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

Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

ceadserv1.nku.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 122 posts

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#51

Post by geden »

atoav wrote: post #49
UweSchmidt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

As someone who grew up in a right wing province of southern Austria with neo nazis (and old original nazis) nextdoors I can tell you precisely what changed. Fighting for the other persons right to speak their thought is a good and noble thing as long as the other person doesn't fight against your right to say what you like and as long as their words don't turn into actions. The more of this happens the more tolerance…

Agreed. The problem with this stance though is verification.

How do you verify that someone is stepping over the line and violating the rights of others.

We rely on various NGOs and media reporting for the raw data and the law courts for independent verification.

So it’s no surprise of course that these are early targets for people with malign interests.

It’s a simple litmus test. Both of those functions should be made far more independent of political control.

Easier said than done.

(grammar edit)

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#52

Post by b112 »

beaconstudios wrote: post #47
UweSchmidt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

My guess, Internet commentariat shifted away from live-and-let-live attitudes like (actual) liberalism or (actual) libertarianism. Don't know why, but I see an awful lot more busybodies on here, reddit etc than before. I suspect regression to the mean, aka eternal September, since the Internet and Internet social networks stopped being niche thanks to social media and the startup boom.

I think that the type of intellect is the issue. Why?

At the start, only highly technical types dominated the Internet. Other types existed, but were the minority.

And at the start, the Internet had more, tech only content. Sure, there were funny memes, other silly things, but cat videos didn't take up 99.99% of all non-porn traffic.

This type of personality tends to do lots of research, read a lot, where as most of the population never picks up a book, and very rarely reads. And while the Internet forces the average Joe to read, reading a headline is all they do. And can even tolerate.

(Note that UN national literary rates, are based upon what a 7th grader can read. An average one too, not a particularly bright one.)

Couple this with tiny smartphone displays, where a three paragraph news article looks like a massive wall of text...

And, no text reflow in mainline phone browsers due to agendas...

And most Internet commentators aren't even able to listen, or understand, the other side.

One of the most popular communication methods forces tiny little sentences, forcing even the highly literate to write like Captain Kirk, in halting, disjointed sentences!

Then, couple all of this with something else readers / those who enjoy learning, do? Why, they learn history! The history of why you never do this or that, or why thing $x leads to bad outcomes time and time again, which provides significant context to the world.

In short? The Internet now belongs to the masses, and that is why it changed.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#53

Post by beaconstudios »

b112 wrote: post #52
beaconstudios wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess, Internet commentariat shifted away from live-and-let-live attitudes like (actual) liberalism or (actual) libertarianism. Don't know why, but I see an awful lot more busybodies on here, reddit etc than before. I suspect regression to the mean, aka eternal September, since the Internet and Internet social networks stopped being niche thanks to social media and the startup boom.

I think that the type of intellect is the issue. Why? At the start, only highly technical types dominated the Internet. Other types existed, but were the minority. And at the start, the Internet had more, tech only content. Sure, there were funny memes, other silly things, but cat videos didn't take up 99.99% of all non-porn traffic. This type of personality tends to do lots of research, read a lot, where as most of…

I think we're describing the same effect. Our conclusions about regression to the mean are identical, and I believe the people who most want to learn are also most likely to be of a live-and-let-live persuasion, because they want to be left alone to explore information at their own discretion, and hate for the information available to them to be limited. It's basically a bargain - "I'll leave you to do what you want to do if you let me do the same".

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#54

Post by fctorial »

exmadscientist wrote: post #44
fctorial wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an illegal operation

"Infinity plus one" is completely legal and well-defined in multiple mathematical formalisms [0], not least of which (and my personal favorite) are the surreal numbers [1]. [0] https://blog.plover.com/math/infinity-for-kids.html [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surreal_number#Transfinite_ind...

I meant adding infinity to both sides

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#55

Post by vbezhenar »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #42
bckr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

I still hold that opinion (except part about death), but who cares. You need to make a poll regularly if you want some kind of conclusive evidence that public opinion changes. Otherwise you're making conclusions based on few comments here and there.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#56

Post by raffraffraff »

sneak wrote: post #37
caspper69 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What happens when it's your opinions that are unpopular?

Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.

Yes, but when somebody has an unpopular opinion that is "wrong", silencing them isn't the way to change their minds. The best thing in the whole world is hearing a debate between two people, and having your mind change as a result of the arguments given.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#57

Post by raffraffraff »

llaolleh wrote: post #28

I love Bertrand Russell's writing style. His piece on writing is a must read: http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/how... He translates this: "Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or en…

I think that philosophers like Judith Butler write impenetrable prose to sound intelligent and to make it almost impossible to argue against their positions. Anything worth saying can be said simply.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#58

Post by sneak »

raffraffraff wrote: post #56
sneak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.

Yes, but when somebody has an unpopular opinion that is "wrong", silencing them isn't the way to change their minds. The best thing in the whole world is hearing a debate between two people, and having your mind change as a result of the arguments given.

Declining to continue to employ someone, or be associated with them in public, is not silencing them.

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#59

Post by feurio »

malwarebytess wrote: post #22
chmod600 wrote: post #18

Quotation (related only because it's from Russell): "The fundamental argument for freedom of opinion is the doubtfulness of all our belief... when the State intervenes to ensure the indoctrination of some doctrine, it does so because there is no conclusive evidence in favour of that doctrine .. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to make a living." https://en.…

This is from, at least partially, "Free Thought and Official Propaganda." https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-free-thought.html

"Both these obstacles exist in every large country known to me, except China, which is the last refuge of freedom."

Good to see how well that worked out ;-)

Re: Bertrand Russell Is the Pope (2010)

#60

Post by nabla9 »

llaolleh wrote: post #28

I love Bertrand Russell's writing style. His piece on writing is a must read: http://personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/RBwritings/how... He translates this: "Human beings are completely exempt from undesirable behaviour-patterns only when certain prerequisites, not satisfied except in a small percentage of actual cases, have, through some fortuitous concourse of favourable circumstances, whether congenital or en…

"I am allowed to use plain English because everybody knows that I could use mathematical logic if I chose."
Post reply on HN