Live data from Hacker News

A Sick Giant

waitbutwhy.com

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: A Sick Giant

#51
post #48

I basically disagree with this formulation on the grounds that it does not sufficiently respect political opinions as being reflective of self-interest; these opinions are often a result of not just consistent messaging but tangible incentive. It's much more straightforward to view the public politics and culture as a primarily top-down construction: "let's make these groups more upset at each other; let's make these…

I don't think that most political questions pit people's actual self-interests against each other. The biggest exception of course are some policies like affirmative action where the lines of self-interest are obvious. But for many other issues e.g. drug policy and climate change there are a great deal of factual misconceptions driving policy by causing people to think their self-interests lie other than where they are. Engaging the rational mind is usually considered important in dealing with this situation because it does better with facts.

Re: A Sick Giant

#52
post #8
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally the next paragraph he writes: “But that’s not what happened, because her aggressive tattletale move immediately threw my Primitive Mind into a rage, plummeting me down the Psych Spectrum. This banished my Higher Mind to the closet of my subconscious, allowing my Primitive Mind to come up with a genius-yet-psychotic plan for revenge. Which worked, and made my Primitive Mind feel deeply satisfied in a very no…

I'd like to think most people would act more civilized initially in that situation. In fact the most civilized thing to do would have been to simply follow the rules in the first place, knowing that most passengers will believe they must be important.

[deleted]

Re: A Sick Giant

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> neither political party addressing them This bothsaming is a stretch. The Democratic national platform is all about increased support for the poor and middle class, the more radical wing of the party is pushing for dramatic and fundamental restructuring of much of the national economy and welfare system as part of combating climate change, and their current Presidential slate includes several avowed anti-war anti-c…

It's not a stretch. Look at the main contention within the party right now -- every candidate except one is pushing to prop up a for-profit healthcare system. The idea of the ACA was okay, but ultimately it left in place the systems which were the real problem, and unsurprisingly it's gotten worse since then. > Obama was kind of underwhelming That's a stretch! His healthcare plan was underwhelming, and while that was…

> Look at the main contention within the party right now -- every candidate except one is pushing to prop up a for-profit healthcare system. The idea of the ACA was okay, but ultimately it left in place the systems which were the real problem, and unsurprisingly it's gotten worse since then.

I'd say this is a good example of the (extremely difficult to communicate) point the author is trying to make. The ACA, and health care delivery & funding models in general, are extremely complicated topics. Most people's mental model of the situation is likely comically simplistic compared to the true complexity of the problem. If people were intelligent and highly logical, their proper "stance" on this matter (and others like it) would be something like "undecided, but leaning one way or the other", but from anything I've seen people tend to have extremely confident opinions on any topic regardless of the complexity.

Re: A Sick Giant

#54
post #42

Had a quick look, and can't figure out what this post is about. The cartoon at the beginning makes it appear this is about the decline of the US. Then there's a bunch of meta background I don't care about. Then this: > 1) Seeing in 2D. Getting to know what I see as the core human struggle: the tension between our genes’ will to survive—a primal flame that burns brightly in everyone—and the human capacity to override…

I agree with you. I wish for a tl;dr summary for most articles on HN (and I'm tired of explaining why "you should always read the full article" is a stupid suggestion).

Re: A Sick Giant

#55

I've been reading Tim Urban's writing for a while. One of the most valuable things in his writing isn't originality, but delivery. He might not be coming up with original ideas (he regularly references the research he consulted to form his writing) but he _does_ do a great job of breaking down complex ideas into a form that's easily digestible. The first several chapters of this series (worth a read, even if it's the…

I think that breaking down the concepts is also helpful for Tim, as well as anyone who's trying to wrestle with complex ideas, in addition to the audience. Making sure your concepts are well-defined and clear is key to building them into something greater. So many flawed ideas are flawed because they're built off of a shaky foundation. Unfortunately analyzing those foundational ideas critically is difficult. I've found that writing essays helps force you into doing the hard work, but it's very time consuming.

Re: A Sick Giant

#56
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, for obvious reasons. The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the US…

The backbone of the USA in its formative years was slavery and outright slaughter of native Americans. By people who went to church. This dark legacy stretches into today - the last lynching was in 1981, and white Christian America still worships a vision of a nice, pearly white European looking Jesus, presented by millionaire preachers in mega churches who say “just give me some money and you too can be redeemed”. A…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Abolitionism

'backbone?' The south was poorer than the north and it's really the slave owners, plantation owners who benefited from slavery. The rest not so much.

You're right though that many (most?) were at least nominally Christian and supported or at least ignored the morality of slavery.

Re: A Sick Giant

#57
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What principles of morality excuse and justify... That a system is hypocritical or irrational is not criticism of it existing, only criticism that it should exist. The culture very obviously exists, otherwise there wouldn't be a heteronormative, patriarchal, workaholic, individualist, capitalist, suburban culture for far-left types to fight. > Your presumption is false. Not all people follow your faith or the narro…

>The core point of the article linked and the grand-parent comment is that the US used to have a single, "traditional" base culture Article author and grandparent are conflating political participation/power with demographics and trying to map complex multi-dimensional political realities onto a two-dimensional liberal/conservative line (author himself admits flaws in that analysis). We used to have three television…

Ah I had forgotten about the term "hegemony", thanks for reminding me! I will use "hegemony" in the future instead of "base culture". At a surface level it seems to be a term that accurately conveys what I meant by "base culture", but will have much wider recognition than some term I invented.

And rereading your original comment in the context of this comment, I think I understand your point better. When one uses the term "judeo-christian culture" they imply multiple things, some of which are incorrect:

1. That the collective systems of the US operated under a single shared system of beliefs. I would have referred to that as "culture", but perhaps the better term is "hegemony".

2. That most individuals in the collective "liked", or rather "personally subscribed", or rather had a culture compatible with that single hegemony.

You are arguing that point 2 is incorrect. There have always been many cultures present in the US, but due to Judeo-Christian hegemony, those other cultures expression was suppressed and the "Judeo-Christian" hegemony was all that presented. Users of the term "Judeo-Christian culture" are not recognizing that many members of the "Judeo-Christian" hegemony were only participating in the hegemony because they _had to_, not because they _wanted to_.

On your other point:

> Article author and grandparent are conflating political participation/power with demographics and trying to map complex multi-dimensional political realities onto a two-dimensional liberal/conservative lime

I think you are mostly right about this; however I think that within the right wing, demographics, culture, and politics are largely intertwined. I think those demographics, culture, and politics are largely the ones that were traditionally present under Judeo-christian hegemony.

So, refactoring my points under my new understanding, I think:

1. We both agree that the US had a Judeo-christian hegemony (perhaps there is a better name needed).

2. We both agree that the right wing is descended from that Judeo-christian hegemony.

3. We disagree to the degree that various Americans' cultures across history were compatible with the hegemony or were suppressed by the hegemony.

4. We likely disagree on whether a [edit: replaced "the" with "a" here] hegemony is good or bad.

On 4), I get the sense that argument will be rather boring. On 3), I would love to get some references to material that studies this. I do not particularly care if the material has a left or right bias, as learning those perspectives would be interesting itself.

Re: A Sick Giant

#58
I haven't read the series but it seems that political polarization is the topic.

This is perhaps the biggest mystery I'm aware of in the world today, especially because it's not specific to America, I'm seeing the same trends in my country as well:

- Extreme polarization along similar axes (conservative/liberal, urban/rural, age, ...).

- Outright hatred of traditional political parties.

- Rise of populist and non-traditional politicans.

- Distrust of traditional media, rise of low quality media (fake news in the extreme).

There's surprisingly little discussion and research about the cause of this. One interesting theory I recently came across is that the driver is the process of people moving from rural to urban areas. People who make such move are demographically distinct - more liberal for example. So over time this has cumulative effect and leads to increasingly distinct demographies.

Re: A Sick Giant

#59

The liberal worldview thinks that everything is basically ok and that the problem is that "norms" are being violated and bad information leads to pointless conflict. Liberals are wrong. There are fundemental structural problems with this country and the current psychosis is the result of neither political party addressing them while going war and profit crazy on the backs of the working people that slave and die with…

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, for obvious reasons. The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the US…

It doesn't have to be Christianity, but a nation needs moral fiber to prosper, and not just economically. The decline of faith in America with no underlying moral philosophy to replace it has led to normalization of far too much injustice, monopoly, and downright selfishness. Democracy is on shaky ground these days.

Re: A Sick Giant

#60

The liberal worldview thinks that everything is basically ok and that the problem is that "norms" are being violated and bad information leads to pointless conflict. Liberals are wrong. There are fundemental structural problems with this country and the current psychosis is the result of neither political party addressing them while going war and profit crazy on the backs of the working people that slave and die with…

The comment is not fitting to the article, but I wanted to respond to it anyways because I found it interesting and it's not something talked about here much, for obvious reasons. The problem is going to escape many on the left, including most people here as well, as many people here are mostly agnostic/atheistic/anti-faith and believe having faith is somehow anti-intellectual. The reality of the situation is the US…

> There are positions now being held by major political front-runners that are simply not compatible with any person of faith, or any sort of compromise with the opposite political party.

And the political front-runners on the conservative front have given up on having a position that's compatible with those who live outside of faith. Those who reject the idea that an abortion should _ever_ be performed, those who advocate or even demand for re-implantation of ectopic pregnancies, despite doing so would kill the patient.

How, as a moderate, am I supposed to take those with such outlandish views as anything other than a rallying cry for further radicalization?

As for the rhetoric about what faith our nation should have or was founded on, I think if you're going to advocate our nation have a single faith you might want to further consider the founding father's original intentions, and the intentions of those in the 50s who chose (in fear) to try radicalizing us by adding "under God" or "in God we trust" to our official notes and pledges.

Post reply on HN