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

Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

chronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 56 posts

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#41

Post by drivingmenuts »

yters wrote: post #32
chickenfries wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the genocide journals or conferences?

Plenty of environmentalists recommend drastic decrease in the earth's population. Hence widespread push for abortion and contraception in third world countries with booming populations. Since I'm rate limited for my controversial posts, responses to comments are here: It's politically incorrect for Western nations to push for mandatory abortion and sterilization. So, instead they adopt softer means of "legalization"…

I'm going to call [citation needed] on that claim, at least in the way it seems to be written.

Are the environmentalists' calling for active measures of abortion and forced contraception, or are they just pushing for them to be legal?

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#42

Post by CaptainZapp »

motohagiography wrote: post #21
CaptainZapp wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the same thing. Economist articles, with the exception of special reports and the farewell article by the editor in chief, are not bylined . The reason being that the newspaper wants to speak with one voice. In addition, and being certified and proud opinion journalism, I wouldn't exactly call TE uncontroversial. Not having a byline is very fundamentally different than writing under pseudonym.

The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference. How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to? Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.

How would you describe the difference as fundamental?

I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest, political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single publication.

Is it of who a reader has recourse to?

The editors of The Economist are not unknown entities. Each section has its editors known by the paper, the only thing being that their articles are not bylined.

The journalists may not be known to you, but they're absolutely not anonymous and you have every recourse towards the paper and by extension towards the responsible editor.

As a matter of fact they're quite good in printing corrections or publishing letters to the editor by an offended party.

Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.

Ahem, I introduce evidence #1 [1]

In a cover story they made a forceful argument for Gay marriage.

That was in 1996.

I, for one, wouldn't exactly call that a mainstream opinion in January 1996.

As a matter of fact this is pretty much the definition for provocative and brave.

[1] https://www.economist.com/node/2515389/print?story_id=251538...

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#43

Post by rhspeer »

tptacek wrote: post #33
rhspeer wrote: post #28

This is necessary. Yes there will be ideas discussed at the quality of eugenics. However, there may also be ideas like the earth orbiting the sun. Example topics that should cause too much controversy for open discussion are: * The Palestinian apartheid * How Carolyn Bryand Donham fits into the #metoo movement * Supply side economics is the root cause of Facism * How long should a peaceful protests be ignored before…

Almost none of these bullets describe ideas that are going to be discussed in this journal. They're just random inflammatory political topics.

Correct, they are exactly random inflammatory topics.

So what examples would you suggest?

The examples from the post were: * Euthanizing disabled babies * The positive side of colonization * Choosing ones race like one chooses ones own gender identity

Those also seem to have a political bent.

Also to be clear not advocating for or against any of these ideas, some of them make me VERY uncomfortable even thinking about.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#44

Post by chickenfries »

yters wrote: post #32
chickenfries wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are the genocide journals or conferences?

Plenty of environmentalists recommend drastic decrease in the earth's population. Hence widespread push for abortion and contraception in third world countries with booming populations. Since I'm rate limited for my controversial posts, responses to comments are here: It's politically incorrect for Western nations to push for mandatory abortion and sterilization. So, instead they adopt softer means of "legalization"…

You just said that these “ideas” are mainstream but you admit your interpretation of them is controversial. I agree that interpreting contraception and abortion as genocide is controversial. I don’t think even the Catholic Church thinks that.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#45

Post by [deleted] »

rmtech wrote: post #25
542458 wrote: post #5

I’d be more than a little concerned that this will turn into the “journal of not considering confounds around race/gender” and/or the “journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago”. There are certainly parts of certain fields that suffer from too much groupthink or trend chasing, but I feel that this is putting the cart before the horse: ideas don’t gain merit because they’re controversial, they…

> journal of old eugenics ideas that were already rejected years ago Why were such ideas rejected? Is there a scientific case for rejecting them? Science is an ongoing process, there is no central authority to reject sinful ideas which is what your comment indicates that you would like, which underlines the need for such a journal.

[deleted]

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#46

Post by asianthrowaway »

monk22 wrote: post #39
asianthrowaway wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)

look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passing_of_the_Great_Race the argument is based on pseudo-science saying the "nordic" race is superior therefore killing babies of every other race is ok

That book is about the application of eugenic policies to spread the nordic race, which the author alleges is superior to other races. I agree that it is pseudoscientific in regard to its theories of racial superiority, but it does not refute the validity of eugenics as a scientific practice.

In fact, you may not realize it, but most western countries already implement eugenic policies. For instance, in my country, most fetuses which are identified as suffering from Down syndrome are aborted, and that practice is encouraged by doctors. This has led to a significant decrease in the number of people affected with that condition. You may not think of it this way, but that is a form of eugenics.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#47

Post by motohagiography »

CaptainZapp wrote: post #42
motohagiography wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distinction would be interesting. The controversial journal is the single voice in this case, and the question of whether the pseudonyms are anonymous, or linkable by the editors to a real identity is the difference. How would you describe the difference as fundamental? Is it of who a reader has recourse to? Separately, TE isn't exactly provocative or brave.

How would you describe the difference as fundamental? I don't think you can really compare a journal, which solicits articles from third parties (even if they're controversial) with a general interest, political, economics, arts, news and lifestyle newspaper, which is published by a number of salaried editors and an editorial board hired by a single publication. Is it of who a reader has recourse to? The editors of T…

22 years ago, TE was brave, because at that time transgression against middle class values was a big part of the elite they represented. The cultural obligation for the privileged to voice principled dissent is no longer a thing. We buried it with Christopher Hitchens.

TE is a group of editors who assign to a large pool of contributors, many of whom are freelancers. Not unlike the controversy journal, which will also publish third party material without direct individual attribution.

I would argue the controversy journal allowing pseudonyms for writers is exactly the same as non-bylined articles.

Of the values of the last decade that are now held above public criticism, I doubt TE has issued a compelling challenge to any of them, discretion being the better part of valour these days.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#48

Post by otakucode »

asianthrowaway wrote: post #23
otakucode wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it always does, it will boil down to how rigorous they are about the science. Eugenics fails not because it's controversial or immoral but because it's wrong and is based upon fundamental misunderstandings of how DNA works. There are certainly types of research that will benefit from being able to be published without worrying about committing career suicide. Several years ago a relatively new sex researchers did…

How is eugenics wrong (in the scientific sense, not the moral sense)? It seems to work pretty well with plants and some animals (dogs, horses, etc.)

Does it, now? How are the hips on that 'perfect' golden retriever?

To be more detailed, genes are not single-purpose. The same gene which confers a 'strength' is almost guaranteed to also confer a 'weakness'. Often this weakness is not even evident until an environmental change occurs, at which point the species with the greatest genetic diversity will survive while the one 'optimized' for the prior conditions will die off. Belief in eugenics requires some very particular things, such as, say, physical strength being completely unrelated genetically to metabolic function - which it's not. This doesn't even account for the multitude of things which, if we were to seek to genetically 'optimize' people, we would be inadvertently optimizing or eliminating. Plainly put, eugenics is bad science and a bad idea rooted in ignorance and, most dangerously, a willingness to take shortcuts with scientific rigor that substitute intuition for actual knowledge.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#49

Post by rgrieselhuber »

monk22 wrote: post #35
opwieurposiu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your comment wonderfully demonstrates the utility of publishing under a pseudonym. Rather then confront the actual merits and problems with this or that specific argument, a straw man is contructed and immediately doused with ad hominem. If the writer is anonymous, fallacious and time wasting ad hominem reasoning is prevented.

yah conflating Singer's ideas with imperialism and eugenics is just silly. Arguing about the person-hood of disabled babies is not the same as killing babies of other races because of some pseudo-science white supremacy bullshit

If you don’t see the similarity, I don’t know what to tell you. The thing they have in common is arguing against personhood.

Re: Here Comes ‘The Journal of Controversial Ideas’

#50

Post by s3r3nity »

giantsloth wrote: post #19
s3r3nity wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to mention a similar comment. Ultimately, I think the success will be determined by the fact (hypothesis?) that if you de-center the author's authority from the argument about the validity of an argument or idea, you can instead re-center to something more foundational and logical. i.e. actually discussing the idea itself, rather than name-calling and mud-slinging as a form of discourse ("This person is a…

I’m not worried about the fictitious and overblown “SJW” strawman youtube has lead everyone to believe are everywhere. I’m worried about corporate interests, ideologues, and charlatans publishing biased nonsense and making the world even more crowded with bad information without any recourse or ability to investigate what the motives behind the papers may have been.

But this just leads back to my original point - the motives or authority of the speaker for an idea should have little weight into whether or not it's valid or sound. If there is bad information or a biased approach, that would be easy to root out when focused on the facts and logic in a vacuum.

Editorializing or investigation into possible motives and the like puts the discussion on something that is not as important.

Post reply on HN