I see Sexism, Racism, Islamophobia (and speed limits !) mentionned as taboo and unspeakable several times in this thread.
I'm not sure we live in the same era. There is mainstream politicians all over Europe and the US saying sexist, racist and islamophobic things. They usually win votes by saying them. (And there is motorist groups still openly advocating for no speed limits ;-).
There is a confusion here between unspeakable and "currently fought by a sizable active minority".
What You Can't Say (2004)
271–280 of 308 posts
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#272Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…
While I agree that prison is a very bad system, I strongly disagree with this:
> cure them
Why would a violent behavior necessarily be a disease? We are violent creatures, that's part of our nature. (Many other mammals are violent; some species of monkeys kill their own offspring for no apparent reason; lions kill the offspring of a lioness in order to mate with her, etc.)
We can choose as a society to try to eliminate all occurrences of violence, but it would be foolish to think we can change human nature (not with societal systems anyways; with eugenics maybe but that doesn't look very palatable).
Besides, a majority (or a great proportion) of the people currently behind bars in the US are charged with non-violent offenses; people are routinely imprisoned for crimes that make no other victim than themselves, and that's the greatest scandal of all.
There should be no crime when there is no other victim than the perpetrator; that should be part of the bill of rights of all nations (if we need nations, and constitutions, and "rights").
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't help but intrude here. The point made in the italicized line [1] above is much much larger than the typically-trite debate over the consumption of mass media narratives. Reducing it to a talking point - about the power of mainstream media to silence skeptics - cheapens the vast and profound meaning embedded in it. This is not about doves vs hawks. This is much larger than that. That statement is not just abou…
The major problem is that everyone\* likes to believe that—while they, of course, are not perfect!—they are fundamentally , in the end of the day, a basically decent and good and rational person. Likewise that their friends and loved ones and co-workers are too. And that their lifestyle, and the society they live in, and the institutions they belong to and identify with are fundamentally okay as well, not out-of-cont…
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm
I think his ideas about us humans are brilliant. Still are very relevant. We didn't change. I believe Nietzsche turned out to be extremely far-sighted.
Would Zarathustra be the opposite of your scumbag description?
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#274Here are some things I think future societies will condemn us for: 1. Prison. Almost every modern penal system focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation. I think that as our understanding of the brain improves, we'll be able to find the causes of violent behavior and cure them. Punishment will become cruel and unusual. 2. Eating meat (and other animal rights issues). Even if they're not conscious, most tasty a…
I'm split on #2. I love meat. I will not stop eating meat. Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make, (e.g. that I think we're rather "young" in our understanding of how nutrition impacts the body), but because when confronted by that "animals have feel…
> Not only because I trust my personal "instincts" as tuned by millions of years of evolution to inform me to some degree what I need to consume to be effective far more than any conscious decision I might make
The environment for which your instincts have been tuned has very little to do with the one you are living in. Obesity makes it quite clear that people's instincts are misguiding them, and that our understanding of nutrition is less wrong than instincts.
(I am not advocating vegetarianism, just addressing this specific argument.)
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, wrote an interesting post on Islamophobia and how he believes it doesn't actually exist, at least not in the framework that we normally consider phobias: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controve... The relevant part: The meaning of “Islamophobia” is not at all like the meanings of those other terms. It is simply not easy to differentiate prejudice agai…
I've never ready anything by Sam Harris that I've considered to be rational and well-reasoned. The guy's whole schtick seems to be making arguments that are valid but unsound. Here his premise is "But the only way that Muslims can reasonably be said to exist as a group is in terms of their adherence to the doctrine of Islam," which is completely false. He implies that anyone who practices Islam is "deeply committed t…
I actually knew Sam when he was a sophomore in college, and his writings strike me as an almost perfect illustration of the term "sophomoric": smart, overconfident, but at the same time immature and lacking in depth and perspective.
His arguments for arming himself smack of complete ignorance of the concept of the monopoly of physical violence[1], and without accounting for those theories (and their practical application in modern states), the whole argument is just vapid.
[1] http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewaltmonopol_des_Staates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#276I'm surprised peadophilia and bestiality haven't come up. These are often victimless but you can say "I want to have sex with children".
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the impression I get is the idea of a "cultural" muslim is contested from both within and without the muslim community so I don't think it's quite that clear cut. Who gets to own the labels seems to always be a political battle. You could argue that it is only "reasonable" to use the label for those who hold the beliefs.
No true Scotsman How do you decide who owns the "right" beliefs? By that logic, who can we consider to be a Christian?
"No true Scotsman" is only a fallacy when one uses irrelevant criteria to exclude people from a group.
It's not NtS to point out that James "Scotty" Doohan wasn't Scottish (he was a Canadian of Irish descent.) Nor is it NtS to point out that certain people don't hold various relevant defining characteristics and therefore to claim that they don't count as being in a particular category. Of course, that exclusion is contextual -- it can apply to a particular use of a label without applying to all uses of it.
Note that I disagree with Sam Harris overall. His claim is that the only way Muslims can be reasonably said to exist is his definition; I would argue that one way Muslims can be said to exist is his definition. I would further argue that some people who use other definitions of Islam have irrational/unjustified/disproportionate fear, and can therefore be said to be Islamophobic.
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#278Ask pg: What does the pg of today (the pg with kids) think about what the pg of the past (circa 2004) wrote about the parts of the essay related to kids?
If there's something interesting to diff, it's the ideas people have that pertain to taboos and taboo subjects before and after kids.
I suspect if more developers and engineers had kids, iPads would have a kid mode. I wonder how thinkers and writers (and painters?) would think and write and paint differently with/without kids.
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the same way. I know the chairman of the Calguns Foundation (hoffmang on Twitter), who's also for HN purposes the chairman and CEO of a ~200-employee Silicon Valley recurring billing/subscription management startup. My understanding of his position, and I may of course have it wrong or be misremembering, is that he's okay with some form of background checks, perhaps via proof of backgroundcheckness, for owners…
So you pick two people, one moderate and one extreme, and pretend they're representative? Most people's opinions on this stuff is somewhere in the middle (i.e. there should be some regulations on guns but some private gun ownership should be allowed). There are extremists on both sides. On one side it manifests as "ban them all" and on the other side it's "no regulation whatsoever".
Most people's opinions on this stuff is somewhere in the middle
Re: What You Can't Say (2004)
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I'm taking the bait. I'm sorry but this reeks of rationalization. Let's just have a look at some of your assertions: - we don't understand how nutrition affects the body. True, but there are societies that are vegetarian and have been for centuries. Apparently veggies are healthy! - You are a predator? I don't know you but I'm willing to bet it's been a while since you hunted down, killed, and ate an animal in t…
The Wikipedia page on the history of Vegetarianism[1] paints a rather different picture. There were historically pockets of vegetarians, namely in Greece and India, but quite restricted. Namely, no large cultural group in History is identified as vegetarian. As for being a predator, I have hunted, and it is a fact that most people who eat meat could hunt if in need. It's not rocket science. The fact that they don't h…
Yeah, take the average American meat eater and drop them into the woods to what... Starve to death shortly. They couldn't even farm or forage for edible plants.
Your post is ridiculous, and I say that as an American hunter with some knowledge of foraging and farming.