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

How can we break our addiction to contempt?

freakonomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 212 posts

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#181

Post by stirfish »

fighterpilot wrote: post #64
tombert wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't necessarily break with my reasoning, right? They might still actually think that the vaccines are worse than the disease. Obviously they're wrong, and they should get vaccinated, but they might be fundamentally "good" but also misguided people. I have my own hypothesis about the COVID vaccine denialism in particular, but I am afraid that it might come off as a bit too political for HN and Dang would lock…

Can you share that hypothesis? You are obviously contributing to this thread in a balanced way and in good faith and I really want to hear it. I know two anti-vaxxers. One is not political at all but isn't that smart. Very nice and generous person. Bit prone to conspiracy thinking and bought into fake news on Rumble or something. The other is very conservative and it's a team/tribe issue with him. He has a strong dis…

Honestly I don't trust the vaccine, but I got it anyway because I see the virus as a bigger danger to me

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#182

Post by etherael »

md8z wrote: post #180
etherael wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We are not in opposition Yes we are, you are continuously making the argument that if you can give good reasons for coercion, it is no longer accurate to refer to it as coercion. This is false. Examples; > For a lot of these companies it's a matter of either they require the vaccine, or they go back to having long lines, reduced hours, occupancy limits, strict mask requirements, and other things that are inconvenie…

Actually I have explained multiple times why it's not coercion and why your description is incorrect. Some companies simply are unable to safely employ people who are unvaccinated. If you feel you are opposed to me then I would ask that you stop that, it's going to prevent us from having a reasonable discussion. I will tell you right now, I am not in opposition to you, I just see you may have some misconceptions and…

Sorry but all you have done is repeat false claims and insisted with progressively more intensity that they're true. In light of that, I'm not interested in continuing this unproductive discussion.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#183

Post by CalChris »

googlryas wrote: post #176
CalChris wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Krauss was in fact working for OAN and Sputnik at the same time and Sputnik is funded by the Russian government. Maddow even won attorney fees in that case. Rouz is a propagandist; quotes in the decision amply demonstrate that. Quoting the appeals decision, The challenged statement was an obvious exaggeration, cushioned within an undisputed news story. Equating Maddow’s exaggeration with Jones and Carlson is just ran…

If they actually are on the payroll, how is it an "obvious exaggeration" to say that they are getting paid by the Russian government? If something is demonstrably true, why would one need to hide behind the "No reasonable person would believe this to be true" defense?

Because that is the threshold question of any defamation case [1]. OAN lost that case and re-lost on appeal. Then in awarding Maddow attorneys fees, the court was saying OAN shouldn't have even filed the suit in the first place.

The question for you, the original question, is why would you consider her shorthand argument based on fact equivalent to what Alex Jones does?

[1] https://timesofsandiego.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/MADDO...

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#184

Post by md8z »

etherael wrote: post #182
md8z wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I have explained multiple times why it's not coercion and why your description is incorrect. Some companies simply are unable to safely employ people who are unvaccinated. If you feel you are opposed to me then I would ask that you stop that, it's going to prevent us from having a reasonable discussion. I will tell you right now, I am not in opposition to you, I just see you may have some misconceptions and…

Sorry but all you have done is repeat false claims and insisted with progressively more intensity that they're true. In light of that, I'm not interested in continuing this unproductive discussion.

Actually, there are no false claims. I have sourced my claims using sources that you previously quoted to me as being true, and I also asked you to clarify your claims with several questions that you didn't answer. I can provide more sources if you'd like that, or I can provide some more analogies if that helps explain it more. Just let me know if you change your mind, but I agree we will not have a productive discussion if either one of us is not agreeing to answer questions or be open to considering new sources and changing our minds. I personally would be open to all of that, so feel free to ask me any questions or share new sources if that will help you make it productive. But it may be more productive to just stop being hung up on that definition, you can check the paper you sourced for more details.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#185

Post by etherael »

md8z wrote: post #184
etherael wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but all you have done is repeat false claims and insisted with progressively more intensity that they're true. In light of that, I'm not interested in continuing this unproductive discussion.

Actually, there are no false claims. I have sourced my claims using sources that you previously quoted to me as being true, and I also asked you to clarify your claims with several questions that you didn't answer. I can provide more sources if you'd like that, or I can provide some more analogies if that helps explain it more. Just let me know if you change your mind, but I agree we will not have a productive discus…

Definitions matter and if you change them arbitrarily in order to declare victory where none would exist if your incorrect definitions were not accepted, it is pointless to engage with you.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#187

Post by nec4b »

shaldjfb wrote: post #10
panzagl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right because conservative = bad and deserving of contempt. This is exactly the type of kneejerk reaction that he is talking about. The 1% do just as well when Democrats are in office, but keep on playing the game ruled by tribe and emotion, see where that gets us.

The Democratic Party is conservative by any popular measure outside of the insular American worldview. In many European countries, the Democratic Party’s politics would be considered far right.

Absolutely untrue. The most extreme leftist parities in Europe do not come close the extremism of progressive democrats.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#188

Post by md8z »

etherael wrote: post #185
md8z wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, there are no false claims. I have sourced my claims using sources that you previously quoted to me as being true, and I also asked you to clarify your claims with several questions that you didn't answer. I can provide more sources if you'd like that, or I can provide some more analogies if that helps explain it more. Just let me know if you change your mind, but I agree we will not have a productive discus…

Definitions matter and if you change them arbitrarily in order to declare victory where none would exist if your incorrect definitions were not accepted, it is pointless to engage with you.

I didn't change anything. I clarified my definition several times, then I asked you for a clarification of your definition and you didn't give any. Coercion usually means when someone is pressured to do something via threats, and in all the examples I gave (including when it's related to vaccines) there are no threats or pressure to do anything. We can discuss this but you're not giving me anything to work with.

For gene therapy I think typically the goal of that is the opposite of vaccines. Similar vectors can be used (in this case mRNA encased in lipids) but everything else is different. With vaccines you're intentionally trying to provoke an immune response, but one that's weak enough so it doesn't harm the patient. In gene therapy, you usually want to avoid generating an immune response at all, so the body doesn't start attacking the modified cells.

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#189

Post by bellyfullofbac »

tombert wrote: post #118
TomSwirly wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of their voters mean well Can you give some sort of reason why you have this impression?

I have conservative members of my family, who I admittedly don’t talk to very often anymore, but when I do I do get a vibe that they believe what they’re saying. They genuinely think that Donald Trump really Made America Great Again, and that Joe Biden exist to destroy America. I don’t agree with either of those statements, and I think their actions as a result of these beliefs are bad, but I do think they want thing…

Making decisions with global, or even national, ramifications is a complex thing, but people seem to take shortcuts when they decide if something is good or bad. In your example, people may think "Trump MAGAed" because "He's fighting China, China's been stealing our jobs, and we liked jobs.", although the way Donald did the tariff wars, it disadvantaged American companies and consumers, making the American economy/jobs situation that little bit worse. (At least Covid happened and it eclipsed the whole problem).

Re: How can we break our addiction to contempt?

#190

Post by PeterisP »

md8z wrote: post #173
etherael wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not my opinion, it's a fact that; Mandates are coercive by definition, that's the entire point of them, putting whatever magical word in front of them you like doesn't change that. The medication to which the "Vaccine mandates" refer is not the same as traditional inactivated virus vaccines, and before this whole fiasco started, was always referred to as what it actually is which is gene therapy. https://www.ncb…

I would not say anything you've said is facts, they're just incorrect statements. (Sorry to be blunt.) You're saying it's coercive when they're part of a job requirement? No, I explained this farther down. Please check my other post, thanks. If your presence being there is going to cause the company's insurance rates to rise to the point where they can't afford you anymore, then they're going to dismiss you. That's u…

IMHO making something part of job requirements is coercing, definitely. You may argue that the coercion is justified (just as many other mandates in job requirements coercing employees to do something they might not want to do) but it clearly is coercion, and it seems quite ridiculous to deny that the mandate was made with the intent to coerce people to vaccinate.
Post reply on HN