How bad are things? • Hacker News Board

Re: How bad are things?

#101

Post by littletimmy » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

steve_g wrote: post #83

littletimmy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was happier when I was religious. That's the main reason I've considered going back to it. Couldn't do it :(

I’ll tell you how “I” did it. I was raised as a Christian, but when I was 18 I gave it up. It was a matter of conscience. I didn’t believe. As you said, I thought it was irrational. But as it turned out, my rationality and extraordinary intelligence just gave me the ability to screw up my life that much more. I was miserable and empty, not because of my circumstances, but because of me. I sucked. That changed when I…

Many thanks for your kind words. It's cool to see that even though our religions are (were) very different (mine was Islam), we nonetheless have a very similar view. :)

Re: How bad are things?

#102

Post by WaxProlix » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #16

WaxProlix wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the person you replied to, but here's my take on your confusions: > I'm unsure of what "privatizing public spaces for socialization" is supposed to mean, or why it would be bad. I think they were referring to the movement away from communal spaces and communally owned spaces, especially ones which contribute to socialization/enculturation. Things like parks, libraries, schools, which are for people and of people,…

Parks, libraries and schools are largely not communally-owned spaces, but government-owned. Crucial distinction. In fact, some of the best alternatives to the traditional classroom model (i.e. Montessori, Sudbury, democratic, etc.) tend to be privately run schools. As such, private schools are on the positive side here. Again, this mystical "community" is mostly an illusion. It's either private ownership or governmen…

You've obviously misunderstood something. You, in what now was obviously an attempt to troll folks, feigned confusion at some of the OP's points, and I was trying to mediate by fleshing those out along what I considered to be standard ideological lines. The only place where I interjected my own opinion was on the beauty standards bit. I'm not a socialist (I've never even read any Marx!), just trying to take a critical view of things.

Re: How bad are things?

#103

Post by vezzy-fnord » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:29 PM UTC

WaxProlix wrote: post #102

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parks, libraries and schools are largely not communally-owned spaces, but government-owned. Crucial distinction. In fact, some of the best alternatives to the traditional classroom model (i.e. Montessori, Sudbury, democratic, etc.) tend to be privately run schools. As such, private schools are on the positive side here. Again, this mystical "community" is mostly an illusion. It's either private ownership or governmen…

You've obviously misunderstood something. You, in what now was obviously an attempt to troll folks, feigned confusion at some of the OP's points, and I was trying to mediate by fleshing those out along what I considered to be standard ideological lines. The only place where I interjected my own opinion was on the beauty standards bit. I'm not a socialist (I've never even read any Marx!), just trying to take a critica…

I wasn't feigning anything. The GP was being unspecific.

Re: How bad are things?

#104

Post by markmcdonald » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:37 PM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #84

markmcdonald wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to defend the "thinkpiece writers" a little bit. I agree that you can't judge someone because they're part of Group X. Its impossible to know what struggles a person goes through. But, at least a few of the thinkpiece writers I've seen are commenting on how Group X uses their privilege to discredit the struggles Group Y or Z has experienced because of Group X. Laughing "about how good people in Group X have it…

Scott (the author) is using "thinkpiece writers" a bit equivocably, I think, with the latter usage being his hobby horse of attacking left wing social justice activists. His counterpoint to you, which I would say has some traction, would likely be that those thinkpiece writers are deploying constructs like "privilege" as a way to discredit the very real struggle of people in groups that don't fall under the accepted…

> His counterpoint to you, which I would say has some traction, would likely be that those thinkpiece writers are deploying constructs like "privilege" as a way to discredit the very real struggle of people in groups that don't fall under the accepted rubric of privileged and oppressed, for the very reason that their issues' existence is either ignored or defined out of the category of "systemic oppression."

This is a good point. Its tough when being candid about the struggles of one group discredits the struggle of another. Honesty is important, but not invalidating someone's hardship is also important.

Re: How bad are things?

#105

Post by astine » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 7:38 PM UTC

nightspirit wrote: post #93

onetwotree wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faith is extremely good for this. I didn't want to kickstart the perennial HN argument about 12 step programs, but that's how I found mine. I would add that I'm not exactly a Christian, although I find a lot of inspiration in the gospel and the writings of Christian thinkers -- so one doesn't have to go "all the way" and believe in life after death and miracles and stuff -- it's often enough to focus on forgiveness a…

> I would add that I'm not exactly a Christian, although I find a lot of inspiration in the gospel and the writings of Christian thinkers -- so one doesn't have to go "all the way" and believe in life after death and miracles and stuff -- it's often enough to focus on forgiveness and compassion, and that there's something bigger and more important than you and your tiny problems. The Gospel of Thomas is a good exampl…

"Though, fwiw, mainstream Christians consider it heretic for some reason."

That's because it's technically a Gnostic writing, not a Christian one. The relationship between Christianity and Gnosticism is complex, but they are quite different belief systems.

Re: How bad are things?

#106

Post by tremon » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 8:19 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #100

tremon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if you believe "local government is an expression of communion," that would not invalidate the fact that there are important distinctions, as a many political scientist and public choice theorist have outlined Can you enumerate some of them, or point me to a simple resource? I have no desire to go read full-size papers, so something light that goes beyond the trite "we oppose any form of social organization" w…

I had an earlier post listing various resources, originally from a drug-related debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10729233 (That you use straw men like opposition to all forms of social organization implies to me you don't have a background on these issues at all, though.) A consistent pessimism for mankind should involve rejection of authority beyond corporate villains. As for rejecting various parts of c…

> A consistent pessimism for mankind should involve rejection of authority beyond corporate villains.

I don't follow. Why should I accept corporate villains?

> I am unsure of what you intend by invoking the obesity epidemic (I''m presuming specifically for the USA?)

I was referring to England actually. I don't know enough about the US situation, I'm guessing the obesity rates are similar if not worse. The concensus basically centers around "consumers are making a wrong choice because of the availability of cheap unhealthy alternatives". I used it to illustrate that even when it comes to something basic like sustenance, "the market" fails to produce the desired outcome.

Re: How bad are things?

#107

Post by tremon » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 9:08 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #100

tremon wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if you believe "local government is an expression of communion," that would not invalidate the fact that there are important distinctions, as a many political scientist and public choice theorist have outlined Can you enumerate some of them, or point me to a simple resource? I have no desire to go read full-size papers, so something light that goes beyond the trite "we oppose any form of social organization" w…

I had an earlier post listing various resources, originally from a drug-related debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10729233 (That you use straw men like opposition to all forms of social organization implies to me you don't have a background on these issues at all, though.) A consistent pessimism for mankind should involve rejection of authority beyond corporate villains. As for rejecting various parts of c…

> Of course unquantifiable (psychic) profits are different and unrelated. Value and profits are not the same thing

Then perhaps you should stop asserting that "There is nothing wrong with pursuing profits", as you apparently are well aware that increased profits and increased value do not necessarily coincide?

Re: How bad are things?

#108

Post by isolate » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 10:44 PM UTC

joesmo wrote: post #43

isolate wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but I probably misread yours if you didn't understand my question. I thought you said different kinds of suffering are incomparable, and so I asked about not being able to compare two specific kinds of suffering, murder and insults. (Or rather, acts that can induce suffering and the suffering that results.)

No, I said you can't compare people's suffering because you can't measure it, regardless of what's causing that suffering.

All I'm doing is trying to examine your claim at the extremes. At the other end, are we able to tell the difference between zero suffering and some suffering?

Re: How bad are things?

#109

Post by vezzy-fnord » Mon, Dec 28, 2015, 11:31 PM UTC

tremon wrote: post #107

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had an earlier post listing various resources, originally from a drug-related debate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10729233 (That you use straw men like opposition to all forms of social organization implies to me you don't have a background on these issues at all, though.) A consistent pessimism for mankind should involve rejection of authority beyond corporate villains. As for rejecting various parts of c…

> Of course unquantifiable (psychic) profits are different and unrelated. Value and profits are not the same thing Then perhaps you should stop asserting that "There is nothing wrong with pursuing profits", as you apparently are well aware that increased profits and increased value do not necessarily coincide?

Increased value of what? There's no such thing as this monolithic unit of value that is in conflict with the monolithic unit of profit. Values are not necessarily profits, but profits are values.

Re: How bad are things?

#110

Post by laughinghan » Tue, Dec 29, 2015, 5:55 AM UTC

scarmig wrote: post #84

markmcdonald wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to defend the "thinkpiece writers" a little bit. I agree that you can't judge someone because they're part of Group X. Its impossible to know what struggles a person goes through. But, at least a few of the thinkpiece writers I've seen are commenting on how Group X uses their privilege to discredit the struggles Group Y or Z has experienced because of Group X. Laughing "about how good people in Group X have it…

Scott (the author) is using "thinkpiece writers" a bit equivocably, I think, with the latter usage being his hobby horse of attacking left wing social justice activists. His counterpoint to you, which I would say has some traction, would likely be that those thinkpiece writers are deploying constructs like "privilege" as a way to discredit the very real struggle of people in groups that don't fall under the accepted…

First of all, obviously no one in this thread wants to discredit real people's real struggles. "I have just gotten home from treating a member of Group X who attempted suicide"---these are problems that deserve addressing, and I'm glad that the clearly very capable Scott is working hard on them.

> His counterpoint to you, which I would say has some traction, would likely be that those thinkpiece writers are deploying constructs like "privilege" as a way to discredit the very real struggle of people in groups that don't fall under the accepted rubric of privileged and oppressed, for the very reason that their issues' existence is either ignored or defined out of the category of "systemic oppression."

The problem with this counterpoint is that it's easy to misconstrue, even mischaracterize, "acknowledging the distress while continuing to point out the difference in scale" (from an essay I'm about to extol) as "a way to discredit the very real struggle" of privileged people. While the latter is reprehensible, the former is crucial to the healing of society, as explained in one of the best essays I've ever read: http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privile... (Maybe THE best essay I've ever read. This essay provided the single most significant clarification of perspective I've had in the past several years, though I guess I'd been on this path for a while due to the people and schools of thought I was immersed in.)

Indeed, while I'm sure there's no shortage of thoughtless "online thinkpiece writers laughing at Group X" that could demonstrate Scott's original statement, the underlying implication that that's representative of "left wing social justice activists" is inaccurate. The mainstream[1] "left wing social justice activists" rubric actually does attempt to incorporate everyone's struggles in an open-ended way: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intersectionality The fact that mistakes are still common, that both ordinary as well as widely celebrated "left wing social justice activists" (not to mention "online thinkpiece writers") still routinely discredit real struggles and perspectives, is an acknowledged problem with active efforts to address it, e.g. http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/why-our-feminism-must-be... (You'll notice that the RationalWiki page I linked to doesn't mention so-called "neurotypical privilege", which probably best addresses the examples Scott gave. Like I said, acknowledged problem, active efforts.)

(Note [1]: sometimes people are like "you're just calling the-subset-that-we-both-disagree-with extremists and making an unfalsifiable claim that the 'mainstream' is as moderate as you", so if someone insists on getting in the weeds here, let's be concrete: let's start with the concrete, falsifiable claim that that paragraph applies to the majority of people who were doxed by GamerGate.)