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

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#231

Post by BurningFrog » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:47 PM UTC

dunkelheit wrote: post #172

BurningFrog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. That line would still be hard to draw Perhaps I'm unusually gifted, but I find the line between violence and non violence quite easy to raw. One of the easiest of all lines, really.

Perhaps you haven't given much thought to the edge cases then. For example what if someone is posting racist articles on the web, are they violent or not? Well that's pretty easy - even if they are not directly violent they may incite violence in others so they partly share the blame. But what if they explicitly say that they are categorically against violence and it will just abstractly be better if certain inferior…

I have given it a lot of thought. As has many other thinkers in history. It's not that hard.

1. Posting racist articles is not violence. It's speech. If someone decides to be violent after reading it, it's their decision and their responsibility.

2. Peaceful protest is in general not violent. It might be trespassing and other property crimes. That would give the police or possibly the victims of those crimes the right to use violence against the protestors. But that doesn't make the protests violent.

I can't help thinking the reason the left is so keen on calling speech violence, is that they want an excuse to commit violence against the speakers. Subconsciously, of course. Motivated Reasoning and all that.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#232

Post by toasterlovin » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:48 PM UTC

cc81 wrote: post #218

jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

How do you view intersex people? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Exceptions do not invalidate categories. We do not say that humans have between 0 and 2 hands because some humans are born missing one or both of their hands. Such people are exceptions.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#233

Post by jkp56 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:54 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #224

Udik wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he has a point. "Accepted speech in tech/ academia" is supposed (in pg's theory) to be enforced by a group that has recently become more powerful than the previous power holders. But if you look at tech, or academia, or politics, or economy, they're still overwhelmingly dominated by white males. Which falsifies pg's theory.

American politics is strange, tech people tend to be more right wing in Europe where the right is usually scientific instead of religious like in America. So in America you have the choice of either being on the side of religion or the side of progress, and the side of progress just happens to be the same side as all these movements against white, straight men.

I don't see how being for progress makes one against white straight maleness. I'm a very technical person and all for progress, but I also see political correctness as a religion from medieval ages.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#234

Post by traderjane » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 3:57 PM UTC

yourbandsucks wrote: post #57

traderjane wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which group is countering the strength of straight white males? When one looks at the faces of the powerful in America, what do they see? Gay black women?

Different arenas. You're talking about representation among the powerful in mainstream America, but OP was talking about accepted speech in tech/academia. You can both be right.

In either arena, which group is the rising power against straight white men? Latinos? And what are the straight white women doing in this portrait of power? Where are women in this narrative?

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#235

Post by rjblackman » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:22 PM UTC

Reelin wrote: post #152

rjblackman wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

then the axioms themselves can be argued until a conclusion is reached, otherwise debate can be suspended. the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason.

> the underlying axiom here is that debate can be had, and that people can be convinced through reason I take it you haven't seen Twitter (or Facebook, or Reddit, or even SE lately)? Or perhaps you're referring only to in person interactions here, but I've still never witnessed this outside of a STEM setting (and even then, not always).

we are talking about karl popper's open society. not sure he knew about social media :)

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#236

Post by tyrust » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #228

tyrust wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you adopt more accurate terminology by substituting "gender" for "sex" you shouldn't have an issue.

I mean, there are some extremely rare, extremely weird biological corner cases, but for the overwhelmingly majority there are only 2 chromosome configurations: XX and XY

Yup, you're referring to "sex" also.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#237

Post by rjblackman » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 4:30 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #147

rjblackman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I get frustrated at this line of reasoning; how long do you have to debate it? If the person you are debating keeps bringing up illogical arguments, or says non-sequiturs, or keeps making the same arguments over and over, do you have to keep arguing or 'your position is forfeit'? Do you have to debate EVERYONE who disagrees with you? Do you have to have the exact same argument with different people, because the secon…

popper believed that we can convince people through reason. not sure how he would deal with trolls.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#238

Post by baddox » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 7:02 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #183

tshaddox wrote: post #143

> Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front of a group of your peers? > If the answer is no, you might want to stop and think about that. If everything you believe is something you're supposed to believe, could that possibly be a coincidence? Odds are it isn't. Odds are you just think what you're told. I’ve never quite understood this argument, because it seems…

If someone claimed to have done detailed fundamentals analysis on which stocks to buy, and the recommended portfolio they came up with was exactly the S&P 500, you'd be dubious that they'd actually done the analysis, right? If someone was doing a book report and came up with exactly the same analysis as a well-known essay, you'd be sceptical that they'd read the book themselves. Of course there's an underlying realit…

There are obviously different levels of detail. I would be suspicious if two book reports contained significant passages with the exact same phrasing. I wouldn’t be surprised if two book reports for the same book noticed very similar themes.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#239

Post by luckylion » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #210

luckylion wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are with hunts/trials really a new thing though? "She's a witch!" "It isn't proven yet. Allow due process to take place." "He defends the witch, he is with the devil!" (an old-timey "witch-apologist!")

I don't know about others, but at least myself I felt there was a kind of "zeitgeist" of the 1990s/2000s-era Internet, that we're supposed to be above witch hunts and other similar stupidity. It feels as if new levels of idiocy were inserted into the Internet over the last decade.

My guess is that that's just normality setting in. Back then, the internet wasn't for everybody, you didn't do "normal stuff" on it, it was a very separate domain. Today, the internet is about as special as a side walk, everybody is on it, you can do anything on it and all the normal people and all the normal problems have come along with the change.

In society, witch hunts have been a thing for quite a while, I think the web mostly just didn't have the opportunities to show its witch hunting abilities in the early, pre-mainstream years.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#240

Post by lazyasciiart » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 7:55 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #177

lazyasciiart wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ideas suggesting that being a straight white male might give a person advantages.

The majority of homeless in the streets are straight white males. The majority of people doing dirty, dangerous, low paid jobs are straight white males. The majority of deaths at work are straight white males. It’s not taboo, it’s factually wrong to claim that straight white maleness is a guaranteed ticket to an easy life. The truth is that everything else is a rounding error compared to class.

And it is wilfully delusional to respond as though anybody says "straight white maleness is a guaranteed ticket to an easy life" or that it is in any way a valid interpretation of what I said.