Who Goes Nazi? (1941) • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#71

Post by mc32 » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #63

danjayh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just cannot believe what's on some of those slides. Here are some snippets -- imagine if you were to swap the races around, and replace every 'white' with 'people of color', every 'asian' with 'white', and every 'people of color' with 'asian'. If you do these mental gymnastics, some of these slides will seem incredibly offensive -- so how is it that they're acceptable at all , regardless of what the races are. Here…

Because they describe asymmetric power relationships, so you can't meaningfully flip them. "Workers can sack employers at will, and that causes employers financial hardship, so we need employer protection laws" is a less-charged example of why it doesn't work just to straight flip such types of statement.

Power asymmetry makes sense at higher top to bottom levels, but not at the individual being hired level. There is no power asymmetry between candidates. That is, another interviewee has no power over me, nor I over her. And here we're implying hiring one type displaces one of another type and we're saying that we prefer one type to be displaced rather than another type to be displaced.

Additionally, if we accept that white women are underrepresented then what it's doing is saying that some underrepresentations are better than others.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#72

Post by rustynails » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:01 PM UTC

batz wrote: post #5

The essence of any totalitarian strategy is to seize some resources, invent a necessarily preposterous myth, then in exchange for demonstrating belief in the myth, re-distribute the resources arbitrarily among a minority of people who are easily replaceable and know it. The secret is to then reward people from the majority for denouncing and replacing members of the minority for not being zealous enough, so that they…

That's an excellent comment. Very insightful. I saw a rebuttal of the feminisation of education, but here's a good link that talks about the modern disparity. It's quite prejudiced (eg. Ignores a huge shift away from boys performance - which any honest person knows is true),

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?p...

This article even gets offended when girls aren't totally dominating by an overwhelming majority at ALL institutions. That's feminism.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#73

Post by BogusIKnow » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:04 PM UTC

"Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t-whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi."

Could be a quote from the last psychiatrist.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#74

Post by bryik » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #63

danjayh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just cannot believe what's on some of those slides. Here are some snippets -- imagine if you were to swap the races around, and replace every 'white' with 'people of color', every 'asian' with 'white', and every 'people of color' with 'asian'. If you do these mental gymnastics, some of these slides will seem incredibly offensive -- so how is it that they're acceptable at all , regardless of what the races are. Here…

Because they describe asymmetric power relationships, so you can't meaningfully flip them. "Workers can sack employers at will, and that causes employers financial hardship, so we need employer protection laws" is a less-charged example of why it doesn't work just to straight flip such types of statement.

Anti-strike legislation exists though.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#75

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

marbletiles wrote: post #63

danjayh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just cannot believe what's on some of those slides. Here are some snippets -- imagine if you were to swap the races around, and replace every 'white' with 'people of color', every 'asian' with 'white', and every 'people of color' with 'asian'. If you do these mental gymnastics, some of these slides will seem incredibly offensive -- so how is it that they're acceptable at all , regardless of what the races are. Here…

Because they describe asymmetric power relationships, so you can't meaningfully flip them. "Workers can sack employers at will, and that causes employers financial hardship, so we need employer protection laws" is a less-charged example of why it doesn't work just to straight flip such types of statement.

well in that case you would also have to change the action 'sack' because firing an employer is by definition impossible for an employee of that employer.

The correct text should probably be:

"Workers can quit employers at will, and that causes employers financial hardship, so we need employer protection laws"

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#76

Post by pyre » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

batz wrote: post #62

pyre wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading what you wrote, and this comment seems to translate as: > I make an effort to insult everyone therefore if anyone is insulted they must be a zealot. It's certainly not possible for reasonable people to take offence to an insult so long as I also insult the "other side" of the debate. I'm not entirely sure that the "social math" you're attempting to use here actually works in real life. But to digress further,…

Inflammatory, by that do you mean, problematic , citizen? It's not my social math, it's from the book I mentioned in the original post. There is a political calculus to power, and there are some good game theory models of it. It would be hard to deny that academia has seen a sea change in political thinking in the last 20 years (unless we've always been at war with eurasia), just as against all reason and sense, Trum…

My "social math" comment was directed at this comment that you made:

> I make an effort to be sufficiently even handed that only a committed partisan could take offense

not at attacking the contents of the book that you are discussing in your original post. I have not read that book, therefore I am not on sufficient ground to debate its contents.

On the other hand, your idea that you have been "sufficiently even handed" requires more explanation. From what I've read from you in this comment thread, that appears to mean, "I've made comments that people all over the political spectrum might not like, therefore somehow upsetting someone on the 'left' and someone on the 'right' balances out to upsetting no one. Therefore, only extremely committed zealots will be upset by my comments." This is the "social math" that does not work.

> Sorry if I tipped a sacred cow. I thought this was hacker news not reddit.

I could direct the same comment at you. Making comments like this is meant to put me on the defensive. You're claiming that I'm acting like an "irrational Redditor" rather than a "intelligent HN reader." Ending all of your comments with the equivalent of, "I'm just saying the truth that no one wants to hear" gives you more in common with Trump that you may like to admit.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#77

Post by pyre » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

rustynails wrote: post #69

cstross wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how feminism annexed academia ... why Occupy failed but why BLM could grow exponentially No axes to grind here, hmm? (Hint: there's a huge difference between civil rights movements -- those demanding equal respect -- and the fulminations of the privileged who think life's a zero-sum game and anyone else making up ground means that they're losing out. Alas, you don't seem to get it.)

Feminism has never demanded equal respect. Two Si olé examples, 1. Australian right for women to vote. It took another 60 years because they didn't care about aboriginal votes. That's not equality!!! 2. An education system that went from a majority of honors students being male to 80% women earning honors in 30 years - and you call that equality? Do you argue that boys have become stupid (as is the modern myth of fem…

> Feminism has never demanded equal respect.

Stating that Feminism has never been about equality is an absolute statement. Even if it's true that Feminism has had little to do with equality, all you're doing here of swinging to the opposite extreme in response to it, which doesn't seem like a healthy attitude.

> 1. Australian right for women to vote. It took another 60 years because they didn't care about aboriginal votes. That's not equality!!!

That was quite a long time ago when attitudes towards race were different. It seems unfair to take this attitudes and apply them with an absolute statement like "never." Would it make sense to state that the United States has never been about equal rights and point to slavery, "separate but equal," and the KKK as my proof?

> 2. An education system that went from a majority of honors students being male to 80% women earning honors in 30 years - and you call that equality? Do you argue that boys have become stupid (as is the modern myth of feminism) for such a drastic swing at almost all levels of academia.

Unless you can directly connect Feminism to this, then you need to explain what you feel the mechanisms are that Feminism uses to indirectly influence these results. Which education system (I assume Australia)? How has Feminism affected these results?

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#78

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 9:53 PM UTC

fnovd wrote: post #60

wildmusings wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's substantial evidence for both of these though, which you're not going to address. You seem very sure about what I will and won't address. Why don't we find out? What is this evidence? > And minorities were kept down by force of law until at least the 1960s; have the systems put in place to do so been fully dismantled? I'd say yes. The right to vote is firmly protected (as for voter ID laws, I think they're…

> The War on Drugs is disproportionately hurting minorities Agreed. > I don't think you can frame it as the machinery of minority oppression. Erm, what? So you're saying that, while the War on Drugs disproportionately hurts minorities, it's not a machine of minority oppression? I can't wrap my head around that. Any discussion I hear about race always takes me back to the old Atwater quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

The form of your argument seems to be that if a policy has a race/sex disparity in impact then it's inherently racist/sexist.

Let's go for the reductio ad absurdum.

We have a choice between two policies. The first says if you're accused of being a child's parent and you can prove with a genetic test that you aren't then you don't have to pay child support. The second says if you're accused of being a child's parent then you have to pay child support even if you can prove you're not.

Suppose we know that there is a sex disparity in impact for this policy. The people falsely accused of being a child's parent are disproportionately men and single parents with custody are disproportionately women. If we let the accused parent prove the facts then it will benefit men to the detriment of women.

Therefore, by your logic, it is a sexist policy to not force people who can prove they aren't a child's parent to pay child support anyway. Which is absurd.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#79

Post by pekgpkgae » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 10:06 PM UTC

batz wrote: post #5

The essence of any totalitarian strategy is to seize some resources, invent a necessarily preposterous myth, then in exchange for demonstrating belief in the myth, re-distribute the resources arbitrarily among a minority of people who are easily replaceable and know it. The secret is to then reward people from the majority for denouncing and replacing members of the minority for not being zealous enough, so that they…

It is unreasonable and unethical to roll up equal-rights movements with movements that specifically attempted to destroy minorities.

I understand that this is HN, and that HN is full of white men who think their lives are so hard; but honestly... it is just gross that dang and pg encourage your sort of "polite" but incredibly bigoted conversation here.

Re: Who Goes Nazi? (1941)

#80

Post by spritzifutz » Sun, Feb 07, 2016, 10:08 PM UTC

rdiddly wrote: post #66

batz wrote: post #5

The essence of any totalitarian strategy is to seize some resources, invent a necessarily preposterous myth, then in exchange for demonstrating belief in the myth, re-distribute the resources arbitrarily among a minority of people who are easily replaceable and know it. The secret is to then reward people from the majority for denouncing and replacing members of the minority for not being zealous enough, so that they…

I appreciated the dispassionate detachment of the comment. Like others, I'm a little suspicious of your "feminism annexed academia" bit (though not in the same kneejerky way). But what I really wonder is, could you expand on "why Occupy failed?" I've never really viewed it through that lens. Here, I'll give it a go. Certainly the unifying mythos was there - the 1%/the 99% - and by the way this isn't preposterous. But…

Can you explain to me why the institute of applied physics is now looking for two research assistants in gender studies?

It's 19 hours and 55 minute of work every week with a 3 year contract to do gender studies in a physics department. Do you know that the Nazis had a field for facial recognition of Jewish features on faces?

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...