661–670 of 906 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Blasphemy laws didn't make people more religious. They just made it so people didn't talk about it. It's the same here.
What about lots of people talking openly about not believing in religion anymore and how it's kinda dumb? Does that have an effect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Free speech is not an entitlement to a forum, it is a right that guarantees that the government will not interfere with your speech, but even that has some limitations. That's a pretty narrow and legalistic idea that's often deployed to excuse some pretty terrible behavior by private parties. Yes, it's accurate if you're talking legalistically about First Amendment free speech rights, but there's a more general pri…
Do those protesters not have autonomy to choose what they hear or whom may speak at their organization? Are they not allowed to say that an idea has no purpose except to poison and thus should not be uttered? You may not agree with the protesters, but they too have rights and autonomy.
It should also be noted that the speaker was due to speak at a university, an organization that's supposed to be dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. The protesters are certainly free to not attend his speech and to express their disapproval of him in ways that don't silence or harass others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What gets my goat is the kind of shouting down I get whenever I take any contrarian stance on non-GMO foods, or God forbid, vaccination. I know that vaccines are critical and that there is nothing wrong with them. But to not even admit the possibility that there might be a link between vaccines and some health problems is, to me, very anti-science. My understanding for science has always been to question all assumpti…
What is there to debate on vaccines? The mechanism are known, I've studied it in basic biology classes, and all doctors have studied it in detail - you can too. The process by which our body deals with a vaccine is based on the same processes it uses to deal with any invader (and then building a repository of responses to handle such cases in future). If you don't have the time to look into it yourself, you can consi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes, this was in the feedback: >“I’d love to see one-tenth of the outrage about the state of our lives out here that you have for Muslims from another country. You have no idea what our lives are like.” The Democrats had a debate in Flint about the water crisis where they discussed what to do about it and how the country's infrastructure got there. Meanwhile Donald's fans were screaming "TEN FEET HIGHER!" If GOPers…
There's a lot of talk about how important it is to listen to Trump supporters, and all it does when I listen to them is terrify me. When I listen to them, I hear people who blame others for their situation, mostly liberals and foreigners. I also hear people who refuse to believe most sources of news and almost all academics. The combination of these things is scary. The fact that they have disproportionate political…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>zero widespread cultural support. Violence is not glorified by any prominent voices on the left. This is just not true.[1] Even in our tech community it's pretty commonplace to see 'it's okay to punch a nazi' is a well supported position.[2] [1] https://heatst.com/culture-wars/prominent-leftists-celebrate... [2] http://reason.com/blog/2017/02/15/now-its-okay-to-punch-nazi...
I thought parent commenter was referring to generic Trump supporters being beaten. When someone thinks you don't deserve to live because of the color of your skin, you're well within your right to defend yourself against that idea. You shouldn't have to wait until they're knocking down your door.
Replace color of your skin with political belief, and you've just made an argument for Trump supporters who live in places like Berkeley or San Jose to violently defend themselves from liberal rioting.
The #1 difference I notice between people I talk to who identify as the "left" or the "right" is whether America is an inclusive or exclusive "club". Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values.
> Also, main takeaway from this? Don't attack people. It seems like that's a big complaint from the[se] people: I've been attacked for my beliefs and values. Yes and no. If someone is willing to discuss their viewpoint and consider the opposing viewpoint in good faith, then I agree they shouldn't be attacked. If someone is willing to share their worldview without vitriol or hatefulness, they shouldn't have their char…
...when has it ever actually helped to attack them?
Also, +1 for: > But the truth is that tolerance is advancing rapidly and it is disorienting for people who've never had to practice it much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Where exactly is the line? How should someone be challenged to change their positions? The line is the one that divides their politics from the rest of their life. You challenge their ideas, you don't harass them or try to get them fired.
All actions are political, to at least some extent. So that's not a very clear line to draw. Furthermore, you talk about "challenging someone's ideas" without apparently any reference to the the rest of their life, which is... a rather nonsensical. You further give no means by which to do so, and rule out one of the more important ways of influencing someone--social stigma. Certainly in this case we're talking about…
Come on, dude. I only ruled out harassment and attempts to get people fired. If you can't think of any other ways to "challenge someone's ideas" on your own, you're beyond help from me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Leaders and managers of organizations have said that they'd like to sabotage the careers of Trump supporters and/or Republicans in their org. That's pretty threatening I think?
Again, people are worried about being murdered by radical christian terrorists. Worried about not being allowed to come home after leaving the country for a vacation. Worried about their healthcare and reproductive rights being taken away. You are worried that a private organization that someone no right to be a part of might not want to have anything to do with the alt-right?
The link you posted doesn't support that. “These charges are based on eight months of investigation by the FBI that is alleged to have taken the investigators deep into a hidden culture of hatred and violence,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Beall. “Many Kansans may find it as startling as I do that such things could happen here.”
A hidden culture, not an open one, and open surprise and bewilderment from people don't really work with the idea that people are actually worried about being murdered by christian terrorists. It sounds like people didn't even know this existed.
I can give him a data point from outside the US, from one of the other progressive, English speaking countries in the world, New Zealand: I don't know if it has fully sunk in yet to the US populace how completely they have humiliated themselves, on the world stage. We don't get exposed to Fox, or Breitbart, or even CNN. I get most of my international news from the BBC, for example. From our perspective, the election…
Long term I think countries that have traditionally been staunch allies of the US will now at least be open to other suitors which until a few weeks ago would have been pretty much unthinkable.
Is not daily US politics meant to be avoided at Hacker News? I remember several articles got flagged for discussing politics, might the rules have changed?
Also, if you don't discuss / face a topic you can never move forward. What is critical is that when you /do/ discuss / face that topic you do so in a positive way that increases understanding and fosters critical thinking on your opinions.