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

Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 388 posts

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#201

Post by daenz »

RobertRoberts wrote: post #178
timoth3y wrote: post #68

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…

Here is Milton Friedman discussing a politically charged topic with Bernie Sanders in a very civil manner. (though Bernie doesn't speak much) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sElz_P6QsZo (ignore the inflammatory title and intro screen) Civility and decorum are what is missing today. And if it was taught in our schools today, and valued in society at large, maybe it we could still have debates like this.

That looks absolutely nothing like a young Bernie Sanders, but there seems to be multiple places online claiming it is him.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#202

Post by alkaloid »

riskable wrote: post #190
alkaloid wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> the extremism from the abortion-supporting side Can you post some examples? I know the anti-choice crowd has a history of assassination, arson, bombings, death threats, kidnappings , harassment/stalking, and vandalism... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence Note that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have a "pro-choice violence" page and searching around I couldn't find much beyond some vandalism.

No post body was provided.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#203

Post by rat87 »

UncleEntity wrote: post #114
astrange wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People certainly do believe these things and I don’t know if it’s even something they can be “logically” wrong about. Where they are factually wrong is that they think they’re traditional but these are fully modern ideas. The actual Jewish tradition is against several of those; the actual Christian tradition may be for them, but the idea that you should actually read the Bible, know what an official position is, or d…

> And Protestants weren’t against abortion until recently, because they defined themselves as against Catholicism. Did they really have to have an official position when the state said it was illegal?

Protestants aren't pretty fractured but a number of groups even fairly conservative ones(like southern Baptist convention) didn't care or were pro choice.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ukju68/in_19...

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#204

Post by ouid »

guerrilla wrote: post #127
ouid wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh really? Would you like to provide an example of this?

Sure, I refer you to the entire Western canon of ethics because that's 99% of what it consists of. If you want a simple math example, we replaced Euclid's axioms of geometry with Hilber's axioms of geometry and others. Look into why. Then there's the fact that axioms and premises that make empirical statements which can be falsified. Those get thrown out all the time.

We didn't replace Euclid's axioms. I'm sorry that you think so, because it is a common misconception that mathematics "believes in a set of axioms". The euclidean axioms are a foundation for the logical system of euclidean geometry. Eucliden geometry is not only unchanged, but is actually a system which has been proven to be consistent and decideable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski%27s_axioms. This makes it rather uninteresting, which is why we now study a different system.

Empiricism, likewise, is an axiom that goes. That which I observe exists, and then if you would like to keep that axiom, you're going to have to throw away anything else that is shown to be inconsistent as a result. Which is in bounds.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#205

Post by Aloha »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #177
whatshisface wrote: post #3

> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.

While it’s not a huge jump from the 4th amendment to a generalized right to privacy, you’re wrong when you say it’s not true, the fourth amendment does not actually say anything about privacy, it is at most implied. The fourth amendment, much like the third, was passed in response to an explicit practice that occurred during the pre revolutionary period, and sought to remedy it.

My non-lawyerly opinion believes that both the first amendment and the fourth amendment when taken together provide a decent foundation to a generalized right to privacy.

Specifically when you look at all of the cases over time defining actions as speech.

Is abortion a form of free speech? possibly!

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#206

Post by happytoexplain »

timoth3y wrote: post #68

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…

Yes, exactly. The title is encouraging hating people by accusing them of encouraging hating people. It does this in the usual way - by implying that a small group is representative of a large group.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#207

Post by hintymad »

timoth3y wrote: post #68

The answer to the question in the title is contained in the title. For a number of reasons, we seem to have reached the point where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored. A world where everyone is trying to position themselves as the persecuted, besieged voice of reason defending simple truth against irrational attractors, does not leave much room for common ground. I…

> where hyperbolic, emotional statements get attention and calm, rational discussion is ignored.

Rational and nuanced discussion requires patience, tolerance, energy, and a big heart to sometimes acknowledge that one is wrong. It's just so much easier to be angry, to be righteous, and to destroy the "enemies".

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#208

Post by reedjosh »

astrange wrote: post #194
reedjosh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey! Awesome reply. I'm pretty much anti-abortion myself, but draw the line at your point. So, I'm practically pro-choice. > it is the government's job to enforce Which is where I say we stop on the whole abortion thing. So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days.

> So, I'm an anti-abortion pro-choicer? Kinda weird I suppose. Falling between two camps isn't popular these days. That’s what “pro-choice” means. They’re not “pro-abortion”, at least officially. US liberals are good at avoiding abortions ahead of time because they have less premarital sex. The conservative no-sex messaging doesn’t work as well because it relies on telling teens that abstinence is the cool minority t…

> because they have less premarital sex.

I think you make fair points, but I would guess here that the reality is not less pre-marital sex. It's probably more, it's just sex with birth control.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#209

Post by robonerd »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #57

I do not know what I expected when I clicked on the comments section. I think the author makes some really good points about human psychology & game theory, and the fact that people are immediately riled up by his statements only serves to prove him right. You can only understand people when you're clear-headed, i.e. your "rational you" is the one in control. With these issues, people have either natural or nurtured…

The author has nobody but himself to blame, since he sabotaged the reception of his own article with an inflammatory headline that assumes a false (or at least contentious) premise.

Re: Why is it traitorous to understand the people you disagree with?

#210

Post by [deleted] »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #177
whatshisface wrote: post #3

> The Constitution doesn’t mention abortion. But what about privacy? Well, it doesn’t mention privacy either. That's not true - the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The search part prevents the police from reading your mail or wiretapping your phones without a warrant (which declares the search reasonable), except illegally.

While it’s not a huge jump from the 4th amendment to a generalized right to privacy, you’re wrong when you say it’s not true, the fourth amendment does not actually say anything about privacy, it is at most implied. The fourth amendment, much like the third, was passed in response to an explicit practice that occurred during the pre revolutionary period, and sought to remedy it.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN