Live data from Hacker News

They Thought They Were Free (1955)

press.uchicago.edu

361–370 of 545 posts

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#361
post #72
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First they came for those who thought the sky was pulsating green, but I did not speak out for I did not dare to question the blue sky narrative. Then they came for those who thought the earth was flat, but I did not speak out for I did not dare to question the round earth narrative. Then they came for those who thought the internet was carried by little elves, but I did not speak out for I did not dare to question t…

But, key difference, the people pushing green sky or flat earth narrative don't get deplatformed, fired, yelled at or called Nazis. I still haven't seen anyone attempt to do a cost-benefit on whether the COVID lockdowns were a net good. I do note we had a big social and economic disjunction and since then it has been pretty much nothing but war and trouble. The part where they were shutting up people with PhDs on You…

> I still haven't seen anyone attempt to do a cost-benefit on whether the COVID lockdowns were a net good

This really exposes your own lack of curiosity more than anything. There are, of course, dozens of published papers on exactly this question which arrive at highly variable conclusions.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US totally blew it in Afghanistan and its well-documented how most of the initiatives there failed due to corruption and mismanagement.

The underlying theory that the GP is getting at is that Japan and Germany were easy to rebuild because they had existing institutions and a society that trusted institutions. The idea is that it is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy; germany and Japan will "remember" how to be civilized, but under different leadership, Afghanistan and Iraq cannot revert to that. It leans heavily on assumptions about countries and ins…

It's true to an extent, but its not what happened in Afghanistan.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#363
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From June 4, 1940 to June 22, 1941 Britain faced Hitler alone.

I'm not saying they didn't. But Britain didn't defeat Germany alone, and certainly didn't get the entire share of control after Germany was defeated. And after that the further decline of the UK showed that the power was shifting into the hands of those with wealth anyway, and here we are. Since around Nixon (maybe?) there has been a gradual post-WW2 deregulation that really accelerated under Reagan and now with Trum…

[deleted]

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#364
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I grew up with this belief that for all their loud, obnoxious quirks and faults, Americans do not fuck around when it comes to their principles of liberty and freedom. This is exactly the problem. Americans see their own country as perfect example of freedom and liberty, and the idea that they might be wrong never crosses their minds. When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile…

> When you try to explain to them that their culture has elements actively hostile to personal freedom, you get a syntax error at best. Alright, I'll bite. Mind elaborating more? As a follow up question, are you talking more about positive or negative freedoms? I e. freedom-to vs freedom-from?

Thank you for illustrating my point. I dedicated entire following paragraph to explaining that you're not free if exercising your lawful freedom costs you your job, but you didn't even read it. It's not that you didn't understand it, you didn't even read it. Literal syntax error.

To answer your follow-up question: I understand "freedom" as "freedom to". This trivially includes "freedom from" through "freedom to choose not to participate in something".

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entire books you say.

Yes, even ones that are expressly critical of the policies. In Covid's Wake is a rather famous recent example. The authors are both professors at a prestigious university. They were interviewed by all sorts of outlets, including left leaning outlets. The idea that doing a cost-benefit analysis of various covid policies would get academics expelled from the academy is just not based in fact.

My first criticism is the unity of popular opinion. (Ironic, yes). I see this majority, holding the exact same opinion, offering the exact same arguments in support of that opinion, implementing that opinion in exactly the same way. In lockstep.

There's a definite lack of natural chaos.

That's fishy. That reeks of a finely crafted propaganda campaign.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#366
post #99

The problem is that essays like this are always written, preserved and propagated with the benefit of hindsight, producing the mistaken feeling that an actionable lesson is contained within. "A bad thing happened. We had been a little uneasy, but did not act on it. Well, of course it was hard to act on mere unease. Still, if only we had acted on it sooner...". And thus, what we take away is a simple lesson and call t…

> Receiving decisions deliberated in secret"? "Believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand"? "or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security"? "Demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or…

There's little point in retreading all the old arguments about COVID here (whose mind is going to be changed at this point?), but just to illustrate the sort of things I am talking about, there was the early whiplash in government messaging about mask-wearing[1], where the relevant officials outright stated after the fact that they were issuing instructions that were at least deliberately vague about the motivations in order to further an interest (prioritising supply for medical professionals) that was not communicated to the public; and the argumentative contortions[2] to exempt certain classes of political protest from the restrictions that were imposed on everything else.

I'm sure that if you were tapped into certain strands of "the conversation" on Twitter at the time, you did not feel like any of these decisions were made behind your back for inscrutable reasons! I'm also sure that all the way from 1918 through to 1945, there were certain strata of society that were looped into the decision making and never once got the feeling that they were being governed "by surprise". In neither of those situations was this the case for the majority of the affected population, though, and appealing to your own rarefied status as a "scientist" hardly helps the argument that your own experience is any evidence that government during COVID happened by consent.

> Was COVID something new? Yes. It killed a million people in the US because it was new. Is that similar to Nazi Germany's fear of the threat of Jews? To Nazi Germany's sudden decision to invade Poland? Why is COVID your touchpoint of something similar to that, and not something like 9/11, which killed far fewer people, but was enough to send the country to war, with lots of deliberations in secret and secret evidence that proved to be faked?

Editing to replace a section here, because I was unhappy with the (lack of) clarity in my original text. I am not just meaning to make a two-way comparison between COVID and one or another of the German periods. We are looking at four distinct situations here:

(1) The Weimar interbellum (1918~1936). Well-meaning people were beset by a creeping unease over instability and communism (which by 1933 had already killed on the order of ten times your COVID figure). They chose to act on it by enabling Hitler's rise to power.

(2) The Nazi era (1936~). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Their claim to legitimacy is ultimately rooted in the threat of communism, which is very dangerous, but the connection to many measures they take is tenuous (though "understood" by some set of people "in the know"). Well-meaning people were beset by creeping unease, but they did not act upon it. Bad outcomes.

(3) The COVID period (2019~2023?). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Their claim to legitimacy is ultimately rooted in the threat of COVID, which is very dangerous, but the connection to many measures they take is tenuous (though "understood" by some set of people "in the know"). Well-meaning people were beset by creeping unease. They chose to act on it by enabling Trump's rise to power.

(4) Trump II (2025~). One group of people in power pushes through unprecedented oppressive policies. Well-meaning people are beset by creeping unease. (What's next?)

Looking at the first three cases where outcomes are known, do you actually see some pattern that looks like it'd yield a good rule for when unease should be acted upon by well-meaning people? Given these examples and your alignment of course you would be tempted to say "when they are left-wing", but it's not like we can't find relatively left-coded examples similar to (1), or right-coded examples similar to (2). I would go looking to spin a narrative around the French Revolution, or the two phases of the Russian Revolution (which might well be parseable as a case of left action against the Empire, followed by a case of right inaction against the Bolsheviks), but this would require some more research to do at a reasonable level of quality.

> But I suspect that there are many people like you, and it scares the hell out of me.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I am not American or in the US anymore (though I spent many years there as a PhD student, including through the COVID years).

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-mask-advice-was-becaus...

[2] https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/04/public-hea...

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You suspect wrong. I did not see an actual screenshot or direct quote of his post, and don't like relying on other people's descriptions of what people they don't like said. What's described is "the party I don't like should vote by text message", which as I said is fundamentally the same as that long-standing known joke.

> For example, on November 1, 2016, in or around the same time that Mackey was sending tweets suggesting the importance of limiting “black turnout,” the defendant tweeted an image depicting an African American woman standing in front of an “African Americans for Hillary” sign. The ad stated: “Avoid the Line. Vote from Home,” “Text ‘Hillary’ to 59925,” and “Vote for Hillary and be a part of history.” The fine print at…

[dead]

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Allies defeated Germany, not the British.

It turns out that the British were one of the allies and about 380,000 of them died fighting the Nazis, so they have a good claim to having defeated Germany, with help from their friends.

If we're going by those numbers, Germany was defeated by the USSR, and the British were the friends who helped.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#369
post #72
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First they came for those who thought the sky was pulsating green, but I did not speak out for I did not dare to question the blue sky narrative. Then they came for those who thought the earth was flat, but I did not speak out for I did not dare to question the round earth narrative. Then they came for those who thought the internet was carried by little elves, but I did not speak out for I did not dare to question t…

But, key difference, the people pushing green sky or flat earth narrative don't get deplatformed, fired, yelled at or called Nazis. I still haven't seen anyone attempt to do a cost-benefit on whether the COVID lockdowns were a net good. I do note we had a big social and economic disjunction and since then it has been pretty much nothing but war and trouble. The part where they were shutting up people with PhDs on You…

> But, key difference, the people pushing green sky or flat earth narrative don't get deplatformed, fired, yelled at or called Nazis.

They would if they had political power and were using it in support of these narratives.

Re: They Thought They Were Free (1955)

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, even ones that are expressly critical of the policies. In Covid's Wake is a rather famous recent example. The authors are both professors at a prestigious university. They were interviewed by all sorts of outlets, including left leaning outlets. The idea that doing a cost-benefit analysis of various covid policies would get academics expelled from the academy is just not based in fact.

My first criticism is the unity of popular opinion. (Ironic, yes). I see this majority, holding the exact same opinion, offering the exact same arguments in support of that opinion, implementing that opinion in exactly the same way. In lockstep. There's a definite lack of natural chaos. That's fishy. That reeks of a finely crafted propaganda campaign.

I don't. I see lots of arguments. You're engaging in one right now. COVID arguing was Reddit's most popular subreddit, back before Reddit was an AI slopfest.

Is it possible that the majority opinion is the correct one and the majority arguments are the reasons why it's correct? I mean, that's how it works with the blue sky, round earth, and fiber optic internet narratives.

Post reply on HN