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

The SQLite Code of Ethics

sqlite.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 408 posts

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#301

Post by adamrezich »

teakettle42 wrote: post #254
somehnguy wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's something about your line of commenting that just strikes me as dishonest and to be completely honest, kind of gross. I can't quite put my finger on why I feel that way about it though. Maybe the air of superiority that comes though, like you're talking down - 'so entitled, I however would never feel such a thing'. I dunno. Just thought I would say my thoughts out loud, take it as you will.

Frankly I thought the opposite. It was a cogent breakdown of the flawed reasoning upon which then original author’s premise lies.

thank you—it's disappointing that trying to get people to articulate why they feel a certain way about something is met with such pushback. the parent comment to yours is especially baffling—I can't imagine publicly telling someone that what they've written is "gross" without being able to directly explain why, because that just seems unjustly offensive to me. as an amateur Internet ethnographer I have theories about the pathology of course, but there's no point in sharing them here.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#302

Post by doctor_eval »

edgyquant wrote: post #286
doctor_eval wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about labels. Speech that singles other people or groups out for different treatment or is otherwise racist, sexist, etc is intolerant. In a just society, we simply ask that one makes one's point without throwing specific groups under the proverbial bus.

This is a misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=31889018

Really?

> Popper was talking about a very specific case, where the intolerant exploit the tolerance of a society to physically take over that society and enforce their views. Until and unless you have evidence of that plausibly happening, there is no Paradox of Tolerance.

Considering what the USA is going through right now... well, I just have no words.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#303

Post by lsh123 »

KMag wrote: post #268
lsh123 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I wouldn't say National Socialism was purely left. It was economically extremely left-leaning and most of their social policies were extremely right-leaning. (Though, racism knows no political bounds... Stalin also practiced genocidal policies.) It's true that Hitler thought the US's free market economy was a Jewish ideal, and he thought the economic free market incentives (in the form of huge government contracts) w…

[flagged]

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#304

Post by toomim »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #300
logifail wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a set of beliefs The elephant in the room in many current attempts to encourage "diversity" is that a genuinely diverse range of opinions and/or beliefs ends up being not welcome at all.

Let’s be blunt, when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot. Of course nobody says that so directly- they use dog whistles so that people who are being attacked know to leave while the bigots retain a veinier of civility so they can radicalize others by saying “look how hostile and irrational that group got over my innocuous sounding sta…

That's not my experience at all.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#305

Post by woodruffw »

rayiner wrote: post #297
woodruffw wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misquotation. The entire quotation from Open Society is: > But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of…

The whole paragraph makes it even clearer that he’s talking about people who would shut down free debate, starting with “denouncing all argument.” He’s actually talking about how progressives are today—ranging from declaring some topics beyond debate to “punch a Nazi.”

I think this is the paradox's greatest weakness: whataboutism :-)

Karl Popper is not talking about today's progressives, because he died in 1994. The closest extension we can reasonably draw does not include them either, because Popper exclusively identified totalitarian ideologies with reactionary beliefs[1].

It's very easy to use the PoT as a blunt weapon, and there are some embarrassing applications of it on the political left. But none are quite as embarrassing as suggesting that Popper might seriously entertain "free debate" with a Nazi.

[1]: https://iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#306

Post by moreira »

tootie wrote: post #226
verytrivial wrote: post #222

This sort of thing used to annoy me in my youth. But there is a lot of good stuff in there. These are directions on how YOU should live your life, so strike out as appropriate. SQLite is great and if pondering these rules helped, only a fool would avoid pondering them out of spite.

But they could just strike all the ones that mention god and hell and not lost anything of value. I also think the morality only rings true if you were raised in a Christian dominated society. No one living in the real world can afford to love their enemies. That's what people in monasteries can say but not ones who are responsible for protecting people.

> No one living in the real world can afford to love their enemies.

I’m reminded of a passage in Great Expectations that helped me understand exactly just what this means:

> "so you're the blacksmith, are you? Then I'm sorry to say, I've eat your pie."

> "God knows you're welcome to it, so far as it was ever mine," […] "We don't know what you have done, but we wouldn't have you starved to death for it, poor miserable fellow-creatur.”

Here’s a guy, an escaped convict, who stole from them, and yet, he’s still being treated decently, and with respect.

I might be way off base, but I feel like that’s what it’s about.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#307

Post by joannanewsom »

rebeccaskinner wrote: post #300
logifail wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a set of beliefs The elephant in the room in many current attempts to encourage "diversity" is that a genuinely diverse range of opinions and/or beliefs ends up being not welcome at all.

Let’s be blunt, when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot. Of course nobody says that so directly- they use dog whistles so that people who are being attacked know to leave while the bigots retain a veinier of civility so they can radicalize others by saying “look how hostile and irrational that group got over my innocuous sounding sta…

"And so when I hear, for example, folks on college campuses saying, “We’re not going to allow somebody to speak on our campus because we disagree with their ideas or we feel threatened by their ideas,” I think that’s a recipe for dogmatism and I think you’re not going to be as effective."

- President Obama, complaining he can't be a bigot.

https://www.thefire.org/obamas-abc-news-interview-transcript...

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#308

Post by rebeccaskinner »

toomim wrote: post #304
rebeccaskinner wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s be blunt, when people complain about lack of a diversity of thought/opinion, it’s almost always a complaint that they can’t be a bigot. Of course nobody says that so directly- they use dog whistles so that people who are being attacked know to leave while the bigots retain a veinier of civility so they can radicalize others by saying “look how hostile and irrational that group got over my innocuous sounding sta…

That's not my experience at all.

What experiences do you have to the contrary? I’ve moderated a few community spaces and this has been the way it’s gone every single time it’s come up for me.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#309

Post by rayiner »

woodruffw wrote: post #305
rayiner wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole paragraph makes it even clearer that he’s talking about people who would shut down free debate, starting with “denouncing all argument.” He’s actually talking about how progressives are today—ranging from declaring some topics beyond debate to “punch a Nazi.”

I think this is the paradox's greatest weakness: whataboutism :-) Karl Popper is not talking about today's progressives, because he died in 1994. The closest extension we can reasonably draw does not include them either, because Popper exclusively identified totalitarian ideologies with reactionary beliefs[1]. It's very easy to use the PoT as a blunt weapon, and there are some embarrassing applications of it on the p…

I didn’t say he was talking about progressives today, I said what he talked about is applicable to progressives today. When Popper uses the word “tolerance” he’s talking specifically about people who don’t tolerate a free society with free debate, not people who express intolerant views. For example, the Trump voter who is intolerant of immigrants isn’t “denouncing all argument” about immigration. It’s progressives who do that.

I didn’t say Popper would entertain free debate with a Nazi. My point is that, under Popper’s framework, there’s a huge incentive to declare anyone you don’t like to be Nazis, and reframe speech as tantamount to threats to physical safety.

Re: The SQLite Code of Ethics

#310

Post by dragonwriter »

Banana699 wrote: post #236
fooey wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paradox of Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance > The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

Ah shit here we go again. Popper's Paradox of Tolerance is widely misunderstood to be a licence to be intolerant yourself. For the last time : it is not. Popper was talking about a very specific case, where the intolerant exploit the tolerance of a society to physically take over that society and enforce their views. Until and unless you have evidence of that plausibly happening, there is no Paradox of Tolerance. You…

> Popper was talking about a very specific case, where the intolerant exploit the tolerance of a society to physically take over that society and enforce their views.

Where they pose a danger of it.

If you let them do it before reacting, you've already lost, and that's the point.

Anyhow, it's not widely misunderstood, AFAICT, since when it is invoked it is invariably with the strong implication, and usually the explicit statement, that that is the threat being addressed. You might at times question the judgement behind the assessment of the risk, but that's not a misunderstanding of the paradox of tolerance.

Post reply on HN