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

How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

richarddawkins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 130 posts

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#111

Post by [deleted] »

stakhanov wrote: post #38
crazydoggers wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ironic, and sad that this was so quickly flagged. It may be that, given something like 80-90% of humans on earth follow such religious institutions, we as a species have some genetic factors that make us intolerant of differing viewpoints. I can imagine such genetic factors could have played a role in social cohesion early in human evolution.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they'r…

[deleted]

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#112

Post by flir »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #93
operatingthetan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself. First this requires accepting an inaccurate d…

What definition do you use? I don't think people arguing woke = religion are necessarily deriving that conclusion from a rigorous first-principles definition of religion. It's more like a collection of observations that sum up to a suspicion: 1. Woke people think that white people are born into sin due to the deeds of their ancestors, which is the doctrine of original sin. 2. This sin can be cleansed by becoming an "…

I think the people saying "religion" actually mean "belief system" (philosophy, religion, political ideology, economic system, scientific paradigm) but they don't have the right language so they're reaching for "religion" as the most obvious example of a belief system. It's just woolly language hiding a very obvious observation: people tend to adopt cohesive ideological packages rather than assembling personalized belief systems à la carte.

For example there's no particular reason why "pro-choice" and "climate change" should be bundled together (if anything you'd expect conservatives to be the ones trying to conserve the environment, and progressives to be the ones trying to tarmac the planet) but they have a pretty strong correlation in US politics.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#113

Post by kelseyfrog »

ryandv wrote: post #32
kelseyfrog wrote: post #28

It's really a shame Dawkins hasn't dipped his toe into social epistemology. It's very clear that this is a grounding issue that's highlighting that different categories have different grounding rules and that within categories, individuals have different grounding rules. Furthermore, grounding rules have cultural-geofraphic territories and change over time. It's how I can get a new job and call myself a Data Scientis…

> It's how I can get a new job and call myself a Data Scientist, but as Rachel Dolezal is mentioned in the article, cannot alter her appearance and be Black. This theme was already explored in the literature [0]: > Former NAACP chapter head Rachel Dolezal’s attempted transition from the white to the black race occasioned heated controversy. Her story gained notoriety at the same time that Caitlyn Jenner* graced the c…

> Unfortunately, just as is happening here, instead of engaging with the substance of the paper on its own merits, there were widespread calls to simply retract the paper and dispose of it down the memory hole.

What's your explanation for this, what do you suppose the retraction advocates explanation is, and why might they be different?

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#114

Post by throwawa14223 »

fsargent wrote: post #106
ghink wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying to an atheist that they have to personally accept any of the harmless whims of the religious. Like, a quick prayer won't hurt you if you don't really believe in it, will it? Just do it to be polite. Hands together, eyes closed, done. What's the problem?

In your example, I take it Dawkins is the atheist and Trans people are “forcing him to pray” ? I think the analogy is better said that Trans allies think it’s rude to yell in people’s faces that god doesn’t exist (which is exactly what Dawkins does, so points for consistency). There’s no personal obligation on what you believe, just don’t be a jerk and tell people that they can’t exist.

> There’s no personal obligation on what you believe, just don’t be a jerk and tell people that they can’t exist.

Can you clarify on this? This seems contradictory to me.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#115

Post by itiro »

locopati wrote: post #104
throwawa14223 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get to not have your existence debated, no one else has that privilege.

Seriously? That's your response. Who's debating your right to existence? Or do you get to take yours for granted?

Seattle police laughed off one of their officers running someone over, saying the victim was low value.

Religious groups everywhere chant about death for non-believers.

Right wing fringe threaten to attack progressives regardless of their gender.

Apparently not liking Israeli government makes one anti-semitic and inclined to reopen the death camps.

Don’t be so disingenuous; hate groups and those that marginalize the existence of others are all over.

Or stay disingenuous, stare at one burning tree ignoring the rest of the forest on fire.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#116

Post by itiro »

locopati wrote: post #108
throwawa14223 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, seriously. Pick a characteristic and someone out there says it should not exist. I've walked past people with megaphones saying my race should not exist. I've loudly been told my religion should not exist by employers. Having your existence questioned is normal and probably unavoidable whenever humans with different values bump into one another.

And because of that are people taking away your health insurance? Are people preventing you from getting necessary medical care?

[flagged]

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#117

Post by nvm0n2 »

flir wrote: post #112
nvm0n2 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What definition do you use? I don't think people arguing woke = religion are necessarily deriving that conclusion from a rigorous first-principles definition of religion. It's more like a collection of observations that sum up to a suspicion: 1. Woke people think that white people are born into sin due to the deeds of their ancestors, which is the doctrine of original sin. 2. This sin can be cleansed by becoming an "…

I think the people saying "religion" actually mean "belief system" (philosophy, religion, political ideology, economic system, scientific paradigm) but they don't have the right language so they're reaching for "religion" as the most obvious example of a belief system. It's just woolly language hiding a very obvious observation: people tend to adopt cohesive ideological packages rather than assembling personalized be…

It's more precise than that. Pro-choice/climate being bundled together is just the ordinary left/right (or non-left) divide, nothing special there. Progressives see motherhood as conservative-coded and anti-feminist, so control over that to be progress, they also assume anything academics say must be true because they're fellow progressives and "scientists" who thus personify Progress itself.

But the people talking about religion mean something more than just an arbitrary ideological package, they mean it has specific elements that are surprisingly close to the beliefs found in Christianity, rebranded. Like the elements in my list.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#118

Post by locopati »

itiro wrote: post #116
locopati wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And because of that are people taking away your health insurance? Are people preventing you from getting necessary medical care?

[flagged]

You're ignoring specifics by making a dismissive general point. There is a specific thing happening right now that has the goal of eliminating a kind of person by preventing them from existing. That's different than the misogyny of Roe v Wade or the dehumanizing capitalism of job-based health care.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#119

Post by itiro »

locopati wrote: post #118
itiro wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You're ignoring specifics by making a dismissive general point. There is a specific thing happening right now that has the goal of eliminating a kind of person by preventing them from existing. That's different than the misogyny of Roe v Wade or the dehumanizing capitalism of job-based health care.

[flagged]

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#120

Post by flir »

nvm0n2 wrote: post #117
flir wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the people saying "religion" actually mean "belief system" (philosophy, religion, political ideology, economic system, scientific paradigm) but they don't have the right language so they're reaching for "religion" as the most obvious example of a belief system. It's just woolly language hiding a very obvious observation: people tend to adopt cohesive ideological packages rather than assembling personalized be…

It's more precise than that. Pro-choice/climate being bundled together is just the ordinary left/right (or non-left) divide, nothing special there. Progressives see motherhood as conservative-coded and anti-feminist, so control over that to be progress, they also assume anything academics say must be true because they're fellow progressives and "scientists" who thus personify Progress itself. But the people talking a…

> Pro-choice/climate being bundled together is just the ordinary left/right (or non-left) divide, nothing special there.

Are you sure? They don't track together nearly so strongly in, say, France. They don't naturally, or necessarily, go together IMO.

In your list, items 1 and 3 contradict each other. Item 4 I read as Cartesian dualism. Mind and body, no soul required (I also seriously doubt your interpretation). Item 5... the Parable of the Good Samaritan isn't about being meek and mild, it's about obeying the Golden Rule, and the Good Samaritan is atypical: he doesn't represent all Samartians. Jesus wasn't making a point about the virtue of Samartians in general.

Honestly, I think you're building a straw man here.

Post reply on HN