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

21–30 of 133 posts

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#21

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

#22

Post by hawkice »

1996 wrote: post #10
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…

> ("fourteen words" etc.) This is signaling through lingo (keywords), very different from this article, yet also worth studying during this lockdown. If I simply replied "88 bro", the average reader may not click, and think I was just saying I was born in 1988, like you, and we are maybe "birth year brothers". Yet to the initiated, it would signal that I have some very special political ideas! Once you have started l…

Strange tattoo example (and Google-able). Boggles my mind why someone would want to identify so strongly with Nazis, but obviously I strongly agree that we should receive those signals. What a bunch of idiots.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#23

Post by 0xff00ffee »

ebg13 wrote: post #20
0xff00ffee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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?"

Yeah. it takes like 20 minutes to communicate the context and how this isn't so innocuous as it looks. I've had to explain this to my aging boomer parents, and they still don't buy it.

It is truly a subversive phrase because it takes control of the argument from a place that requires, IMO, a lot of basics to be explained and/or challenged... which most people don't want to sit through. It's like a self-generating mine field of arguments.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#24

Post by Kaiyou »

augustt wrote: post #15
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.

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…

[flagged]

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#26

Post by Kaiyou »

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.

I think it is very reasonable to think, that it is okay to be white. Don't you?

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#27

Post by yboris »

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.

Reminds me of the "motte and bailey doctrine" [1]. You make a claim; when attacked you retreat to an easy-to-hold position; when attackers leave you make the claim again.

Example: "God exist" is attacked; speaker retreats to "but God is just another name for beauty in the universe, do you disagree with that?"

[1] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-bri...

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#28

Post by augustt »

Kaiyou wrote: post #24
augustt wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

Either you are being disingenuous or you have a very naive understanding of the quote. I could just as easily say: "work sets you free" doesn't sound so unreasonable! How could anyone take issue with that?!

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#29

Post by Kaiyou »

1996 wrote: post #13
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 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"?

I don't think I can tell that much about a person based on an accessory.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#30

Post by Kaiyou »

augustt wrote: post #28
Kaiyou wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Either you are being disingenuous or you have a very naive understanding of the quote. I could just as easily say: "work sets you free" doesn't sound so unreasonable! How could anyone take issue with that?!

That work sets you free is an unsubstantiated claim. I'm working and I don't think that this set me free. On the contrary, I think it's pretty shackling.

What would be a not naive understanding of the quote? I think it is reasonable to want a future for your own children. How are we living in a world where this is controversial?

Post reply on HN