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

RIP Culture War Thread

slatestarcodex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 313 posts

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#251

Post by ethics_gradient »

nullc wrote: post #219

This is a really over the top one sided presentation. The thread being mourned was continually full of really shockingly horrible stuff. Straight faced technobabble laden arguments for genocide and such. A reliable go-to for "oh-shit,-humanity-is-screwed" porn. It was impossible to tell how much of it was actually awful people earnestly advancing awful ideas vs screwed up performance art with people intentionally pos…

Thank you for being one of the few commenters on this thread who point out the HBD streak on that thread. The insistence that that is not reactionary has been a strong undercurrent in that forum, and so when people from there talk about the weirdness of that thread, I hope more people notice that it's not about uh, weird music or humor. It's about an obsession with race and genes that easily goes into very dark territory.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#252

Post by Fnoord »

What happened here is that people who have "extreme" opinions have found a platform to express them, and people tend to remember or focus on the outliers instead of the nuance (hence skewed perception). Whereas some or most within inside the community learned to listen to each other and respect having different opinions on controversial matters, outsiders did not respect this, and actively harassed a leader of the community (moderator) in a campaign for change (getting rid of the community).

Having been a moderator in multiple communities, I know a sure way to burn out is to be one. It is also a perfect way to get rid of your opponent: suggest they become a moderator. I've been burned by that multiple times. I still moderate communities, and I'm good at it (also because of my background, e.g. technical; other people have other qualities), but only small ones. Even if it has exactly the same signal-to-noise ratio as a large community, you end up with less noise and therefore it takes less time. People know each other better.

A very good (but specific) analogy comes to my mind: World of Warcraft. Nowadays, you can swap your character to another server (called "realm") and faction (red being Horde, blue being Alliance), etc. Back in the days of early WoW (Vanilla and TBC) you invested in your character and were therefore bound to realm & faction. These were relatively small worlds where different guilds (akin to "clans" or "teams") existed. People knew each other because of the size; akin to a small town with communities. Fast forward post TBC and you had the later expansions where with the click of a button people were in a group of random players of the same faction (regardless of realm). Playing together with 4 or 24 strangers whom you will likely never meet again. This decreased the relevance of reputation among peers and allowed for so-called toxic behaviour.

WoW is just one simulation of that phenomenon (for which I don't know the name). I'd say the problem, summed up, is that people get away with harassment on the Internet because of the sheer anonymity/pseudonymity and physical distance.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#253

Post by humanrebar »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #232
humanrebar wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, actually having conversations about meaningful and controversial subjects is impolite and a good way to lose friends. At least on the internet, the other party can just stop talking when they're done. They won't feel like they're cutting off or abandoning a friend.

If you can't have conversations and even discussions about meaningful or controversial subjects with your friends, I would say they were never actually your friends. I am friends with some people whom I wildly disagree with on a number of subjects, especially politics. But we have common ground in shared interests (music and whisky), and we use that as a basis for civilized discussion. We might disagree wildly and be…

I have some friends I can talk about anything with.

I have some friends that aren't capable of doing that, at least not with me. If I expect my friends to be perfect, I'm not a very good friend.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#254

Post by KozmoNau7 »

humanrebar wrote: post #253
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't have conversations and even discussions about meaningful or controversial subjects with your friends, I would say they were never actually your friends. I am friends with some people whom I wildly disagree with on a number of subjects, especially politics. But we have common ground in shared interests (music and whisky), and we use that as a basis for civilized discussion. We might disagree wildly and be…

I have some friends I can talk about anything with. I have some friends that aren't capable of doing that, at least not with me. If I expect my friends to be perfect, I'm not a very good friend.

That's exactly what I mean, it goes both ways. If you can't respect each other, either one or both of you aren't an actual friend.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#255

Post by PavlovsCat »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #93
gipp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you've left out of that idyll of the early internet, though, is that its population was - smaller, by many orders of magnitude - from a highly homogeneous distribution of cultural backgrounds - mostly of comfortable material means These are, and have probably always been, prerequisites for the kind of civil discourse you're talking about. The "heavy-handedness" of tech companies is IMO less a cause than it is a…

I agree about smaller groups, but I remember being in rather diverse forums early on. The one thing people had in common is that they liked reading and writing, and art, and arguing, and were okay with computers. So that also implies a level of comfort, at least for those who weren't posting from internet cafés. What degraded conversation the most IMO is that people can just slink away. Someone makes a claim, you ref…

> Yes, we all had in common that we lived on a street

Whoops, that's a leftover from what that was a reference to; in the previous paragraph I at first wrote "we had to deal with the other kids on the street we lived on" but that sounded too much like standing up to bullies, it really wasn't like that, we were outspoken, but not super mean to each other.

I remember posting some nasty rant, either about Christianity or God, and how another member was totally taken aback at the words I had "made show up on his screen". He was genuinely hurt, and I felt genuinely sorry about that, and we genuinely talked about it. I don't recall any of the content, but still remember my shock at realizing I had made "words show up" on the screen of a person which hurt them. I can't say I learned a lot from that, because I can still be caustic sadly, but in that instance I had hurt that other person and they said ouch, I knew they weren't "playing a card", and I knew they weren't calling me out so the others or the mods might take action. They just replied as their vulnerable self, with their actual thoughts, and maybe because I would have been totally free to double down and be a complete jerk, I felt no impulse to do that at all, since they didn't come at me "sideways" at all.

There's bound to be some nostalgia, sure, but it really was like we were "forum members" first and foremost, and actually did accept being different, instead of trying to make each other "fit". I'm sure I don't grossly misremember that. We treated each other like wild dogs.. no muzzles, no leashes, but also no tricks, and no dog catchers with words on their lips which their eyes and pheromones didn't match. So we barked and peed a lot and bit some, but only ever to defend our own boundaries, assert our own aliveness, not ever to hurt or even destroy someone else.

I saw this discussion with Camilla Paglia yesterday, and I felt weirdly nostalgic for a time I never knew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPlXO0G3Qzc&t=7m10s

Paglia having a lovely chat with a lovely conservative lady, callers with a separate number for "Democrats" and "Republicans", yet I couldn't stop listening, not even because I cared about the subject so much, just because it's just so edifying to see people agree to disagree without getting stomach ulcers, and happy to find common ground when they do.

Just check out this caller in the same video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPlXO0G3Qzc&t=20m26s

I can think of so many points where I would have expected that caller to be cut off for "seeming too angry", and everybody just rolling their eyes and moving on. Instead, stay in the line, we're gonna talk about this shit. Makes my head spin, makes me homesick. But also makes me confident in not giving up to people who never even knew that, who never had the opportunity to enjoy it. They've been ripped off, and if I gave in I'd be ripping them off, too.

> I give you this one rule of conduct. Do what you will, but speak out always. Be shunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don't be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time.

-- John J. Chapman, Commencement Address to the Graduating Class of Hobart College, 1900

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#256

Post by mikeash »

barrkel wrote: post #236
mikeash wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that too many people think “polite” just means “no profanity or name-calling.” It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position. The very nature of what you’re arguing for is that some people are inherently less than others, which is the opposite of respect. But if you state such an argument without using naughty words, a lot of people will misinterpret that as respect…

That just moves the locus of disagreement to a different place, to whether the argument is respectful or not. And the risk is it will be less intellectually honest. For example, what if I argued in favour of racial segregation of schools because it would give a better environment for children to learn in, being around role models they could easily identify with and not get sucked into cultural traps like thinking bei…

What about the kids who don’t fit neatly into either category? You’ll be throwing a bunch of people into a group in an arbitrary fashion and then teaching them, perhaps just implicitly, that the group’s standards are “normal” and they are different. By saying this is a good thing you’re disrespecting a ton of people.

This is part of why a racist argument can’t be respectful: it’s fundamentally opposed to basic reality.

Is it possible that such an argument could be made honestly? Sure, by an ignorant nimrod. Does that make it respectful? No, part of respect in an argument is making sure you have a grasp of the basic facts before you spout off. Is it bad to block ignorant but honest nimrods in an attempt to block racist shitheads who have learned to cloak their arguments in polite-sounding language? No, for every ignorant nimrod there are a hundred racist shitheads, and you’re not going to educate the ignorant nimrods by giving equal footing to the racist shitheads.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#257

Post by mikeash »

Farradfahren wrote: post #140
mikeash wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is that too many people think “polite” just means “no profanity or name-calling.” It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position. The very nature of what you’re arguing for is that some people are inherently less than others, which is the opposite of respect. But if you state such an argument without using naughty words, a lot of people will misinterpret that as respect…

Lets assume that beauty of woman decreases over time. Lets further assume, that contracts are needed to uphold a ressource supply. Lets call such a contract marriage. Lets assume, to uphold such a contract a - "neutral" third party is needed. This party should be able to be pressurized into certain behaviour, while beeing independent enough to not be seen as affiliated to one side of the interest conflict. Consider,…

Let’s assume that the only value a woman has is her beauty. Gosh, why would anyone say I’m being disrespectful!

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#258

Post by mikeash »

masonic wrote: post #207
krapp wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>. Racist comments are and should be unpopular but when the definition racism is widened to include half the population then censoring "racists" Half the population didn't vote for Trump. I think that's what we're supposed to be reading between the lines here, that half the population voted for Trump and have now been unfairly demonized as racists and homophobes and that, because of this, the terms "racist" and "homo…

Half the population didn't vote for Trump. More than that, in total population terms. Then again, Trump got over 40% more votes than Bill Clinton did for his first term.

Comparing absolute numbers of votes across time is silly.

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#259

Post by tsimionescu »

yesenadam wrote: post #183
dnautics wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A similar argument was made about television, and the printing press too. Quality of life over the arc of history - and the discourse - has gotten much better. Why do you suspect the internet will be any different? It's still the early days. Remember yellow journalism? Or Jefferson calling Adams a hermaphroditical character?

I recently read about some of the things that were printed about Lincoln in the newspapers of his day! Unbelievable. (Sorry, don't have a link)

10 things Jefferson would have thought about Lincoln! You won't BELIEVE number 7!

Re: RIP Culture War Thread

#260

Post by striking »

barrkel wrote: post #234
nullc wrote: post #219

This is a really over the top one sided presentation. The thread being mourned was continually full of really shockingly horrible stuff. Straight faced technobabble laden arguments for genocide and such. A reliable go-to for "oh-shit,-humanity-is-screwed" porn. It was impossible to tell how much of it was actually awful people earnestly advancing awful ideas vs screwed up performance art with people intentionally pos…

My sampling of the posts linked in the article seem to indicate otherwise. What is your evidence?

Here's one that seems to sum it up pretty well.

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/cult... is a 2-part comment advocating for

> Mandatory abortions of the congenitally ill.

> Removal of tax incentives for homosexual marriages

> Corporal or capital punishment for adultery.

> Mental illness/having mental health medication prescribed disqualifying voting.

> Paid sterilisation (i.e., trading your fecundity for a basic income).

> National genotyping and IQ scoring as part of using any sort of public health subsidisation and education.

> Allowing insurers more room to discriminate on any quality they wish, including genotype, education, and IQ (i.e., no more disparate impact or genetic discrimination laws at all).

> La Sierra-style physical education in whatever public schools there are.

> Removal of all protected classes/free segregation (as mentioned above).

> Restructuring of "Free Speech" rights to include the "Right to Hate."

And so on. Basically all of the most awful things a human being could compile into a bullet pointed list, with absolutely no explanation of why any of these things would have a positive impact on the world. The second part of the comment literally just contains these, verbatim, as bullets.

These are the kinds of things one would advocate for if he wanted racism to be allowed (with a couple of other weird random points that most certainly trample on the rights of other groups). You'd have to completely ignore the rights of so many people to think arguing for any of these even approximates rational thought.

One may argue that it is acceptable to merely permit this kind of thing, in the hopes that light may find it and disinfect it. But this particular comment is blessed as a "quality contribution" by the moderators here https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9174vt/cult....

So I dunno. Is this objectionable enough for you?

Post reply on HN