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

Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

blog.mass.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 216 posts

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#201

Post by mabramo »

geggam wrote: post #127
Frondo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not going to be jailed for being disrespectful (or "un-pc" if you like); but other people might not want to spend time around you anymore...

I find more people are sick of PC than are a fan of it. You might have different peers though.

I can only speak for myself here, but I never found being "PC" to be incongruent with how I normally treat people. Never in my every day interactions have I considered whether or not what I do or say is PC.

Treating people with respect without expecting anything in return gets you far.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#202

Post by wutbrodo »

wilsonnb wrote: post #59
wutbrodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot…

What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed? I fully agree that the amendment process has to be used. I would be in favor of a 28th amendment placing well thought out limitations on the 1st or the 2nd amendments. Assuming I thought that the limitations it was placing on them were good limitations.

> What's the difference here between modifying and violating? Whether or not the amendment process is followed or a law is passed?

Yea,that's like... The entire point of the constitution. This is like saying "what's the difference between changing a law or breaking and entering after asking your friend Jeb if it's ok".

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#203

Post by wutbrodo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #163
wutbrodo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people refuse to consider this and think of parts of it as sacred doctrine. The first and second amendments, in particular. I don't know that people are unwilling to _modify_ it, but rather to _violate_ it. I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. The rule of law is simply a lot…

> I honestly personally would be pretty happy with no 2A, but unless the specific majorities required for an amendment agree with me, I'm strongly against violating it ad-hoc. But we already are and have been for a very long time (the 2A has no limitation as tintypes of arms), and, more importantly, we’re violating the premise it rests on regarding reliance on the citizen militia without which it makes no sense (and…

Yes and to the extent that we violate it, I oppose it. Growing up in a peaceful society makes us take it for granted, but glancing at a history book underscores the importance of the rule of law.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#204

Post by lmm »

jancsika wrote: post #197
lmm wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the '80s you would still meet better chess players than you. The techniques for playing against computers are much the same as those for playing against smarter humans. There are specific anti-computer strategies just as there were specific anti-Russian strategies, but they're equally minor.

> In the '80s you would still meet better chess players than you. Sure. But in the 80s you'd never meet a player who is several orders of magnitude better than anyone who has ever lived. That's important. Similarly, in the 80s you'd never meet a group of political operatives who could read dossiers on tens or hundreds of thousands of people and tailor propaganda for them to read while in a doctor's waiting room, or w…

Computers aren't orders of magnitude better, at chess or propagandising. Yes previous propaganda wasn't individually tailored, but it was still produced by manipulation experts with vastly more resources than the individual reader. The same techniques for living in a world where propaganda exists still work.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#205

Post by Andre_Wanglin »

threepipeproblm wrote: post #190
Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] The "genocide" of native Americans was a result of European diseases, not barbarism.[1] As the people had no idea of germ theory, it is impossible to claim this was intentional. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_disease_and_ep...

Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw a soldier. BUT... 'Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."' -- http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c... More commonly rumored to be used by British aga…

How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#206

Post by paulddraper »

jernfrost wrote: post #169
thankthunk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that they've been indoctrinated to accept without questioning. Which is made easier when governments define and outlaw "fake" news. What separated us from totalitarian governments in the 20th century was we protected speech while hitler/stalin/mao/etc outlawed "fake news". Do you really want Trump or Obama or Hillary or George Bush to have the power to limit speech? Do you really want either the republican or democ…

Fake news is what got Hitler into power. The fake news Hitler banned was the “fake” according to the same standard as Trump: news he didn’t like. This issue is not as cut and dry as you think. As Theo van Gogh said: a tolerant society can not be tolertant towards the intolerant.

> As Theo van Gogh said: a tolerant society can not be tolertant towards the intolerant.

And who, exactly, are these intolerant? Nazis? Communists? Black lives matter? All lives matter? NRA? PETA? Feminists? James Damore? Abolitionists? Abortionists?

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#207

Post by threepipeproblm »

Andre_Wanglin wrote: post #205
threepipeproblm wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's an oversimplification. Diseases wiped out 90% before they ever saw a soldier. BUT... 'Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."' -- http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring04/warfare.c... More commonly rumored to be used by British aga…

How is it an oversimplification if 90% of the population decrease was because of initial contact, not overt actions by the Europeans against the natives?

Do you really need this spelled out, like for real? Your statement that the genocide was not due to overt actions by Europeans is false. Accidentally wiping out 90% of a population through spread of disease is one thing. Deliberately killing off much of the rest is another.. you seem to think of that as a rounding error lol? I also provided a citation in which an American soldier admits to attempting to infect natives with small pox, despite his lack of germ theory. This also explicitly contradicts your account.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#208

Post by thankthunk »

jernfrost wrote: post #169
thankthunk wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that they've been indoctrinated to accept without questioning. Which is made easier when governments define and outlaw "fake" news. What separated us from totalitarian governments in the 20th century was we protected speech while hitler/stalin/mao/etc outlawed "fake news". Do you really want Trump or Obama or Hillary or George Bush to have the power to limit speech? Do you really want either the republican or democ…

Fake news is what got Hitler into power. The fake news Hitler banned was the “fake” according to the same standard as Trump: news he didn’t like. This issue is not as cut and dry as you think. As Theo van Gogh said: a tolerant society can not be tolertant towards the intolerant.

> Fake news is what got Hitler into power.

No. It was called an election. Hitler and the nazis were banned in germany for a while. So banning "fake news" didn't keep hitler from power.

> The fake news Hitler banned was the “fake” according to the same standard as Trump: news he didn’t like.

That's the point. Do you want trump to be allowed to ban news he doesn't like? I don't. And what turn hitler from an elected official to a dictator was the german governments ability to ban "fake news". If hitler never had the ability to ban "fake news", then he would never have been able to cause the destruction he did because people would have been allowed to challenge, criticize and intellectually attack him.

> This issue is not as cut and dry as you think.

It is cut and dry. It's the foundational principle of all free society. It's why we never had a hitler, stalin or mao in the US and it's why we never will as long as free speech is guarded. Free speech is the only antidote to totalitarianism.

> a tolerant society can not be tolertant towards the intolerant.

That's an absurd contradictory logic fallacy. Think about it logically. If you are intolerant of the intolerant then you are the intolerant. Also, the US has 250 years track record debunking that logical fallacy. Besides, that's exactly what hitler said. That's exactly what stalin said. That's mao said. It's what all totalitarians say to justify stifling speech.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#209

Post by ixtli »

Can_Not wrote: post #199
ixtli wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Further if you were "more accurate" can you produce evidence that you were right for the right reasons that would pass muster among your peers?

This is one of my pet peeves, people who boast about stumbling upon the correct solution and/or being first to something, but can't justify or backup their claim. Even worse is when they do the research afterwards to attempt to retrofit an answer. A derivative of this is when you have/know only one thing, but can't justify it in the absence of knowledge of the alternatives, but you still rally for it as if you were k…

Totally! I was one of these people in high school math! I remember clearly thinking "but i got the right answer >:(" and now as a professional engineer i reminisce about people who want to know why you are right.

Re: Fake news was illegal in 17th century colonial Massachusetts

#210

Post by michaelmrose »

aninhumer wrote: post #184
michaelmrose wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fairness doctrine makes little sense in the context of the internet. My random comment/post on reddit may in the course of a paragraph contain 5 different assumptions that may be orthogonal to the actual main point. It will not contain therein space for alternative thoughts on the main point let alone space for any alternatives for any unexamined assumptions. Truth is multidimensional and fairness impossible to d…

>Wherein the web isn't censored in a heavy handed fashion we have the most reasonable answer to the fairness doctrine. Everyone can be heard but not everyone will find an audience that desires to listen. But is that really reasonable or fair? What decides who will find an audience to listen to them? Free speech advocates seem to believe that the "best" speech will always find an audience, but I don't personally see a…

The speech this is most in line with peoples preconceived notions will likely find an audience but whats to be done about it?
Post reply on HN