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

How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

richarddawkins.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 130 posts

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#41

Post by crazydoggers »

stakhanov wrote: post #38
crazydoggers wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ironic, and sad that this was so quickly flagged. It may be that, given something like 80-90% of humans on earth follow such religious institutions, we as a species have some genetic factors that make us intolerant of differing viewpoints. I can imagine such genetic factors could have played a role in social cohesion early in human evolution.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they'r…

> The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious.

It’s a fascinating realization. It reminds me of the religious history of the Soviet Union. The Soviets attempted to “delete” religion, which instead of creating a rational secular society, instead pushed people into pseudoscience, occultism and superstition.

It may be that in a culture pushed away from orthodox religions, due in many cases to those religions often actually engaging in hate against certain groups, a kind of replacement religious system takes hold.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#42

Post by [deleted] »

system7rocks wrote: post #13
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I just don't get this article. If I understand the article, people who don't "get this article" are the very sort he is describing. > Not criticize or complain about his dumb tweets? What in particular did he say that you find "dumb"?

Most tweets are dumb. They are a tweet. That website is a mess. I understand his article. He is bothered that he gets pushback and labeled all sorts of things because of what he writes. It happens. It's life. It's also not new. It's why so many religious/political people chose to create their own publications throughout history to not have to deal with editors/market forces. Is he incapable of stepping back and under…

[deleted]

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#43

Post by stakhanov »

crazydoggers wrote: post #41
stakhanov wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they'r…

> The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. It’s a fascinating realization. It reminds me of the religious history of the Soviet Union. The Soviets attempted to “delete” religion, which instead of creating a rational secular society, instead pushed people into pseudoscience, occultism and superstiti…

Yeah, it's weird how this particular social transformation has no sticking power and instead produces oscillations. Coming at it from the Christian perspective (since it's the only religion that I know anything about): Jesus himself is portrayed in the New Testament as a rebel against the religious orthodoxy at the time. This resulted in a religion which, itself, eventually turned into an orthodoxy worth opposing. And now, secular opposition to that orthodoxy is weirdly turning into an orthodoxy of its own.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#44

Post by operatingthetan »

stakhanov wrote: post #38
crazydoggers wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ironic, and sad that this was so quickly flagged. It may be that, given something like 80-90% of humans on earth follow such religious institutions, we as a species have some genetic factors that make us intolerant of differing viewpoints. I can imagine such genetic factors could have played a role in social cohesion early in human evolution.

Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they'r…

>The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself.

First this requires accepting an inaccurate definition of what a religion is, in other words you are mischaracterizing others beliefs. Second it seems like you are shooting your own religious position in the foot by dismissing your opponent's view 'just religion' as well. The rest is condescension.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#45

Post by TMWNN »

flir wrote: post #29
ryandv wrote: post #24

I am disappointed by the absolute paucity of reasoned discourse in this comment thread so far. All I have witnessed are lazy dismissals and thought-terminating cliches [0] without anyone actually engaging with the substance of the article. Recalling the HN guidelines: > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. I expect Dawkins has run into quite a bit of the same m…

> “Sarah Jane” Baker Speaking of words, why would “Professor” Dawkins do that? > This is rapidly becoming more and more difficult, as old words with a long history of usage such as "gender" are being appropriated to mean, and refer to, things quite different from the original senses and references of those terms. Like "chaos" in physics, "master" in computing, or, as you point out, "theory" in science as a whole. Wik…

[flagged]

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#46

Post by JellyBeanThief »

The fundamental problem Dawkins is struggling with is that he is asking for reasoned disagreement on Twitter, which is well-known for a desert of reason. If he truly desires thoughtful discussion, he needs to do it with real people in the real world.

And that's so obvious that I begin to wonder if he's sincere, or if he's just stirring up shit to capture people's attention.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#47

Post by h11h »

marcod wrote: post #33

I agree with a bunch of what's said at the beginning of this. Dialog is the way, cancelling is not. But then he started to lose me: > the biological fact that our sex is determined at conception by an X or a Y sperm. Ever heard of people who are intersex? Given the diversity of the human condition that some people are born feeling not like the sex of their body at birth does not seem far-fetched to me. > What I didn’…

I find it frustrating when people claim to be upholding science but then make simple, unscientific claims that suggest they actually have the minds of Greek philosophers.

Some women do have penises. Some men have XX chromosomes. Some women have XY chromosomes. Some people have XX and XY chromosomes. Science tells us that. This has nothing to do with transgender people. But it does suggest "sex" might not be as simple as a metaphysical binary.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#48

Post by klyrs »

ryandv wrote: post #37
klyrs wrote: post #36

> 1984’s Appendix lays out the principles of Newspeak, the nascent language of Orwell’s dark dystopia. Newspeak was designed to make unorthodox thoughts impossible. There would be no words to express them. > The Times (January 18) reported that “a transgender woman has denied raping two women with her penis”. If “with her penis” is not quite 2+2= 5, it’s getting close. 2+2= 4.5? It's so curious that Dawkins, of all p…

> It's so curious that Dawkins, of all people, seems to be complaining that unorthodox thought -- that is to say, a rejection of traditional religious doctrine -- is expressible in the English language. That's not what he's "complaining" about at all. In fact, quite the opposite - that certain political and/or religious groups are _making it impossible_ to express unorthodox opinions that run counter to their dogma a…

What religion do you refer to? Is it a major one? When you say catechism do you literally mean doctrine in the form of question-and-response dialogue that is memorized by adherents? Traditionally, "orthodoxy" refers to doctrine that is either religious tradition or generally accepted. But the acceptance of transgender people is still hotly contested worldwide, and a small minority of humans live in jurisdictions where it's even legal -- do words have meaning, or are you yourself "torturing the language" to reach conclusions that are unsupported by the facts presented?

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#49

Post by klyrs »

JellyBeanThief wrote: post #46

The fundamental problem Dawkins is struggling with is that he is asking for reasoned disagreement on Twitter, which is well-known for a desert of reason. If he truly desires thoughtful discussion, he needs to do it with real people in the real world. And that's so obvious that I begin to wonder if he's sincere, or if he's just stirring up shit to capture people's attention.

He's salty about getting demonetized on youtube. Which is a little ironic since transwomen's makeup tutorials are demonetized. Which is the horseshoe theory of advertising: if it ain't mainstream, don't put your brand on it.

Re: How can we have a proper debate when we no longer speak the same language?

#50

Post by JellyBeanThief »

itiro wrote: post #16
fsargent wrote: post #9

> But shouldn’t we just indulge the harmless whims of an oppressed minority? Maybe, were it not for a strain of aggressive bossiness which insists, not so very harmlessly and not sounding very oppressed, that the rest of us must humour those whims and join in. Goodness, what a whine. If you’re not a person who is directly confronted with this, why are you throwing yourself into this debate? The only reason to enforce…

Why did you invoke gender? The quote is generic enough to my reading it could mean any one of various mathematical minorities. Do we all join in with Trump flag waving caravans of F150s? They were a whiny minority recently.

Only when you take the quote out of context. For the majority of the article he focuses on gender. And in the very same paragraph as that quote comes from he invokes J.K. Rowling. It is entirely reasonable to assume that transgender people are "the oppressed minority" he's specifically talking about.
Post reply on HN