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

We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

the.ink

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 520 posts

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#461

Post by AnthonyMouse »

giantg2 wrote: post #460
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 aversaria…

> 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.

Affecting large portions of both whites and minorities hasn't generally prevented anything from being labeled racist, if they affect minorities differently than white people (as a whole, not a specific subset).

And voter literacy requirements continue to be of the same kind. You can argue that neither is bad because neither is really racist, but then you can have voter literacy requirements. You can argue that both are bad because both are racist, but then you can't have public schools funded by property tax, or even public schools at all, because after all we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible.

What I haven't seen is a consistent case that you can have one and can't have the other.

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

Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#462

Post by matz1 »

ardy42 wrote: post #454
matz1 wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 inconve…

Likewise don't be suprised when other people can also simply dismissed your concern.

No, the different is the risk of not wearing mask way way lower than drunk driving.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#463

Post by matz1 »

Shared404 wrote: post #448
matz1 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That is a legitimate reasons So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not? >If your reasoning is "It's uncomfortable" you are being ridiculously childish, and risking the lives of others. Likewise, I can also says your decision to force other to wear mask is childish. You also get to decide what childish and what is not? >I literally cannot understand the "I would rather risk killing someone than havi…

> So you get to decide which are legitimate and which are not? No, but I get to have an opinion, which I stated. A doctor would be better suited to decide which is legitimate or not. The condition I was referring to was Trigeminal Neuralgia. If a doctor says that it's okay to not wear a mask because "it's uncomfortable", then okay. I somehow suspect you'll have difficulty with that. > Likewise, I can also says your d…

Sure, you have opinion, i have opinion.

Medical reason is not the only reason for it to be legitimate.

You too are selfish for forcing other people to wear mask.

>Is avoiding some mild discomfort really a worthy risk/benefit trade off?

Very much Yes

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#464

Post by hkai »

HarrisonFisk wrote: post #445
nopriorarrests wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question -- do you think that without Facebook there will be no tensions between anti-maskers and people who insist on wearing masks everywhere? Is FB really to blame here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Mask_League_of_San_Franci...

Yes. The progressives were fighting against the mask mandate imposed by the lynching-friendly Republican mayor of SF. They were saying that mask mandates are unscientific, and turned out to be right:

> A study then in 1919 concluded that mandatory mask mandates did not make any difference on epidemic

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#465

Post by giantg2 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #461
giantg2 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 aversaria…

> 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. Affecting large portions of both whites and minorities hasn't generally prevented anything from being labeled racist, if they affect minorities differently than white people (as a whole, not a speci…

"...we're talking about avoiding things over their historical implementations even if other implementations are possible."

Well that's not at all what has been discussed. If that's what you think this thread is about, then you are very off-topic. If we are truly doing that, then we need to avoid all institutions and policies since they all have some bigoted background, and there's no path forward because everyone can just unsupportively call anything racist.

"Are you implying that it happening has had nothing to do with the inflammation of racial tensions by elites and media organizations?"

You have been stating that subjecting everyone to the citizen test is racist and said that we shouldn't do it because the racist policy will lead to parties fighting each other so the elites are left alone.

I'm saying that's already happening, so you don't have any premise for why not to do this. And quite frankly, you have derailed the actual topic of thread and failed to provide any logical reasoning for your stances (paraphrased, because all past policies have been racist this one must be racist and shouldn't be implemented).

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#466

Post by matz1 »

Shared404 wrote: post #446
matz1 wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics. I never support the lockdown in the first place, regardless of mask. And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive.

>Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics. Decisively false. Masks influence pandemic influences lockdown. > And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive. Do you have a credible source for that?

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#467

Post by redis_mlc »

redis_mlc wrote: post #37
lldbg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Religion is already banned in places such as France. Did not do them much good. A ban on free speech will be equally as effective.

> Religion is already banned in places such as France. No. France is ultra-secular, and does not ask religion when doing their census. However, most Western countries want Saudi Arabia to stop sending radical imams, including France and the USA.

What I wrote is literally 100% true, as reported in the press.

The original poster who wrote that "religion is banned" is 100% wrong.

So what are the downvotes for? Some kind of brigade?

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#468

Post by jula432vdf »

Not quite so, Somebody, ultimately, will define the agenda.

Maybe now is an algorithm, some person censoring news or posts for fcbk, but if you involve the government, any government, they will define the agenda.

So, the most you can get from that deal is to choose who would you want to be your master.

With algorithms at least we - still - have the out of sight factor, some things the algo doesn't "see" or "understand" (quite few probably), but if involve governments, specially the american government, with thousands and thousands of interests, some of them even confronted; you could end with some franken-facebook promoting several hundred of agendas from who-god-knows.

I have no solutions, but I can tell you, there are problems ahead.

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#469

Post by Shared404 »

matz1 wrote: post #466
Shared404 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Decision to open has nothing to do mask. Its politics. Decisively false. Masks influence pandemic influences lockdown. > And whether mask actually help with the pandemic, its still inconclusive. Do you have a credible source for that?

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817

> no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.

Still need a source. I wasn't asking for a source on if they protect the wearer, I was asking for a source for "whether mask actually help with the pandemic"

Re: We can have democracy or we can have Facebook

#470

Post by Shared404 »

matz1 wrote: post #462
ardy42 wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 inconve…

Likewise don't be suprised when other people can also simply dismissed your concern. No, the different is the risk of not wearing mask way way lower than drunk driving.

About 1.5 times as many people died of Covid in the last seven days than people who died due to drunk driving in 2016.

Drunk driving may be more dangerous to the individual, but not all wearing masks appears to be doing much more damage.

For context, the number of covid related deaths over the past week are equivalent to 5.47 times the number of people killed in 9/11.

These numbers don't include those who survive but suffer from lasting effects caused by covid.

Sources:

https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/impaired_driving/im...

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsinlast...

Edit: Add Drunk ... 9/11.

Edit 2: Change the paragraph about 9/11 to be more respectful.

Edit 3: Add comment about lasting effects.

Post reply on HN