81–90 of 104 posts
[flagged]
If you think this is the result it's probably just because you're not used to discussing political theory. Within academic spaces these discussions are very well developed and nuanced. HN people like yourself aren't very used to being left behind but there are experts that understand what you don't.
[flagged]
Can you give some examples of uses of "fascism" where it is merely referring to "bad people that I don't like", and not one of the many instances of fascism in the world today? If you're unfamiliar with the detailed thinking about the subject, I recommend this list: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
While the article points out many worrying trends which are true, I would caution against making far-reaching predictions, especially if they involve drastic, rapid change. Orwell warned about this sort of thing already: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the years go on I ask myself that same question more and more. The HN of my day wouldn't have boosted a site pushing XR's brand of horseshit and mostly eschewed fringe political fever dream type posting in general. I say mostly because I'm aware of the notable counterexamples, but they were relatively contained.
The HN of my day boosted the fringe political fever dreams of Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel as peak Silicon Valley intellectualism, and, well, here we are.
Your account was created in 2015. That's the year that Yarvin's talk was rescinded at StrangeLoop and the comments here in the very thread about it were widely supportive of his ban. The rare arguments in his favor were more centered on their thinking that his talk was a technical one about Urbit.
The same big posters of today were big posters then openly slamming the guy for being an unrepentant racist.
Any posts about urbit were basically flamebait and all of its devs, not just Yarvin, as well as most of the personalities from LessWrong were very effectively chased off this board.
This place has a long history and long memories and revisionist garbage won't be tolerated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The HN of my day boosted the fringe political fever dreams of Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel as peak Silicon Valley intellectualism, and, well, here we are.
That's not even true. Your account was created in 2015. That's the year that Yarvin's talk was rescinded at StrangeLoop and the comments here in the very thread about it were widely supportive of his ban. The rare arguments in his favor were more centered on their thinking that his talk was a technical one about Urbit. The same big posters of today were big posters then openly slamming the guy for being an unrepentan…
The HN of my day boosted the fringe political fever dreams of Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel as peak Silicon Valley intellectualism, and, well, here we are.
[flagged]
When one party is ACTIVELY sabotaging the Federal government in order to achieve political goals they can't get at the ballot box, and in order to set the grounds to make exactly the argument you are, we have to wonder, what exactly is the solution? Is it to do the thing we were manipulated to be forced to do, or to throw out the party that cared more about their goals than our country, are willing to destroy our government's ability to govern, and are willing to spend 40 years being manipulative to achieve it? I say throw out the part that intentionally spent 40 years destabilizing our government and TRYING to deliver worse outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not even true. Your account was created in 2015. That's the year that Yarvin's talk was rescinded at StrangeLoop and the comments here in the very thread about it were widely supportive of his ban. The rare arguments in his favor were more centered on their thinking that his talk was a technical one about Urbit. The same big posters of today were big posters then openly slamming the guy for being an unrepentan…
Well, as someone who's been here since 2008, allow me to say: The HN of my day boosted the fringe political fever dreams of Curtis Yarvin and Peter Thiel as peak Silicon Valley intellectualism, and, well, here we are.
Mostly low (single-digit) engagement posts and lots of derision. Thiel's CS courses and Foundation got more mentions but their brand of politics? Definitely not signal boosted here.
In the past times where Czar elite could be executed like cattle and when French kings knew their heads could fly off guillotines, the elites were *behaving*. There was an unspoked social contract that you do shit for us, and we let you do be yourselves, whatever you do. Nowadays, we have wonderful law and nobody is responsible for anything, nobody is prosecuted, just fucking nothing. Time for pitchforks?
At least Norman lords had to nominally provide housing on their holdings and had to have some kind of care that their serfs survived. CEOs don't even do that (they literally build models on lowest wage zero hour jobs that their labor can't actually live on or move labor from one desperate overseas country to the next).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh...fox news started from NIXON, so too were the far right judges. this republican farce hit a tipping point, it didnt just suddenly be fascist. its like bitcoin and they suddenly saw they had 51%. whether its true is debateable but this isnt just a few months.
"NIXON" (also known plainly as Nixon) was "far right?" You must be joking. By any measure, and in every poly sci department, Nixon is viewed as moderate or even slightly left wing. He created the EPA, signed the Clean Air Act, created OHSA, signed NEPA, monkeyed with wage and price controls, signed a breath-taking number of anti-discrimination and affirmative-action orders, pushed school desegregation in the South...…
This is important because if Nixon's administration wasn't ideologically liberal, why pass liberal policy? The reason has to do with the political environment of the 60's and early 70's, which had enough populist solidarity that it could effectively pressure the administration. Compare he Privacy Act of 1974 - what the was in response to - to the insane privacy violations going on today, yet we aren't capable of passing an updated privacy act because we lack populist solidarity on the issue. The populism of today is apathetic and fragmented compared to the movements of the 60's and 70's, so consequently it exerts less political pressure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What puzzles me is how for many years it was predicted that this was going to happen and that in spite of the warnings it still did. I just don't get it. Let's say that there are twelve doughnuts in the box. You see someone eat one, and there are 11, 10, 9... and when there are six, you make a prediction: we're going to run out of doughnuts. A few minutes later, after a late burst of doughnut-grabbing (putting the…
I took it as more of correctly making the prediction and not being taken seriously either when it was made nor when it was fulfilled. We've seen responses ranging from "You're overreacting. That won't happen," to "It's not going to get worse." Somehow it does and yet they continue the same lines. There's obviously something else going on, perspective-wise or psychologically. I've always wanted to follow with them and…