Mark in the Middle • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark in the Middle

#451

Post by rsync » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

"Diversity is good."

No.

Diversity has benefits and costs - it is neither good nor bad.

People, or groups of people in a democracy, need to decide what level of diversity they would like to pursue.

Personally, as someone who can live anywhere, I've chosen (and continue to choose) a very diverse place (the United States - specifically California).

I like living with people who invent jazz music and snowboarding and the Internet and I am willing to pay costs like some decreased degree of social cohesion and trust.

Other people, or groups, might have a different cost/benefit analysis and that is not wrong - nor is it wrong to pursue those aims democratically.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#452

Post by supercanuck » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #390

supercanuck wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genocide "is a political opinion I disagree with"

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of which politics you're for or against. It's one thing to join in occasional political discussion as part of a variety of intellectually interesting topics, but quite another to only (or mostly) be using the site for that. Once that line is crossed, HN is clearly not being used as intended, and there's a huge…

Dang, educate yourself on Facebook’s effect in Myanmar.

If you think this is just political battles, perhaps do a bit of self reflection and maybe Hacker News is not the pinnacle of intellectual thought you are giving it the credit of being.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#453

Post by neonate » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:35 PM UTC

TeaDrunk wrote: post #304

jamiequint wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's actually not, because people have different moral foundations, and many people value loyalty/authority/sanctity over care/fairness. It doesn't mean they don't care about care/fairness, it just means they don't make it their moral priority. If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.

I'm so baffled by this comment. It's saying that there's no path forward when refusing to engage with people/viewing people as subhuman, as an argument for the benefit of people who view others as subhuman ! WTF?

That's not what it's saying.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#454

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #365

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

> What gives any of these people the right to police the opinions of others? This seems to be a question of the times. "What right do I have to police you?" - goes for masks as well as ideas, innit? > believe it's their right to enforce their views IMO this is deeply ironic, since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am", either directly or as the irritant at the center of the "pearl". Like, Manifest D…

> "goes for masks as well as ideas"

Since physical actions don't equal thoughts/opinions, well, clearly no.

> "since a lot of "social justice" is "stop telling me who I am""

Except they flipped right around and started telling other people in the center and right who they are, at full volume. Hard to blame people for not taking them seriously.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#455

Post by montagg » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:40 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #278

To be honest I wish Zuckerberg would say "We're not censoring political posts, and if you don't like it, --> there's the door. Who's leaving first?" Facebook engineers may love to beat their chests about social justice, but when push comes to shove, they are not about to walk away from those gold plated salaries & stock grants. Most of them could leave FB and get another job paying somewhere in the ballpark of $200k…

I wish he'd say this for a different reason: we'll find out whether you're correct or not very quickly.

In a way, I also wish I could be this cynical, because I wouldn't have to think about the complexities of human motivation, and that would be a lot easier. But I don't think money and status is all there is. Which is exactly why these outcries are happening: people are negotiating as best they can to maximize all the things that make them happy and keep them motivated, like working in a context that keeps them right with themselves, and good for them. Until Zuckerberg actually says what you're saying, there's a chance they can be successful, so I don't blame them for trying.

But you know, if he actually came out and said this, we'd find out pretty quickly if money is all there is.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#456

Post by thissitecensors » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:42 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #347

thissitecensors wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People criticizing censorship on this website make me laugh. Hackernews is the most heavily censored website I've ever encountered. The way this website treats unpopular opinions is like Mao's China.

I wouldn't go that far, but the website has a purpose and dang is very clear about keeping conversation within the guardrails of that purpose. It's not an open forum to discuss anything.

Give me a break. Guidelines that are selectively enforced is just power tripping censorship. This is a website that allows people to post advertisements for cigarettes while stamping down on anything that shakes the boat when it comes to China or labor rights in the USA. I don't see anyone using your logic to defend FB although it would be just as applicable.

And to preempt people

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24364535

Re: Mark in the Middle

#457

Post by samatman » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:45 PM UTC

montagg wrote: post #441

samatman wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're doing a poor job of explaining the first worldview. Which is okay, you've acknowledged that you have trouble understanding it. This worldview has been called the "liberal consensus". What it holds is that the power to determine a discourse is inherently against freedom is corrupting , and by allowing an authority to determine that, it will inevitably be used as a weapon. Goalposts will shift. We will, hmm, go…

I think there's a non-splippery-slope way to position the worldview you're describing that might be more palatable to the values of a worldview based on limiting discourse based on content. I believe the hardcore freedom of speech view has a few important underlying assumptions: 1) More information is better, and shining a light on something is better than trying to selectively hide it, because eventually the real tr…

It seems to me that you're still ignoring the tail risk of authoritarian control of the concept of truth, namely, gulags.

It's a justified fear, since it's happened repeatedly in living memory, and is happening still: you're welcome to go hand out pamphlets about the June Fourth Incident on Tiananmen Square if you don't believe me.

If you want to discount that risk, ignoring it or glossing it as some sort of slippery slope argument, that's your business. I won't, and we find ourselves on opposite sides of the debate for that reason.

To be clear, I don't think it's a slippery slope, because I don't think it's an accidental or avoidable consequence of allowing authoritarian control of the terms of discourse. I think it's the expected outcome, and that people who think that end state can be avoided are being used by people who crave that power over others.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#458

Post by heimatau » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:46 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

> why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period

Two things about this: 1. When FB Answers was a thing. I was very quickly banned from it, through various obscure mechanisms. All I was doing was gently being a contrarian on newsworth/fad topics. Partly contrarian because I was read up on a lot of scientific literature and other times, I just had different opinions than the 'popular' one. There is a culture of control there, full stop. Especially when your valid and potentially correct opinion goes against FB employee. I knew immediately than FB Answers wasn't going to succeed because they wouldn't allow a plurality of perspectives. 2. Let's be fully clear about this. This is entirely Zuck's decision. He runs a tight ship with clear guidelines. Zuck is playing politics right now, full stop. Saying one thing publicly and saying another privately. This 'leaked' memo isn't something that Zuck had no idea that it would be leaked. It's calculated. It's a public statement. How enforced will this leaked memo be? Will that be leaked? Doubtful. Zuck is trying to skirt responsibility with this 1st amendment problem. If FB really allowed dissent then Alex Jones and others would be allowed on the platform.*

*I do think the worst ideas need to be allowed on a platform. It allows the possibility to discussions. There are cults around various topics but...that doesn't mean that those with scientific understanding have perfect rhetoric about everything they say. Everyone needs to refine and it's best done with allowing everyone to the table.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#459

Post by TeaDrunk » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:47 PM UTC

neonate wrote: post #453

TeaDrunk wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm so baffled by this comment. It's saying that there's no path forward when refusing to engage with people/viewing people as subhuman, as an argument for the benefit of people who view others as subhuman ! WTF?

That's not what it's saying.

What should be responded to for people who think gay people/black people/women are subhuman?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#460

Post by xienze » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 8:48 PM UTC

sagichmal wrote: post #204

xienze wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the world are you talking about? The whole reason Democrats are going on and on about this election year appointment is because they wanted to fill Scalia's seat in 2016 and Republicans held all the chips and said "nah, we're gonna wait until after the election." Don't take my word for it, look at what Hillary Clinton said: > The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice…

> Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the co…

> Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year,

Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible.

> and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now.

Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing.

And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most.

> they should double the size of the bench.

And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?