We can have democracy or we can have Facebook • Hacker News Board

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#451

Post by jpttsn » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 10:25 PM UTC

chillacy wrote: post #419

jpttsn wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hurt has acquired multiple meanings. The phrase you hate refers to "hurt" of the bone-breaking variety. To me, that makes it clear. But maybe it's confusing.

Fun fact, Tylenol works not only on physical pain but also emotional pain, because of shared mechanics in the brain.

Fun! Yup, metaphors can be great and apt. We can extend the word “harm” to any desired degree, and find motivations like this.

Then if we bring the new variable value (harm includes psychological harm) back to an older equation (words can never harm me), we can derive anything (the phrase is now wrong).

There is no logic police to stop us from doing this when it’s useful.

Another example: “beer will get me drunk”. I hate this phrase, so let’s fix it.

First, I can say that being “drunk” is similar to being “in love”. It has many similarities, after all, and I think those justify equivalence. From there, I can say that being “in love” is after all very similar to being “loved”.

Bringing it back, my statement is now “beer will get me loved”. It’s the clever hack underpinning many great nights.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#452

Post by InitialLastName » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 10:53 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #431

InitialLastName wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If illiteracy is a widespread issue, then there are bigger issues at play. There are bigger issues at play [0]. Largely the echoing effects of white flight on second-tier cities, and politically motivated defunding of urban education. As with most of the other forms of systematic discrimination in our lives, there is always just enough plausible deniability to avoid judicial ramifications. I'm all for doing everyth…

That group is using a 5th grade reading level to indicate literacy. The citizenship test doesn't even require that level of literacy. Incorrect grammar and spelling are considered passing so long as the person can read and write well enough to communicate. A good gauge of that could be whether or not they can study from a book. I would be interested to see what percentage of illiterate people are voting now anyways.…

I can see where I was confusing. I meant that voting is a fundamental right in our system, not that our current system takes away that right.

In any case, I would consider a policy that removes the right to vote from a class of people to be taking away a right, whether or not you grandfather people in. In the long term, it's a regressive policy.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#453

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 10:56 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #439

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say the same thing about literacy requirements. That's kind of the point. > Yes, there are urban schools which are underfunded and disproportionately affect minorities, but there are also rural schools in predominately white areas that are also underfunded. You could presumably also find some instances of so-called "white trash" being disenfranchised by aggressive voter eligibility requirements. > So in my…

"All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them." Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be cl…

> Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist.

Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control.

Racism as a theory is pseudoscience bullshit. There is no scientific basis for race even existing. We're all humans. The only people who believe otherwise are the victims of propaganda.

> I fail to see how the citizenship test would lead to the rich getting richer.

It could benefit them if the subset of people it prevents from voting would vote for things they wouldn't like.

Also, some policies are nothing but collateral damage. Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other. The elites don't care which policy like that is implemented as long as it keeps people too busy fighting each other over it to pay attention to certain other things.

It benefits the rich because the proponent-victims spend their political capital to implement the policy and then the opponent-victims spend their political capital to repeal it instead of either of them spending that political capital to do anything that benefits the poor at the expense of the rich.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#454

Post by ardy42 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:00 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #450

ardy42 wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forcing other to wear mask has its consequences too. As you've said before, people like you would be forced to wear something you think is uncomfortable. I'd even be forced to play the world's smallest violin for you. The thing is, you have to weigh those consequences (ideally non selfishly), not just assert they exist. So, one the one hand, you have minor inconvenience and intolerable oppression of having to think…

You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience. Its not clear that thousand of deaths will be avoided if everyone wear mask. I agree that it is poorly managed pandemic, that is the decision to do lockdown.

> You dismissed my concern as "minor inconvenience". I acknowledge that for you its minor but for me its major inconvenience.

I did, because your concern is something that should be dismissed. The hypothetical drunk driver I mentioned earlier almost certainly has similar rationalizations for his irresponsible behavior, too. But no one is swayed by his insistence that not driving drunk would have caused "major inconvenience" to him.

Refusing to wear a mask in this environment is like deciding to drive drunk. Don't be like a drunk driver, be a responsible person.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#455

Post by sneak » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:14 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #411

sonotathrowaway wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How difficult is it for a person to modify a stem-automatic weapon to make an illegal fully-automatic?

Up until the Vegas shooter in October 2017, you could add a mechanism called a bump stock to a standard semi-auto AR and make it shoot continuously like a machine gun. The Trump Administration banned the device (angering quite a few of his base). Is it difficult today? Not for someone who has some knowledge and connections. The how-to videos and files are still floating around. It's not recommended, obviously, becaus…

You don't need connections, it can be done with a simple metal coathanger and pliers in 20 minutes. There are instruction videos on YouTube.

It's a federal felony, however, good for the better part of a decade in jail.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#456

Post by sneak » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:15 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #270

sneak wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just about any federal dealer. There is no permit required to purchase fully automatic weapons in the United States; you just have to pay a transfer tax. Unfortunately processing the tax payment takes about a year, in their effort to turn it into a form of permit, but that's not what it is. Anyone (without criminal background) can pay the tax and buy one. There is a ban on the import and manufacture of new ones (for…

You have to pay $200 and send an application to the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms. It takes 8 months to a year; they will do a background investigation and send you an approval form if you pass. Then you can purchase the (used) machine gun. Fully automatic weapons are not currently manufactured in the U.S. Florida, in particular, has banned machine guns like the AK-47 which is to say weapons that fire multiple bulle…

> Fully automatic weapons are not currently manufactured in the U.S.

This is a false statement. Only manufacture of automatic weapons for civilians is banned in the US.

Many automatic weapons are manufactured in the US for police/military/law enforcement.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#457

Post by giantg2 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:32 PM UTC

InitialLastName wrote: post #452

giantg2 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That group is using a 5th grade reading level to indicate literacy. The citizenship test doesn't even require that level of literacy. Incorrect grammar and spelling are considered passing so long as the person can read and write well enough to communicate. A good gauge of that could be whether or not they can study from a book. I would be interested to see what percentage of illiterate people are voting now anyways.…

I can see where I was confusing. I meant that voting is a fundamental right in our system, not that our current system takes away that right. In any case, I would consider a policy that removes the right to vote from a class of people to be taking away a right, whether or not you grandfather people in. In the long term, it's a regressive policy.

You still didn't get it. It's only a fundamental right in our system for citizens. There is no right for non-citizens. Nor have you provided any logic for why it makes sense to allow non-citizen voting.

It's not a regressive policy. That would mean we go back to the method of only land owners voting or excluding classes of minorities. This is simply validating that citizens meet the minimum requirements to be good citizens, something we already do for immigrants. This also does not discriminate against any class of people - the requirements would be the same for all and are easily achievable. This would actual make the granting of citizenship more equitable by making the process the same for everyone instead of the current process that differentiates between those born here and those not.

I'm also still waiting for your answers to my previous two questions.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#458

Post by deckard1 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #348

laurent92 wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, having studied a bunch of official figures that I « was surprised of », I found there were just blatant lies covered by a scientific stamp (actually someone succeeded to pass a paragraph from Mein Kampf into the same journals, after replacing « Jews » by « Men »). The « scientific evidence » we’re governed with is frequently grossly manipulated, and yet it routinely passes peer review, journal publication a…

Why can't we have both problems! I think you're completely right. Science is not cut and dry or black and white. Highly qualified experts disagree ALL THE TIME and the scientific industry is very competetive. Look at Copernicus or Galileo or Barry Marshall or Semmelweis. These scientists bucked all mainstream scientific beliefs even after almost roundly being ostrasized and ended up being correct in the long run. Man…

> You can tell someone who is not trained in science when they claim you should 'trust science' or 'just believe in science'.

The layperson should trust science. Because the alternative is some QAnon cult bullshit. Don't confuse the scientific process with concrete scientific results.

No one is out there refuting Newton or Einstein. Nuclear bombs still work as good as they did in the 1940s. Every time you use your smartphone you're "trusting" that the capacitive screen still works. It's rather silly to not trust science when the products of science are all around us. Whether it's GPS or the airbags in your car.

The problem is with bullshitters and those (such as the media) that use early scientific papers as final scientific truth. With Gell-Mann amnesia effect, the bullshitters have the upper hand. Twitter is particularly bad about this, where people with high follower count toss out "hot takes" all day in hopes of something sticking. You might follow, say, a Paul Graham type of person that knows their VC stuff. But in between their VC messages they start talking about gravitational wells or something entirely unrelated to their core competence. Twitter is an endlessly flowing vortex of this type of bullshit. It's sort of a trust arbitrage marketplace, where influencers in one market try to gain entry into other markets by relying on their expert status in one field.

As for the media, they have deadlines and revenue targets to meet. They want fresh new stories, and Einstein isn't saying much these days. So they'll reach into the scientific paper wastebasket and pull out some trash and present it as some recent scientific discovery.

> But ignorant people think because an 'expert' says something is true it has to be true.

The crux of this problem is that many years ago we decided that experts shouldn't exist. America, at the very least, has a particularly strong anti-intellectual sentiment running throughout its history. So we decided to do away with experts. Just look at Dr. Drew or Dr. Oz. or Dr. Phil. These are people playing the role of expert but are just the same bullshitters that are on Twitter. With the internet, everyone can be an expert.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#459

Post by bJGVygG7MQVF8c » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:41 PM UTC

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #115

In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts. Some of these old media were so biased and agenda driven that they caused wars. Not that much has changed, except that people now rely on centralized, AI-driven funnels of information and entertainment. Democracy has always been fragile, barely functional, easily corrupted, warped by money. The best and only way to defend…

> In an earlier era, people's opinions were shaped by a small number of newspapers and newscasts.

Democracy (read: republican self-government) was as untenable then as it is now.

In even earlier eras, and only in some places, people were capable of forming their own opinions, and the franchise was restricted, however imperfectly, to those who were capable of self-rule.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#460

Post by giantg2 » Fri, Dec 11, 2020, 11:49 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #453

giantg2 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"All of racism fits into that paradigm. Racism is a system for causing poor black folks and poor white folks to fight against each other instead of fighting with each other against the systems oppressing both of them." Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be cl…

> Your statement contradicts itself. If in fact the oppressors are targeting both white and black people to maintain power, then they are by definition not targeting only one race and would instead be classist/elitist. Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control. Racism as a theory is pseudoscience bullshit. There is no scientific basis for race even ex…

"Elites don't promote racism because they're racists, they promote racism because it's a mechanism of control."

That may be true, but the policy we were discussing (property tax funding education as an example of 'every policy being racist') affects large portions of both whites and minorities, and thus does not make it a racist.

"Elites get the proles fighting each other and each coalition starts demanding aversarial policies that harm the outgroup and neither hurt nor help the elites, but keep everyone distracted and fighting each other."

If that's your premise, then your position is moot. This is happening already.