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

Plans you're not supposed to talk about

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 675 posts

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#61

Post by didibus »

Most of these seem to imply you don't remember the plan while still following it, so in a sense, you don't have a good reason not to talk about them, since you actually wouldn't know what to talk about.

That means the only thing I take from this is that you get really good followers by indoctrination which is a combination of leading by example, shaming/rewarding people at a social level, and possibly force or power, and that requires you to be sleazy about it, by never divulging the real motives to others. Maybe you can get yourself to believe in it as well to a point and forget, but that seems less likely to me, most likely you just got others indoctrinated to follow your plan without knowing the real reasons why, which eventually get forgotten to history.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#62

Post by guidoism »

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

Yikes don’t say that out loud!

But seriously, the left needs to think more like this. The right plays dirty and if the left plays like this they get the same outcomes of playing dirty but is not saying anything bad or wrong.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#63

Post by lijogdfljk »

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

I like the thought experiment, but i would counter that i suspect the 1% that would die would be replaced by a larger volume of new group members - due to the divisive nature of "us vs them", everyone has to choose, and so the forced unity ends up increasing overall members. Forcing people to choose increased membership of both parties.

Not a statement, just a thought.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#64

Post by strictured »

calibas wrote: post #41
slg wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny enough you are falling into a similar situation as item 5 from that list. You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". You feel like one of the few sane people because you are of course technically right. However no one will listen to you because "even if that’s true, there’s no profit in thinking about it" as it is currently impossible from a societal standpoint. There is no way to get…

>You are "pushing a view that has absolutely no advantage to anyone". Really? I'm of the opinion that doing less, working less, and doing things like having your own garden would lead to much greater health and happiness for the average person. The only way I can see "no advantage" is when viewed through the lens of modern capitalism, then my suggestions are certainly blasphemous.

You're ignoring his more important point that you will not be able to get the critical mass necessary to make it useful and true on a collective/societal level. Believing that you can ask people to work less, and that the lost income (and subsequently access to critical resources like food) can somehow be supplemented with a garden that many people wouldn't even have access to the space necessary to implement, betrays a lack of understanding of the economic situation of most people. How many proles rent rather than own, and how may have access to fertile ground?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#65

Post by tshaddox »

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

Consider that causing 1% of the group's population to die might not weaken the group and in fact might make the group stronger.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#66

Post by exolymph »

guidoism wrote: post #62
mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

Yikes don’t say that out loud! But seriously, the left needs to think more like this. The right plays dirty and if the left plays like this they get the same outcomes of playing dirty but is not saying anything bad or wrong.

You do realize that you're responding to a comment reframing the USA left-establishment's covid vaccine rhetoric, right? Point being, how do you know the left isn't playing like this?

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#67

Post by throwaway0a5e »

guidoism wrote: post #62
mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

Yikes don’t say that out loud! But seriously, the left needs to think more like this. The right plays dirty and if the left plays like this they get the same outcomes of playing dirty but is not saying anything bad or wrong.

The comment you are replying to is not a novel take. This stuff has long since been thought of by some strategists on pretty much every side of every issue for about as far back as we have record of this sort of thing. Heck, revise the wording a little bit and it could pass for something some enlightenment thinker half a century ago would have said about whatever issue they were talking about that minute.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#68

Post by EB-Barrington »

mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

Correction - it's not 1%, it's 100%. Of both tribes.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#69

Post by guidoism »

bsedlm wrote: post #58
mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…

Less about making those people safe and more about making you safe by making those other not spread the disease to you.

For example: Go ahead and drive drunk, I don’t care, just do it on your private property so you don’t kill me.

Similarly: Go and don’t get vaxed, honestly I don’t care. But viruses don’t respect borders like cars do, so if you are going to do it then make sure you are isolated on a private island where you don’t leave, or Antarctica, or mars or something.

Re: Plans you're not supposed to talk about

#70

Post by arrow7000 »

bsedlm wrote: post #58
mherdeg wrote: post #54

Reading this gave me a kind of horrifying idea that goes something like: You know about a deadly disease whose most serious outcomes can be avoided by getting a shot. Many members of a group in your society have decided they don't want to get the shot. You are annoyed by the way they talk about a lot of things, including the way they talk about avoiding the shot. They, in turn, call you "smug" for the way your group…

but why are you so adamant on making everybody so perfectly safe? there used to be something about freedom and risk; heck, about life and risk. it's risky to be alive but it was more risky live way back in the day at what point does safety begin to stifle the drive to live? we as humans originally evolved in a risky environment, we thrived in it, we made it safer for ourselves; but maybe, just maybe, we also acquired…

Ok but what's the point of taking risks for its own sake? It makes sense to take risks if you stand to gain something. But a risk with only downside is just a bad idea.
Post reply on HN