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

The Four Quadrants of Conformism

paulgraham.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 882 posts

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#861

Post by [deleted] »

enoch_r wrote: post #487
AlexandrB wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whenever I see lists like this, what's interesting to me is what's omitted. In this particular case I don't see mention of workers getting fired for trying to organize or advocate for unions[1]. I don't see the abuse that gets piled on cops who report the misdeeds of their colleagues[2]. And I don't see the NFL effectively blacklisting Colin Kaepernick for his views on police brutality. It seems like it's only "cance…

I'll add Colin Kaepernick to the list for next time! I should also include things like the woman who lots her internship after she made a bad pro-BLM analogy: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/07/03/ima-stab-you-connectic... In my mind, "cancel culture" refers to the phenomenon where an outraged group (usually on social media) seeks to retaliate against someone over a (possibly inferred) political opinion. Firing union…

[deleted]

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#862

Post by bendbro »

grandmczeb wrote: post #859
bendbro wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single f…

> I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to c…

I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point.

1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all community development spending rather than specifically to federal funds going to single family zoning. Even if a state stops directing federal funds to single family zoned communities, they are still encouraged to not create single family zoned communities.

2. A proposal I would be more comfortable with: if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.

[edit follows]

> You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.

Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it, but I agree I am shameless in announcing my strong opinions. Hopefully my clarification above gives you something clearer to bite into.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#863

Post by bendbro »

dragonwriter wrote: post #860
bendbro wrote: post #855

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single f…

> And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" No, they aren't required to “move toward bans” on anything. They are to move toward inclusive land use by some combination of zoning policy and other regulation. And it's only CDBG recipients that have to do this, which are often local governments. Rich suburbs probably aren't competing fo…

That is comforting. I will research this.

[Edit] the specific line from Biden's plan that included "states" which gave me the initial idea this policy applies to states rather than individual communities. "Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning"

I will continue researching nonetheless. It may just be misleading copy.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#864

Post by grandmczeb »

bendbro wrote: post #862
grandmczeb wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to c…

I realize all states do this, but your response does not address my intended point. That's my fault, I will improve my point. 1. My reading of the proposal, and the reason I dislike the proposal: if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning. This jeopardizes single family zoning in all states, since it has tied funding to all c…

> if a state uses federal funds for any community development project, some forcing function will cause them to stop single family zoning.

This is specifically about two types of grants (not all federal funds for community development) and it does not require the elimination of single family zoning.

> federal funds going to single family zoning

What does it mean for funds to "go to" single family zoning? CDB grants are largely allocated to specific cites and counties already and the portion that is given to states is mostly spent on projects in urban areas[1].

> if a state uses federal funds specifically to fund single family funded communities, they must move toward ending single family zoning. States can continue receiving federal funds as long as they don't spend them on single family zoned communities.

The actual proposal is weaker than your proposal since there is no requirement to move towards ending single family zoning.

> Disagree it is ironic, disagree it is clear I haven't researched it

The conversation has moved from "abolish suburbs" to "a proposal to require certain cites to make a plan to implement policies that reduce barriers to housing development". So either you were being disingenuous originally or hadn't researched the topic. It's also the exact sort of emotionally charged rhetoric you were decrying earlier.

[1] https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/cdbg/cdbg-expenditure-...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#865

Post by sytelus »

Not sure why being conformist or not is important. Isn’t the more desirable thing is how you reason that your belief will lead to your desired result? What evidence have you taken in account and what risks you are aware of? How do you deal with uncertainty and how do you strive to get additional evidence.

For example, if you believe in vaccinations, are you conformist? These 4 quadrants even applicable universally for wide variety of topics for any person?

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#866

Post by snowwrestler »

sparkie wrote: post #851
snowwrestler wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Black lives matter” is not an organization. It’s a simple statement that affirms that black lives should matter as much as white lives do. People say it today because data clearly show that in our society today, they don’t. Mitt Romney says “black lives matter”... do you think he is an insidious Marxist? (For those not familiar with Romney, he got rich running a hedge fund and ran for president as a Republican.) Yes…

This is precisely what I was saying above: unable to separate the phrase from the organization. BLM is an organization. It was created in 2013, way before the recent protests, on tumblr and later got its own website and funding (via Susan Rosenberg, former ally of the BLA). BLM seized the opportunity from the current protests to put itself into the spotlight - not black lives, but their organization, which they've op…

I’m sorry but you are mistaken. Yes, there is an organization called “Black Lives Matter.” No it is not behind all the protests, nor is it in charge of the movement, nor is the press elevating it.

It has the approximate relationship to the protests as the Unitarian Church has to all of Christianity.

From your comments, I think you may have a diet of information that is too narrow. A few media outlets aggressively conflate the movement and the organization in an effort to use discomfort with one (the org) to gin up discomfort with the entire topic of racial equality.

I encourage you to think about a simple question: if Mitt Romney, who is clearly not a Marxist will say “black lives matter,” why won’t you? How can your concern be economics if conservative capitalists are saying it?

EDIT to add an example maybe more familiar it HN readers. There’s an open source movement, and an organization called the Open Source Initiative, which dates from the same time and even claims to have helped invent the term.

When you hear someone talk about “open source,” or read a news article that mentions “open source,” do you think they are talking about the broad social movement, or about the OSI specifically? The movement, right? Well it’s the same with Black Lives Matter, which is a rallying cry that is used widely and not owned by any particular small group of people.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#867

Post by amznthrowaway5 »

User23 wrote: post #857
amznthrowaway5 wrote: post #844

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aggressively non-comformist comments also potentially result in a ban, especially when it comes to sensitive topics. The negatives outweigh the positives in many cases. Discussions here on scientific topics like human group differences border on outright delusional because there is no polite way of questioning the dogma. Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforci…

> Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases? Funny you should say that, because I recently wrote a comment on the subject of cognitive biases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259 . As you can see the far left reply to it was not viewed favorably. And while I try not to be obnoxious about it, it's pretty obvious that my ideological leaning…

Banning discussion of fraught topics doesn't just affect the discussion about the fraught topics themselves, it also leads to biased and often meaningless discussion of every single other topic where the fraught stuff is an important factor. To have a meaningful discussion you need to be able to challenge base assumptions, you cannot do that here.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#868

Post by 8f2ab37a-ed6c »

jonhohle wrote: post #612
saberience wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Many people have lost their livelihoods" Hmm, sounds intriguing. Do you have any sources for this or concrete examples which can be fact-checked?

The ones I can find quickly: * Nicholas Sandmann (for an image taken out of context) * Tenured UNC Professor Mike Adams * Goya Foods' CEO Bob Unanue (attempted) * Terese Nielsen (allegedly) * Grant Napear * Justin Kucera (allegedly) * Aleksander Katai * Kathleen Lowry * JK Rowling (attempted) * Cornell Professor Dave Collum * Stephen Hsu * Leslie Neal-Boylan * James Bennet * Melissa Rolfe * Emmanuel Cafferty

Brett Weinstein

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#869

Post by sparkie »

snowwrestler wrote: post #866
sparkie wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is precisely what I was saying above: unable to separate the phrase from the organization. BLM is an organization. It was created in 2013, way before the recent protests, on tumblr and later got its own website and funding (via Susan Rosenberg, former ally of the BLA). BLM seized the opportunity from the current protests to put itself into the spotlight - not black lives, but their organization, which they've op…

I’m sorry but you are mistaken. Yes, there is an organization called “Black Lives Matter.” No it is not behind all the protests, nor is it in charge of the movement, nor is the press elevating it. It has the approximate relationship to the protests as the Unitarian Church has to all of Christianity. From your comments, I think you may have a diet of information that is too narrow. A few media outlets aggressively con…

Why do you need to get me to utter the phrase "black lives matter" specifically? Why can you not settle with, "I care about ending all forms of racism," as stated above, or even "I care about black lives"?

The specific phrase "black lives matter" is required because it is the same as the organization - it is designed to conflate.

Are you specifically able to say "I don't necessarily agree with Black Lives Matter?" (Think carefully, because the far-left are experts at taking something you say out of context)

The primary media outlets putting BLM at the helm of the protests have been left-wing media outlets. In the UK, it has been the BBC, Channel 4 and The Guardian.

> When you hear someone talk about “open source,” or read a news article that mentions “open source,” do you think they are talking about the broad social movement, or about the OSI specifically?

This one is interesting because the OSI claims itself the arbiter of the term "open source," and there has been much debate on this issue, for example surrounding MongoDB's attempt to call their SSPI license an "open source" license, despite not being accepted by the OSI or meeting their "open source definition" because it discriminates based on field of endeavour.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#870

Post by dennis_jeeves »

Examples of what what the the aggressively conventional minded insist upon:

- Let's have a (pandemic) lock down. Given reason: let's protect everybody. Real reason: they are idiots who who cannot reason out the nuance of pros vs cons of lock down.

- Make masks mandatory. Given reason: let's protect everybody. Real reason: they are idiots who who cannot reason out the nuance of personal protection vs public harm

- Make rich pay their taxes. Given reason: they are not paying their fair share, Teal reason: they are jealous of the rich)

- Send all kids to school. Given reason: we need to 'educate' everybody, real reason: In their narrow world view they cannot fathom that at least some parents can do a better job of 'educating' their kids than conventional schools.

The concept of freedom that does not harm others is entirely lost among these sociopath individuals.

Post reply on HN