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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#571

Post by slg »

xtian wrote: post #559
slg wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people of Iran and Chile were collateral damage of the US. Our government did not care one way or another about them. The people of the US are the primary target of Russia. Their government is actively trying to do us harm. It is indifference versus malice. This isn't a defense of US foreign policy. We have a history of doing awful things. It is simply recognizing differences between the two countries approaches…

How have you gained so much insight into Russia’s long-term geopolitical strategy and deduced that their primary goal is malice against American people? Through US media? Why do you think they’d invest considerable national resources into this malice for the powerless citizenry? And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pi…

Intent matters in society. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. We don't know the ultimate result of all this on the US since we are right in the middle of it. It is possible things turn out relatively fine, but the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse. The most recent example of such is that we have generals worried about a coup. [1] Also the US isn't the only target of this type of behavior. Russia is doing it to numerous other countries and it is being reported in both foreign media and by various academics.

I have explained my viewpoint numerous times. I don't think I need to explain it any more. I am legitimately confused on what you are trying to achieve by repeatedly questioning that viewpoint. I already admitted the US does bad things. I am not making a value judgement of US versus Russia. I am stating that the specific situation outlined matches closer to Russia's behavior than the US's.

[1] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/trump-militar...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#572

Post by Falling3 »

thu2111 wrote: post #547
sagichmal wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is absolutely no meaningful equivalence on this axis between the American right and left. Your projection about white men is totally incoherent, laughable.

It can't be projection when it's so easy to find quotes or decisions that demonstrate it's the truth. Hillary Clinton: "women are the primary victims of war" ... "the more we support women, the more we support democracy" Joe Biden: next justice must be a black woman Obama: "Men have been getting on my nerves lately. Now women, I just want you to know; you are not perfect, but what I can say pretty indisputably is tha…

Another white man here that disagrees with your assessment. How can pointing out the lack of representation on the nation's highest court with a desire to fix (the Biden quote) ever be construed as "overt and open sexism"?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#573

Post by tqi »

sjg007 wrote: post #564
tqi wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we would just be trading one set of problems for another, people are already physically self sorting so it's not clear to me that enhancing digital echo chambers would make things better.

What do you mean by physically self sorting? I’m taking about turning down the dials to decrease virality, discovery and engagement. If you want to change people’s behavior you need to increase friction.

That we are increasingly self sorting into politically isolated bubbles (based on where we choose to live / work) so we are less likely to encounter diverse opinions in real life [1]. Definitely agree that virality/discovery/engagement need to be carefully balanced, but I don't think that they are inherently good or bad. Virality/discovery/engagement can absolutely lead to the spread of misinformation, but it also is clearly a big driver for awareness of social causes like police brutality / BLM.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Big-Sort-Clustering-Like-Minded-Ameri...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#574

Post by sjg007 »

tqi wrote: post #573
sjg007 wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by physically self sorting? I’m taking about turning down the dials to decrease virality, discovery and engagement. If you want to change people’s behavior you need to increase friction.

That we are increasingly self sorting into politically isolated bubbles (based on where we choose to live / work) so we are less likely to encounter diverse opinions in real life [1]. Definitely agree that virality/discovery/engagement need to be carefully balanced, but I don't think that they are inherently good or bad. Virality/discovery/engagement can absolutely lead to the spread of misinformation, but it also is…

The twitter link in the comment at the top of this post reports that the top 10 daily FB posts are almost all right wing. I am pretty sure this is being driven by a minority of users (and a lot of bots). In fact we know the whole system can be gamed. In that sense the whole network is polluted and suffering the tragedy of the commons.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#575

Post by ben_w »

ThomPete wrote: post #566
DanBC wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

School children in the 1970s (so, people who are about 50+ today) might have come across teachers who wanted to "correct" the left-handedness. https://www.rightleftrightwrong.com/history_recent.html > It was only in the Post-War years, under the influence of John Dewy’s progressive education movement, that a certain amount of tolerance for individual differences and non-conformity developed. But, even then, indeed as…

We aren't talking about +50 we are talking about people who work at facebook which is mostly young white well educated.

This is starting to sound like No True Scotsman.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#576

Post by DenisM »

slg wrote: post #571
xtian wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How have you gained so much insight into Russia’s long-term geopolitical strategy and deduced that their primary goal is malice against American people? Through US media? Why do you think they’d invest considerable national resources into this malice for the powerless citizenry? And why do you think this supposed intent matters so much? Do you think outcomes will be worse for the people of the US than living under Pi…

Intent matters in society. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. We don't know the ultimate result of all this on the US since we are right in the middle of it. It is possible things turn out relatively fine, but the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse. The most recent example of such is that we have generals worried about a coup. [1] Also the US isn't the only target of this type of be…

> the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse

How so?

The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse?

The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are of course free to resign from this. Is this a coup on your book?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#577

Post by jakelazaroff »

DenisM wrote: post #576
slg wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intent matters in society. There is a difference between murder and manslaughter. We don't know the ultimate result of all this on the US since we are right in the middle of it. It is possible things turn out relatively fine, but the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse. The most recent example of such is that we have generals worried about a coup. [1] Also the US isn't the only target of this type of be…

> the US democracy right now is on the edge of collapse How so? The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution. What are the signs of the collapse? The sole link you provided has nothing to do with a coup - it talks about Trump potentially deploying military to quell riots. It is his constitutional right to do, however the generals are…

> The elections are happening, legislature legislates, judicial system is adjudicating, the military is following the constitution.

"Collapse of democracy" doesn't impute lawlessness. The attempt to cripple the USPS under DeJoy was legal, for example. If the US continues its slide into authoritarianism, you can bet it will happen with the pretense of legality.

But that aside, Trump has indicated that he won't honor the election result [1]. GP's link mentions that as well, and links to the article:

> “Get rid of the ballots and you’ll have a very peaceful — there won’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” the president said.

There are also many scenarios in which the election result leads us into Constitutionally uncharted territory. The Atlantic painted some plausible pictures recently [2], including a quote from a Trump campaign legal advisor about appointing electors that don't match a state's popular vote result:

> According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/23/us/politics/trump-power-t...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#578

Post by samatman »

f137 wrote: post #565
samatman wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit off topic but interesting nonetheless, I'll take a crack at it. I see an important distinction between pseudoscientific crankery and just bad/refuted science. I've read some of the 5g corona stuff; it's batshit insane, like I'm fairly sure the primary sources on it have serious mental illnesses. Any physicist with a mailing address can tell you all about cranks. Refuting cranks is not a part of their job, if th…

You probably know that plate tectonics was considered "pseudoscientific crankery", do you?

I don't think that's a completely accurate summary of the debate, although I'm sure the fixists threw that accusation in a heated moment or two.

But, yes, it took decades to be broadly accepted, and we're lucky that Wegener wasn't "canceled" in the meantime.

We should always leave a little margin for the possibility that we're wrong. When it comes to 5g causing COVID, I don't think we'll need it...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#579

Post by linuxftw »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #570
linuxftw wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are often agreements made, but the employment is still at will. So there's no 'contract' for the employment itself, whereas other jurisdictions have actual contracts, and employer can't simply fire you or alter your pay outside the scope of the contract. Everyone understands that the benefits are subject to change. If management changes them and you don't prefer the changes, you speak up. Personally, I won't wo…

Would you leave a $600k job, like a E6 at FB, if it didn't offer free coffee

If I could find another job for the same money, yes.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#580

Post by xyzzyz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #484
montagg wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I think there's a non-splippery-slope way to position the worldview (...) I wouldn't discount the "slippery-slope way", because a slippery slope is not a fallacy when the slope is, in fact, slippery (and demonstrably so). > My main counter to these ideas is that, similar to (pure) free market proponents, it takes on a very idealistic view of rationality that doesn't match real behavior. That cuts both ways, though.…

Some vocal proponents of the "there's bad speech" view weaponize the Paradox of Tolerance argument, way past the point it's rationally applicable, and use it to beat people into submission.

Indeed. Here's the original Popper's statement of paradox of tolerance:

Less well known [than other paradoxes Popper discusses] is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

If anything, it is rather the censors that are "who are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive", and recent "peaceful protests" are exactly an "answer to arguments by the use of their fists or pistols".

Post reply on HN