Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 124 posts

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#101

Post by didibus »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #19
noobermin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are extremely ignorant of the cost of living in the US if you think 30K is enough to live on.

I've lived on that, so try again. Why do you believe that's crazy? $500 apt $150 car insurance $100 utilities $ 50 media (Netflix, Spotify, etc) You're taking home about $1800 a month, so that still leaves another $1000 to fill out the rest (food, gasoline, etc). That's plenty of money. You aren't going to be making regular trips to Hawaii, but that's more than enough to do whatever you'd like.

I don't know, that's leaving out a lot of expenses, like the TV and computer to consume the media, the phone and internet, a means to transport yourself to and back from work, food which is generally almost equal in cost to rent, clothes and shoes, medical expenses, etc.

This also assumes 30k per member of a household. And don't forget a good 3k to 5k going to tax depending on your state.

Its also ignoring any savings, so your old age will be deplorable, and any accident or sudden loss of work will also be extremely rough.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#102

Post by aaron-lebo »

didibus wrote: post #101
aaron-lebo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've lived on that, so try again. Why do you believe that's crazy? $500 apt $150 car insurance $100 utilities $ 50 media (Netflix, Spotify, etc) You're taking home about $1800 a month, so that still leaves another $1000 to fill out the rest (food, gasoline, etc). That's plenty of money. You aren't going to be making regular trips to Hawaii, but that's more than enough to do whatever you'd like.

I don't know, that's leaving out a lot of expenses, like the TV and computer to consume the media, the phone and internet, a means to transport yourself to and back from work, food which is generally almost equal in cost to rent, clothes and shoes, medical expenses, etc. This also assumes 30k per member of a household. And don't forget a good 3k to 5k going to tax depending on your state. Its also ignoring any saving…

It's not though. That's counting taxes, it is leaving over an additional $1000 a month to pay those other expenses (you pick) and it even includes car insurance when there are more economical ways to transport (but if you just have to have a car...).

Don't get me wrong, you wouldn't want to live like this for 30 years (though if you had good credit and then got your own house, you could easily reduce those costs, too), and it takes sacrifice, but the entire reason I mentioned 30k is because 30k isn't that hard to make, and despite that, you still have an easy road to it and (some) disposable income.

If you want more, you have to work harder, not shocking, but what you can do on 30k if you try is astounding. It's certainly not the impoverished, destitute slavery some people are acting like it is.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#103

Post by kirillkh »

didibus wrote: post #100
white-flame wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where the distinction between "hate" and "violence" comes in. (at least in the USA) "Let's kill all the $X" is a call for violence. "I hate $X" isn't. It's hateful, but observably some values of $X are currently acceptable while others aren't, depending on what direction the popular outrage trends are heading. Should "I hate the rich/politicians/corporations/nazis/capitalists/white males/etc" be illegal speech…

Or you know, we could setup a powerful system of laws and judges, with multiple recourse to overrule and get decisions reevaluated, where details of a particular case could be thoroughly analysed, and debated, with a professional representative on either side, and we could eventually rule what seems to be the most reasonable given the concrete case. Honestly, this isn't a computer algorithm. We have the capacity to j…

I'd rather have a specific system of rules governing what I can and cannot say than discover post factum that what I said was illegal based on lawyers' consensus.

While realistically such consensus is required in some cases anyway due to the imprecise nature of lawmaking, we should still strive for clear ruleset as a baseline, precisely so that the little guy is as informed of his rights as he reasonably can be.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#104

Post by white-flame »

didibus wrote: post #100
white-flame wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where the distinction between "hate" and "violence" comes in. (at least in the USA) "Let's kill all the $X" is a call for violence. "I hate $X" isn't. It's hateful, but observably some values of $X are currently acceptable while others aren't, depending on what direction the popular outrage trends are heading. Should "I hate the rich/politicians/corporations/nazis/capitalists/white males/etc" be illegal speech…

Or you know, we could setup a powerful system of laws and judges, with multiple recourse to overrule and get decisions reevaluated, where details of a particular case could be thoroughly analysed, and debated, with a professional representative on either side, and we could eventually rule what seems to be the most reasonable given the concrete case. Honestly, this isn't a computer algorithm. We have the capacity to j…

In theory, yes, but we are also a system of due process. It's not reasonable to expect that if the law says something is illegal, and a person is shown to have done it, that the good judgment of the system will understand and not prosecute. Things like self-defense and fair use are specifically encoded into the law, not just unspoken common sense. And that's not even getting into legal/political careers, lobbying, etc, that entrench the system to introduce and over-enforce technicalities.

The judgment of most of the court activity is focused on whether or not someone broke the law, not whether the law is "reasonable". That's a much bigger battle that can't be reasonably expected to be fought in any individual case, and ideally should be done before signing into law, not after. The law, as written, should apply to all cases and all sides equally. Justice being blind and all.

The history of free speech in the USA has had it pretty wide open, and these issues are about whether and how much to constrain it. That means criminalizing or penalizing in some way speech that used to be free, bringing up all the issues above and in my last post.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#105

Post by flycaliguy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #72
ithilglin909 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t disagree that saying we have “Free Speech” in America is a bit of an overstatement, but the article wasn’t taking about millennials simple wanting to do away with the phrase “Free Speech”. It states many would be in favor of regulating speech simply for its capacity to offend.

> It states many would be in favor of regulating speech simply for its capacity to offend No, it doesn't. It says that many are in favor of colleges regulating some on-campus speech that is deliberately offensive. Even to the extent that the colleges are public and thus even relevant to “free speech” considerations, that's a combination of context and intent to offend, not mere capacity to offend, that is at issue. (…

“certain types of offensive speech” is clarified as "the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements about minority groups" when you look at the study.

I agree that it feels inflated compared to potentially less emotionally provocative question about freedom of speech as a fundamental concept.

Then again, I wouldn't be shocked if that is the the general stance of a lot of people. Speaking as a Canadian, these types of government restrictions on hateful speech are written into law and largely uncontested in politics.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/40-of-millen...

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#106

Post by didibus »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #102
didibus wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, that's leaving out a lot of expenses, like the TV and computer to consume the media, the phone and internet, a means to transport yourself to and back from work, food which is generally almost equal in cost to rent, clothes and shoes, medical expenses, etc. This also assumes 30k per member of a household. And don't forget a good 3k to 5k going to tax depending on your state. Its also ignoring any saving…

It's not though. That's counting taxes, it is leaving over an additional $1000 a month to pay those other expenses (you pick) and it even includes car insurance when there are more economical ways to transport (but if you just have to have a car...). Don't get me wrong, you wouldn't want to live like this for 30 years (though if you had good credit and then got your own house, you could easily reduce those costs, too…

I agree with you, we're not talking destitute slavery, but why is that your point of comparison?

In my opinion, the average American income should be able to support a family. At least 1 kid and a stay at home parent. That feels like that 30k gets stretched pretty thin in that case.

And if it was an option to make more by working harder, I'd say fine, but I'm not so sure it is. I think you can only make more by working smarter, and thats going to come at an investment of both time and money. Not sure where in the 30k the money would come from.

I'm still not convinced by that budget of yours though.

If you live remote so that your rent and food cost gets down to 500$ and 200$ a month, you'll need a car. Which is itself a 30k purchase. So now you've got one loan already, lets say 200$ extra a month. Then the gas will eat another 100$ at least.

500 rent + 200 food + 200 car + 150 car insurance/maintenance + 100 gas + 100 phone/internet + 100 utilities + 100 medical/dental insurance + 50 media. That's 1500$ already.

Now you need to furnish your appartment, get a laptop, a TV. Lets say you do all that for 5k. And amortize it over 3 years, say you got another loan for it. Now you've got 150$ per month downpayments for that. Now we're at 1650$ a month.

Now with income tax, you only have 2000$ a month, assuming you live in Iwoa. So you're left with 350$.

I feel at least another 100$ needs to be added for clothes and household goods. So 250$ left a month.

At this point, all you do is work, consume media and eat at home always. And your saving maybe 250$ a month.

I feel that's more realistic a budget. Again, I see no room for any dependents, no kid, no partner that's not also working.

So while again, I agree with you, this isn't terrible, it sounds quite unfulfilling. There's barely any wiggle room for any kind of hobby, travel, lesson, etc. And obviously any health issue or temporary loss of job will mean lots more dept will accrue.

Anyways, I think all that would be totally fine if we had cheap or free education and a free or cheap healthcare and a slightly better unemployment benefit. Without that, I don't really see where are the opportunities to make more. You can't afford school, you can't afford to switch jobs, and you can't afford to get sick or old.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#107

Post by didibus »

kirillkh wrote: post #103
didibus wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, we could setup a powerful system of laws and judges, with multiple recourse to overrule and get decisions reevaluated, where details of a particular case could be thoroughly analysed, and debated, with a professional representative on either side, and we could eventually rule what seems to be the most reasonable given the concrete case. Honestly, this isn't a computer algorithm. We have the capacity to j…

I'd rather have a specific system of rules governing what I can and cannot say than discover post factum that what I said was illegal based on lawyers' consensus. While realistically such consensus is required in some cases anyway due to the imprecise nature of lawmaking, we should still strive for clear ruleset as a baseline, precisely so that the little guy is as informed of his rights as he reasonably can be.

Sure, there could be common guidelines. I'm also talking civil, bad speech could maybe get you fined, or banned from certain public speaking facilities, if proven by court of law that you acted inappropriately. I mean we have these already, and we manage just fine. Defamation and public indecency for example.

And it doesn't need go very far. Inciting violence, threats to ones well being or insults towards a group, spoken to a crowd, say 10+ people, either verbally, or written, or gestured. That would include any medium which assumed an audience of more then 10 people. Yes, I'd include online forums, tweets, etc in that.

Like, I can't think of any socially relevent commentary that needs you say things of that sort, unless its because you're basically rebuting against someone else doing the same. And again, don't need to jail people, a fine would be a good start.

You can even express very inappropriate ideas without resorting to these. For example: "If X were truly less intelligent, it could be that this alone would explain why they are poorer overall, and so, no amount of extra care would help, because their intelligence is an innate limitation." No insults, no threats, no violence. Yet still incredibly controversial. Now the people you'd say this to might be tempted to insult you back, but if they did, they'd be fined, so instead they'd also have to be civil. For example: "That's true, but there's no proof that X are innately less intelligent, and there's known examples of Xs which have demonstrated higher then average intelligence, so its a moot argument, and one that seems to imply a certain innate bias against X from Y. If it were true, and this shows it, that Y had an innate racism against X, then its possible Y wants to keep X poor."

Please prove me otherwise, but I don't see what's so hard about enforcing some civility in speech when expressed to a sizable audience.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#109

Post by didibus »

Veratyr wrote: post #99
didibus wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to agree with your debater. By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to ena…

> By definition, the dictator is given control over you. He exist as a dictator because you are not free. Now that's different say from an elected leader who year over year gets re-elected because everyone approves of what he's doing. You can't say he's a dictator, even though he might rule as one, but he's not, because the people are in control, even if he has the same power to enact the same things then your benevo…

> There are two different kinds of freedom here: The freedom for society to govern itself and the freedom of the individual.

...

> My belief is that a society can exist where society is unfree (due to say a dictator) but individuals are free (a fair set of laws is in place that causes minimal harm/maximal good). This society is just as free if not more free than a democracy. Therefore, democracy is not freedom.

Well, I'd be okay with your distinction if you didn't contradict yourself here. Is the society free or not?

It appears to me like you're suggesting that a dictator who valued individual rights could create a society where the people in it have no recourse short of a forceful overrule to change they're rights, but who'se forced upon rights are vast and very generous. So you'd classify this as an unfree society, but one where freedoms are given to individuals.

But that would mean that dictatorship is not free, and thus not equal to freedom or a free society. While democracy is free, and thus equal to a free society. And that ones individual rights is almost a fully orthogonal concept. Which is what I personally believe. And why I think both are important to maintain. Individual and human rights must be fought for, and made law, protected against strongly. Yet society need also be free, and democracy is the best implementation of a free society we have.

Now sure, in a unrealistic scenario, where a dictator would give me almost idealistic individual rights, yet the neighboring democracy would give me subpar individual rights, I might prefer individual rights over it. But that example is just ridiculous. In practice, this has never happened, and that choice doesn't exist. But I take your point was that individual rights might trump a fare election system, and I think I'd agree with that. But again, I see that in practice, one is rarely there without the other, probably because most people who value individual rights, also value the freedom to choose who govern them.

Re: Why Are Millennials Wary of Freedom?

#110

Post by didibus »

white-flame wrote: post #104
didibus wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, we could setup a powerful system of laws and judges, with multiple recourse to overrule and get decisions reevaluated, where details of a particular case could be thoroughly analysed, and debated, with a professional representative on either side, and we could eventually rule what seems to be the most reasonable given the concrete case. Honestly, this isn't a computer algorithm. We have the capacity to j…

In theory, yes, but we are also a system of due process. It's not reasonable to expect that if the law says something is illegal, and a person is shown to have done it, that the good judgment of the system will understand and not prosecute. Things like self-defense and fair use are specifically encoded into the law, not just unspoken common sense. And that's not even getting into legal/political careers, lobbying, et…

Is that so of civil law? It was my understanding civil law is specifically designed for this, that is, promoting civility amongst people. Courteous debate and disagreement is possible, even if one argues the other is a monkey. Such speech promotes arguments and content over appeals to hateful emotions, ridicule, and fear. The latter type of speech, to me, are actually psychological weapon of anti-free speech. They target someones else thoughts and speech, by inciting fear and blocking out reason.

Insulting someone, calling them names, threatening their well being, shouting at them, and inciting others to do the same, those are all tactics to shut out the targeted individuals. Make their voices irrelevant, ignored, and their will to speak smaller in fear of retribution.

Now I think we're smart enough to find regulation that are smart enough to restrict only that kind of speech, and if it's non obvious, I'm okay sitting on the side of allowing it. But some of today's speech is just blatantly the latter, and thats true in all political spheres, and even in most apolitical spheres.

Post reply on HN