The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#821

Post by harimau777 » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

JPKab wrote: post #769

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…

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 d…

Did they talk at all about how they felt that should be balanced against the need for society to work together towards common goals?

I'm worried about some of the excesses of "cancel culture" but I'm more worried about the current Republican approach of basically saying that society has no obligation to its members. What worries me the most, is that I'm not sure I see a good way to balance the two extremes.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#822

Post by jonny_eh » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

eezurr wrote: post #687

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #584

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These protests are possibly the single largest protests for civil rights in the country's history. It is estimated that between 15 and 26 million Americans protested. Roughly 6% to 10% of the US adult population. If after almost 1 in 10 Americans protesting for the same thing you're pushing, you think you're less capable of succeeding at your job, I think you may want to question your approach. And I don't mean that…

I think it's important to step back see the bigger picture. Your comment IMO is exactly what PG is talking about when he defines "aggressively conventional" (down to using the actions of the masses to support your POV). A perfect system cannot exist, and getting there is limited by economics -> diminishing returns. It seems like you are pushing for a social structure that will consume American freedom to lower rate o…

Who knows what PG thinks on that issue, his post lacked any specifics, other than slavery is bad.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#823

Post by jonny_eh » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

im3w1l wrote: post #638

oisdk wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for someone despicable. So the only actual example I was able to google here was the last one: and I have to say, is that it? A guy wasn’t asked back as a dorm a…

> Like you realise the protests were sparked off by a murder, right? It wasn't a murder. I suggest you read the transcript from Lane's body camera. Key points: * Lane approaches George Floyd asks him to show his hands. Floyd is so high, he has difficulty complying. * They take him out of his car and try to get him in the police car. * Floyd claims he can't breathe and begs to be allowed to lie on the ground. * They c…

Wow, the police were so helpful!

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#824

Post by sparkie » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 2:35 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #417

vorpalhex wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're engaging in a straw man of both sides and it makes me want to disregard your argument entirely. > you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like... Do you really think that's what people are complaining about here? Not the professors being fired, the well known economists being forced to resign? There was a professor who lost his status running a residence hall because he was on the legal defense team for…

It's crazy to say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." There have been literally millions of American citizens marching peacefully for change, and a very small number of bad actors. There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history. And worse, takin…

One problem is the inability of media to separate the issues of protesting for change, and the organization Black Lives Matter. As such, the protestors are basically being ignored, and BLM are being lauded. BLM are the "face" of the protest - made this way mainly by left-wing media.

But BLM is a questionable organization. It's aims are not merely supporting black lives - but there is an insidious Marxism to it (and an underlying anti-white racism). So if I disagree with BLM's other aims, I'm obviously not going to join the protests, or take the knee, because they're the face of it. The protestors have effectively become BLM endorsers - not merely people who have the opinion "black lives matter" (which includes the vast majority on the right), but they may as well be out in the streets saying "I agree with BLM on everything."

I've not heard of any protestors denouncing BLM's other aims. I'd like to think that it's because the media's agenda lines up with BLMs, and they chose not to air those opinions, but part of me thinks that the majority protestors are simply unable to make the distinction themselves between the phrase "black lives matter" and the organization "Black Lives Matter", or they're in agreement with the other aims anyway because they are also "woke" opinions. I'd doubt even half of the BLM endorsers have read the BLM website.

The right-wing media obviously focus on the riots, arson, looting and iconoclasm, which gives the protests a terrible image to the larger population, even though these are the actions of a tiny number of troublemakers.

What does one do if they want to express their support for persecuted minorities and denounce racism (in all of it's forms), but does not want to endorse the BLM in any shape or form? I also don't support the pulling down of statues and attempts at woke history revisionism - which let's face it, aren't doing anything to help blacks.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#825

Post by webmaven » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #809

webmaven wrote: post #745

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Oh, well obviously there are hungry and cold people in the world, but I was talking about within a developed country like the UK. I see. Perhaps this will change your mind?: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_Kingdom

Well, I'll wait for the government report in 2021. A lot people who "miss meals" are still overweight, they just make poor decisions with their money. In any case, inequality like that could be solved by everyone in this forum taking a pay cut to something that covers just basic essentials. People who talk about inequality are always, always talking about making themselves richer. Everyone has the power already to ma…

Not always. A prominent counterexample would be Bill Gates Sr. In any case, you don't have to wait for the 2021 report to see the evidence that hunger is a real problem even in 1st world countries like the UK. Mothers going hungry so their children do not can't simply be dismissed as the result of poor life choices.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#826

Post by sparkie » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #363

oisdk wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it bizarre that comments like these seem to think the main battle ground for free speech is young people like myself "cancelling" people on twitter, when at the same time protestors are being arrested by secret police in the US. Like there is an authoritarian government right there for you to criticise, but you choose only to talk endlessly about tweets like "can white people make rice, or is it cultural appro…

Obviously the Trump administration is, by far, the bigger threat. The trouble is the left are staring to adapt his tactics. At the beginning of Trump's term, there was a lot of concern about how Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news" and threatening spurious libel claims, trying to shut down speech he didn't like. Now the left is adopting the mirror image policy of trying to shut…

> Trump was trying to silence the press through his rhetoric about "fake news"

Trump wasn't trying to "silence the press" - this was left-wing media rhetoric. He was simply calling them out for their sloppy journalism, and it worked to his favour.

Remember, the term "fake news" was conjured by left-wing media in response to Trump's election victory, referring to up and coming media companies which were eating away at their numbers (there were some obvious fake ones, but not with any significance to sway an election). Those on the left were unable to imagine from their bubbles, how people would vote for Trump, despite all of their efforts to put Hillary in the White House. It was a shock, and "fake news" was their reaction to it.

Trump managed to take their term, aimed at him, and aim it back at them. Now when people hear "fake news", they think of CNN.

> Very few are left to actually stand up for the principle of granting freedoms

Freedoms aren't granted, they exist. They can only be taken away. The State is usually the one taking them away, so anyone arguing for "more state" is really shooting themselves in the foot. We need less state, not more.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#827

Post by oisdk » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 3:47 PM UTC

sinker wrote: post #708

oisdk wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people have lost their livelihoods What are you referring to, specifically?

If you can't be bothered to recognize even a single instance of this happening, then you've shut your eyes and ears.

I mean I was interested in examples. People disagree about what counts as a “cancelling” so I was looking to see what the person I was responding to was referring to, with some examples.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#828

Post by Tiktaalik » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 3:53 PM UTC

sparkie wrote: post #818

sampo wrote: post #704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cancel culture is equally strong in the UK, where they have free public healthcare and the UK police kills about 2 people per year (usually well justified). These issues seem to be orthogonal.

The issues of cancel culture and "fighting for rights" should be unrelated. You can be against cancel culture and also against police brutality, for instance. The mob (and GP) wants to categorize you in an out-group so that one opinion you hold which they don't agree with means all your other opinions are irrelevant or invalid. If you ask anyone on the Right what they think about police brutality or racism, more than…

> Interestingly, those "fighting for human rights." are largely the same people trying to deny others their basic rights, such as possessing firearms for their personal protection.

Gun ownership isn't a right. Yeah there's a piece of paper that says it is, but come on. It's dumb.

How on earth do you even find these things comparable? On one side, people literally dying because they can't afford insulin , on the other side someone wringing their hands because they think the government might forbid them from owning an AR-15.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#829

Post by sparkie » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #821

JPKab wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Did they talk at all about how they felt that should be balanced against the need for society to work together towards common goals? I'm worried about some of the excesses of "cancel culture" but I'm more worried about the current Republican approach of basically saying that society has no obligation to its members. What worries me the most, is that I'm not sure I see a good way to balance the two extremes.

How do individuals meet their obligations to society (if any)?

Do they do it through voluntary exchange, altruism and compassion.

Or do they do it out of compulsion because they are threatened with violence?

The latter is obviously not what we want, but its the State we have. Reducing the size of the state therefore sounds like a good plan, since it should reduce the amount of threatening with violence that has to be done.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#830

Post by RonaldRaygun » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 4:17 PM UTC

sparkie wrote: post #824

snowwrestler wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy to say "Everything the protestors are doing has probably set us back a decade." There have been literally millions of American citizens marching peacefully for change, and a very small number of bad actors. There is no way you are informed or serious about what is going on if you are willing to make such broadly derogatory comments about one of the largest civil right movements in history. And worse, takin…

One problem is the inability of media to separate the issues of protesting for change, and the organization Black Lives Matter. As such, the protestors are basically being ignored, and BLM are being lauded. BLM are the "face" of the protest - made this way mainly by left-wing media. But BLM is a questionable organization. It's aims are not merely supporting black lives - but there is an insidious Marxism to it (and a…

> there is an insidious Marxism to it (and an underlying anti-white racism)

I see this said so much and invariably there is no rational justification provided for these beliefs beyond "A founder made an offhand comment one time in an interview about their educational background"

Maybe I'll get a more thorough explanation on HN.

In what way does Black Lives Matter have an "insidious Marxism to it"? And what is your definition of Marxism?