How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick • Hacker News Board

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#101

Post by HeyWolfey » Tue, Mar 06, 2018, 12:47 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #96

HeyWolfey wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a reply that helps, but it was flagged because it doesn't meet the approval of the "Right Side of History"(tm) committee that runs HackerNews. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16518364

Actually users flagged it, because it obviously breaks the site guidelines. It doesn't matter what ideology you're battling for or against. It's the genre of ideological flamewar itself that's damaging here, and therefore unwelcome, and therefore will get you banned if you keep doing it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Those rules are disingenuous, extensively ideologically partisan, and do not reflect the human condition at all. It's akin to taping a warning sign on a Skinner box that says, "Do not react" while the experimenters are perpetual baffled when subjects twitch when delivered a jolt of electricity.

By "the users", do you mean four or so hyperpartisan ideological zealots who exploit your rules to get their rush of moral supremacy by downvoting instead of commenting to refute the points?

Because downvoting is technically political activity and your rules totally allow that all day long.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#102

Post by ninkendo » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 5:24 AM UTC

zaarn wrote: post #95

ninkendo wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously attempting to show that nazis aren't bad? Serious question. What have I been falsely indoctrinated about? What should I have been exposed to as an alternate view on nazis? Do history books count as "indoctrination"? To your other point, I would imagine showing aliens concentration camps would make them recoil in horror, yes.

There is fairly good moral consensus that nazis are bad so it's probably not wrong to say "Nazis are bad" in most contexts. But, IMO, morality and ethics are subjective, so for a minority of people who don't share this consensus, yes, nazis aren't bad. An alien race that has constructed a feudal slave society might not object to concentration camps at all. They might love the idea. Nazis, from a purely objective stan…

Your response seems to just take the word “bad” out of the English language altogether. Your point seems to be “badness is subjective and therefore invalid.”

Would an amended statement make more sense?

“The nazis were bad to the degree that badness is a thing.”

Although it seems a bit silly to phrase things that way.

To the degree that silliness is a thing of course.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#103

Post by zaarn » Wed, Mar 07, 2018, 7:41 AM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #102

zaarn wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is fairly good moral consensus that nazis are bad so it's probably not wrong to say "Nazis are bad" in most contexts. But, IMO, morality and ethics are subjective, so for a minority of people who don't share this consensus, yes, nazis aren't bad. An alien race that has constructed a feudal slave society might not object to concentration camps at all. They might love the idea. Nazis, from a purely objective stan…

Your response seems to just take the word “bad” out of the English language altogether. Your point seems to be “badness is subjective and therefore invalid.” Would an amended statement make more sense? “The nazis were bad to the degree that badness is a thing.” Although it seems a bit silly to phrase things that way. To the degree that silliness is a thing of course.

Badness is subjective, yes. Doesn't mean it's invalid, you can still hold onto subjective notions just fine.

Personally I believe that my notion of bad, good, evil and angels is purely subjective. Doesn't mean they have less value. I merely acknowledge the value is subjective. Like how a childhood toy holds sentimental value.