The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#571

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 6:56 PM UTC

BurningFrog wrote: post #332

AlanYx wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the same way, but I think this era is much more directly similar to the "red guards" period during the Chinese cultural revolution than Soviet examples. Some of the parallels are just so direct -- students denouncing their professors, forcing them them to recant, the ideologies of the students growing more and more rigid and narrow through the conformity of the mob, until they often ended up even denouncing th…

I see the similarities, but one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies and reshape society to serve him more fully. What's happening in the US emerging from below, without anyone orchestrating it.

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#572

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

waterhouse wrote: post #567

jimbokun wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Let's respond to injustice and oppression, by trying to extend a little bit of injustice and oppression to other people who haven't experienced it yet, just because we can. How about less injustice and oppression all around?

It's an exceedingly common deflection. "Group X has suffered and/or is suffering worse, therefore your complaint can be ignored." It tends to come up sooner or later when someone complains about the negative impact of certain types of policies.

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#573

Post by marvin » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

oramit wrote: post #476

__alexs wrote: post #317

I honestly don't understand this perspective which seems central to a lot of pgs writing lately: "the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened" Can anyone explain it? We are, right now, posting on the most expansive and weakly moderated communications platform humanity has ever had. You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of…

Yes, this narrative about not being free to talk about "dangerous" ideas is always left intentionally vague. We have so much free inquiry going on right now that I can't even keep track of it. If free inquiry is being eroded, one of the central claims in this essay, then that means we are coming down from a greater high. When was that high and would you prefer to go back to that time?

I'll hazard a guess: PG went out on a limb a few years ago, and actually published a long essay on one of the ideas that are very controversial in the sense implied in this essay. Namely, how tech tools as a primary driver for increasing wealth inequality will likely grow in importance, leading to increased wealth inequality, and that this is in itself not a problem.

This was after years of pointing out that it's not necessarily a good idea to specifically discuss controversial topics, if you want to spend your time thinking and learning instead of arguing (and, implied, deleting hate mail and death threats, etc).

This essay was met with an incredible amount of backlash that missed its point entirely, and if I was in PG's shoes, I'd probably have soured on taking that sort of discussion outside my closest circle. A big but very understandable loss.

I believe that discussing the phenomenon, rather than specific instances of it, still has great value. This points out tools that can be used to discover and handle the censorship of valuable heresy.

I'd love it even more if I had intimate access to a group of very intelligent and open-minded folks to actually discuss the heresies of today, as this is both super fascinating and a great mental stretching exercise. Sadly, doesn't look like public forums on the Internet are the most fertile arena for that kind of thing. It happens rarely, when I happen to stumble across a community that hits something like this by chance, or where one of my real-life acquaintances happens to stray outside the box in exactly the right way.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#574

Post by neonate » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

__alexs wrote: post #317

I honestly don't understand this perspective which seems central to a lot of pgs writing lately: "the customs protecting free inquiry have been weakened" Can anyone explain it? We are, right now, posting on the most expansive and weakly moderated communications platform humanity has ever had. You can find almost anyone opinion imaginable out there with a brief Google search and forums on which to argue every side of…

It's because the pendulum has taken a noticeable swing in the reverse direction, with online mobs getting people fired because of opinions they've expressed. Extreme labels like "white supremacist" and "Nazi" are being put on people for views that deviate from approved ideology. This is creating a climate of fear in which each case of someone getting fired is enough to cow thousands if not millions of observers, who fear to lose their own jobs if they speak out or even slip up. Bogus arguments like "it doesn't count unless the government does it" are being used to dismiss free speech concerns about this. To me it seems obvious that from a free speech point of view it's fine for people to respond to each other with criticism, even if they're mean and mischaracterize each other, but getting people fired crosses an obvious line into non-speech and physical harm. It's not as harmful as physical violence or putting someone in prison for what they say, but it's on the same spectrum, and the psychology of the zealots who want to see people punished in this way is unmistakeable. That's where the comparisons to the Soviet Union, China, and so on, come in. Anyone who is familiar with the history knows the type, even if so far they are unable to do more than exert power over employment.

There's also deplatforming, which falls in between pure speech (such as criticism/debate) and physical harm (such as firing).

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#575

Post by 0xB31B1B » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

steveeq1 wrote: post #303

devdas wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling the cops has turned out to be a death sentence for Black people too often.

It's overplayed: https://i.stack.imgur.com/WogKi.png

BLM isn't specifically about white people killing black people, its about the systemic disadvantage of black people in the US. The US had segregationist senators until the 2000s [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond], San Leandro California, a bay area suburb where lots of folks in on this board live, had an FBI injunction in the 80's because they still had segregationist housing policy. Our communities now are more segregated today than they were in 1890. Modern medicine has an insane mount of racial bias baked into it today [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2021693]. Everything from illness diagnosis to painkiller prescription, to prenatal care is very much tilted against black people getting equivalent treatment to white people. This is due to the bias of caregivers at point of care. The whole point is that race matters, we need to respect that, and understand that.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#576

Post by maCDzP » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:01 PM UTC

>I'm biased, I admit, but it seems to me that aggressively conventional-minded people are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world

I agree with this statement. But I would also agree with the opposite: Aggressively independent-minded are also responsible for a disproportionate amount of the trouble in the world.

Maybe, they are even more disproportionaterly responsible since they are a really small group?

My 5 cents.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#577

Post by GavinB » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

frasermince wrote: post #503

While I think there might be a grain of truth here I really disagree with how he states it. He seems to be really placing higher value on the isolated genius who does great things despite society being against him. This seems to be based on a lot of pretension and dismisses people who do not think like him. With how he defines conformity and nonconformity one could argue that the flatearther surrounded by non flatear…

Yes, flat-earthers would probably count as non-conformist. I think the point is that in order to have Galileo, you have to tolerate flat-earthers as well.

I do agree that calling most people "sheep" is uncharitable, and would add that calling aggressive conformists "stupid" is also not accurate or productive. They might be making stupid decisions, but they're not stupid people.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#578

Post by leereeves » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:03 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #397

vorpalhex wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're engaging in a straw man of both sides and it makes me want to disregard your argument entirely. > you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like... Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for…

> We have a legal and social framework for affecting longterm change and it works much better than arson. This is a non-sequitur. Police violence has (probably) been increasing for years[1]. Over the last 20 years the police have become more militarized and killings by police have increased even as crime rates have decreased sharply. Clearly the legal and social frameworks are not working. [1] https://fee.org/article…

From [1]:

> There are a few reasons to be skeptical of this trend. Reporting might be a lot better in recent years, and reports in prior years (if they were made at all) may be increasingly difficult to find the further back you go. In addition, FE’s totals for the last three years — the years they consider most complete — are pretty flat.

> Like a puzzle missing most of the pieces, the data so far are interesting, but not illuminating.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#579

Post by maerF0x0 » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

stopachka wrote: post #31

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…

> the independent minded are good at figuring out solutions.

Ideally it wouldn't cost one their life, liberty or means of sustenance in the pursuit of figuring out these solutions

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#580

Post by vorpalhex » Fri, Jul 24, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

UglyToad wrote: post #559

oisdk wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is nothing even close to "brutal" happening to the rioters. If you aren't going to believe me, and if you're not going to believe your eyes with regards to the multiple clear videos of police brutality, then maybe you should listen to the multiple international human rights organisations which have called for an end to the police brutality? I mean what would even convince you that the police are brutalising p…

I agree. I think it's a strong indicator when someone takes the most absurd or niche demand of a movement of millions of people seeking justice for some of the worst oppression and state violence as a way to dismiss the whole of that movement they're probably not operating in 100% good faith or they're consuming sources that aren't particularly balanced. Or they spend too much time on twitter, I'm definitely guilty o…

So the Rowling example is a good case here. She was defending a woman who was fired for personally, outside of work, saying there should be safe spaces for women off limits to trans people.

You can disagree with the original claim and there's a good debate to be had there.

But firing someone for a private opinion, and not one calling for violence, is not aligned with my values.

Yes, Bari Weiss did resign because she was harassed in her workplace and her employer refused to resolve the situation. It's one thing to disagree with a coworker, it's another to repeatedly harass and demean them. Bullying someone into quitting isn't a definition of Justice that I agree with.

If someone doesn't want to use a "master branch" than more power to them. On the other hand, if you're going to attack and insult me until I follow your request then it's not a request - it's a demand. My response will be to decline following your demand.

Yes, you should address people as they want to be addressed and not be a jerk. Someone not following that behavior.. should still be treated like a human being. You don't get to doxx them and send them death threats because you disagree with their behavior.