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

What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

meghanboilard.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–416 of 416 posts

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#411

Post by hnfong »

giaour wrote: post #409
hnfong wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your reasoning everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying.

We do in fact require more than a report before meting out punishments. Whether that means "everyone who reports a crime should be presumed to be lying" or "everyone accused of a crime should be presumed to be innocent" is a matter of how you want to spin it.

There's a material difference between a public, open forum and a court that can mete out punishments. Though people tend to confuse the two these days.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#412

Post by bslorence »

woodruffw wrote: post #134
cnasc wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States used to have a strong union culture in various industries, which has been worn down tremendously over the past century. Throughout that time many people in various places on the left end of the political spectrum have expressed their concern about that change. Is that conservatism?

> Is that conservatism? No, because it doesn't rest on the fundamental assumption that the past was right , nor the corresponding political will to return to "the way things were." History is a record of advances and regressions. Referencing history does not fundamentally result in a conservative political outlook; what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that th…

This is an interesting take on conservatism. I suppose it must be a fairly common take among people who consider themselves progressive, and helps makes sense of some things I've observed recently.

I consider myself generally conservative but would sum up my outlook more along the lines of "change isn't necessarily/automatically good" than "the past was right". Chesterton's Fence etc.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#413

Post by woodruffw »

bslorence wrote: post #412
woodruffw wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is that conservatism? No, because it doesn't rest on the fundamental assumption that the past was right , nor the corresponding political will to return to "the way things were." History is a record of advances and regressions. Referencing history does not fundamentally result in a conservative political outlook; what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that th…

This is an interesting take on conservatism. I suppose it must be a fairly common take among people who consider themselves progressive, and helps makes sense of some things I've observed recently. I consider myself generally conservative but would sum up my outlook more along the lines of "change isn't necessarily/automatically good" than "the past was right". Chesterton's Fence etc.

Nobody thinks that change is inherently good. Change is a product of time, not a moral dimension.

I don't consider myself a progressive per se, but I think their framing would be something like this: change, if not good in itself, frequently begets opportunities to make things better.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#414

Post by bslorence »

woodruffw wrote: post #413
bslorence wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting take on conservatism. I suppose it must be a fairly common take among people who consider themselves progressive, and helps makes sense of some things I've observed recently. I consider myself generally conservative but would sum up my outlook more along the lines of "change isn't necessarily/automatically good" than "the past was right". Chesterton's Fence etc.

Nobody thinks that change is inherently good. Change is a product of time, not a moral dimension. I don't consider myself a progressive per se, but I think their framing would be something like this: change, if not good in itself, frequently begets opportunities to make things better.

Similarly I would doubt that anyone actually thinks that the past was good simply because it came before the present. The desire to return to "the way things were" is born of a critique of specific aspects of "the way things are", combined with a sense that tradition is likely to embody hard-earned wisdom that may not be immediately apparent or perfectly defensible by abstract argument.

Re: What the Hell Is Up with Dilbert?

#415

Post by helf »

rootbear wrote: post #169
helf wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I am a boomer. My brain is fine. Please do not make unsubstantiated generalizations about an entire, highly diverse cohort.

I’m sure the other 60 million of you feel the same way.

Sarcasm aside, I take your point on gross generalizations and I’ll refrain from it in the future in my comments ;)

Post reply on HN