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

Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

commonwealmagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 100 posts

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#71

Post by aspenmayer »

mindslight wrote: post #58
Jensson wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often it happens like this: Teacher: Your kid needs to read a book by a black author. Parent: Why do my kid need to read a book by a black author? I don't think that is a good way to pick books. Teacher: So you say you refuse to let your kid read any books by black people? Stop being such a bigoted racist! Society isn't tolerant enough to tolerate people like you!

You're bashing a strawman. I don't doubt your sincerity (as I was of a similar perspective when subject to this), but it is still ultimately a strawman. Because what "Black author" actually means is picking books written from the perspective of the Black community . Which to a parent or student not familiar with that culture, of course feels foreign and unnecessary. It also doesn't help that analysis of such books in…

> Quick: name a historical Black scientist who didn't work with peanuts.

I like to think of myself as an educated person, and I’m struggling with this. I’d struggle also to name an Indian or Chinese or Russian historical scientist. This reflects a White Western English bias in educational system imo. Also my own responsibility to do something about as well.

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#72

Post by klyrs »

ModernMech wrote: post #69
klyrs wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vouch button

Interesting, I didn't know about that button, I literally just noticed it (haven't had dead comments enabled for long). If a dead comment that someone vounched for becomes undead, and then dead again, does the voucher lose vouching ability?

I've always been curious about that, but I try to only vouch for substantive comments that are devoid of flamebait (with which the ancestor comment appears to be chockablock). I try not to vouch on agreement / flag on disagreement -- that's what up&downvoting is for. Not for any particular concern about my internet points or vouching privileges, but because I like what HN aims for.

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#73

Post by goodpoint »

jes wrote: post #56
goodpoint wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "paradox" is only that people incorrectly assume that an inclusive society accepts all sort of behaviors. It is in no way a real paradox.

I thought all paradoxes were based on incorrect assumptions of one kind or another. What makes one paradox real while another is not?

No, a paradox is a contradiction in itself, like the famous "this sentence is false": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#74

Post by goodpoint »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #20
goodpoint wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".

This confuses cause and effect. Intolerance of intolerance isn't just political theatre. It's a deliberate attempt to avoid the kinds of practical horrors that racism etc create in an otherwise liberal culture. Those horrors includes personal and mob violence, lynchings, rapes, other random murders, institutionalised economic apartheid, privilege (and its close ally, corruption), the reduction of public debate to rea…

> There isn't really a paradox here

Correct. It's called paradox not because it's a logical impossibility but simply because some people *incorrectly* assume that a tolerant society should tolerate every behavior including those that harm others.

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#75

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

cik2e wrote: post #57
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I checked my IL university out of sheer curiosity, but in that case there was no official statements of any kind. Local student paper covered it with mild bias towards racial inequities, but still within the parameters of a neutral tone. Is it possible that Atlantic is citing CA university as an example that just happens to be an outlier? I don't think it is impossible either way. Rittenhouse trial showed some intere…

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/must-see-list-colle... This is a sampling of some of the statements issued by colleges and universities in response to the Rittenhouse verdict. Lot of prominent names on the list including Columbia, NYU and Stanford.

Oh wow. Thank you. Maybe I would accept an outlier community college here and there, but it is hard not to come to the originally posited conclusion. I will admit that it fills me with an odd feeling of bemusement. Those schools are no mere diploma-mills. There is a medical school and a law school. If those poor souls that are hit so hard by this verdict, how on earth are they going to cope with the real world ( and the very real burdens of those professions ), which is noticeably less nice than US of A?

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#76

Post by goodpoint »

lordloki wrote: post #17
goodpoint wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".

The people refusing dialog are the one who are most intolerant. That is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.

The very opposite.

Honest debate requires being open to have your mind changed.

If you believe that killing children is ethically unacceptable you cannot at the same time engage in a debate on when to kill children.

There is a reason why legal systems have a distinction between crimes that allow debate, extenuating circumstances, statutory time limits and others don't have such wiggle room.

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#77

Post by goodpoint »

goodpoint wrote: post #12
Jensson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." This is exactly what you shouldn't do. As long as you can talk to people you should. These people are talking, they aren't out there being violent or murdering people, they are just sitting there talking, if you attack verbally them like this then their kids will hate you as well. Like "my parents aren't racist, they just want us to get the best bo…

> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".

People equating inclusivity and totalitarianism while at the same time downvoting me to -4. Oh the irony.

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#78

Post by reggieband »

motohagiography wrote: post #47

> The point of pragmatism is that a philosophical problem or distinction is only real to the extent that it has consequences—and those consequences are, in fact, the meaning of the problem or distinction. Dissolving those questions, casting doubt on the existence of any such consequences, was a frequent move by James and Dewey and a favorite move of Rorty’s. It reads like an argument technique and not a tool for illu…

> It's just more dialectic materialism, where to even start a conversation with someone using it, you have to accept ontological premises that are necessarily absurd.

Imagine, if you will, two legislators arguing some bill in some parliament. The first is proposing some amendment to the bill which hinges on the existence of God. The second argues against it believing there is no God.

The question is, can this be resolved? Let us assume they are both perfectly rational and exhibit impeccable integrity. Could they forward arguments to settle their dispute? Let's assume they are both scientific materialists. Can they investigate the material world to find evidence to support their positions and resolve their dispute?

I don't know. If given infinite time, maybe? I honestly don't know. But as of now, it would seem that even given a complete willingness from either party to change their mind based on either argument or evidence we would still find ourselves at an impasse.

So a third person shows up and says: It would seem that we are at an impasse, stuck in a kind of infinite loop. The cause of that infinite loop seems to be our inability to determine whether or not God exists. I suggest we set aside the question of whether or not God exists since what we really want to do here is pass legislation that makes every life better. After we finish up doing what we need to do, we can go down to the pub and have a really good discussion on the topic of the existence of God. But for now, in the interest of making progress on practical matters, I suggest we put the question aside and find other points to discuss.

Miraculously the legislators agree. The first then puts forward the argument that the bill should pass if knowledge is primarily based in the material world. The other legislator scoffs and insists the bill should not pass because knowledge is primarily based within the conscious mind.

So the third person says, we're at an impasse again. Somehow you have alighted on another premise that does not seem solvable through rational or empirical investigation. Our discussion will remain stuck until we disallow any premise that can't be either rationally or empirically determined. Both men lament: "this man is forcing us to accept an ontological premise that is absurd".

I'm sorry that my attempt to explain pragmatism with a tortuous analogy is basically fodder for /r/badphilosophy

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#79

Post by Banana699 »

goodpoint wrote: post #77
goodpoint wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "We are not so inclusivist as to tolerate intolerance such as yours." More like "we are inclusivist therefore we cannot tolerate intolerance such as yours".

People equating inclusivity and totalitarianism while at the same time downvoting me to -4. Oh the irony.

>equating inclusivity and totalitarianism

Mmm so true. When authorities and regimes imprison their enemies or fire them from jobs over opinions or brainwash their children or put them under constant surveillance, they are simply totalitarians being totalitarian, but when authorities and regimes you like do it, they are the manifestation of inclusivity descending into the material world to defend itself against the nasty totalitarians who need to be put in their place. I'm 100% sure that the only difference between the two is not just you affiliating with the latter, that's a completely irrelevant detail. Just like everybody knows that my religion is right and that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that it's mine off course.

>downvoting me to -4

The Horror! what a massive injustice to good men and women everywhere that a database record somewhere contains your words next to a negative integer. Hacker news reader sure do have a lot of totalitarian tendencies for expressing contempt for your opinon in the savage and inhumane way that they did. It worries me a lot, keeps me up at night even.

Have you considered, though, the possibility that hacker news readers decided that you're a threat to tolerance and therefore shouldn't be tolerated ? Surely that's a thing you would support and admire ?

Re: Pragmatism as Anti-Authoritarianism

#80

Post by ABCLAW »

koheripbal wrote: post #19
lordloki wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people refusing dialog are the one who are most intolerant. That is the intolerance that shouldn't be tolerated.

Exactly, they do not understand that when dialogue becomes forbidden, violence becomes inevitable.

Violence becomes inevitable... because people are can't call black people subhuman in public without being censured?

That's one hell of a take.

Post reply on HN