How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick • Hacker News Board

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#51

Post by HeyWolfey » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:16 PM UTC

ninkendo wrote: post #28

HeyWolfey wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only you can stop the very dangerous people! Consider the fact that you are a byproduct of the endless programming and propaganda behind the War on Terror. If you have no doubts on that subject, YOU are wrong.

So, I'm endlessly programmed, therefore nazis are good? You can critique the way we acquire information and use that to cast doubt on conclusions. But you definitely can not use those criticisms to add validity to any conclusions either. So I don't see how this world view does anybody any good. At some point, you see nazis, you say "those are bad", and you just know you're right about it. In that sense, morals are a…

They are bad because you were told for decades they are bad.

The fact I even have to explain that is confirmation at how complete the indoctrination is.

Are you seriously attempting to take a morally absolutist position, as if showing an image of a Nazi to aliens would automatically make them recoil in horror as if that particular combination of attire and behavior managed to stumble upon some absolute fixed point of sensory perception? You can't be serious. How long have you been seven years old?

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#52

Post by psyc » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:17 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #49

psyc wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Life is complicated and nobody wants to believe it. I suppose you might call it the infantilism of society. There is deep infantilism in the culture, in terms of the way they think, they can’t bear complexity. That you have to think, that there are gradations, nobody wants that. They want to be told, or they want to say: ‘This is good, this is bad’. Anything that in any way undermines that is not to be borne." - Ste…

I goal of killing and mistreating people of other races is morally wrong. You may mock me as someone who cant bear complexity for that, but that is just that - attempt to make me feel ashamed so that they have it easier.

I agree with you! But you've cherry-picked an issue that the majority of HN users agree with, so...

In this case, I would say that the nuance lies not in whether it is good or bad, but in understanding the constellation of factors that would lead someone to hold the objectionable viewpoint. Reducing the issue down to the question of whether it's good or bad is itself the simplistic mentality that Fry was very explicitly criticizing.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#53

Post by lemagedurage » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:31 PM UTC

shaki-dora wrote: post #48

lemagedurage wrote: post #40

"And death threats (and trolling, and weird online gender-flavoured violence) are not just deeply unpleasant, they’re CRIMES. If you do this, you are breaking the law AND being a shit human being, and you should either stop or walk yourself into the sun." Death threats towards people that use death threats, really? I don't like the article. Some people are more knowledgeable on a topic than others, "if you aren't in…

The article makes the point, quite explicitly, that you should not even call a vast conspiracy a “vast conspiracy”. Not because it’s “not PC”, but simply because people on the receiving end of such diatribes have come to associate certain terms with cranks. You can disregard such advise, and simply launch more and more over-the-top screeches against the MSM trying to silence you. But you’re not going to change any mi…

What about using evidence instead of manipulating your point in order to convince people?

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#54

Post by psyc » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:37 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #15

exabrial wrote: post #4

All of these are extremely important! Two life skills: * If you are without a doubt, you are wrong If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. * Words matter As my grandma said, "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all."

I am without a doubt that white nationalists and Nazis are wrong. Am I supposed to question myself here? Supposed to assume I'm wrong? Your line of thinking is very dangerous and not safe, it enables very bad people by making good people assume they are terrible people themselves.

"Seek not to understand the mind of your opponent, lest your own soldiers die." - Definitely Not Sun Tzu

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#55

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:44 PM UTC

lemagedurage wrote: post #40

"And death threats (and trolling, and weird online gender-flavoured violence) are not just deeply unpleasant, they’re CRIMES. If you do this, you are breaking the law AND being a shit human being, and you should either stop or walk yourself into the sun." Death threats towards people that use death threats, really? I don't like the article. Some people are more knowledgeable on a topic than others, "if you aren't in…

[deleted]

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#56

Post by shaki-dora » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:45 PM UTC

lemagedurage wrote: post #53

shaki-dora wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article makes the point, quite explicitly, that you should not even call a vast conspiracy a “vast conspiracy”. Not because it’s “not PC”, but simply because people on the receiving end of such diatribes have come to associate certain terms with cranks. You can disregard such advise, and simply launch more and more over-the-top screeches against the MSM trying to silence you. But you’re not going to change any mi…

What about using evidence instead of manipulating your point in order to convince people?

Yes, it would be great to live in a world where everyone would judge everything on its merits alone, like you do.

Unfortunately, we don’t. Which is why we still put on pants for interviews, write in full sentences, and occasionally waste oxygen being nicer to others than warranted by the cold hard facts alone.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#57

Post by watwut » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #52

watwut wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I goal of killing and mistreating people of other races is morally wrong. You may mock me as someone who cant bear complexity for that, but that is just that - attempt to make me feel ashamed so that they have it easier.

I agree with you! But you've cherry-picked an issue that the majority of HN users agree with, so... In this case, I would say that the nuance lies not in whether it is good or bad, but in understanding the constellation of factors that would lead someone to hold the objectionable viewpoint. Reducing the issue down to the question of whether it's good or bad is itself the simplistic mentality that Fry was very explici…

I cherry picked issue whole thread started with. That is not cherry picking, that is staying on topic.

There are plenty of reasons why one would be nazi. One is fear, other ressentment yet other that you was raised that way by parents. And yet others grown to be cruel, aggresive and sadistic and nazism makes them feel like it is good thing.

However, being clear on whether it is good or bad or even dangerous and what is cost of they get their way is practically speaking super important. Understanding that is more important then understanding poor them and having emphaty toward them. Otherwise they will use you emphaty to convert you to their case, bit by bit. It is not simplistic, it is values that you need to keep in mind lest you lose the lm.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#58

Post by kstenerud » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 8:58 PM UTC

appleshore wrote: post #21

exabrial wrote: post #4

All of these are extremely important! Two life skills: * If you are without a doubt, you are wrong If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. * Words matter As my grandma said, "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all."

I disagree with the first statement. To me, it invokes concepts of relativism. Certainty in actions, when well prepared, has a magical and transformative effect on things. I am willing to entertain thought experiments about how I can be wrong but I know I am not about certain ideas and philosophies.

Every 10 years or so, I look back on my life in wonderment at how clueless I was, and then congratulate myself on having finally figured everything out.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#59

Post by AlexCoventry » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 9:03 PM UTC

psyc wrote: post #38

I was struck by how every word of this could apply to how not to do politics and advocacy on social media. (Aside from the part where they actually advised taking all the terrible behavior to social media. It seems everyone is already doing that.)

You'd be surprised at how far people get simply by making it unpleasant and socially destructive to express certain views.

Re: How not to be a crank: rules for not being a science-dick

#60

Post by jpeloquin » Sun, Mar 04, 2018, 9:07 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #18

ars wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can't fathom the other side and where they're coming from, you, are in fact, biased beyond listening to facts, and are likely wrong. This one especially applies to politics. If you are one of those looking for "sanity", or "common sense", and can't imagine how the other side can possibly hold some position, then this applies to you.

I’m not sure that’s accurate. People hold all manner of irrational political beliefs and there is value in recognizing that irrationality.

And irrationality is an intrinsic aspect of politics, not a problem to be solved. When two or more people agree on a desired end, rationality is relevant—rationality serves as a tool to find the most efficient way to meet the mutually desired end. But when people want mutually exclusive outcomes, application of reason can never satisfy both. In the absence of willingness to compromise their struggle must be founded upon emotional appeal, tribal identity, and power.