What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#131

Post by rubinelli » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:49 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #122

Jarwain wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if one were to draw the line between tolerant and intolerant ideologies, that line shouldn't be drawn based on the content of the ideology but rather how that ideology spreads. Specifically, based on this quote > they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive,…

> The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. Interestingly, if you merely outlaw the use of violence, then you have already countered such an ideology. And, thus, there is no need to concern oneself with the beliefs of any ideology.

Only the use of violence isn't enough; you have to ban the incitement to violence. Authoritarian causes never lacked martyrs.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#132

Post by gruez » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:52 AM UTC

rjblackman wrote: post #100

eebynight wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every time this topic comes up someone posts this Popper argument. The problem, in my opinion, with this argument is that it is spoken from a position of moral superiority. When deciding whether to surpress an idea by force, who is making that decision? Why is that person or group correct about the matter? My major issue is that the people using this argument are usually so adamant about an idea they can’t see any fl…

the decision will be made through rational argument. if you are not willing to debate or argue then your position is forfeit (I.E. you are the one with the intolerant philosophy).

>the decision will be made through rational argument

and what do you do when both sides are at an impasse because they have different axioms?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#133

Post by gruez » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:53 AM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #4

The inverse of this seems to be taking hold now: that it’s socially acceptable to say things which are unreasonable, outlandish or downright factually incorrect, if they’re considered to be in service of a cause that ‘our side’ believes in. But yes, this has also been discussed a lot here before.

> The inverse of this seems to be taking hold now: that it’s socially acceptable to say things which are unreasonable, outlandish or downright factually incorrect, if they’re considered to be in service of a cause that ‘our side’ believes in.

examples?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#134

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:54 AM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #131

toasterlovin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only ideology, the only Belief, that should not be tolerated is the belief that ideology must spread through violent means. Interestingly, if you merely outlaw the use of violence, then you have already countered such an ideology. And, thus, there is no need to concern oneself with the beliefs of any ideology.

Only the use of violence isn't enough; you have to ban the incitement to violence. Authoritarian causes never lacked martyrs.

Fair enough. But we still don't need the law to concern itself with anybody's ideology.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#135

Post by gruez » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:00 AM UTC

liara_k wrote: post #123

dextralt wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in case you haven't noticed, progressives have long since moved on from the idea of "equality" of races and sexes.

According to whom? The propagandists of their political adversaries, I'd wager.

I'm guessing it's the shift for advocating for equality to advocating for diversity. eg. Harvard admissions where Asians and Whites have a handicap in an effort to increase diversity.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#136

Post by ixtli » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

knzhou wrote: post #124

ixtli wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This strikes me as wishful thinking possibly born of not having had enough conversations with concerted racists. The ones who are not afraid to tell you what they really believe will do so without the sort of equivocation you get from crypto-reactionaries who talk about "free speech" and "tolerance."

I promise I've met worse racists than you have, and if you ask why they believe what they do, they talk in terms of self-defence. That they were minding their own business until group X took their jobs or killed their kin or stole their culture or broke their laws or left them destitute or insulted their people or took over their government. There is always a self-defence reason, and even more inconveniently, the one…

I certainly hope you haven't.

But yes I know what you're talking about: that is certainly a behavior of a certain type of racist I've encountered. I find quite often that people with reactionary beliefs feel that they are personally under attack, or at least its important that they nurture a certain type of victimhood. I must insist, though, that there is another type that comes from a belief that your perceived "genetic" (here in quotes because these people tend to play very fast and loose with that word) inheritance make you in some way implicitly superior to people who lack your "genes". It's for this reason that I bring all of this up: no matter what they say, there is a difference between wanting to relegate people of color or gays to a second class in society and the intolerance of those beliefs. It's this relation that Popper was talking about.

I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to say what you've experienced isn't real. There are definitely people like this. My reply was only in the context of the top-level "tolerance of intolerance" quote.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#137

Post by gruez » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:05 AM UTC

iconjack wrote: post #17

Things you can't say in the tech world, 2019: * global warming is junk science * there are approximately two genders * Trump is a great president * the US is not a racist country * Apple sucks Edit: If you're one of the many downvoters, who presumably disagree with this, I dare you to say any of these things if you work for a tech company.

>Edit: If you're one of the many downvoters, who presumably disagree with this, I dare you to say any of these things if you work for a tech company.

"Apple sucks" is pretty safe to say. The other ones are dead on, though as evidenced by the downvotes.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#138

Post by edflsafoiewq » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:41 AM UTC

toasterlovin wrote: post #129

chess93 wrote: post #63

My belief is that people believe whatever they want to believe. If you are liberal it is because you want to be liberal. Alternatively you might just not want to be conservative. Same for the other direction. Naturally formed beliefs are just an afterthought. It goes without saying that this might not apply to everyone or to every belief. For the record, I recognize that perhaps I believe this belief strictly because…

FWIW, I think that a huge amount of political alignment in the U.S. derives from aesthetic sensibilities. The thing last year where Trump ordered McDonald's for the college football team that was visiting him because the White House cook staff was not working due to the government shutdown is basically the perfect example of this. The left though it was the most gauche, trashy thing that ever happened, as in, "I can'…

Feels like topsy-turvy land. The right, as the defenders of monarchy and aristocratic taste, should obviously be horrified that the King is eating fast food, and the left, as the voice of the people and universal equality, should be delighted that the Chairman is eating the food of the common folk.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#139

Post by dang » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:02 AM UTC

c22 wrote: post #33

dang wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I didn't in the least think you did. I meant that bit to apply to the link you kindly shared as well as the ones I listed. I added it because another commenter in the thread referenced that this had been discussed a lot before. Sorry for the misunderstanding! I still don't know a reliable way to briefly link to past discussions, or mention linking to past discussions, without it coming across to many readers as a…

Maybe the site should just automatically include links to past discussion. Perhaps hidden behind a little [+] next to or under the title in the comments view. Then you wouldn't have to spend time posting them or feeling awkward about it.

I'm reluctant to clutter the HN UI. It's simple enough that when X comes up, nothing seems more natural than to just build in X... but there are many Xs.

Automatically finding links to good past discussions is harder than it sounds, too.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#140

Post by egdod » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 5:12 AM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #89

egdod wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for proving the point. People of literally every race are allowed to be proud of being that race... except white.

I’m so sick of dealing with people who make this nonsense argument. You know damn well the cultural context the literal words you wrote carry. It’s incredibly (and intentionally!) disingenuous to say this is anything like someone saying “I’m proud to be of Spanish decent.” You know, come to think of it I’d be weirded out by anyone saying something equivalent, like being proud of being Asian instead of saying “I’m pro…

> You know, come to think of it I’d be weirded out by anyone saying something equivalent, like being proud of being Asian instead of saying “I’m proud of being Korean.” When black Americans talk about black pride that has a specific context: they are proud of a heritage that includes not knowing where they are from because of the slave trade.

That’s an interesting theory, but it doesn’t have much to do with reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_pride

Also re: your second edit, yikes. How about assuming I have good motives (like pointing out hypocrisy / double standards / “what you can’t say”) instead of assuming I’m on the side of a terrorist?