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

71–80 of 133 posts

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#71

Post by mercer »

Nursie wrote: post #69
mos_basik wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just got back from reading a blogpost [0] by another commenter (presumably also German, if you are, in fact, German) in this thread about how Americans are so steeped in euphemism that they don't notice how much they respond to what they think their conversational parter is implying and not to what the partner is actually saying. I admit that I am American and the blogpost resonates with my experience. That being s…

I believe the account is a troll, in the earlier internet definition, someone that goads others, often for the sake of contrarianism, often to make them say odd/unsupportable things in response to seemingly reasonable or mild posts. When they're good, they have been performance art. I wouldn't rate this one particularly highly though.

"You can call me all the adjectives you want, but I do not care if earth explodes after I die. I just don't. I care for my benefits during my own life. I've said this before and I say it again, I do not have any moral problems with sacrificing other peoples benefits for my own benefits and neither should you. Doing this is insanity. Would you starve yourself to death so you can feed other people? Why should I care for other people? It's a silly notion. Maybe I'd care a little bit if I had children, but I don't."

I'm a bit surprised at how people spend energy engaging with this commenter without checking their history. Anyways, I really do hope it's a troll.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#72

Post by _v7gu »

monocasa wrote: post #66
_v7gu wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All this dogwhistling stuff is fun and games until you start to put innocent people under fire for dogwhistling. If more people start reading Nazi propaganda just to avoid dogwhistling, you will have created more enemies as a second order effect of your actions. A better approach would be to fill the whistles with noise, so they lose their use for the people trying to use them to identify allies. There's a reason why…

How many people do you know who aren't white nationalists have gotten a 1488 tattoo? The whole point of these signals is that they seem innocuous, but practically no one is going to signal them in other contexts. So you have the vague auspices of plausible deniability when pushed, but nearly 100% specificity too.

You are defending the Motte here, while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". Your example is bad anyway, because 1488 does not have any clear alternative meaning.

Take the "okay" sign for instance. It has nowhere near 100% specificity and is basically useless for declaring their alignment. It's a common hand gesture for god's sake. Yet the whole thing was made to be a huge deal as it "revealed" many prominent people were actually secretly white supremacists. And I think the actual motive lies here: making the opposition make an ass out of themselves and causing the maximum possible collateral damage, without actually doing anything. The stronger you react to innocuous things, the more reasonable the other side looks. I mean, who would want to be labeled a X supremacist just because they think it's okay to be X? By stooping down to /pol/'s level just to fight against them, you lose the reasonable people from your side.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#73

Post by monocasa »

_v7gu wrote: post #72
monocasa wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people do you know who aren't white nationalists have gotten a 1488 tattoo? The whole point of these signals is that they seem innocuous, but practically no one is going to signal them in other contexts. So you have the vague auspices of plausible deniability when pushed, but nearly 100% specificity too.

You are defending the Motte here, while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". Your example is bad anyway, because 1488 does not have any clear alternative meaning. Take the "okay" sign for instance. It has nowhere near 100% specificity and is basically useless for declaring their alignment. It's a common hand gesture for god's sake. Yet the whole…

> while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white".

They're throwing around terms like "white genocide", and saying that they wouldn't judge people who wear 1488 (just so we're clear, the 88 part means heil hitler). They're either a white supremacist, or a troll just pretending to be one.

You're not making a good case for the lack of specificity.

Going to your OK sign, obviously ok signs are fine in the general sense, but if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country, then throws up an ok sign, it's explicitly a white supremacist calling card. It's all about context.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#74

Post by cousin_it »

monocasa wrote: post #67
cousin_it wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't understand, why didn't the left simply reply "yes it is" and resist the urge to hedge/caveat/etc? It seems it would've been tactically and strategically best. Judging from the people I see online who were pushed right by the left's response to this.

It's sort of like the "All Lives Matter" thing. The "it's ok to be white" argument structure is designed so that either accepting it or denying it furthers the goals of white nationalists, because either has to be done in an extremely nuanced way that can't really happen in the context of a protest sign or a meme.

I think accepting would've worked. Implying that some demographic is bad makes the movement lose support, the only people who benefit from it are people trying to gain status within the movement. (Edit: that answers my question above.)

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#75

Post by monocasa »

cousin_it wrote: post #74
monocasa wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sort of like the "All Lives Matter" thing. The "it's ok to be white" argument structure is designed so that either accepting it or denying it furthers the goals of white nationalists, because either has to be done in an extremely nuanced way that can't really happen in the context of a protest sign or a meme.

I think accepting would've worked. Implying that some demographic is bad makes the movement lose support, the only people who benefit from it are people trying to gain status within the movement. (Edit: that answers my question above.)

The whole structure of the "it's ok to be white" thing is to (it it were accepted by the left) to start delegitimizing the attempts to build alternate power structures that aren't available to non white people. For instance, the NBER found that literally changing a name from Tyrone to Chad on a resume increased job callbacks 3x, and stuff like affirmative action is designed to address exactly those systemic inequities. Normalizing "it's ok to be white" was designed to attack those head on if it was accepted.

You don't see that half, because the left didn't take that side. There was no winning either way.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#76

Post by [deleted] »

monocasa wrote: post #75
cousin_it wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think accepting would've worked. Implying that some demographic is bad makes the movement lose support, the only people who benefit from it are people trying to gain status within the movement. (Edit: that answers my question above.)

The whole structure of the "it's ok to be white" thing is to (it it were accepted by the left) to start delegitimizing the attempts to build alternate power structures that aren't available to non white people. For instance, the NBER found that literally changing a name from Tyrone to Chad on a resume increased job callbacks 3x, and stuff like affirmative action is designed to address exactly those systemic inequitie…

[deleted]

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#77

Post by _v7gu »

monocasa wrote: post #73
_v7gu wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are defending the Motte here, while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". Your example is bad anyway, because 1488 does not have any clear alternative meaning. Take the "okay" sign for instance. It has nowhere near 100% specificity and is basically useless for declaring their alignment. It's a common hand gesture for god's sake. Yet the whole…

> while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". They're throwing around terms like "white genocide", and saying that they wouldn't judge people who wear 1488 (just so we're clear, the 88 part means heil hitler). They're either a white supremacist, or a troll just pretending to be one. You're not making a good case for the lack of specificity. Going…

I agree that 1488 is a signal, but don't agree that it is invisible. The implied meaning is just a google search away.

>if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country

I'd say this is the actual reason you think they are a white supremacist, rather than deciphering their dog whistle. Going on a rant on immigrants specifically is a much clearer indicator of their political alignment (my guess would be r/theDonald poster) and I wouldn't say the okay sign adds more signal.

The real danger of dog whistles is when we start seeing things that aren't there, or when we let white supremacists or edgy shitposters dictate what our behavior means.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#78

Post by monocasa »

_v7gu wrote: post #77
monocasa wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> while someone on this thread is being called a white supremacist for defending the phrase "It's okay to be white". They're throwing around terms like "white genocide", and saying that they wouldn't judge people who wear 1488 (just so we're clear, the 88 part means heil hitler). They're either a white supremacist, or a troll just pretending to be one. You're not making a good case for the lack of specificity. Going…

I agree that 1488 is a signal, but don't agree that it is invisible. The implied meaning is just a google search away. >if someone is on a rant about how immigrants are ruining the country I'd say this is the actual reason you think they are a white supremacist, rather than deciphering their dog whistle. Going on a rant on immigrants specifically is a much clearer indicator of their political alignment (my guess woul…

So you agree that the person you had previously said is just innocuously defending "it's ok to be white" is actually a white supremacist or a troll pretending to be one?

You keep pretending like there's these innocent victims, and it turns out these people where actually what we had said they were all along.

Re: You can’t prove I meant X

#80

Post by TheSoftwareGuy »

pjc50 wrote: post #58
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.

There's a big prisoner's dilemma thing going on. If you're charitable, and the people you're discussing with are too , you can have better discussions. If you're operating in an environment like the internet where you can more or less guarantee that there will be one comment based on the the worst possible interpretation of what you said, being charitable in advance just makes things worse for you. You're playing "co…

I've found it to be pretty effective to simply not engage with those who keep taking the worst possible interpretations of your (or others) arguments. It sort of simulates an environment where everyone is charitable.

In other words, "Don't feed the trolls"

Post reply on HN