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

The web runs on tolerance

shkspr.mobi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 183 posts

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#161

Post by IAmBroom »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #74
tclancy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> technical issues and social issues really don't mix I don’t think that’s true in the least. I think it’s true there are no technical solutions to social problems, but any and all technology comes from people forming societies and seeking solutions. This comment feels the same as people saying “Stick to sports” about athletes talking politics. Everything is political. If you don’t think something is, it tends to be…

> Everything is political This is such a tedious worldview Maybe everything is political, but it doesn't have to be that way

Any interaction between three or more people is inherently political.

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#162

Post by MangoToupe »

wredcoll wrote: post #27
MangoToupe wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turned out that the strength of the HTML ecosystem was its fault tolerance. I don't think this was a "strength" of html so much as a necessity to not break the internet. I certainly preferred the formal nature of xhtml to html 5. But, we're stuck with needing to render obviously formally-broken documents.

So it's not a strength it's a necessity? I'm not sure these words mean what you think they do...

Yes, I would describe this as a liability. It costs more to implement basic html interpretation with zero benefit

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#163

Post by xp84 »

Citizen_Lame wrote: post #137
btreecat wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're raising the paradox of tolerance. Should I accept technically perfect PRs if they contain comments and messages with hate speak?

There is no paradox of tolerance. This is a social contract, once you break it you are not entitled to it, simple. Also speech, not speak.

The issue arises when people disagree on what reality is.

When most Americans are running on pure ideology and a (quite unearned imho) sense of moral certainty and superiority, they assume their worldview is the objectively correct one, and everyone who disagrees with them is "a bigot."

Both sides of our divide have some psychotic people who do things like murdering people. But absent actually harmful acts like that, disagreeing with you doesn't make someone intolerant. It could be that your framing is wrong, or that there isn't one black-and-white objective universal right way of framing an issue.

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#164

Post by pdimitar »

tadfisher wrote: post #71
raincole wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that browsers do try their best to render objectively broken markup And it's a cancerous engineering principle. People say NullPointerException is the one billion error, but (the misuse of) Postel's Law on web frontend is a multi-billion error. Once one mainstream browser decided to "tolerate" an error, websites would start relying on that behavior, making it a permanent feature of web. If browsers were less tolera…

The tolerance is now precisely specified in the HTML5 parsing algorithm, far from "try their best". This is good, because browsers fail in mostly the same ways as each other, humans do not need a CS degree to handwrite Web content, and your tools can still write perfectly valid HTML5.

Typing valid XML does not require even 1% of a CS degre level of skill, come on.

You're overdoing it.

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#165

Post by xp84 »

watwut wrote: post #122
SPICLK2 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a person, treating everyone the same is an excellent response (and even a political one, if you wish) to counteract a system of discrimination.

People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years. I just do not believe it anymore when it is used exclusively to shut up people who want to say an unfairness exists.

> People who claimed they treat everyone the same turned out embracing openly fascist, misogynistic and racist movement last 3 years.

No, we just left the Democratic party once you guys stopped being serious. Judging people based on the color of their skin instead of by the content of their character is just as toxic and evil no matter what your claimed motivation is.

Most people don't really endorse Trump or endorse everything the radicals on the right are known for, but I can see that it appears that way to the people pushing DEI and race-and-gender-based everything -- because a clear plurality have indeed rejected the Democratic party, resulting in them losing even when running against a corrupt buffoon.

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#166

Post by wredcoll »

lelanthran wrote: post #155
edent wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author (me) wasn't writing for you. If you haven't been paying attention to the various bigots trying to rouse hate from their position of technology prominence, then I don't think my post will convince you of anything

> If you haven't been paying attention to the various bigots trying to rouse hate from their position of technology prominence, then I don't think my post will convince you of anything You think your post is not one trying to rouse hate against specific people? You ever come across the word thoughtcrime? You think telling perhaps 50% or the population they "have no business being here" is inclusive? A large number of…

> You think your post is not one trying to rouse hate against specific people?

It's taken me a while to understand what I find so abhorrent about this frequent rhetorical device and I finally realized it's just plain ol' false equivalence.

Hating nazis for the harm they've caused is, in fact, just fine.

Hating someone because they were born jewish/black/gay/whatever, is not fine.

Pretending that people out here advocating for deportation/camps/imprisonment for the crimes of skin color or religion or whatever else is the same moral equivalence as those people just wanting to be left alone is leaving the realm of stupidity and verging on malice.

> Some people just want the puritannicals to leave everyone alone

It's, uh, "weird" that your problem isn't with the bigotry and bigots but with the people who point it out.

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#167

Post by marcus_holmes »

jdpage wrote: post #38
marcus_holmes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point: was she "trans" before she transitioned, or only afterwards? Lots of queer folks are pretending to be straight. Or do they only become queer when they emerge from the closet?

Yes, the understanding is that trans people were always trans. It may have taken time for them to understand that and perhaps more to decide to adopt that identity publicly, but they're not "not trans" before that. Other queer identities are generally thought of the same way in queer communities: many people have early experiences (e.g. fixating on same-sex characters in fiction the way peers might opposite-sex chara…

That makes sense, thanks :)

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#168

Post by bluefirebrand »

lambertsimnel wrote: post #159
bluefirebrand wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presumably, what people mean when they say "everything is political" is that politics in the wider sense is both important and on this list What they mean in my experience is "everything must be viewed as political propaganda"

I see. I disagree with them if they think everything really is political propaganda, but I think in a sense everything is political (in the wider sense) in its causes and consequences, so perhaps it might as well be propaganda, even if those involved don't think of it that way. To return to your previous comment that "everything is political" is a tedious worldview, maybe there's a possible compromise. We could accep…

> To return to your previous comment that "everything is political" is a tedious worldview

It is tedious specifically because of the "in the wider sense" you put in parens

It is an overly broad definition of political to the point of uselessness and absurdity

Edit; for example, consider the case of a child throwing a ball for their dog.

The child is not political. The dog is not political. Yes, you can say that there's politics in letting people own pets like dogs. There are politics in having a public space where children are allowed to play fetch with their dogs. There are politics involved in the parents deciding to have children in the first place, or where they choose to live and work.

Yes, "everything is political" is true.

It's also just tedious

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#169

Post by lelanthran »

wredcoll wrote: post #166
lelanthran wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you haven't been paying attention to the various bigots trying to rouse hate from their position of technology prominence, then I don't think my post will convince you of anything You think your post is not one trying to rouse hate against specific people? You ever come across the word thoughtcrime? You think telling perhaps 50% or the population they "have no business being here" is inclusive? A large number of…

> You think your post is not one trying to rouse hate against specific people? It's taken me a while to understand what I find so abhorrent about this frequent rhetorical device and I finally realized it's just plain ol' false equivalence. Hating nazis for the harm they've caused is, in fact, just fine. Hating someone because they were born jewish/black/gay/whatever, is not fine. Pretending that people out here advoc…

> Hating nazis for the harm they've caused is, in fact, just fine.

Sure. Where did I say it isn't?

The problem is the author (and yourself) is okay with branding fully half the population, including the people you are pretending to speak on behalf off, as "having no business" being somewhere.

All thoughts are welcome, unless you have different thoughts.

Re: The web runs on tolerance

#170

Post by rerdavies »

franga2000 wrote: post #77
auxiliarymoose wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is also (nearly) impossible to completely crash a web page. There isn't a main loop that can panic out. No matter where an exception gets thrown, the overall application keeps going and responding to events. Can't access a network resource? API returns an unexpected error? Library crashes? Browser extension breaks something? Doesn't matter. The user can still view and scroll the page, and the rest of it will proba…

Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information). The amount of articles on HN that render perfectly, then vanish a second later and are replaced by this error message is insane. Yes, I'm using an old unmaintained Android HN reader with a questionable webview. No, that's not an excuse to delete a perfectly rendered from right in front of my eyes.

Sure. But it's not the browser that did that. You see the dialog because the app HANDLED the error condition, and application code displayed an dialog. Had the error not been handled, the browser's behavior is to log a message to the browser console (which you, as a user, never see), and carry on, pretending that the error never happened. So the page would have continued on in some non-functional, or half-functional state.
Post reply on HN