21–30 of 49 posts
The gluing together of all of these groups under one banner is exactly an attempt to use moral superiority to frame an argument - it removes the ability to actually discuss each case.
The answer, of course, is to stop eating meat because the factory farm industry is morally indefensible. (he said with some trace of irony, "expressing [...] dismay at the vast, cruel machinations of society.")
Having the right opinion as a form of social status.
While they're working their employees to the bone, refusing raises, and pocketing all the profits to purchase more real estate and nicer cars, or to bribe people at the private school they send their kids to, they whitewash their actions by pretending they care about feminism, LGBTQ+ people, white privilege, and/or the environment.
The Rural crowd has a different form of virtue signaling but the richest among them are also hypocrites in their own way. Usually via saying they're Christian, going to church, and then doing nothing Christian in their day to day life.
Loved the last paragraph, always good to end with ideas for positive action. >As cathartic as venting one’s outrage can be in the moment, it’s clear that moral grandstanding accomplishes very little beyond the fleeting satisfaction that it brings. Shaming people doesn’t seem to change their behaviour, and invoking mass shooting victims in an argument about hamburgers doesn’t move the needle on gun control. Social cha…
> Social change doesn’t come from posting I have to disagree with this. Change happens because people want change. And they want change because they have been convinced of its benefits. Posting plays a role here.
Contributing to a rational civil discussion? Maybe.
Flaming, downvoting, and “collectively bullying” someone with a different opinion to enforce an echo chamber? Not so much.
The latter just drives everyone who disagrees away so the likeminded can reinforce their beliefs, pat each other on the back, and feel good about themselves.
Loved the last paragraph, always good to end with ideas for positive action. >As cathartic as venting one’s outrage can be in the moment, it’s clear that moral grandstanding accomplishes very little beyond the fleeting satisfaction that it brings. Shaming people doesn’t seem to change their behaviour, and invoking mass shooting victims in an argument about hamburgers doesn’t move the needle on gun control. Social cha…
[flagged]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35366668 (March 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32645289 (Aug 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32473348 (Aug 2022)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29729715 (Dec 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27053014 (May 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25773535 (Jan 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23785372 (July 2020)
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You seem overly concerned with that one issue. Truth is if the government wanted to do this you'd have no chance in hell resisting using your AR-15. They's suspend the constitution and the military would be deployed Stateside. You'd be an ill-equipped Russian soldier against NATO hardware like in Ukraine. 10-20 of you dead for every 1 US military member you take out. The better option is to ensure you have a Democrac…
Would the military turn their guns on their own citizens?
Would the military be able to protect their family members from people with AR-15s?
People hiding in trees and caves with rifles have defeated many superior forces… including our own… twice.
> the term “pregnant people” is somehow degrading to women She sneaked that one in though didn’t she.