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

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#991

Post by rendall »

tiziniano wrote: post #929
rendall wrote: post #871

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for" That's me! I'm in that creed. People associating their identity with their politics is when trouble starts. That's when it becomes really threatening for them to even consider alternate perspectives, because if they change their mind, they will change who they are and who they can be friends with. It's possible to separate the two, w…

I think you hit it right on the head. What I'm wondering now is: What leads to this association of politics and identity? Is it a product of our culture, upbringing, is it human nature? Is it that modern life has so little avenue for people individuating? Maybe it is filling a void. One thing that strikes me as key to this polarization is how pervasive are some generalizations we make today and how the individual is…

Personally, I think the US in particular is prone to this kind of thinking because the winner-take-all system incentives a dualistic, all-in approach. Thoughtful reflection does not win elections: riling up the rank and file does, including demonizing the opponent. More parliamentary, proportional systems encourage cooperation and collaboration among opponents

As for generalizations, the English language has an unfortunate construction that allows speakers to be ambiguous about their intent when making a generalizing statement. For example, "Men are violent" is a misleadingly meaningless statement. Does it refer to some men? To all men? Is it referring to the fact that men tend to be more violent, statistically, as a group? That assertion is ambiguous, but the always-truthful qualification "some" sits uncomfortably close to the always-unfair and bigoted "all". Bigots of all stripes rely on this ambiguity.

I don't think generalizations are bad necessarily, but to honor the dignity and diversity of individuals, it's vital to avoid this ambiguity, and to always be explicit about the generalization that you're making, and then your statement can be evaluated for what it is, pro or con. E.g. Instead of a Men are violent say what is meant, clearly: Some men are violent. In general men are violent. Most men are violent. All men are violent. Now at least we have a statement that can be agreed with or disputed, instead of motte-and-baileyed

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#992

Post by dctoedt »

rayiner wrote: post #451
notafraudster wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

McConnell immediately clarified his position was "the Senate shouldn't consider a nomination in an election year if it's controlled by my party and the president isn't in my party" -- no kidding, this was his actual clarification.

That is, in fact, the actual practice. The constitution splits the appointment between the presidency and the senate. When the same party controls both, vacancies are filled immediately. Otherwise, the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/history-is-on-the-sid... What happened with Garland had happened numerous times before: > In short: There have been t…

> the party controlling the senate can exercise its heckler’s veto

I'm trying to think of a plausible vehicle for arguing that if the Senate refuses to vote on a nomination within a reasonable time, then that refusal (i) constitutes a waiver of the right to withhold consent and therefore (ii) is deemed consent.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#993

Post by someguydave »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #655
goldcd wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was so lovely after reading the article, that the point that stuck with me, aligned with your comment right at the top. Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for. ~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come…

I’m probably gonna do it. I’m not sure I could do the other thing... if the world burns, at least I burn in her camp. I’m ok with that. I’m excited you might be there too!

If people are willing to die for the cause then conversation or listening is not going to accomplish anything.

I’m afraid you do not understand the fire with which you are playing.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#994

Post by michaelmrose »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #876
michaelmrose wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't believe legitimate criticism is problematic and it is very problematic to call people who speak out an "unhinged mob" Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.

No, he didn’t.

See the other replies

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/15/20866829/b...

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/09/five-times-bret...

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#996

Post by anigbrowl »

taurath wrote: post #396
anigbrowl wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were horrible to each other online long before modern social media, and indeed in print and in person long before that. While some people do indeed pursue likes for their own sake, it's not the root cause of social aggression.

It's not the catalyst, it's the accelerant - when you have 1000 points for your troll post you're sure as heck gonna do more of them.

Sure, if you have a network of troll buddies to upvote you. But you're assuming that everyone is motivated by the same incentives, in this case popularity. This is necessarily true, and one reason we know this is because some people keep trolling even when their accounts are banned or they're recognizable enough to be rejected by the community.

A lot of trolls are 'salt collectors' - saying obnoxious things to garner offended reactions and then screenshotting the comments of upset people to share with frens on a different platform. They don't care about popularity, only engagement. In organized influence operations, the goals of troll groups are to steal time or resources, or disrupt the cohesion of target groups.

All these negative behaviors existed before social media; they're well known to operators of fora, usenet discussion groups and so on, as well in the multiplayer game space. This taxonomy of motivators for 'griefer' gamers might also broaden you understanding of what drives trolling behavior: https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2017.1306109

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#997

Post by michaelmrose »

tiziniano wrote: post #933
michaelmrose wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't believe legitimate criticism is problematic and it is very problematic to call people who speak out an "unhinged mob" Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.

I mean I will take RBG's opinion over the unhinged mob's any day. If you admire her, why not try to understand why she defended him?

Why would we be obliged to take her opinion on him in place of deriving our own opinion from his dishonesty and prior behavior?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#998

Post by chillwaves »

vinay427 wrote: post #945
chillwaves wrote: post #925

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 will be allowed to defect and Pence will be the tie breaking vote. All of this is coordinated, all of this is staged.

Do you have a source for such a direct claim?

It's my prediction of the future.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#999

Post by ctdeneen »

goldcd wrote: post #670
ctdeneen wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But with the internet much more of what you do is visible and more people know about it. What you said could be attacked with "white silence is violence"

I had a much longer response typed - but deleted it when it stopped even making sense to me. "white silence is violence" googles Still no idea how that could be applied to my post - but I am most definitely white, and after a bit of introspection, can't think of anything I've constructively done to address racism outside of late-night internet posts. So whilst I'd like to think I was "non-racist" - I do now feel a bi…

I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my reply which was short and poorly written considering how it has a very powerful phrase. I'm not implying your post was racist but was responding to the quote you provided:

We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavor to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward

I was trying to explain that because the internet has increased the visibility of ones opinions to a global scale, and a recent increase in the use of both public shaming as well as punitive financial measures (fired from job, boycott) it could be dangerous to opine about anything.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

#1000

Post by athms »

lliamander wrote: post #892
athms wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh. Considering the court has had a Republican majority since 1989, I don't blame them.

You don't think making the court an explicitly partisan institution by just stacking it whenever you are in power is going to be a bad idea? You don't think it will destroy the collegial attitude of the court that allowed Ginsburg and Scalia to be friends? You don't think Republicans will just do the same thing in response? Judging by the wikipedia page on judicial leanings[1], Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Gorusch are all…

Stacking is a bad idea, but the GOP would do it if they controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House. The GOP of the 1940s is not the GOP today. That political party is gone off the rails. The last time they were fiscally responsible, Eisenhower was in the White House.

The Supreme Court does need to be expanded though. It hears half the cases it did fifty years ago. While they are at it, split the Ninth Circuit. Give California its own circuit since the majority cases originate from that state.

Post reply on HN