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

The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

aphyr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–195 of 195 posts

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#191

Post by munksbeer »

Jtarii wrote: post #189
munksbeer wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm glad you have done this and I wish more would follow the same course. The more content that becomes unavailable in the UK, the more people might start to pay attention to the stupidity of the law. I doubt it, but even from an irrational anger perspective, I hate that these idiots can do idiotic (and worse, counter productive) stuff, and get no comeback on themselves.

>I'm glad you have done this and I wish more would follow the same course. The more content that becomes unavailable in the UK, the more people might start to pay attention to the stupidity of the law. The law isn't going to be repealed because a bunch of nerds geoblocked their personal blog.

That is a weirdly aggressive reply.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#192

Post by uoaei »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #163
uoaei wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be treating "neighbor" too literally. People understand the global nature of the limits on resources and by extension the world economy better every year. The boundary of who shares 'stake' grows likewise.

> boundary of who shares 'stake' grows likewise But that shared stakeholding doesn’t naturally drive alignment. You need journalists, fiction writers, organizers and delegates. Travel and curiosity. These each take effort, resources and organization. It’s something we do well. But it isn’t spontaneous in the way small-group kinship is—it literally emerges if you put people in proximity.

I'd say it's "typical" that one person witnessing another's plight will identify with them based on the similar conditions of struggle, oppression, etc. As you point out, the trick is to expose them to those scenes in the first place. But this is proximity just the same, in a social and experiential sense if not in a "my bed is within walking distance of yours" sense. So it is spontaneous given those caveats. The question, then, assuming camaraderie and kinship is the goal, is how do we expose people to each other's lives' conditions without the narrative spin machine altering the message to distance people from each other rather than bringing them closer together?

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#193

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

zozbot234 wrote: post #175
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Historically This is not the history, it is a mythology in opposition to the empirical evidence. Which is why you should read Graeber.

It's history of ideas. What Graeber says is ultimately aligned to this, as I pointed out in a sibling thread.

Yes, and your comment makes clear you haven't actually read Graeber and mischaracterized his work.

Anyhow, replying is clearly past the point of utility here.

Re: The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety

#195

Post by cwmoore »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #158
cwmoore wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conformity I think follows the innate drive to coerce the nonconformant into compliance

Sure. Push and pull. The point is that needs effort to work at larger scales. We don’t “naturally” organize into nations of three hundred million or a billion. To the extent we do, we also “naturally” go to war.

Again, I think the rewards of controlling others explains both, and not whatever handwavy natural/unnatural attributes might be identified.
Post reply on HN