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

291–300 of 311 posts

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#291

Post by roughly »

adamrezich wrote: post #266
Anamon wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're calling you out on asking why the homeless don't just move, ignoring that (a) even the homeless have roots and social networks in the areas they live in, (b) long-distance travel is not trivial for those without financial means, (c) they may not have a reason to move away (what good is it to still be homeless in another town that you don't know?) and possibly other points. Clearly, there are systemic reasons…

> They're calling you out on asking why the homeless don't just move Please try reading my posts again very carefully rather than assuming my intent. Thank you!

No, I read your post, it was just asinine. There's nothing intrinsic about Oakland - the homeless racial makeup stats roughly persist across urban areas - but there is something intrinsic about the entire rest of the system we have, which is related to my post, and what seems to be your blind spot about the relative levers of action that various people have about how to effect change in their lives, how and when those might fail, and why they may wind up in worse situations despite the system ostensibly seeming to be "colorblind."

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#292

Post by unethical_ban »

Cider9986 wrote: post #283
ChadNauseam wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. If it's against the rules, I won't post things like this on hacker news anymore.

Reply: The original post is about ideology, and the discussion thread includes battle over every controversial ideological topic you can think of. There are certainly many flagged, guidelines-breaking comments now, just as we'd expect for an article written in this way. It's just not the kind of topic that can inspire curious conversation on HN. Tom (Moderator)

It certainly does inspire thoughtfulness, in fact, I think this is one of the most interesting philosophical posts in a long time. He doesn't attack DHH with insults, but discusses frameworks of thought and how legitimate differences in opinion can be looked at by recognizing differences in the recognition of facts between parties, and the context in which certain courses of action are advocated. Example: the "sorrow of war" piece in the article.

It may not be HN's core purpose, but the essay is well constructed.

Edit:

This article resonates with me so much. It puts into better words how I feel about political conflict in the US. I talk a lot about "good faith" discussions. It's the reason I try to hold back the instinct of hating/resenting the people in my political opposition. I think (a) reasonable people can have differences in opinion, and (b) many people in the country are factually incorrect about the things happening in our country.

My relative straight-up rejected the notion that the president's family has benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in corrupt crypto investments including those from foreign governments, or that their family is self-admittedly engaging in rampant insider trading. Not "well it's not that bad". Not merely "the other side does it too". He denied the fact.

My anger is directed most toward the politicians and the media that knowingly propagate the lies and the intentionally misleading trains of thought to lead people into far-right ideology. They operate in bad faith. Even if some things that the right wants to do in the country have an iota of legitimacy, they do not operate with the context of decency and good meaning.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#293

Post by scheme271 »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #280
scheme271 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you believe that even morally wrong laws should be enforced and followed? A lot of the segregation and jim crow laws were pretty odious. Women weren't allowed to have bank accounts and credit cards in multiple countries (even the US until 1974). Women were not allowed to legally vote (one Swiss canton kept this until 1990!). Do you believe that these laws should be enforced and followed despite most people believi…

Who decides what is morally wrong? If everyone decided to not follow or enforce laws based on their own morals, society would be in absolute chaos. You can't have a functioning society around "I do what I believe, fuck y'all"

People ultimately decide on their own. There are institutions that make judgments but ultimate it's an individual that decides. But for a lot of things, there are nearly universal agreement going one way, e.g. everyone almost universally agrees that murder is wrong.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#294

Post by tastyface »

AlexeyBelov wrote: post #282
tastyface wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in response to some truly rancid vice signaling.

Rightoids love this phrase for some reason, idk why. Like it's totally a bad thing. "He tries to be good, what a piece of shit"

A lot of folks on the right seem to believe that virtue doesn't exist without an element of self-interest. They're telling on themselves, of course.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#295

Post by dash2 »

evanelias wrote: post #278
xp84 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic, how can we even justify finding Nazi ideology disgusting? "Sure, a lot of Nazis committed a ton of heinous crimes, and their value system told them it was good and proper to do so, but some of them are probably nice people who didn't commit murder!" To be clear my point is that not all cultures are equally good - due to their different value systems. Pretending they are always leads to the most harmful…

If some individuals are committing crimes, why isn't the normal criminal justice system the answer, instead of deportation? And deport them to where exactly, and on what justification? They've been in Europe for a thousand years and are effectively stateless.

I don't think most gypsies are stateless.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#296

Post by tpm »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #286
tpm wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anything remotely referencing Travellers (UK), Roma, Gypsies I imagine (living in a country that's unbelievably racist to Roma people) that "anything" is usually pretty racist though, so it's not really everything referencing these groups of people. > I am deeply concerned about the widespread censoring of these discussions. But if the alternative is quite often these discussions spiralling into calls for genocide…

Genocide is certainly not an outcome I've seen be suggested in the conversations I have had or read. This feels like quite the false dichotomy.

It's quite common in our neck of woods unless the discussion is censored.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#297

Post by evanelias »

dash2 wrote: post #295
evanelias wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If some individuals are committing crimes, why isn't the normal criminal justice system the answer, instead of deportation? And deport them to where exactly, and on what justification? They've been in Europe for a thousand years and are effectively stateless.

I don't think most gypsies are stateless.

I meant in the sense that Roma are an ethnicity lacking their own sovereign state, "stateless" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#298

Post by ChadNauseam »

unethical_ban wrote: post #292
Cider9986 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reply: The original post is about ideology, and the discussion thread includes battle over every controversial ideological topic you can think of. There are certainly many flagged, guidelines-breaking comments now, just as we'd expect for an article written in this way. It's just not the kind of topic that can inspire curious conversation on HN. Tom (Moderator)

It certainly does inspire thoughtfulness, in fact, I think this is one of the most interesting philosophical posts in a long time. He doesn't attack DHH with insults, but discusses frameworks of thought and how legitimate differences in opinion can be looked at by recognizing differences in the recognition of facts between parties, and the context in which certain courses of action are advocated. Example: the "sorrow…

I'm very thankful that you found the post interesting. I think false information is the main thing that causes two good people to end up on opposite sides. As a tangent, people are afraid of the potential for AI to generate false information (e.g. deepfakes), but I'm hopeful that it will also help people discover true information more easily. But anyway, I really appreciate the kind words.

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#299

Post by dash2 »

evanelias wrote: post #297
dash2 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think most gypsies are stateless.

I meant in the sense that Roma are an ethnicity lacking their own sovereign state, "stateless" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation

OK. But then the answer to your initial question would be "deported to their home countries".

Re: Canceling "Hey"

#300

Post by evanelias »

dash2 wrote: post #299
evanelias wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant in the sense that Roma are an ethnicity lacking their own sovereign state, "stateless" as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_nation

OK. But then the answer to your initial question would be "deported to their home countries".

Which is where, exactly, for the people in question? i.e. what is the legal home country for most Roma in Denmark? Given folks like DHH have such strong opinions about this, I would expect they should be able to detail the specifics of the mass deportation plan they're proposing!
Post reply on HN