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

211–220 of 275 posts

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#211

Post by LazarWolf_ »

mcguire wrote: post #196
e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the test-driven nature of modern education in the US, having 1000 kids that can just read at grade level is better than having 985 kids at grade level, 5 below, and 10 above. Any resources spent on the latter would be better spent on the 5 that are below grade level.

I think this argument presupposes that denying resourcing for the 10 will definitely improve the success of the 5.

Personal side note; I’ve tended to find that exceptional people are more productive with the resources given. So I find it hard to believe the inverse would also be true.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#212

Post by Wolfenstein98k »

pydry wrote: post #54
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.

This is probably a vain attempt by management to put a shine on a cost cutting exercise. There is a poisonous ideology at work in the background but ultimately defunding schools comes from a desire for more inequality, not less.

"A desire for more inequality"?

That smacks of "good people support Policy X, even if it achieves the opposite of its goals in the long run. To acknowledge that and oppose Policy X, even on its own merits, makes you evil in intent."

Few people actually have desires like "I want more inequality", even if they oppose a policy which intends to decrease it.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#213

Post by choko »

WalterBright wrote: post #202
choko wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Seems like you moved the goal posts a bit there. Your first comment indicates "people" could be any quantity, now it seems you mean that "people" means people in general, which indicates a majority of people? It's important to be precise in language if you want your thoughts understood.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#214

Post by virissimo »

indrora wrote: post #169
virissimo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You contrast Rand's heroes with those of Vonnegut as if they are all CEO-types, but they also include sculptors, architects, engineers, composers, and philosophy professors. IMO, Rand and Vonnegut are much more similar than their fans would like to admit.

Attempting to compare Vonnegut and Rand without acknowledging that Rand fundamentally believed poor people should suffer for their poorness is comparing a scathing comedian and a clown: you have to accept one has a point, and the other is a clown.

On the contrary, requiring the addition of a disclaimer containing an overall evaluation of an author before correcting someone's misleading caricature of their work would be an extremely tedious community norm.

Let's be brief and accurate instead.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#215

Post by Revery42 »

aasasd wrote: post #203
Bakary wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Leftists believe in egalitarianism, but this is very different from giving up personal freedom for collective values across the board. For one thing, leftists generally don't believe the collective values you've listed have value to begin with. It's also noteworthy that your examples target taking from those who already have less.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#216

Post by LtWorf »

lliamander wrote: post #205
LtWorf wrote: post #200

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 (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?

> Honestly, why should I waste time arguing with you?

To show good faith… you succeeded at showing you didn't have that.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#217

Post by WalterBright »

choko wrote: post #213
WalterBright wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Seems like you moved the goal posts a bit there. Your first comment indicates "people" could be any quantity, now it seems you mean that "people" means people in general, which indicates a majority of people? It's important to be precise in language if you want your thoughts understood.

> It's important to be precise in language if you want your thoughts understood.

I can't help but conclude you understood me perfectly, and are just being argumentative.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#218

Post by soulofmischief »

mcguire wrote: post #196
e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given the test-driven nature of modern education in the US, having 1000 kids that can just read at grade level is better than having 985 kids at grade level, 5 below, and 10 above. Any resources spent on the latter would be better spent on the 5 that are below grade level.

We need to empower geniuses if we have any hope of progressing our knowledge as a species. This means a chief priority should be to find and pay special attention to geniuses regardless of social class.

That doesn't mean there is a false dichotomy where we can't also achieve baseline literacy for all; that's a complex sociological problem which might take a genius to solve.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#219

Post by falcolas »

prottog wrote: post #207
falcolas wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In reality, the step has to come from somewhere.

Well, it sure didn’t come from the tall guy’s legs.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#220

Post by falcolas »

inglor_cz wrote: post #208
falcolas wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Are people asking for that? I’ve never heard anybody ask for that.

What I have heard people with mental disabilities ask for is accommodations. Don’t put someone who gets panic attacks on call. Let people take medications that helps them without stigmatizing it. Don't mock someone with Tourette’s syndrome when they have a vocal tick. Provide plenty of pto to those with chronic migraines.

Small boxes like those help more than you might imagine.

Post reply on HN