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

Canceling "Hey"

chadnauseam.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 311 posts

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#151

Post by roughly »

fastball wrote: post #143
mplewis wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

absolutely not, especially in the bay – people of color are way more likely to be homeless

So let's say hypothetically we kept the number of homeless people stable in Oakland, but made them all white. You think all (most? many?) of the people currently complaining about homelessness would shut up?

No, Appalachia's sufficient to negate that hypothesis, but it doesn't mean the people currently complaining about homelessness aren't also making judgements on racial grounds. A large part of the illegibility of Oakland to outsiders is mistaking other people's cultures for urban decay.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#152

Post by yreg »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #141
Cider9986 wrote: post #122

This should not have been flagged. There's not even any flagged comments.

I don't know the rules for what does and doesn't get flagged. I tried to write it in a respectful way without resorting to personal attacks.

I think people have flagged it simply because the topic attracts the kind of discussion hn usually tries to avoid.

Guidelines:

> Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle.

(To be clear, I'm not saying I think you did anything wrong)

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#153

Post by tasuki »

> if I give someone inaccurate medical advice, that is not only false, it is false and harmful

I don't understand what's so special about legal and medical advice that it's so singled out in certain parts of the world. All kinds of advice people give can be harmful, such as eg cooking and dietary advice. Yet it's ok to tell people how to cook, but for whatever reason it's not ok to tell people to make sure they stay well-hydrated when they have a cold.

[Edit:] But gee does the rest of the article hit hard. The "missing mood" in particular.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#154

Post by pm3003 »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #121

One of the many holes in DHH's claim about wolves, sheep, and gypsies is that wolves are not the sort of low-dimensional archetype he uses to support his narrative. If you're very literal like me, you take that to mean wolves, the mammal; a predatory animal living within a food web, fulfilling a particular role at its trophic level which is ultimately beneficial to the system it's a part of. Wolves don't independentl…

Not trying to counter your main point but the biological wolf analogy is quite close to the author's point.

The wolf population development has been known to exceed every prediction in Western Europe, and while it's fairly inoffensive for humans the economic consequences are much higher than most anticipated, for economic/ecologic benefits that are hard to defend. And the wolf population are still fairly low.

In my opinion maybe the money spent protecting wolves (hundreds of millions per year in Europe) would be better spent on homeless shelters and similar policies.

Still this article should remind every European of the Nazis comparing the Jewish diaspora dispersal with the historical dissemination of black and brown rats.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#155

Post by dualvariable »

flockonus wrote: post #38

I do find the author position to be incoherent in the following regard: 1. believe a statement can be true or false, and false should be called out. 2. believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken. I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed. That eliminates margin for corruption and lenience. A strong law also creates incentive for the populat…

> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.

Laws are written by imperfect humans. Bad laws exist.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#156

Post by adamrezich »

roughly wrote: post #149
adamrezich wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you've stated this implies a structurally-enforced causality with regards to vagrancy in such a way that, wittingly or otherwise, wholly denies the possibility of individual agency in the very people you're ostensibly trying to defend.

I'm curious where you see the levers of individual agency here, and to what degree you think the affected people have tried to pull them. What's _your_ underlying thesis?

That is beyond my proverbial pay grade. But it's not beyond my proverbial pay grade to state that believing that, systemically, “[x demographic in y location] are way more likely to be [in undesirable situation]” is completely denying agency to the individuals in question by pretending that [x demographic in y location] ending up [in undesirable situation] is something of a weighted dice roll made by unseen forces, completely outside of individual agentic influence.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#157

Post by JuniperMesos »

roughly wrote: post #151
fastball wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's say hypothetically we kept the number of homeless people stable in Oakland, but made them all white. You think all (most? many?) of the people currently complaining about homelessness would shut up?

No, Appalachia's sufficient to negate that hypothesis, but it doesn't mean the people currently complaining about homelessness aren't also making judgements on racial grounds. A large part of the illegibility of Oakland to outsiders is mistaking other people's cultures for urban decay.

[flagged]

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#158

Post by ChadNauseam »

flockonus wrote: post #125
triceratops wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken. Except that that author didn't say that at all. They said "deport only the lawbreakers", while expressing dismay at a blogpost which (apparently*) said "deport everyone". > I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed. Quote from TFA: "Any kind of mass deportation plan would have to change [the law…

To establish oneself in a country (for the majority if not all the western world) without an appropriate visa is already breaking the law. Not saying this is the only way, or what should be - but it's what it is, selectively breaking the law is ok - "as long as they behave". It implies that immigrants must live in the limbo and under undue psychological pressure, knowing one day their whole life may be uprooted for a…

The people DHH is taking about are EU citizens with a legal privilege by default to live in Denmark

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#159

Post by ChadNauseam »

flockonus wrote: post #38

I do find the author position to be incoherent in the following regard: 1. believe a statement can be true or false, and false should be called out. 2. believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken. I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed. That eliminates margin for corruption and lenience. A strong law also creates incentive for the populat…

> believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken.

I (the author) do believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases. For example, there are laws governing which people can be deported and for what reasons. Deportations that violate those laws are morally wrong. What I spent the whole article arguing against was the idea that people should be deported even when the laws say their deportation is illeagl. (It would be illegal to deport the vast vast majority of Roma in Denmark.) The other thing I argued for in the article is enforcement of the law against people who break it.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#160

Post by roughly »

adamrezich wrote: post #156
roughly wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious where you see the levers of individual agency here, and to what degree you think the affected people have tried to pull them. What's _your_ underlying thesis?

That is beyond my proverbial pay grade. But it's not beyond my proverbial pay grade to state that believing that, systemically , “[x demographic in y location] are way more likely to be [in undesirable situation]” is completely denying agency to the individuals in question by pretending that [x demographic in y location] ending up [in undesirable situation] is something of a weighted dice roll made by unseen forces,…

So you don’t believe in, like, history? Or what’s the argument here?
Post reply on HN