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

You can’t prove I meant X

lrb.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 133 posts

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#11

Post by cafard »

pjc50 wrote: post #7

Two modern equivalents of this kind of thing are the use of euphemisms to bypass Chinese censorship: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Main_Page and the ever-mutating set of "dog whistles" used by the far right ("fourteen words" etc.) The historical background of the 1700s I'm a bit vague on, but it was crucial for the development of Parliamentary government in the UK through a long series of succession crises from…

Not foreign was negotiable: wasn't George III the first of the Hanovers more comfortable in English than in German?

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#12

Post by asveikau »

commandlinefan wrote: post #3

There's an interpretation of the biblical book of Revelation that it was written as a "disguised" attack on the Roman empire: https://www.educationalcoin.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-book...

Very interesting that this page talks about serious stuff like which emporer slaughtered whom and then says you can buy those coins, the very mark of the beast!

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#13

Post by 1996 »

Kaiyou wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #7

Two modern equivalents of this kind of thing are the use of euphemisms to bypass Chinese censorship: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Main_Page and the ever-mutating set of "dog whistles" used by the far right ("fourteen words" etc.) The historical background of the 1700s I'm a bit vague on, but it was crucial for the development of Parliamentary government in the UK through a long series of succession crises from…

Ever since I've looked up what the fourteen words are, I'm both struggling to understand why they are controversial and associated with the far right. They seem pretty reasonable and on par with the "It's okay to be white" campaign.

It doesn't matter much what is said - consider that as keywords.

The accumulation of keywords that creates a clearer and clearer signal. If you see someone with a celtic cross and 1488 written below, do you really think that person is "pretty reasonable"?

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#14

Post by [deleted] »

Kaiyou wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #7

Two modern equivalents of this kind of thing are the use of euphemisms to bypass Chinese censorship: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Main_Page and the ever-mutating set of "dog whistles" used by the far right ("fourteen words" etc.) The historical background of the 1700s I'm a bit vague on, but it was crucial for the development of Parliamentary government in the UK through a long series of succession crises from…

Ever since I've looked up what the fourteen words are, I'm both struggling to understand why they are controversial and associated with the far right. They seem pretty reasonable and on par with the "It's okay to be white" campaign.

[deleted]

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#15

Post by augustt »

Kaiyou wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #7

Two modern equivalents of this kind of thing are the use of euphemisms to bypass Chinese censorship: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Main_Page and the ever-mutating set of "dog whistles" used by the far right ("fourteen words" etc.) The historical background of the 1700s I'm a bit vague on, but it was crucial for the development of Parliamentary government in the UK through a long series of succession crises from…

Ever since I've looked up what the fourteen words are, I'm both struggling to understand why they are controversial and associated with the far right. They seem pretty reasonable and on par with the "It's okay to be white" campaign.

Well assuming you looked it up, clicked on the first Google result, and read

    Fourteen Words, 14, or 14/88, is a reference to the fourteen-word slogan
    "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children,
    "[1] or the less commonly used "Because the beauty of the White Aryan woman
    must not perish from the earth."[2] The slogans were originally coined by white
    supremacist David Lane,[3] a founding member of the terrorist organization The
    Order[4] and serve as a rallying cry for militant white nationalists across the globe."
... how are you still struggling?

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#16

Post by ebg13 »

Veen wrote: post #4

> "this sentence could mean y as well as x so you can’t prove I meant x" It's interesting that a lot of online debate and media commentary uses the opposite technique: > "this sentence could—with varying degrees of plausibility—mean bad thing y as well as good thing x, so you can't prove you didn't really mean to say the bad thing." The principle of anti-charity.

I think that the problem with this as a steering wheel for discussion is that sometimes what you just said is extremely accurate but also sometimes both happen at the same time, for and against some figure by their defenders vs their offendees, and also often the sentence is part of a long pattern of behavior that has implication tendrils. No sentence exists in a vacuum, but different people have differing desires to reach further in different moments, some based on whether they like the person's face, but also occasionally by guiding principle.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#17

Post by 0xff00ffee »

Kaiyou wrote: post #9
pjc50 wrote: post #7

Two modern equivalents of this kind of thing are the use of euphemisms to bypass Chinese censorship: https://chinadigitaltimes.net/space/Main_Page and the ever-mutating set of "dog whistles" used by the far right ("fourteen words" etc.) The historical background of the 1700s I'm a bit vague on, but it was crucial for the development of Parliamentary government in the UK through a long series of succession crises from…

Ever since I've looked up what the fourteen words are, I'm both struggling to understand why they are controversial and associated with the far right. They seem pretty reasonable and on par with the "It's okay to be white" campaign.

> "It's okay to be white" campaign.

Are you saying this is reasonable?

EDIT: Here come the downvotes. You can't prove I meant X... oh the irony.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#18

Post by commandlinefan »

asveikau wrote: post #12
commandlinefan wrote: post #3

There's an interpretation of the biblical book of Revelation that it was written as a "disguised" attack on the Roman empire: https://www.educationalcoin.com/blog/the-mystery-of-the-book...

Very interesting that this page talks about serious stuff like which emporer slaughtered whom and then says you can buy those coins, the very mark of the beast!

Ha - I just googled it and didn't realize this was a "commercial" site. I can't remember where I first read it, but I see a lot of other references.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#19

Post by 0xff00ffee »

This is a fairly dense article, but it is a really profound intersection of "hacking", "reason", and "context". Hacking a language to sound reasonable while delivering a side-channel message through an established context. I guess I never really thought of poets and writers as hackers, but now it clicked into focus.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#20

Post by ebg13 »

0xff00ffee wrote: post #17
Kaiyou wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ever since I've looked up what the fourteen words are, I'm both struggling to understand why they are controversial and associated with the far right. They seem pretty reasonable and on par with the "It's okay to be white" campaign.

> "It's okay to be white" campaign. Are you saying this is reasonable? EDIT: Here come the downvotes. You can't prove I meant X... oh the irony.

The problem with this retort is that of course it is okay to be white, and the details of such a campaign are what make all the difference. But the person who isn't already with you on this will just ask "how is it not ok to be white?"
Post reply on HN