How to stay sane in a world that rewards insanity • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by array_key_first » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 3:56 PM UTC

GaryBluto wrote: post #276

array_key_first wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 manipulati…

What you perceive as 'Redditesque' is just a severe lack of conviction on your part. It's a kind of cowardice so powerful it can disguise itself as reasonableness.

Even when faced with villiany beyond belief, you cannot find the strength to condemn. Do you need see the poetic level of pathetic-ness in that?

You're allowed to just say 'these people suck'. Doing so doesn't make you anti-intellectual. You don't have to do backflips and contort your soul in unimaginable ways to defend people who do not deserve it.

> 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?

Kind of, I'm saying their perspective is either not genuine or does not matter.

Right, again, when people are defending actual pedophiles, we have to take a step back.

Why are they doing it? It's probably not genuine. It's for political reasons. They probably know, deep down, that this is bad. They do. But they ignore their true feelings and argue the opposite, because they want to win in some political sense. They are cowards to their own beliefs.

Also, I never said objectively. I said obviously.

You can argue diddling kids is not objectively bad. Whatever. But it's certainly obviously bad, at least to the human beings I have met.

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

#282

Post by MarkusQ » Sun, Nov 23, 2025, 8:22 PM UTC

array_key_first wrote: post #274

MarkusQ wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are two fallacies being discussed here:

1) The fallacy that averaging two wrong answers will somehow magically give you the correct answer.

2) The fallacy that the opposite of a wrong answer must be correct.

People who point out that partisans are committing the second fallacy are routinely accused (as you are doing here) of committing the first. This is a weaponized strategy which (somewhat ironically) employed by "both sides".

It is quite possible for A to be wrong, the "political opposite" of A to be wrong, and their "political average" to also be wrong. The correct answer, if any is to be found, may well be hiding outside of the framing that "both sides" have agreed to use. But anyone trying to point this out will be accused (again, by "both sides") of engaging in "both side ism" because it threatens their shared hegemony.

It's a stupid rhetorical trick, and adding more faux anger and swear words to your response isn't going to make me fall for it.

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

#283

Post by alextingle » Mon, Nov 24, 2025, 9:52 PM UTC

cheevly wrote: post #263

alextingle wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you give an example or two of this conflicting vocabulary?

Cages. Evil. Literally. Extremism. Greedy. Exploited. Healthy. Offensive.

Sorry, but that word list isn't very helpful. Perhaps it's because I'm not embedded in your US context.

Can you put them into sentences, or give some context? How are they interpreted differently by different people?

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

#284

Post by lkey » Mon, Dec 01, 2025, 4:04 PM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #104

lkey wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a daily experience of american life You people call you 'liberal as a slur' in real life out in the world? Regardless, projecting your narrow experiences onto 'american life' writ large is not a sound starting point for any conversation. It is the pairing of the term 'manufacturing consent' with "'liberal' as a slur" (from the left, not right) that evokes the genocide. One of the primary consents manufactured in th…

> You people call you 'liberal as a slur' in real life out in the world? I see it online... everyday? Especially if I go back to the places I used to enjoy but have had to learn to avoid. And yes, anytime I interact with friends' parents, people in my hometown, etc, it's pretty ubiquitously used as a slur. Occasionally ironically since we're a few years past peak mind-virus (I'd like to think), but, yes, all the time…

Late to noticing this reply, sorry!

Liberal/lib as a slur from a conservative means 'to the left of me' and yes, it's quite common.

Liberal as a slur from a leftist means something quite different. Prior to Trump, it would usually refer to 'third way' corporate neolibs like Clinton.

Now, it our current age, capitulation or cynical triangulation on corporate interests, Gaza, trans people, or the suffering of immigrants will earn you the slur from what I've seen. The Harris campaign did all 4, for example.

The reason I brought up Israel was the lengths the essay went to not say the issue at all. Of those four, only the genocide will get you fully burned in left leaning circles if you are caught 'both-sides'ing it. (Contrapoints is a notable public example of this). I'm assuming the author is savvy enough to know that too, given her stated history.