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

The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

charliechaplin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 412 posts

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#141

Post by JKCalhoun »

roughly wrote: post #113
zirror wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everytime I read about longevity research and how many people are in favor of it I can't stop thinking about this speech. And one of the endings of Cyberpunk 2077.

I think people generally, and the Silicon Valley set in particular, have a hard time abstracting from “would I like” to “would the world be a better place if”. Would I like to live a thousand years? Yes, with the obvious caveats. Would the world be a better place if the technology for living a thousand years existed? Absolutely not, at least not at first, and certainly not today. There’s a great many people around ri…

> There’s a great many people around right now who’s primary redeeming quality is their impending mortality

Ha ha, that's funny (but not nice — but I like it).

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#142

Post by goles »

questinthrow wrote: post #2

I'd wager it's more like we don't think at all and feel only anger. At least online that is.

Given the amount of bad encounters I've had driving post-2020, and interacting with strangers, I think it's seeping into the real world as well.

The way people act and speak in public feels noticeably different than even a few years ago, let alone 10-20. People are very short with each other now.

Even more disturbing, I think I can feel the change in myself too at times.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#143

Post by nox100 »

louthy wrote: post #96
riku_iki wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we may be too often missing the important part of being a decent human being. "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, so it could be better to follow hard metrics and data.

Showing unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Will that do as a definition? Be altruistic.

No, it won't, because that concern often leads to polices that have unintended consequences that in the end hurt the welfare of others.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#144

Post by riku_iki »

johnnyworker wrote: post #138
riku_iki wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we may be too often missing the important part of being a decent human being. "decent human being" is too vague and easily manipulated term, so it could be better to follow hard metrics and data.

That's like saying calories can't be counted with 100% certainty, so we should eat integers instead. > What has come to light is neither nihilism nor cynicism, as one might have expected, but a quite extraordinary confusion over elementary questions of morality — as if an instinct in such matters were truly the last thing to be taken for granted in our time. -- Hannah Arendt, "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the B…

> That's like saying

I disagree with "that's like that". I think your analogy is very far.

Calories metrics are actually much better researched and measured compared to human decency.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#145

Post by the_af »

appleskeptic wrote: post #125
vpribish wrote: post #88

"Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart" - I think many have this so very wrong. Is support for fascism is a sensible, logical, well-thought-out policy? No, it's a heart-felt, emotional appeal to scared, proud, paranoid, crude, brutal people (who seem to be about half of our neighbors). surely the mindful decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base.

[flagged]

Those policies aren't proven to work and your caveat renders the assertion meaningless.

But regardless: it is well studied that fascism is an appeal to emotion, not reason. Neither Italian fascism nor German nazism were rational or grounded in science. They were pseudoscientific and appealed to notions of blood, purity, sacrifice and nationalism -- that is, they appealed to emotion. They clouded the reason.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#146

Post by tgv »

vpribish wrote: post #88

"Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart" - I think many have this so very wrong. Is support for fascism is a sensible, logical, well-thought-out policy? No, it's a heart-felt, emotional appeal to scared, proud, paranoid, crude, brutal people (who seem to be about half of our neighbors). surely the mindful decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base.

Heart can be understood as a metaphor. It doesn't speak, so it can be a metaphor for love and empathy. A metaphor with an appeal to power is usually associated with the gut.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#147

Post by the_af »

lewhoo wrote: post #104
vpribish wrote: post #88

"Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart" - I think many have this so very wrong. Is support for fascism is a sensible, logical, well-thought-out policy? No, it's a heart-felt, emotional appeal to scared, proud, paranoid, crude, brutal people (who seem to be about half of our neighbors). surely the mindful decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base.

I don't think it's so simple. Support for fascism can seem sensible and logical if you let yourself think that between you and greatness stands a minority whose sole purpose is to prevent you from becoming great. You could argue it's not emotion but a calculation coming from struggle and an easy explanation for that struggle. Not every wrong assumption comes from emotion and we have the whole history of science to pr…

You are effectively describing an appeal to emotions, not reason.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#148

Post by oddevan »

carlosjobim wrote: post #101
bear141 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easy to focus on philanthropy and feelings after your monolithic megacorp has ground your competition into dust.

As a thought experiment, is there anything Bezos could do or say that wouldn't merit a hostile and snide comment in response? Is he unforgivable?

If he actually changed Amazon's behavior so that it wasn't a horrible place to work for? If he donated an actual, significant portion of his wealth that required real sacrifice on his part?

Basically, if he did something that had a positive effect on the world that also had real consequences for him. Something that actually shows he _means_ it, actually _wants_ the world to be better even if it hurts himself.

If Bezos or Musk or Zuckerberg or Gates(1) did any of that, I'd be thinking differently.

(1) The Gates foundation has done a LOT. Bill Gates is still worth ~$135,000,000,000. A quick search says ending homelessness in the USA would take less than a quarter of that.

Re: The Final Speech from The Great Dictator (1940)

#150

Post by cmdli »

appleskeptic wrote: post #125
vpribish wrote: post #88

"Don't let your mind speak louder than your heart" - I think many have this so very wrong. Is support for fascism is a sensible, logical, well-thought-out policy? No, it's a heart-felt, emotional appeal to scared, proud, paranoid, crude, brutal people (who seem to be about half of our neighbors). surely the mindful decision is empathetic, constructive, and wise - not just base.

[flagged]

Are those policies proven to work? The war on drugs was proven to be ineffective, many successful businessmen are immigrants or the children of immigrants, and mental asylums were brutal institutions that only propagated mental illness and did not cure it.

All of these solutions, however, make people feel like “someone is doing something”, which is an emotional appeal even though those methods are empirically ineffective.

Post reply on HN