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

Harrison Bergeron (1961)

archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 275 posts

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#181

Post by morelisp »

Applejinx wrote: post #29
swyx wrote: post #6

i dont know Vonnegut's politics but i have always wondered if this story was secretly a fairytale for the right-leaning. it paints wanting equality as intensely evil, holding back the best of humanity. which, yes, true in communist regimes, but you see echoes in some less well considered laws and policies in modern life. i am afraid to like, or even publicly discuss, the story because of what it might say about me.

You've got to remember that the role of an artist isn't always to provide answers. The role of an artist is to provide questions. 'Harrison Bergeron' is a nightmare tale, not a Utopia… but Harrison is not sympathetic, he is a tyrant, 'justifying' the world as established. If the story is a fairytale for the right-leaning, it's for the very childish right-leaning. It's also too aggressive to be a fairytale for would-b…

Interesting that you mention Swift - a pithy comment I heard at a convention panel many years ago was something along the lines of "saying Harrison Bergeron is an argument for libertarianism is like saying A Modest Proposal is an argument for the Irish remaining in poverty."

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#182

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

flatline wrote: post #66
josephcsible wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been school districts lately that have been getting rid of advanced math classes in the name of equality.

Like the sibling poster said this is probably a cost cutting measure. However, I really hate the dichotomy of “special ed” vs “gifted/advanced” that permeates education. Every student has special educational needs, and by that I mean not just academics. I excelled in school with no real effort and never got the support I needed in other areas because, clearly, I was doing great. I now have a 2e kid that goes to a Wal…

I had a similar experience in school and definitely agree

> I do think there is a push not to equalize everyone but to actually address individual needs, and those may draw resources from areas like advanced courses

This is a great point and reminds me of the quote "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression". I definitely got a lot of privileges in school my friends didn't because I got good grades - better choice of classes, counselors will listen to you more, and maybe most of all, teachers seem to care much more about teaching and engaging and not just getting a group of kids they don't think want to learn to pass so they can leave the class.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#184

Post by choko »

mmmpop wrote: post #62
josephcsible wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been school districts lately that have been getting rid of advanced math classes in the name of equality.

Equity, not equality. Big difference in modern parlance.

It's all double-speak for Marxism, or equal outcomes for everyone.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#185

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

WalterBright wrote: post #155
bnralt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Story from a local school: Parents of the more advanced math students in the grade requested some sort of more advanced math opportunities for their kids. School didn't provide any. When several of the kids used a more advanced math concept they had learned outside of school to solve a problem, the teacher told them to not do it that way because they hadn't learned it yet. The school does provide extra classes for ki…

Note the contrast between that and the athletic department, where schools are absolutely delighted to get a kid with an aptitude for sport, and push him hard to achieve.

I think the big difference here is that it doesn't really matter if someone isn't athletic. A school can have 10 kids for an amazing basketball team and 990 that are terrible at basketball and it doesn't affect anything, but if you have 10 geniuses and 990 kids that can't read then it's a huge negative for society

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#186

Post by lliamander »

WorldMaker wrote: post #172
WalterBright wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not hearing it from this libertarian. Libertarianism is not code for rude, thoughtless, meanness, uncharitable, stealing, defrauding, enslaving, etc. It's code for people doing what they want to, as long as they don't hurt others. For example, I follow recommendations for making my web sites more usable for people using screen readers. Not because anyone makes me do it - I'm happy to do it.

Great. You want a pat on the back for doing the easy things? A lot of accommodations cost money and are supported by taxes. Are you one of the rare Libertarians who doesn't also believe "taxation is theft"? Other accommodations require regulation because incentives (money) alone don't work (and have been repeatedly proven not to). Have you squared your Libertarianism with the need for useful regulations of accommodat…

"taxation is theft" is compatible with a desire to help the less fortunate. We don't all have to subscribe to your ideology of forcing "conpassionate" behavior to actually help people.

There's plenty of reasons that a voluntary approach can (and does) work. Not perfectly, of course, but nothing is perfect. But it arguably works better than the more authoritarian approach you prescribe.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#187

Post by e_i_pi_2 »

babyshake wrote: post #168
bnralt wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Story from a local school: Parents of the more advanced math students in the grade requested some sort of more advanced math opportunities for their kids. School didn't provide any. When several of the kids used a more advanced math concept they had learned outside of school to solve a problem, the teacher told them to not do it that way because they hadn't learned it yet. The school does provide extra classes for ki…

> When several of the kids used a more advanced math concept they had learned outside of school to solve a problem, the teacher told them to not do it that way because they hadn't learned it yet. This is nothing new. Most teachers are more concerned with being able to manage their classes than they are with outcomes for individual students.

This also seems to be for the sake of the teachers. There's a bunch of different methods to do math problems, and they're supposed to grade both the method and the result. It's way easier if everyone is using the same method than to allow everyone to make their own.

As a straw-man example - you could come up with a more advanced way to format your essay and maybe write it in a new language you learned, but if the teacher can't understand it then it doesn't really fulfill the requirements of the assignment.

The "new math" thing also isn't anything new, there's a song about it from 1965 and another from 2009

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Math_(song)

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#188

Post by dusted »

Parmenidea wrote: post #17

My hot take is that this story is highly overrated. It’s boring, poorly written, and lacks nuance. The reason people remember it fondly is (1) everyone loves Vonnegut because he’s funny, so they don’t want to criticize it and (2) everyone read this story in middle school and are blinded by nostalgia.

I've been called an excitable simpleton in many different ways, but this one is new ;)

I read it the first time today, In my opinion it was a pleasurable read, well written, witty and, clearly demonstrating a certain idea.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#189

Post by WalterBright »

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #185
WalterBright wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note the contrast between that and the athletic department, where schools are absolutely delighted to get a kid with an aptitude for sport, and push him hard to achieve.

I think the big difference here is that it doesn't really matter if someone isn't athletic. A school can have 10 kids for an amazing basketball team and 990 that are terrible at basketball and it doesn't affect anything, but if you have 10 geniuses and 990 kids that can't read then it's a huge negative for society

> it doesn't really matter if someone isn't athletic

Tell that to people who faked athletic credentials to get into the college of their choice. Or who get in with full academic scholarships because they're good at football.

I'm not advocating ignoring 990 kids that can't read, not at all. What I am suggesting is ignoring the 10 geniuses and not taking advantage of them is both unfair and bad for society.

Consider that WW1 and WW2 were won in large part by smart people making more effective weapons. You see the same thing in the Ukraine war today.

Failing to nurture the 10 geniuses is a very bad idea.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#190

Post by WalterBright »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #176
WalterBright wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note the contrast between that and the athletic department, where schools are absolutely delighted to get a kid with an aptitude for sport, and push him hard to achieve.

Art classes seem the same, art and music teachers always seem eager to give special attention to kids who do much better than their peers.

Of course.

Very few teachers take any interest in the students who do well in math. In fact, they'll often find them annoying.

Yes, there are some teachers who do take an interest and do their best for those students. They just aren't the norm, and they don't get much support from the administration.

Post reply on HN