistically done will be similar to the situation after the Biden got elected. And that didn't help.
Link for once flagged: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/america-fascism-tr...
You can also view flagged posts through https://news.ycombinator.com/active
The most scaring and amazing thing is not Trump himself, but all the people (suddenly) supporting him and being silent (including too many Democrats) in order to keep their position or for for opportunistic purposes. And destroying democracy along the way. Just like all the secret police agents in Iran or the henchmen of Hitler. CEO's of bigtech. Crypto-libertarians. Too many people are sucking up to wannabe dictators when the moment is there
Same pattern played out in Germany. The centrists were more concerned with leftists than Hitler. Big business thought they could cosy up to him and keep him under control. Opportunistic collaboration for self preservation or personal benefit.
Of course these all turned out to be grave miscalculations. I imagine that pattern will eventually play out this time too...
Is it possible their only miscalculation was not realizing how much of the world would fight back? Because if it hadn't, they would have continued enjoying the benefits.
No I don't think so. Broadly they hitched their cart to a genocidal madman. Their hubris convinced them they could maintain a steer on its direction.
The centrists ultimately lost when the Nazis banned other political parties. If they were not murdered first. And the Nazis took control of the German workforce, imposed harsh taxation on businesses, central planning, nationalization etc.
I'm sure the uneasy alliance worked well for a a little while though!
Only somebody who isn't aware of whose "Congress speech received multiple standing ovations, touted 'most by any world leader'" would be surprised by that bipartisan support you mention. That happened in 2024, before Trump began his second term, but shows how the system works.
It's useful to rewind and see the tests people put in place before the thing happened.
Like this VOX article surveying experts on fascism in 2015 and then revisiting in 2020:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21521958/what-is-fas...
> But there is still no state management of the economy here (as there was to a degree in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy). Trump is content to aid business by reducing government protections of the environment and of workers … and his economic policy is mainly just to let businessmen do what they want.
Well, we can check that one off the list with 2024 hindsight.
>He’s never actually done a Putin and tried to make himself a permanent president, let alone suggest any coherent plan for overthrowing the constitutional system. And I don’t even think that’s in his mind
And another one bites the dust.
Note that all the scholars who get very technical on what they want to call Fascist all compare him to Marcos, Erdogan, Milosovic. That's still not a good review.
“For another, the term has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, especially by left-leaning types who call you a fascist if you oppose abortion or affirmative action.”
The left was right too early. Whereas I, the enlightened centrist was right and just the right time.
I actually think that there is an amalgam of ideologies here (I know, so very fascist of them). Trump is more of a monarchist. A lot of the people supporting him are outright fascists. Some are plain idiots.
Them winning absolute control over the country would be a disaster for their movement though. They'd turn to internal fighting, the entropy of victory and all that. And they don't seem terribly competent with governance, it would probably turn off a lot of smart people, so the country would lose a lot of its capabilities.
EDIT: Also, there are funny things going on with the political submissions. I think there is active interference going on, they get flagged almost immediately. This got flagged and unflagged in the space of a couple minutes, so thanks to the mod team they are letting it up, I think there is important conversation to be had here.
> Them winning absolute control over the country would be a disaster for their movement though. They'd turn to internal fighting, the entropy of victory and all that.
that would be after they've finished executing the undesirables?
I am quite amazed that the 2nd amendment people seem to be the ones that are cheering on the federal gestapo
Yes, this is literally the scenario every 2nd amendment fanatic justifies themselves with. But we already knew that made no sense; it doesn't change anything to have the hypocrisy demonstrated.
Not surprised at all, we're dealing with post-truth people here, policy is driven by feeling and perception, not coherency and reality.
>I am quite amazed that the 2nd amendment people seem to be the ones that are cheering on the federal gestapo
"Rights for me, not for thee"
The flagging system has been systematically gamed for restricting content for years now. I don't think the mods deserve any praise for occasionally doing something about it. They are ultimately complicit in the state of things being hidden on this site. It's "working as expected".
And Germany would have been a much larger country economically if Hitler was executed after his first coup attempt. The Weimar government didn't choose that path though, and went for civility.
The brain drain was massive, both before the war, and even more so after. That didn't stop the peasant minded from supporting the Nazi regime though. They got to punish the people who they were told made them poor.
I live in FL, so I get to interact daily with people who are cheering for this crackdown, and have said the equivalent of "those rioters (protestors) should be put down in the street". I don't have much hope for where our country is headed.
The flags on any type of post like this are absolutely ridiculous. Glad the mods are at least for now letting this one stand.
It's sad that these posts are now seemingly disappearing from /active in addition to the home page
They are very relevant to the current state of affairs in America, with respect to tech, immigration, startups, and the hacker ethos
> Trump is more of a monarchist
Monarchs are in place without democratic support, so they have little incentive to be popular (though not unpopular either). Not being involved in politics often results in them having a distant concern for their subjects. They rarely instigate policy making. Doesn't sound like Trump.
Stephen Miller is a fascist, no doubt about it. Even if Trump is not a fascist, per se, he's following the advice of -- and delegating authority to -- the fascists that surround him.
This should not be flagged.
Flagging this: that’s fascism.
HN has always had topics that aren't permitted to be discussed; no matter how relevant or how popular, or how polite the discussions are.
However, this past year has been extreme. Seeing how everything related to Musk and DOGE was removed, for example, was extraordinary.
Anyone who thinks this forum lives up to its rhetoric is simply flat wrong. This place is now a testament to the effectiveness of clever censorship.
It's more tech not politics.
Politics is not and was never barred from HN, if that was your point. And, rising fascism would/does directly and massively affect every tech worker in the US.
But we're talking about HN censoring topics, in general - not just politics. I'll give you an example with a tech story I commented on just 3 hours ago [0].
Sourced from the BBC, with a correct headline, not a dupe, generating discussion, upvoted, relevant, important, and in every possible way squarely within HN's remit: But it mentioned Musk in a bad light.
Not only was it flagged, but it was some new kind of uber-flagged. It no longer shows up in new. It doesn't show up in the OP's submissions list. It doesn't show up in my favorites list. You can't comment on it. The link and even the title were completely removed.
That's sheer insanity. Absolutely extraordinary and wholly, completely unjustifiable.
And if you or I were to make a post about this wild level of censorship of a legitimate and important tech story, it would be rapidly removed also. Most likely, you'd be banned if you kept trying (for something completely different, no doubt).
So can we please not pretend that stories about Musk and fascism are being removed for being 'political'. The YC people have picked their dog in this fight, and are very much trying to tip the scales in their favour by censoring the users of this platform.
This is automated, if the story gets enough flags (the [dead] part, that is). It sucks, but this is apparently what (some) of the community want.
Since when can you not comment on flagged stories though? Or see them in your own favorites??
Like, I can still comment on other flagged stories even now, but on that one I couldn't. It's since been unflagged, so I guess I can't prove it, but I've never seen this site act like that... Real memory hole stuff.
I was able to comment on that story which is unflagged. Maybe a tech glitch?
It was since unflagged, and people can comment on it again, but look at the stamps. There's a good two hours there after the first few comments where no one could say anything.
And during that time it was removed from the submitter's page, the new page, and my favorites (it's back now).
Would have to have been a pretty weird and consistent glitch for a site that hasn't changed much in like 20 years.
Half tempted to email HN and ask what was going on there, only I wouldn't expect honesty.
The guidelines have on-topic stuff that gratifies one's intellectual anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity
>Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon.
In the last 24 hours there have been three Musk stories and seven Trump.
I can see both sides but Americans in particular tend to turn any forum for statups and intellectual curiosity into Trump Musk Trump Musk Dems Repubs Trump etc. There are other forums where you can of course do that.
> This should not be flagged. > > Flagging this: that’s fascism.
Telling people what should or shouldn't be done: that's fascism.
The parallels it dark times in history are too strong to ignore.
The only question now is will the people be able to stop the takeover before it’s too late.
After reading this piece I was wondering if there were any examples of a fascist state that were deposed by peace, or whether armed conflict is now inevitable.
There are few, Spain's King Juan Carlos I being crowned king after Francisco Franco's death, and Chile's Pinochet leaving power after the 1988 referendum for example.
If 15 years of dictatorship is one of the few positive examples, that is not a good sign.
Well how many examples have there been anyway? Maybe six, under a range of definitions? Besides, historicism (inevitabilism) is wrong.
I agree, and I wish I was able to delete the post. I thought afterwards the question itself is a little poor taste.
I think Spain transitioned from fascist dictatorship to democracy relatively peacefully.
“weak men create hard times” never fails
Who are the “weak men” in your interpretation of today’s scenario? I have my own ideas but I wonder about others.
the cynical people that thought they could lives as islands outside of politics and did not care to engage with anything outside of their interests. this should acknowledge the people that constructed this environment by undermining education, pushing falsehoods, corporatists blocking real change, etc. i suppose you could consider lack of any issue unifying the nation as before with WWII, the Cold War - if it's the end of history and peace/globalization is assured then you can tune out. i.e. it's about the dull invisible work of maintaining standards that keep the system from collapsing and a shared narrative, one people don't feel like exists with all the corruption, nepotism, transgresses from people in power and lack of action on global issues.
The presidential candidates the democrats presented. Trump didn't win this election, democrats lost it by not offering a candidate people wanted to vote for.
I hate this quote with such a passion. It's treated as some enduring wisdom passed down through generations. When it's from a 2016 book you have probably never heard of.
And there is no weaker, frailer man than trump.
Stephen Miller.
It seems like it's already too late, I see Americans who I thought were down to earth unbothered by ICE killings, blaming victims and calling criticism as TDS aka Trump Derangement Syndrome. I was totally shocked the other day when this came from an open minded and seemingly 'cool' guy at work.
Trump needs we better critics. Heck, we all need better Trump critics. This unfortunately is more of the same; doing more harm than good.
I think your point is true, better critique helps dismantling post-truth populism. I also think the article is correct in its assessment and is a good critique for a certain segment of the population. It might be true that it won't persuade any trumpers though. Not sure you can persuade them with articles.
The author wrote a book about how America needs to reembrace Christianity. A review of that book said it was unclear who the book was for, given that the author is a homosexual atheist Jew. I would say that applies to this article too. As you note, it won’t convince Trump voters of anything. Its only utility is for those who already think Trump is a fascist, a term that the author himself says is basically meaningless. It merely makes those who agree with its conclusion feel good and click links. Signal detection theory tells us more noise makes signals harder to detect. So the article is counterproductive. Ok, meets the authors definition of fascist; so what?
Everyone's paying a lot of attention to how bad Trump is, or the midterms. My question is, what happens in 2028? How much of current policy is something the majority of Republican voters (let alone the American people) or the political class actually want and would do without Trump to lead them? How much is only being implemented due to Trump's choices, political style and cult of personality? (Assuming Constitutional safeguards remain strong enough that Trump can't find a way to remain in power past his current term; if Trump is still President in 2029, the system's seriously broken down and all bets are off.)
Will the US say "Wait a minute, things went too far, now that he's gone we need more checks and balances before another President tries to repeat what just happened" like when they added term limits to the Constitution after FDR, or some of the post-Watergate limits imposed on the Presidency?
Or will Trump's redefinition of government power become normalized, like the redefinition of government power that happened with the Patriot Act, TSA security theater, NSA spying on US citizens, etc. after 9/11 that was justified as anti-terrorism? Those policies were never unwound even though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are over, Osama bin Laden is dead, and there have been no more attacks on that scale.
> now that he's gone we need more checks and balances
I'm sure if a Democrat is elected in 2028, all of a sudden a lot of people are going to remember that they don't want a unitary executive. A lot of people who are currently cheering on the administration.
I don't think things are going back to how they were before Trump and will only continue in the same direction unless midterm elections don't get canceled/abused, and in that case Trump would get impeached. But that doesn't mean too much. There are fundamental problems that Democrats were unwilling to tackle and are likely to do nothing about.
I'm, frankly, terrified for 2 reasons.
First up, I don't think the republican party moderates in 2029. The Trump mentality is the new normal and I believe republicans are just going to keep trying to be as fascist as possible as long as possible. We've learned that there are basically no limits on a corrupt presidency and I really fear what that will mean for any future republican president.
But secondly, I'm afraid that Democrats aren't rising to the occasion. They aren't putting forward meaningful reforms or changes to address the fascism. In terms of ICE, a lot of them are trying to put forward meaningless reforms like "let's give them more training" or "let's put their names in a QR code". The entire agency needs nuremberg style trials at this point and some Dems want to give them a weekend meeting with HR.
These two facts scare the shit out of me. Because, my fear is we will see a repeat of 2024 in 2032. Assuming we have free and fair elections, I can see a Democrat becoming president in 2028, doing nothing to address the systemic problems exposed by trump, and ultimately a new republican will be voted in in 2032 because people are sick of nothing getting better under democrats. And that 2032 republican president will ultimately know they can do everything Trump did and they'll be cheered on by the base.
Democrats need to be messaging about real positive changes they'll make.
Shooting people for speaking is also fascism but they won't say that.
Who was shot for speaking?
The loose application of "fascism" to disliked ideas reflects a culture of perpetual outrage and victimhood, diluting the term's historical weight.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/ The Atlantic – Bias and Credibility
LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation
https://profrjstarr.com/the-psychology-of-us/the-need-to-be-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outrage_porn
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/768489375/how-outrage-is-hija...
https://theconversation.com/outrage-culture-is-a-big-toxic-p...
It's true. This kind of authoritarian state violence is pretty reminiscent of fascism. Especially what looks like a gangland execution of a man who could only ever be described as exercising his 2A rights by carrying a firearm undrawn legally under his CCW. However, the list of things that have been called fascism are so long that I have to admit that my eyes initially glazed over the headline because many things have been described as fascism.
The US was supposedly ruled by a fascist in 2018: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/books/review/jason-stanle...
There was also supposedly fascism coming in 2016: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/this-is-how-fascism-comes...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09626...
And yet we had elections in 2020. So whatever, it was clearly not authoritarian fascism because we had free elections that the authoritarian fascist was ousted in. So what I think I experienced there was semantic satiation with the word fascism.
EDIT: To clarify position vis a vis reply, I am simply saying that I have heard the word 'fascism' so much I don't really react with any sense when someone says it. It's like hearing 'rape' or 'spying' on Hacker News. I assume it means "I was shown a banner ad for toothpaste after searching for toothpaste". In other contexts those words have negative valence of great significance. In this context, I just glaze over.
Likewise, the word 'fascism' from a left-leaning outlet could be anything from the end of medicare subsidies to a drone strike on an Islamic fundamentalist general to charging fares on a train.
Just sharing how I feel about it. It does not have that emotional strength that it originally felt.
A careful reader will notice that both of those warnings are about the same person. The same person who tried to illegally and violently overturn that 2020 election result. Maybe they weren't crying wolf after all?
Found another one of them...
2015: You're overreacting!
2016: You're overreacting!
2017: You're overreacting!
2018: You're overreacting!
2019: You're overreacting!
2020: You're overreacting!
2021: You're overreacting!
2022: You're overreacting!
2023: You're overreacting!
2024: You're overreacting!
2025: How could we possibly have known things would have gone this way?!
HN in a nutshell. Everyone wants to look measured and above it all. I feel like I've seen more posts about Dan Kahan's cultural cognition than about the actual killings themselves
you're saying that because as recently as 10 years ago, some people were warning about fascism taking hold in the United States, and even though they turned out to be right, they should have held off using that word until we reached this moment, where no sensible person would argue.
It's amazing that so many "leaders" (esp. in tech) seemed to not worry about or even tacitly/openly supported the Trump admin, when so many other folks could clearly see the disaster looming on the horizon.
And it isn't even like it was different people. Donald Trump has been the protagonist of the GOP for ten years. The people who were saying "this is creeping fascism" were saying it about the same guy who is doing it now.