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

How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

joanwestenberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#271

Post by LorenPechtel »

atmavatar wrote: post #123
thisisbrians wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's easy to cherry-pick an obviously absurd position that could be articulately argued. But the point is that you are definitely wrong about some things and should generally keep an open mind. Even intelligent people are wrong about certain things, and in fact their propensity for rationalization can lead them into some absurd positions. But some of those positions turn out to be right, like the Earth orbiting…

The grandparent's point is that articulate prose is irrelevant to the strength/correctness of the argument or intelligence of the author. I would take it a step further and include that it has no bearing on the morality of the author. The original claim was: > But exposing yourself to articulate versions of positions you oppose does something valuable: it makes you realize that intelligent people can disagree with yo…

I think he's using the wrong word here. "Articulate" isn't enough. What you need to do is compare the arguments from both sides about the subject, especially how they address specific things. Who is using facts, who is using emotions? How do claims stand up to time?

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#272

Post by LorenPechtel »

Bukhmanizer wrote: post #67

As a long time proponent of reasonable-ism I disagree with a lot of this. The assumption that a lot of our problems stem from 2 sides just seeing an issue differently is just nonsense in this day and age. The big Problem, is that one side has slid heavily into authoritarianism, and the other side is completely ill-equipped to fight it. On any particular issue, the right will say whatever gets them more Power, and the…

And you don't realize there are problems on both sides?

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#273

Post by MrVandemar »

grodes wrote: post #260
MrVandemar wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 5. Read the Bible. Even if you do not believe, Jesus is the most impressive human I've ever learned about. When I started reading it I was agnostic. Yeah, read the whole Bible — the one people swear on in court, the one the preachers hold and up and tell you it is the word of god — and don't cherry-pick. So much misogeny and shit behavior. How about this one: “David and his men went out and killed two hundred Phili…

It a description of what happened.

God doesn't seem to disapprove of murdering 200 people.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#274

Post by array_key_first »

MarkusQ wrote: post #244
array_key_first wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, moderatism or centrism is legitimately a fallacy. The idea or intuition that, given two endpoints, the most correct position is one in the middle, is a fallacy. It depends entirely on the endpoints. For example: the three fifths compromise. Turns out, bad. The correct answer was emancipation all along, and the 'centrist' answer was just bad. Because, well, one of the endpoints was slavery. If you 'halfway' slaver…

So you just did a Mote and Bailey. The initial claim was that "anyone rejecting both extremes is automatically wrong"; I pointed out that this was a weaponized defense being used by both sides to hide their BS, and instead of responding to that, you refuted the similar sounding but unrelated claim (which hadn't been made) that "the truth is somewhere in the middle". Saying that both sides are peddling absolute bolloc…

Uh, no, I was responding to the notion of 'both sides ism' which I called centrism or moderatism, which is, in fact, a fallacy.

That DOES NOT mean that both sides can't do X or Y, or that moderates are wrong. What it means is there is a particular kind of person who will hide behind middle-road nothing burger perspectives, because they intuitively believe middle of the road must be reasonable.

It's not guaranteed to be reasonable. That's the fallacy. I didn't say YOU did the fallacy, I'm just explaining what 'both sides ism' is.

Now, on to you, specifically:

> Both sides are mostly full of it, full stop.

This is a nothing burger perspective. It's not interesting, or thoughtful, or intellectual, and it's barely worth the bits it's encoded in.

Yes, politicians lie. And? So what? That doesn't tell anyone anything about, well, anything.

Also, when certain politicians are lying about certain things and you say 'well everyone lies!' - you are making it worse.

You can bet your fucking ass that the reason people like Trump are able to railroad your constitutional rights is because there's droves of useful idiots who will say 'well democrats do the same thing!'

Okay? But they're not doing it right now, right? And that little tidbit doesn't magically make everything okay, right? So what have we achieved? In our quest to find the right answer, we've just justified and defended behavior that we know is bad for us. That's just self destruction.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#275

Post by array_key_first »

GaryBluto wrote: post #192
BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #16

I have a hard time taking this kind of enlightened-centrist both-sides gruel very seriously. Calling every strong position "extreme" is a classic sleight-of-hand maneuver by people who want to mask their own wrong-side-of-history beliefs that they know they should feel ashamed of expressing. Yes, yes, look for truth beyond labeled groups, but pretending that the "sides" are equal is some utterly moronic "Fair and Bal…

"enlightened-centrist" and "both-sides(ism)" are phrases left-leaning people use to try and say "My team good, your team bad, to believe anything else is insanity/stupidity!" without coming off as a douchebag. (It doesn't work)

If you don't want to release the Epstein files, then yeah, you're bad.

If you're 'both side'-ing fucking pedophilia, take a step back and ask yourself - what the fuck are we doing here?

Sometimes people, and this includes republicans, are just pieces of shit. Sometimes someone is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and someone is OBVIOUSLY right. You are allowed to diverge from the fucking hivemind and say 'you know what, this republican sucks'.

Trump sucks man. He's a legitimately bad person and a stain on humanity. There is no alternative perspective to that. If you try to argue one, that's suspicious!

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#276

Post by GaryBluto »

array_key_first wrote: post #275
GaryBluto wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"enlightened-centrist" and "both-sides(ism)" are phrases left-leaning people use to try and say "My team good, your team bad, to believe anything else is insanity/stupidity!" without coming off as a douchebag. (It doesn't work)

If you don't want to release the Epstein files, then yeah, you're bad. If you're 'both side'-ing fucking pedophilia, take a step back and ask yourself - what the fuck are we doing here? Sometimes people, and this includes republicans, are just pieces of shit. Sometimes someone is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and someone is OBVIOUSLY right. You are allowed to diverge from the fucking hivemind and say 'you know what, this republic…

> If you don't want to release the Epstein files, then yeah, you're bad.

You can be against the Epstein files being released for numerous reasons that don't require supporting child abuse.

Here's an example:

"The files are likely inaccurate or manipulated and likely to be used for character assassination. I see numerous people on the left and right wings of the political spectrum accusing the other side of manipulating them."

That does not in any way support child abuse.

> If you're 'both side'-ing fucking pedophilia, take a step back and ask yourself - what the fuck are we doing here?

I'm unsure what you mean. This is a very emotional statement with little actual substance. If you're claiming that only Republicans participated in Epstein's child abuse ring, that doesn't seem to be true at all.

> Sometimes people, and this includes republicans, are just pieces of shit. Sometimes someone is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and someone is OBVIOUSLY right. You are allowed to diverge from the fucking hivemind and say 'you know what, this republican sucks'.

Nobody is objectively a piece of shit, nor is an opinion objectively wrong. Opposing the release of the Epstein files is not objectively or obviously wrong. What "hivemind" are you talking about? A large number of Americans hate Trump.

> Trump sucks man. He's a legitimately bad person and a stain on humanity. There is no alternative perspective to that. If you try to argue one, that's suspicious!

What do you mean, "there is no alternative perspective to that."? Are you saying that people arguing that Trump is not a stain on humanity don't hold a perspective on that matter?

This is a very angry, very Redditesque comment that is more emotional than it is logical.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#277

Post by int_19h »

didgetmaster wrote: post #157

When I go to the polling place to cast my vote for the candidate of my choice; I am often holding my nose and voting for the one who I think will do the least damage. I often wonder why sane, rational problem solvers are not on the ballot. Then I realize that our system often rewards the attention seekers rather than pragmatic leaders. Those who quietly get the work done are not invited on talk shows or podcasts. The…

This is true outside politics, as well. Or rather, more precisely, any organization has some amount of internal politics, and the larger and more bureaucratic it is, the more politics dominates over utilitarianism. Nation-states and their governments are on the far end of that spectrum, obviously, but it also applies equally to large corporations etc.

And the thing about it is that it doesn't just reward attention seeking. It rewards the entire spectrum of sociopathic behavior - making promises you don't intend to keep, picking associated based on loyalty rather than merit, walking on people's heads if that's what it takes to get higher etc. It's a system that positively selects for sociopathy in elites, whether they are politicians or CEOs.

And thus that is what we get. People like Donald Trump and Elon Musk are extreme examples of what such selection can produce, but I don't think it's a qualitative change compared to the "good old times"; rather, it's the logical end result of the gradual evolution.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#278

Post by int_19h »

wslh wrote: post #179
eisbaw wrote: post #176

> You get certainty in an uncertain world. You get a community that will defend you. You get a simple heuristic for navigating complex issues. Like religion

Religion artifacts exists in part for organizing communities. For example, The Ten Commandments were revolutionary and short.

Too short, clearly, given that a large patch was issued almost immediately.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#279

Post by int_19h »

jjk166 wrote: post #40

The real grift has been in echo chambers changing peoples vocabulary such that we can use the same words but talk right past eachother, allowing extremely moderate positions to be reframed as extreme and making what ought to be minor disagreements unresolvable. People making an "I can see both sides" argument are completely missing the point - the issue is that most people can't see both sides, and even when they go…

I'm reminded of a certain philosopher...

> A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

Re: How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity

#280

Post by int_19h »

array_key_first wrote: post #147
MarkusQ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase/concept "both side ism" is a very clever bait and switch that, so far as I can tell, was designed to marginalize/discredit people who are trying to actually engage with the issues (instead of just toxically emoting), and it was avidly adopted and weaponized as such. By both sides.

No, moderatism or centrism is legitimately a fallacy. The idea or intuition that, given two endpoints, the most correct position is one in the middle, is a fallacy. It depends entirely on the endpoints. For example: the three fifths compromise. Turns out, bad. The correct answer was emancipation all along, and the 'centrist' answer was just bad. Because, well, one of the endpoints was slavery. If you 'halfway' slaver…

OP's point is that you get accused of "both sides ism" even if you merely try to examine the claims of both sides on their merits, the cardinal sin being not rejecting them outright. I'm far left myself and I've seen it plenty of time; on the left it's usually presented as, "engaging with those ideas legitimizes them".
Post reply on HN