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

Mark in the Middle

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 603 posts

Re: Mark in the Middle

#241

Post by shadowgovt »

ezzzzz wrote: post #109
pjc50 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My money is on Biden receiving the most votes in the popular vote, but Trump still being in power next year, and a huge amount of litigation and riots in the meantime. (Not sure why this got downvoted; Clinton won the popular vote last time, I see no reason that won't happen again?)

Yeah, chiming in from the Mid-West, the Trump base is out in full force. Lots of Trump signs in yards (with varying degrees of offensive slogans), seeing Trump flags flying from the back of pickup truck beds and yards everywhere... one gets the opposite impression. Whether the 'silent-majority' is truly the majority or actually the 'extremely vocal minority' will decide the election. However, there is no denying Trum…

The midwest likes the Republican candidate, but the entire Midwest gets a the same number of electoral college votes as, what, eight or nine coastal states?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#242

Post by pb7 »

_qulr wrote: post #119
notacoward wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it does seem like a college dorm. Sometimes it's even intentional, as in the design of the MPK campus. A lot of the perks serve the same purpose as a college dorm: eliminate the need (or even desire) to go off campus, maximizing time-on-task for the organizational purpose. That's not entirely a bad thing, though it does grate a bit for older employees such as myself (for two more days) sometimes. The "live on an…

> It sounds like a reference to the policies around WFH and changing locations Yes, but that was also behind the snack complaints. According to the article, everyone got monetary bonuses, but it seems the problem wasn't the cost of the food, it was not having "hired help" to stock and cater the food for you.

I wonder if you'd feel differently about the "hired help" if companies like Facebook and Google stopped paying that "hired help" while they sit at home doing nothing during office closures.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#243

Post by legolas2412 »

dx87 wrote: post #37
Miner49er wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Article about it, with some data backing it up: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/how-facebook-became-... They censor anti-racists: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/04/24/facebook-whil... AFAIK their new News tab has far-right publications like Breitbart, but no leftist publications.

Looks like that "anti-racist" is upset that she can't post racist and sexist things about white men. Not exactly the example I'd give to show that FB is censoring liberals.

The fact that you are getting downvoted tells me a lot. Censorship is going to never be fine, even if they pinky swear it will be used only on nazis.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#244

Post by shadowgovt »

scarmig wrote: post #224
pirocks wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what your saying. But if your saying they got it wrong they gave trump a 25+% of winning. Things with a 1/4th probability happen all the time.

Sure, they happen, but how often? One in hundred times?

Things with a 1-in-4 probability happen about 1-in-4 times.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#245

Post by compscistd »

neonate wrote: post #199
pcbro141 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, middle ground fallacy. Like saying we can find a 'middle ground' between "black lives do matter" and "black lives don't matter".

You're right that there's no middle ground if you set it up that way, but the trick is to look for ways of framing an issue that do allow for middle ground. For example, we could ask which specific political consequences ought to follow from the fact that Black lives matter, and in which order. There's lots of room for middle ground there. It's a question of whether we want to find it or not.

Certainly, there's middle ground (concessions) in several issues like tax rates, zoning, visa policy.

Rights-based positions, on the other hand, are no-compromise by their premise. They're binary issues. "Women/BlackPeople/Felons/OtherGroup should be allowed to vote." "Women/BlackPeople/Felons/OtherGroup should not be allowed to vote." Sometimes you have what looks like a concession in these issues but it's really just one side masquerading like a concession. Example: voter disenfranchisement disguised as implementing voter literacy tests or "you must pay your court debt". Straight up abortion denial disguised as good faith "limitations" (limit after x weeks, insurance requirements, clinic closings, heartbeat, sleep on the issue, fake clinics, etc.).

The policy that follows isn't the thing that most people find appalling. It's the premise. You're absolutely right that we should be focused on policy, but only if people are on board with the premise. Check out the top ranked articles shared on Facebook and you'll agree.

If you take your comment and apply it to moments that sparked huge civil rights changes, I don't think minority groups would have gotten this far. It's the "no compromises" attitude that leads to great social change. Not half measures.

Edit: On further thought, it's arguable that segregation was the "middle ground" between slavery and equal rights. The middle ground just doesn't sound too appealing when it comes to equal rights. Minorities are right to instinctively distrust invitations towards "compromise".

Re: Mark in the Middle

#246

Post by godshatter »

jamiequint wrote: post #157
zimpenfish wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human If your disagreement with that person is about whether someone else is considered less of a human than they are (by dint of race, wealth, sexuality, whatever), it's probably ok to consider them morally bankrupt on that basis.

No, it's actually not, because people have different moral foundations, and many people value loyalty/authority/sanctity over care/fairness. It doesn't mean they don't care about care/fairness, it just means they don't make it their moral priority. If you refuse to engage with these people and view them all as sub-human there's no path forward for society.

Abortion is a great example here. One side thinks their opponents want total control over women's reproductive systems while the other side thinks their opponents are fine killing babies as long as they haven't actually made it through the birth canal yet.

Very few people think they aren't the good guys in their own narratives, and what's moral isn't an obvious choice in a lot of situations.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#247

Post by thissitecensors »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

People criticizing censorship on this website make me laugh. Hackernews is the most heavily censored website I've ever encountered. The way this website treats unpopular opinions is like Mao's China.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#248

Post by RobRivera »

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

In my conversations, such employees don't believe they have the right, they believe their political positions are objectively morally superior and hold an 'ends justifies the means' opinion on influence.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#249

Post by Jerry2 »

okprod wrote: post #232
grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.

Sure, but then it shouldn't be allowed to hide behind Section 230.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#250

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

okprod wrote: post #232
grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

Facebook can do whatever it wants, including policing communications on its platform; it's a for-profit company.

You completely missed the point of GP's comment. They never said Facebook can't do whatever they want. Just that Facebook employees shouldn't feel like they get a say in it.

edit: btw I'm not saying it is GP's opinion that Facebook can do whatever they want. I have no idea what GP thinks about that. I'm only saying their argument wasn't specifically about that.

Post reply on HN