Mark in the Middle • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark in the Middle

#471

Post by washadjeffmad » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:15 PM UTC

washadjeffmad wrote: post #58

mensetmanusman wrote: post #38

Premise: Diversity is good. Diversity means diversity of ideas. Ergo, you will disagree vehemently with people, and this is a good thing under the framework of diversity. Do not confuse disagreeing with someone as that person being morally sub-human, and if you are able to do this your life will be more pleasant. Disagreement is a good thing, it is society’s mechanism for decision making in complex circumstances.

The lynchpin is that every four years, a handful of the most disagreeable people rile up the rest to place one of two bets out of many, and if anyone doesn't bet the exact same way as their riler, they might as well be betting for the other riler, which is an intolerable act. This is how the USA votes, and it's hard for people to separate what amounts to a behavior they must abide to 25% of their adult lives from the…

The orthodoxy of the downvotes has spoken louder than any comment, that I have voted, somehow, for the wrong riler.

We are become reddit.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#472

Post by throwaways885 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:22 PM UTC

isoprophlex wrote: post #274

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

Some opinions are toxic due to their memetic power, their ability to rapidly spread amongst a population whilst evading critical reflection. We're a global species. Technology made us become larger than the sum of our parts. It is our moral duty to police those opinions that are so polarizing, or so devoid of empathy, that they do harm. "Policing" can be milder than all out censorship. Personalized feed algorithms ca…

> our moral duty

Yes, but NOT by censorship, but with counterfactuals! And certainly not by a gigantic megacorporation like Facebook.

They are not the arbiters of speech and quite frankly it's too much to ask of them. And imo, anyone who is happy to be an arbiter of speech is somebody you should be very, very afraid of.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#473

Post by defen » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:23 PM UTC

jarpadat wrote: post #356

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

It's pretty simple, although it may not be obvious. There are 2 different views about "what freedom/democracy is" that are presently doing battle in america, at least among inteligentsia One, the worldview embedded into your comment, is that freedom is about the limits of discourse. Under this system, limiting discourse is inherently undemocratic, so if facebook "censor(s) things they disagree with" this is bad and w…

It seems like making Facebook a government regulated public utility is the only way to square this circle. Because otherwise we either unjustly infringe on Mark Zuckerberg's use of his private property (Facebook); or Mark Zuckerberg is the de-facto arbiter of global public opinion for a broad swath of the population.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#474

Post by throwaways885 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

sequoia wrote: post #278

To be honest I wish Zuckerberg would say "We're not censoring political posts, and if you don't like it, --> there's the door. Who's leaving first?" Facebook engineers may love to beat their chests about social justice, but when push comes to shove, they are not about to walk away from those gold plated salaries & stock grants. Most of them could leave FB and get another job paying somewhere in the ballpark of $200k…

Honestly, if Zuck pushed out the SJW types, I'd love to work there for half my current salary. He's showing solid leadership right now and just needs to go slightly further.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#475

Post by Pils » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

samatman wrote: post #462

Pils wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Determining how discourse occurs, its rules and the dividing line correct and incorrect speech is built in to the democratic process, not some holy "rules of the game" handed down by God. Your misguided understanding of "liberal consensus" is actually a fundamentally authoritarian position, a doctrinal decree about what can and cannot be discussed. The irony of course is that the "experiments with official truth in t…

So, without knowing anything about me, would you guess I'm pro-blacklist, or anti-blacklist? The Devil can indeed cite Scripture for his purposes.

> The Devil can indeed cite Scripture for his purposes.

My point exactly. Aphorisms such as "Liberal consensus" don't exist in a vacuum, and are often used as an excuse for intervention rather than a protection against intervention.

> So, without knowing anything about me, would you guess I'm pro-blacklist, or anti-blacklist?

Do you think the Trump administration should outlaw certain subjects from being taught, such as Critical Theory? You surely would agree that the stranglehold certain departments have on academic discourse makes free speech impossible, correct?

Re: Mark in the Middle

#476

Post by grawprog » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #410

NewOrderNow wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point of view is intrinsically liberal, and the latter point of view plays the victim and assumes people can't evolve to gain the intelligence needed to not fall for misinformation. You intrinsically think there are people who can't make decisions for themselves. Sounds like control

The absolute "freedom is simple, and restrictions are all bad" position is nonsense. Ignoring that there are people who would use their freedom to infringe on others is naive and childish. If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.

>If everyone has a gun, we aren't all safer, we're just all each at the mercy of whoever decides to pull the trigger first.

But isn't the basis behind MAD and the whole premise behind the continued existence of the world since nuclear weapons became a widespread thing, that, we're all safer having nukes instead of ridding the world of them, because if nobody had nukes, then someone would make one and use one?

I mean, i'm on the 'remove all nuclear weapons from existence' team myself but...

Re: Mark in the Middle

#477

Post by charlesu » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

yomly wrote: post #186

charlesu wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a lot of family who have views which would terrify liberals, but I know these people are also not evil but just have had their own life circumstances shape their views. Like what? What life experiences have shaped their views to make them terrifying to liberals? I'm genuinely curious because the people most likely to have actual lived experiences to support "views which would terrify liberals" are generally…

Growing up in very religious environments - like all of the Middle East? Growing up with a homophobic government and homophobic environment like Russia where it is the norm? Growing up in countries where there is a very hated "other" tribe like in Israel? Outside of the "developed" world a lot of non-liberal stances are very alive and practised. But should we condemn a vast fraction of these people who hold racist or…

What’s interesting to me is how selectively this kind of understanding is applied. Why is it that we default to this reasoning to explain hate but not, say, crime. Where’s this level of nuance where we discuss riots? Why does it apply in one case but not the other? Why do we get blame upbringing and society in one scenario and then default to hard nosed personal responsibility in another?

I find your argument convincing. I just don’t understand why looking at the context of an individual’s upbringing is acceptable when explaining why aunt Becky is racist but isn’t when explaining why Mohammed is angry.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#478

Post by _qulr » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

scsilver wrote: post #470

_qulr wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think thats an unfair, and frankly agist extrapolation. Is it ageist to point out that Facebook is ageist in its hiring and operations? Or that Facebook encourages its employees to be overly dependent on Facebook? What some would view as a "perk" — the company providing every meal — others would view as a downside. What if you prefer to be home and have meals with your family? "A major sell to candidates is our o…

I wasn't worried about facebook, mostly just commenting that its unfair to assume these individuals who creat 400k+ in value to their companies a year aren't able to cook for themselves if they have to because they are young. I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives. I dont really have an opinion about facebooks agism in their hiring. I just think you are making an unfounded assum…

> I think its more likely that they are taking advantage of economic incentives.

My question is, who is taking advantage of whom? As I said originally, "one may fairly ask whether Facebook's hiring process produced this result."

It seems like Facebook specifically targets people who are amenable to Facebook's "caretaker" benefits, and then encourages those people to become dependent on those benefits. If you work for Facebook, you may have the choice of "taking advantage" of those incentives, but most people outside of Facebook don't have the choice: they're forced to take care of themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because self-reliance is an important life skill. If short-term economic incentives prevent you from learning important life skills, this may actually be to your long-term disadvantage. I'm not sure Facebook is doing anyone any favors in this respect.

If you think about it, why would Facebook approach hiring and employment any different from how Facebook approaches everything else? The goal is ultimately to increase "engagement" with Facebook.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#479

Post by ThrowawayR2 » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:34 PM UTC

lalaland1125 wrote: post #161

actuator wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the way people like JK Rowling have been hounded for not agreeing on every point with some people is very depressing to see, considering that she has been quite supportive in the past of the very groups that are hounding her. Mob like behaviour to hound someone for their beliefs just reeks of illiberalism.

Do you think it would be "illiberal" to hound someone for believing that white people are inherently superior to black people? To keep things in context, JK Rowling has stated that she believes that biologically male people are inherently a danger to biologically female people. This is fundamentally the paradox of tolerance: is it intolerant to be hostile to intolerant beliefs? JK Rowling's essay explaining her stanc…

Like many, I have a problem with hounding people for any reason. That's mob justice, which is no justice at all.

Re: Mark in the Middle

#480

Post by yandrypozo » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #203

So, facebook employees are mad they're not allowed to censor things they disagree with that people post on facebook? I don't understand how facebook came to be responsible for policing political opinions anyway. In fact, I don't understand why employees at tech companies believe they have the right to police people's opinions period. I see it amongst commenters here too. What gives any of these people the right to po…

it's so refreshing reading your comment, I believe the same, looks like some people enjoy a hidden satisfaction doing that, on my opinion is the sensation of power to decide what's right or not (basically playing God) and as we know power corrupts people.