Harrison Bergeron (1961) • Hacker News Board

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#271

Post by e_i_pi_2 » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 12:10 AM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #227

e_i_pi_2 wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK Marxism isn't about equal outcomes, but it is opposed to enforced classes. So a Marxist would likely argue you shouldn't have lower and advanced courses separate, but you'd still have one course with a distribution of grades. The teacher would just focus more on the kids that need more help to improve the mean of the distribution, where our current method would create unnatural multi-modal distributions If you'…

>"double-speak comes form a book written in support of socialism" LOL - whut? Did you read a different 1984? Orwell's thoughts on governance was complicated, and changed over time, but in no way was 1984 some kind of endorsement of socialism. Also, Marxism is not socialism. https://www.thecoldwire.com/socialist-vs-marxist/#:~:text=Th... .

I know they're not equal, but typically people lump them together and oppose both without knowing the differences, so I figured OP would like to know they're quoting a socialist to oppose Marxism, because they might actually really support socialism even if they oppose marxism. I guess I shouldn't have said "in support of socialism" and instead "by an author who hugely supported socialism", but I think it's fair to say his works were influenced and driven by his political beliefs since that's so much of the focus. It's not a book talking about how great socialism is, but it's also not at all a critique of socialism. It's just about totalitarianism, and people often use it to oppose socialism or marxism so wanted to throw this out for clarification

A classic example was Orwell in the Spanish civil war saying he was super against Stalinism specifically and also seemed to know that it was not at all communism, but overall he seemed to primarily like democratic socialism.

Maybe this is because I'm from the US but here most people think Stalinism==Communism==Socialism==Maoism, so I think it's important to point out differences

---

Also from your link

> This is different from Marxism which relies on a violent revolution

This is definitely not true so I wouldn't trust that source much. Some people think it's the only way but others don't

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#272

Post by LtWorf » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 5:06 AM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #270

LtWorf wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did say he didn't want to pay taxes to help the less fortunate. So I offered my view of what that looks like… he didn't care to state his view, but preferred to pull the "i'm offended" card to not reply. Which makes me think he actually had no answer to the question, and just doesn't like taxes, but doesn't like to be told he's a bad person for the inevitable consequences that has.

> He did say he didn't want to pay taxes to help the less fortunate. Of course, I literally didn't say that . I think it's probably obvious to most people how what I said differs from your interpretation. > So I offered my view of what that looks like… he didn't care to state his view, but preferred to pull the "i'm offended" card to not reply. I did not play the "I'm offended" card. You chose to be a dick. If you wa…

Calling me a dick while saying I'm offensive -_-'

You never had any worthwhile opinion to share.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#273

Post by mediumiqsad » Thu, Sep 29, 2022, 1:19 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #267

mediumiqsad wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of those people would not be considered geniuses to Caltech educated elites like you. I personally think ignoring the top 10 students is perfectly fine because they can clearly already manage. The rest of us can’t, but are still considered subhuman by your Bell Curve reading ilk.

In most larger universities, you can get an elite education by carefully selecting which courses to take. 1. take the honors track 2. 90% of the classes should be STEM 3. the STEM classes should be heavy on the math 4. avoid classes the stoners and cheaters take 5. classes should entail 2-3 hours of work for every hour of lecture 6. work towards getting As, not just passing 7. don't cheat, you'll be sorry if you do 8…

I literally did all of that at my state school, and yet despite this my degree name still makes people like you think I’m subhuman because I didn’t get into any top schools (because I don’t have “merit”). I have nothing because CalTech and MIT and Stanford elites have everything.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#274

Post by StrictDabbler » Fri, Sep 30, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #226

StrictDabbler wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is baffling that Bradbury was able to write The Murderer in 1953. The transistor was invented in 1947 and the first fully transistorized radio wasn't available until a year after Bradbury published this, but he got all the way through predicting ringtones, smartwatches, housing automation, GPS digital dispatch/gig economy jobs, and smarmy digital assistants in the span of a single story. I am not aware of a more p…

> I am not aware of a more prescient bit of science fiction. Bradbury knew how people worked and what we'd try to make. I'm not certain it is, but The Santaroga Barrier by Frank Herbert has a rather interesting excerpt: >To those men in their oddly similar dark suits, their cold eyes weighing and dismissing everything, the people of this valley were a foe to be defeated. As he thought of it, Dasein realized all custo…

This is fascinating and does, in fact, seem to be the same kind of social prediction rather than tech.

I thank you for the referral.

Re: Harrison Bergeron (1961)

#275

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Sat, Oct 01, 2022, 12:29 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #255

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A desire for more inequality"? That smacks of "good people support Policy X, even if it achieves the opposite of its goals in the long run. To acknowledge that and oppose Policy X, even on its own merits, makes you evil in intent." Few people actually have desires like "I want more inequality", even if they oppose a policy which intends to decrease it.

>Few people actually have desires like "I want more inequality It's dressed up differently. They talk about cutting "bloated" public sector budgets or the necessity of austerity. Nobody calls themselves anti choice or pro death or pro war either but lots of people are.

You can believe in those things for reasons other than "wanting more inequality".

Your political opponents believe what they say, not some nefarious strawman you think they're secretly thinking.