What You Can't Say (2004) • Hacker News Board

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#211

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:12 PM UTC

pointerpointer wrote: post #191

hmry wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are supposed to be readable still. If you can't then that's an accessibility issue, not censorship. Try turning up your screens contrast.

I don't have accessibility issues and I don't make this up. I've seen comments with a text color of #eee, I had to go into the inspector to make it readable.. Maybe that has been changed/fixed already which would make my entire comment pointless indeed. Personally I think grey out text should not exceed about #ccc.

Interesting, because HN's CSS only goes as high as #ddd.

Also, you can use text selection via mouse or appropriate touch gesture in order to read even the lightest-colored comment.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#212

Post by AlexTWithBeard » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #167

kristianc wrote: post #4

The inverse of this seems to be taking hold now: that it’s socially acceptable to say things which are unreasonable, outlandish or downright factually incorrect, if they’re considered to be in service of a cause that ‘our side’ believes in. But yes, this has also been discussed a lot here before.

It's not the inverse , but a corrolary: With heretical ideas being purged from each Church, the churches have doubled down on absurdness

Right. The revolution devours its children.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#213

Post by hailk » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:13 PM UTC

rmilejczz wrote: post #200

jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

Honest question, has anyone ever been fired, imprisoned, or killed for saying that?

I think there is a law in Canada against mis-gendering people. Lot of popular tech companies have explicit CoC guideline against mis-gendering. StackOverflow recently fired a moderator for proposing to use gender neutral pro-nouns instead of individual preferred pronouns, even when there is no official CoC defined as such.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#214

Post by slfnflctd » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

username90 wrote: post #169

BurningFrog wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. That line would still be hard to draw Perhaps I'm unusually gifted, but I find the line between violence and non violence quite easy to raw. One of the easiest of all lines, really.

Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent. If you think that it is wrong to do that then you are on the pacifists side and not the "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance" side.

> Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent

Incorrect.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#215

Post by primroot » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

georgewsinger wrote: post #19

> For example, at the high water mark of political correctness in the early 1990s, Harvard distributed to its faculty and staff a brochure saying, among other things, that it was inappropriate to compliment a colleague or student's clothes. No more "nice shirt." I think this principle is rare among the world's cultures, past or present. There are probably more where it's considered especially polite to compliment som…

> two political correctness peaks: one in the early/mid 90s, and the other starting from about 2013 to now.

Could this be related to economic circumstances, and a spread of a sense of defeat among adherents of economic progressivism? Postmodernism came around the time, when knowledge about communist atrocities became more established. The political correctness peak of the nineties maybe reflected changes in the dominance of the Neoliberal End of History way of thinking. 2013 occurred four years after an event that threatened the Neoliberal economic narrative. I mean, the US is special in the way the Neoliberal ideology almost takes a new shape, by itself making political correctness into a useful mask. In the third world, religions such as postmodernism do take a steady hold. I see it as reflection of the hopelessness around the (geo)political and economic systems.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#216

Post by CM30 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

kristianc wrote: post #4

The inverse of this seems to be taking hold now: that it’s socially acceptable to say things which are unreasonable, outlandish or downright factually incorrect, if they’re considered to be in service of a cause that ‘our side’ believes in. But yes, this has also been discussed a lot here before.

Not just say things, it seems there's a disturbing trend where any and all behaviour is 'justified' as long as it's someone on 'our side' who's doing it. Especially if the target of said behaviour is the 'other tribe'.

For instance, violence/threats against those with different political viewpoints. Or attempts at justifying actual abusive/manipulative behaviour.

It makes me worry that the goal of civility has been lost, that a depressing number of people actively seem to think they're at war with their opponents and that their goal is not to come to any sort of compromise or get along, but to destroy the other team by any means necessary.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#217

Post by TeMPOraL » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:31 PM UTC

Uehreka wrote: post #30

Having seen many articles on this topic show up on HN, and this one in particular recur like a comet every year, I’d like to note a trend I feel like I see in the HN comments every time. First I see a highly upvoted top-level comment talking about how tragic it is that thoughtcrime is such a capital offense these days, and lamenting that surely the HN thought police will be coming for their head, but they still feel…

But you know who doesn't live in the Bay Area? Most of HN. The site has a global audience now.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#218

Post by cc81 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

jonny383 wrote: post #195

You mean like, there are only two biological genders, and you were either born a male or female?

How do you view intersex people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#219

Post by username90 » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

slfnflctd wrote: post #214

username90 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent. If you think that it is wrong to do that then you are on the pacifists side and not the "We shouldn't tolerate intolerance" side.

> Karl Popper argued that we need to use violence to cull intolerant ideas even if they aren't violent Incorrect.

Stop spreading lies, exact quote: "as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument"

Important part: "But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force"

And there was no mention that the group were violent, just that they refused to listen. He mentioned that the group might get violent in the future not that they are, so we must strike them down preemptively.

Re: What You Can't Say (2004)

#220

Post by Udik » Sat, Oct 12, 2019, 1:43 PM UTC

aazaa wrote: post #7

This quote is eerily prescient: > I suspect the biggest source of moral taboos will turn out to be power struggles in which one side only barely has the upper hand. That's where you'll find a group powerful enough to enforce taboos, but weak enough to need them. It's especially powerful when paired with this question: > Let's start with a test: Do you have any opinions that you would be reluctant to express in front…

I personally find this idea pretty weak.

The main problem I have with it is that these taboos are enforced precisely by the members of the group that would be the "weak" group now. As the most recent and obvious example, the #metoo movement has thrived with the fundamental support of powerful white men. The taboos of religion are, or were, not imposed by a powerful group of priests to a subjugated population, but instead they were enforced collectively.

There is a taste, a natural instinct, for just conforming with mainstream opinions, not out of fear but with sincere conviction, sometimes beyond any logic and reason. Once some ideas get enough traction, and non conformity is met with enough execration, then people just tend to join in with real devotion.