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

The Two Kinds of Moderate

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 382 posts

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#71

Post by pjc50 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #44

The famous MLK speech on moderates: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is…

It may be an unpopular view, but I disliked this quote ever since I saw it. There is value in order. In particular, there is value in order over justice, when justice is pursued with scorched earth tactics that risk leaving everyone worse off, even those that were meant to be helped. To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it.…

> To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it.

Well, that's fundamentally the tradeoff that China (and quite a lot of the other Asian states e.g. Singapore) have made; their ruling class picked stability over freedom, and hoped that the economic growth would keep everyone happy while at the same time preventing organisation outside the party.

I agree that needlessly destabilising situations is bad, but also that very large injustices can persist in the name of stability. It's not a simple problem.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#72

Post by TeMPOraL »

tomlockwood wrote: post #68
TeMPOraL wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. You don't "read meaning into" anything as a part of a honest analysis.

> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?

The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article.

Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#73

Post by krapp »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #61
pjc50 wrote: post #44

The famous MLK speech on moderates: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.h... > First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is…

It may be an unpopular view, but I disliked this quote ever since I saw it. There is value in order. In particular, there is value in order over justice, when justice is pursued with scorched earth tactics that risk leaving everyone worse off, even those that were meant to be helped. To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it.…

You seem to have missed his point, though, that calls for moderation and tolerance from an oppressing party are often just a means to defend an unjust status quo, and by extension, unjust power. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese who wish Uighurs and Hong Kong protestors would just calm down and understand that civil order is more important than "justice." But doing so will never work out well for those aggrieved parties.

To use another example more directly relevant to MLK, if African Americans had to wait until it was convenient and comfortable for the white establishment to tolerate and accept them as equals, and the civil rights movement only ever worked within the bounds of the law, they would still be picking cotton. Maintaining order for its own sake without regard for the justness of the society being defended is tantamount to fascism.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#74

Post by TeMPOraL »

pjc50 wrote: post #71
TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be an unpopular view, but I disliked this quote ever since I saw it. There is value in order. In particular, there is value in order over justice, when justice is pursued with scorched earth tactics that risk leaving everyone worse off, even those that were meant to be helped. To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it.…

> To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it. Well, that's fundamentally the tradeoff that China (and quite a lot of the other Asian states e.g. Singapore) have made; their ruling class picked stability over freedom, and hoped that the economic growth would keep everyone happy while at the same time preventing organisation out…

Yes, and I'm not totally comfortable with their trade-offs. I feel they're on the side of "too much order, too little justice". So this already establishes a ceiling along some dimensions.

> I agree that needlessly destabilising situations is bad, but also that very large injustices can persist in the name of stability. It's not a simple problem.

My point exactly. And I bring this up because I see the MLK quote you pasted, along with Popper, used to rally people to actions seemingly promoting justice, but in practice just turning people against one another, and overall making things worse. I don't like seeing either of the quotes being used as a glorified "if you're not with us, you're against us" line by people extreme in their views.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#75

Post by TeMPOraL »

pjc50 wrote: post #69
jaspax wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increased focus on racial and sexual minorities to the exclusion of working-class interests (which has been going on for decades), spilling over into outright contempt of lower- and middle- class whites (which has mostly become prominent in the past 10-15 years).

> Increased focus on racial and sexual minorities to the exclusion of working-class interests Are these actually in conflict? Are they also not part of the working class? What sort of policies do you think should have been enacted against this?

Not being from the US I don't know how Democrats view this, but in general, yes, it seems to me they are somewhat in conflict. Diversity activism tends to pit working class members against each other. Meanwhile, the rich don't have to care either way, except to occasionally be seen as backing the more popular view.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#76

Post by bovermyer »

coldtea wrote: post #63
bovermyer wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While "I met a guy, didn't like him, I think this is why" is a bit too dismissive, your dismissal of a desire for factual data is disturbing. One person's experience, no matter how broad for an individual, is still just one individual's anecdotal experience. This is true even if they have a sharp mind, decades of experience, and the best credentials. The principles of fact checking and bias analysis should not be rel…

> While "I met a guy, didn't like him, I think this is why" is a bit too dismissive, your dismissal of a desire for factual data is disturbing. I find the over-reliance on second hand ("factual") data, charts and figures, disturbing. People have to learn to observe, think, and understand themselves. Not just passively consume pre-made charts and statistics (which are the easiest thing to manipulate). And learning how…

You keep saying charts and figures. Repeatedly, ad nauseum. As if that's what I was getting at. Quit talking about them, that's not relevant to this discussion.

Comparing two data points will always yield better results than having just one. Data points don't have to be literal points on a graph. They can be discussions with people.

Study historiography or journalism.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#77

Post by tomlockwood »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #72
tomlockwood wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?

The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

> The definition of "impressive" does not change,

Ok so for redefinition to happen, a definition needs to change.

> it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article.

>

> Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

I'm confused now because you seem to be saying I think the author didn't use the correct word - but I never said that in my text, so you haven't taken my text at face value.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#78

Post by CPLX »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #72
tomlockwood wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Reading meaning into a text" is pretty much the definition of redefinition. What changes about the definition of "impressive" if I think someone uses that word to refer exclusively to rich people?

The definition of "impressive" does not change, it's you who believes the author didn't use the correct word, based on reasons that have nothing to do with the article. Since neither one of us can read the author's mind, it's not a productive avenue of discussion. A text should always be taken at face value. Otherwise, we'll be no longer discussing the text, but each other's imagination.

Yes let’s always take texts at face value, regardless of context.

There’s no reason to point out that your relative who says everyone in his life is conspiring against him is addicted to meth.

There is no reason to notice when an essay opposing increased mall security was written by someone who’s been convicted of shoplifting dozens of times.

And we must never point out that a person advocating for the political status quo, and against shaking up the established order, has accumulated billions of dollars in private wealth.

Re: The Two Kinds of Moderate

#79

Post by TeMPOraL »

krapp wrote: post #73
TeMPOraL wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be an unpopular view, but I disliked this quote ever since I saw it. There is value in order. In particular, there is value in order over justice, when justice is pursued with scorched earth tactics that risk leaving everyone worse off, even those that were meant to be helped. To use a perhaps extreme example: there's lots of injustice happening right now in China, and not a lot can be done directly to fix it.…

You seem to have missed his point, though, that calls for moderation and tolerance from an oppressing party are often just a means to defend an unjust status quo, and by extension, unjust power. I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese who wish Uighurs and Hong Kong protestors would just calm down and understand that civil order is more important than "justice." But doing so will never work out well for those aggrieved p…

I get that point very much ($deity knows I had it explained to me a lot in other discussions). You present very good examples.

But the point I can't ever seem to get across is this - action is meaningfully different than inaction, regardless of what is the status quo. It's the action part that's risky. Action has a price, and it's worth considering how high it is in a given case, before jumping to keyboards or bayonets.

> I'm sure there are plenty of Chinese who wish Uighurs and Hong Kong protestors would just calm down and understand that civil order is more important than "justice."

I think there's also plenty of Chinese who wish their own government backed down and let Hong Kong go its own way. And as a westerner, while my heart is with Hong Kong on this one, every time someone proposes that maybe the US should get involved I start wishing either of the sides involved just gave up, because quite frankly, none of this is worth the price of a nuclear war.

> To use another example more directly relevant to MLK (...) [if] the civil rights movement only ever worked within the bounds of the law

By "order", I don't mean "the law" (and I don't think MLK meant it either). In the MLK era, the Civil Rights Movement achieved their goals without plunging the country into a civil war. They've treaded the line between justice and order well.

The point I'm trying to get across is that there are situations that are less like civil rights movement, and more like asking US to threaten China with nukes to get them to back off on HK. That the potential collateral damage may outweigh the gains. That doesn't mean abandoning pursuit of justice - only being mindful of the importance of preserving some order when deciding what to.

Because, once the dust settles and the justice has been won, it would sure be nice if there were people left to enjoy that justice.

Post reply on HN