51–59 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a white supremacist when he advocated for a color blind society?
It takes two seconds to google your way to a pretty mainstream article on the much-covered (over many years!) topic https://www.axios.com/2023/01/16/martin-luther-king-dream-sp...
Why was this flagged
Because it's a culture way topic, which tend to end in flame wars which is what hacker news is trying to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's a culture way topic, which tend to end in flame wars which is what hacker news is trying to avoid.
I thought the video he posted showed two extremely intelligent men that had a huge depth of the topic. It was one of the very best things I have seen in HN in years- besides LLMs of course.
But hacker news has just decided that it's going to try stay away from most of the culture war topics because a lot of the debate (on the site) starts to devolve into flame wars and unproductive conversations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words you'd want him to repent and accept the orthodoxy, before you'll consider listening to his possibly-heretic theories. Whether he is right or wrong is fundamentally irrelevant. TED accepted his talk, reviewed it, fact-checked it, like all other talks; and then bowed to political pressure and quietly moved away from it. That's not a good look, regardless of what the speech might be about. To be fair, it…
For a complex and sensitive topic it makes sense to listen to others and potentially change tack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right that reading and writing can be verbal jousting but that is not the sole purpose of reading and writing. When dealing with the written word you have a record front of you that you can analyze and look for confirming information to see if the words are manipulation, truthful or outright lies. having words in front of you that you can go back and verify that your memory is correct gives you an opportunity…
The debate in question is recorded on video, and I’m sure you can get a transcript.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate groups are fantastic at co-opting previously reasonable ideas. Some examples: - Woke - The OK hand symbol - Gay - turning a word that literally means "Happy" into a slur - The Punisher symbol - He is not a police-adjacent vigilante. - The US Flag (stars and bars, to be specific) So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that…
> So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that reality is the one we have to live in. I'm trying (honestly) to understand your position here. Are you saying you used to think "color blindness" (in the MLK sense) was a good idea -- but you no longer do? If so: what changed?
However, when someone today claims they're colorblind, I accept that they most likely don't mean it in the same way that MLK did. And too often, I'm proven right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that reality is the one we have to live in. I'm trying (honestly) to understand your position here. Are you saying you used to think "color blindness" (in the MLK sense) was a good idea -- but you no longer do? If so: what changed?
I think that colorblindness, as espoused by MLK, is a fantastic concept; I love to see it in reality. However, when someone today claims they're colorblind, I accept that they most likely don't mean it in the same way that MLK did. And too often, I'm proven right.
I guess, two questions:
1) What is different between what MLK wanted and what "those other people" want today?
2) If two people advocate for the same policy but each has different motivations for it, how does that affect the policy (implementation?) itself?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The debate in question is recorded on video, and I’m sure you can get a transcript.
there are two groups of people affected by the ephemeral nature of a debate. First is the group that listen but don't necessarily seek out a transcript. The second is the other person in the debate. They have to hear and respond in a matter of seconds. interaction is why I say say debates only prove who is the better debater.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What seemed to be missing was a critical and self-aware statement of why his critics may be right or at least his strongest argument. I imagine for any talk (or any theory) about just about anything (worth giving a talk about) will have critics (and reasonable critical arguments.) But, generally, I wouldn't think that that in itself is a good reason to (to some extent) censor his talk. > In response to the hollowne…
Hate groups are fantastic at co-opting previously reasonable ideas. Some examples: - Woke - The OK hand symbol - Gay - turning a word that literally means "Happy" into a slur - The Punisher symbol - He is not a police-adjacent vigilante. - The US Flag (stars and bars, to be specific) So, yeah, as a fellow older HNer, it's hard to see these kinds of re-defining ideals we once ascribed to. But it's happening, and that…