The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#761

Post by refurb » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:09 AM UTC

SteveJS wrote: post #293

tome wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Peaceful protestors being brutalised by police has been documented in almost countless cases by now Yes, I've seen plenty of evidence for that[1]. On the other hand you said "protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US". That's quite a different claim and I haven't seen any evidence for that. I've heard a few reports and associated videos whose reliability I haven't been able to verify. [1] For the avo…

https://www.npr.org/2020/07/17/892277592/federal-officers-us...

Oregon just had their attempt to remove federal police thrown out.[1]

In a 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman ruled that the state lacked legal standing to bring the suit and had “presented no evidence that these allegedly illegal seizures are a widespread practice.”

[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-charges-18-p...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#762

Post by DC-3 » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:15 AM UTC

sharker8 wrote: post #752

uniqueid wrote: post #725

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't share many of the views in Paul's essay, but there was one point he made with which I emphatically agree: like Paul, I too believe anyone who disagrees with me is just too small-minded to understand my argument.

They may just have a different system of axiomatic beliefs and are stuck in their own inconsistent state (per godels incompleteness theorem). I actually think most 'disagreements' fall into this fundamental 'human condition' so to speak.

Invoking Godel to assert that people have inconsistencies in their personal beliefs is like using a DNA test to determine whether an animal is an elephant or not - technically correct, but absurd overkill for the task at hand.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#763

Post by refurb » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #737

missosoup wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on…

[flagged]

Someone from an ex soviet state isn't better positioned to understand our current crisis...

You'd think someone who is against fascism would be interested to hear from someone who actually lived in a oppressive, authoritarian state, whether it be communist or fascist (since they use the same methods).

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#764

Post by bendbro » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:26 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #754

jariel wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues." Not true at all. It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'. She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans…

[flagged]

I think most people would admit he is a buffoon. I also think most people would not stand by if he did something obviously, materially, directly and apolitically harmful to people. I can't write people off if they continue to vote red until then. I also don't find republican rhetoric to be much different than democrat rhetoric. Both-sides-ism acknowledged, I think prominent Democrat and Republican and messaging both rely almost entirely on emotional argument. I think this is novel behavior for Republicans, since their old behavior was to meekly, logically and unsuccessfully argue their point. The change to unapologetic emotional argument is shocking to the left wing, but it prevails. A scream of "kids in cages" is no more convincing than a growl of "some of them are good people." A "womp womp" is as convicing as a "how absolutely dare you sir." You are right on the result: it pushes common people into irrelevant, trivial debates, preventing meaningful discussion.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#765

Post by jariel » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:26 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #754

jariel wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues." Not true at all. It's not about her money, it's about her ability to speak and to have a public opinion, and therefore a relationship with us - not about her 'personal wealth'. She has specific views on gender, which she should be allowed to have and which I don't think are objectively 'anti trans…

[flagged]

" she doesn't regard trans women as actual women"

I don't view trans women as 'the same as female women' either, to me, they are very objectively 'something else', 'not exactly like women', but I also have zero problems with them 'being women for the most part' and identifying as such if they want.

In my view, denying the glaringly obvious difference between 'trans women' and 'female women' is to deny reality, in the name of some cause.

Now, I have zero problem with people wanting to identify as women, if a trans woman wants me to call her 'she' - or whatever - it's fine by me. I hold zero concern or anything against them.

I will also tell you that in other cultures - particularly in Brasil wherein trans is far more common - that this is a popular view. The only trans women with whom I've ever had a conversation about the issue literally told me, unsolicited, that 'she is not like other women'. I kind of 'gasped' at the statement, but this woman was simply stating her mind and what to her was obvious. The statement was not ideological oriented, formed by 'mob opinion', and not a complex, intellectual thing. Just her view. Is this tans woman a bigot?

It's perfectly fine if people want to disagree with Rowling's view. I'm basically certain that Rowling doesn't mind a single bit if many would disagree with her.

The issue, is that she's not allowed to have her opinion because of the ostensibly ideologically held view that 'people who identify as women are women and that's it'.

And so this is one of the points made: "Agree with me on you're a bigot".

We don't want this.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#766

Post by mikedilger » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:29 AM UTC

PGs presents a closing hope in the imagination of the aggressively independent-minded. There is hope but no assurance that doesn't turn towards sustained decline. The dark ages happened. Leonardo DaVinci lamtented that in 1400 he knew less than Galen did in 185 AD. The Islamic golden age also abandoned science to religious dogma.

Still it is hard to fathom a worldwide sustained decline. Some cultural and/or language group won't go along.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#767

Post by michaelmrose » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:30 AM UTC

missosoup wrote: post #159

wdwecewc wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who claims to be educated on history, it is important then to remind yourself of why this actually occurs. You can't make essays dismissing some angry mob as if they are a homogenous hivemind. They won't listen to you because they literally can't listen to you, they act independently and uncoordinated. You have to tackle issues which cause them to be aggressive towards racists to begin with. Police brutali…

You probably don't know this word, but you're literally advocating for ochlocracy, which is the very thing I was talking about in the upstream comments. The mob has an infinite well of issues, the mob will never be satisfied. That's exactly how it transitions into totalitarianism. Pandering to the mob just adds more fuel to the fire. Police brutality etc. are issues that should certainly be addressed, and there's cou…

Removing the immunity of police officers and killing only Canadian levels of civilians would literally take all the wind out of the protests. Pretending that the populace is an insatiable mob rather than people with legitimate grievances that could be addressed is just wrongheaded.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#768

Post by grandmczeb » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:33 AM UTC

bendbro wrote: post #729

sinker wrote: post #694

There's a subtype he doesn't mention but I think deserves notice and is especially pertinent to today's environment. That is, the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. People like this come across by chance doctrine which appeal to a special part of themself, be it religious, political, or social doctrine. They hardily embrace the newfound doctrine and denounce others as havin…

I think your argument makes sense. It fits well with my experiences with "MAGAers" and "SJWs". I also think this style of politics is here to stay, as it is the dominate strategy. America has a fracturing hegemony: there is no longer a single universally shared set of basic beliefs. Because we no longer share the same basic beliefs, disagreements are now less likely to be due to logical validity and more likely due t…

> Thankfully, the latest batch of ideas (abolish police, abolish suburbs, abolish capital gains) have such a large impact that it has finally given me a hill worth dying on

Who's seriously calling to "abolish suburbs"? It's easy to stand up against ideas no one is advocating for - that's called a straw man.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#769

Post by JPKab » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:36 AM UTC

missosoup wrote: post #91

stopachka wrote: post #31

Loved this essay. The phrase “aggressively conventional minded” is genius, and may contribute a lot towards the solution. As someone coming from an ex-soviet state, I’ve felt personal alarm bells ring more and more, as I experience the kind of intolerance and double speak America is heading into. Both the left and the right my opinion are missing the key points on freedom (the left suppressing and labeling, the right…

Also from an ex soviet state. Also feel alarm bells going off. I'm legitimately scared. I've seen this before, I know where it goes. It's really hard to convey my feeling of alarm to people here though. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it, I guess. Doesn't help that the conformists have been allowed to frame the narrative as 'either you agree with us, or you're literally Hitler/Stalin' depending on…

One of my early mentors was ex-Soviet, and he impressed to me the absolute dangers inherent in elevation of elevating collective identity over individual identity.

I see this happening now, and all too many of my colleagues gleefully signing on. Recently one posted content that appeared to be regurgitated Agile materials for dealing with organizational dysfunction. But this material had replaced all mentions of org dysfunction with 'white supremacy'. It basically blamed every workplace antipattern on colonialism and, conveniently, whenever perpetrated by a non white person, stated it was internalized white supremacy. The dev, who is very much on the spectrum, seems to take joy in having the world turned into a D & D game, with different rules depending on whether you are orc, elf, or human.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#770

Post by int_19h » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:38 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #742

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #727

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a subtype that is especially pertinent... the conventionally-minded who is convinced they are die-hard independently-minded. > I believe this to be the reality today. So many people are deluded in thinking they are the small, under-represented, minority, oppressed group when they actually function as the oppressors to people who are sincerely independently-minded. This right here is the fundamental undercu…

Yeah, the idea that the American past was some better home to more open public discourse is obviously false on the face of it. The voices of minority groups are barely present in the history books, because they were barely present in the public discussion of the time. Look at the national anthem ( adopted by the government in 1931 ) or pledge of allegiance ( adopted by the government in 1942 ). The people who get off…

The free speech past in US is far more recent than either of those examples. Even when it comes to legal matters, I would point at Brandenburg v. Ohio as the starting point.