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

201–210 of 275 posts

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#201

Post by Pxtl »

axus wrote: post #173
Pxtl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vonnegut was brilliant, but I never found his writing subtle. He generally was pretty straightforward about things. imho, Harrison Bergeron should be taken at face value as his indictment against holding back the gifted among us. Remember that his exemplars aren't great Randian industrialists, but like... dancers. Artists. Quietly intelligent men like himself. Vonnegut isn't saying "the strong should triumph and stan…

I liked that Harrison immediately declared himself emperor, as soon as he had the chance. George is a big supporter of the oppressive system. The "best" ones are as much of a caricature as the oppressors.

Oof, I'd forgotten that in the end Harrison declares himself emperor. That does kind of lend towards the "satire of both sides" interpretation.

With that lens, kind of reflects the 20th century nerd experience; The tall-poppy nerd kid who is "handicapped" in school and, escaping into adulthood, becomes an arrogant and overbearing prick.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#202

Post by WalterBright »

choko wrote: post #192
WalterBright wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I say "people like ice cream" and you say "not all people like ice cream" I reply "I didn't say all ." "All" is a modifier for a reason. For example, people are demanding that the SATs should not be used to evaluate students academic ability, because it's unfair that some students do better on the test than others. Have you ever seen anyone advocate this sort of thing for the school sports program? How about it…

Using the term "people" or "men" or "women" without a quantifier is misleading. I could say "people think the earth is flat" and it doesn't matter if it's one person or one billion people but the difference is very important.

> Using the term "people" or "men" or "women" without a quantifier is misleading

If I say "people have two legs" and you reply saying what about amputees, that's a debate tactic, not a misinterpretation. If I say "people are amputees" that would be a false statement.

> I could say "people think the earth is flat" and it doesn't matter if it's one person or one billion people but the difference is very important.

The term "people" by itself means people in general. Not all people, and not one person in a billion.

English is neither a mathematics nor a programming language, and should not be treated as such.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#203

Post by aasasd »

Bakary wrote: post #116
aasasd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always fun seeing USians trying to shoehorn every variation of human behavior into the one-dimensional classification. (Seeing other Westerners confusedly borrow the same dichotomy is also entertaining, as it often fits poorly to them and they surely should know better.)

I don't think this condescension is warranted for two reasons. Vonnegut operated this satire clearly within American cultural parameters and the dichotomy, though one-dimensional, is linked to many different foundational ideas in various cultures all across the world.

Alright, so I'm guessing when people have to give up personal freedom for collective values, it's called ‘leftist’, right? Like, freedom of personal expression and freedom over one's own body—so men are forbidden from growing out long hair and decorating themselves with trinkets, women have to look ‘womanly’ and to assume traditional matronly roles, homosexuality is outlaw, recreational drugs are criminal as damaging for the society at large. Likewise, people are precluded from spending their money as they see fit, and the state dictates what healthcare, schools, universities and other caregiving establishments look like, such that everybody pays taxes for them. People can't sell each other whatever they want, but have to follow invasive regulation by the state. This all is leftism.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#204

Post by russellbeattie »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #126
MajimasEyepatch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> USians We have a word for this in English: Americans.

He knows. It's bait and you swallowed it. This is the part where you get a lecture about Central and South America.

I always have to explain that we didn't come up with the name, the British did when we were first a colony, almost 500 years ago. Then the US became the first independent nation in the Americas, so it naturally became the nomenclature for us as a people. If the latin American countries wanted to have claim on the name, they should have had a revolution first instead of copying us decades later. It's not our fault they decided to live under European tyranny for decades longer. If their ancestors weren't so passive, then they would be called Americans, not us. You snooze, you lose.

I say all this just to be annoying, of course. When I'm talking to a Latino in person who complains about it, I explain it all in fluent Spanish to make sure my point is well taken.

Every country in the world has a name for its people, and that just happens to be ours and it's not going to change any time soon. Besides, not even Spanish speakers enjoy using the word "estadounidenses".

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#205

Post by lliamander »

LtWorf wrote: post #200
lliamander wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> "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 (sic) to actually help people. So you mean saying "oh poor you!" giving a sad look and moving on with your day? I'm sure the less fortunate are really happy about that. Or can you detail what's the plan to help the less fortunate without taxation on the more…

> So you mean saying "oh poor you!" giving a sad look and moving on with your day?

Oh what a zinger! You got me there! /s

Honestly, why should I waste time arguing with you?

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#206

Post by geysersam »

josephcsible wrote: post #121
geysersam wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for this claim? Sounds incredible.

Here's one: https://stanforddaily.com/2022/04/07/stanford-and-cal-profes... > the reformed framework attempted to remedy achievement gaps by urging public schools to remove certain accelerated math tracks from middle school education. Boaler’s guidelines have become a basis for a statewide push to move these classes, specifically Algebra I, out of middle school.

Strange indeed! Difficult to understand the motivation. How would removing advanced tracks from public schools (with disproportionately more minority students) help equality?

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#208

Post by inglor_cz »

falcolas wrote: post #140
antiquark wrote: post #107

Equity equalizes downward.

In this story, yes. In reality, it can be done in either direction. You can give a short person a step more easily than you can chop the legs off a tall person.

"You can give a short person a step more easily..."

Once you get into the territory of cognitive abilities, it is the other way round. Making a dumb person smart is nigh impossible, while you can dull a bright intellect with all sorts of external interventions (various medications or drugs come to mind).

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#209

Post by qwerpy »

WalterBright wrote: post #157
flatline wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Like the sibling poster said this is probably a cost cutting measure. In the Seattle school district, this is certainly not a cost cutting measure. It's an equity measure. > The kids who want to excel generally will That's true. Even though there's a complete lack of interest in them by the public schools, at least those schools don't make an effort to block them.

Seattle-area parent here. I grew up in near a small city in the midwest, but even there we had 3 levels of classes for nearly every subject, and a gifted program. It was awesome. My classmates were all smart and hard-working, and I entered college already having tested out of nearly 2 years of general education requirements. Public schools are the way to go, or so I thought.

Having seen what the Seattle public school system has become, I'm planning to send my kids to private school. Most of my (largely Asian) friends here will do the same. As usual, people with the means to do so will pay to avoid these problems, but the lower/middle class suffers the consequences.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#210

Post by bitwize »

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.

Art and music programs are being cut to free up funding to ensure all the kids pass the standardized tests so the school doesn't lose NCLB funding.
Post reply on HN