The Four Quadrants of Conformism • Hacker News Board

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#851

Post by sparkie » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 7:50 PM UTC

snowwrestler wrote: post #836

sparkie wrote: post #824

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“Black lives matter” is not an organization. It’s a simple statement that affirms that black lives should matter as much as white lives do. People say it today because data clearly show that in our society today, they don’t. Mitt Romney says “black lives matter”... do you think he is an insidious Marxist? (For those not familiar with Romney, he got rich running a hedge fund and ran for president as a Republican.) Yes…

This is precisely what I was saying above: unable to separate the phrase from the organization. BLM is an organization. It was created in 2013, way before the recent protests, on tumblr and later got its own website and funding (via Susan Rosenberg, former ally of the BLA). BLM seized the opportunity from the current protests to put itself into the spotlight - not black lives, but their organization, which they've openly declared as anti-capitalists who want to abolish existing institutions of the state.

The media are at fault for making BLM the "face" of the protests. Not the phrase, but the organization.

This is no accident. It has been done deliberately so that if you criticize the organization "Black Lives Matter", you are seen to be criticizing the phrase "black lives matter", which suggests you don't care about black lives. BLM are using people's natural sympathy for the black cause to promote another agenda, which has little to do with black lives and a lot more to do with communism.

The vast majority of people, left or right will agree that "black lives matter", almost to the point where even saying it is moot. The tiny fraction of actual racists might disagree, and it might seem like there are many more of them than there really are - with some celebrities having to manufacture hate crimes because the supply of racism isn't meeting the demand that the left-wing media needs.

If I refuse to shout "black lives matter" or take the knee in solidarity with the mob, it isn't because I'm racist or think that black lives don't matter - it is because I don't agree with the BLM and don't want to endorse it in any way. I also don't owe anyone anything - nor do I believe most of these modern day "victims" are owed anything by anyone, and they're certainly not going to end racism by trying to swing the pendulum the other way - they seem to be stoking the flames (Both by increasing anti-white racism and in turn causing a reactionary rise in racism on the far right).

I can understand the historical plight of blacks and how some of that persecution still bleeds into modern day institutions - but I don't agree with the BLM on how this should be solved. Obviously, my opinion doesn't matter because I must "shut up and let black people speak." See where this is going? The BLM make the rules, you must conform or be "cancelled" by getting labelled as racist if you don't agree. No room for debate, no discussion on how we might actually fix the issues - just empty demands to shut down institutions and bring about a communist revolution.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#852

Post by sparkie » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 8:55 PM UTC

RonaldRaygun wrote: post #837

sparkie wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 This is completely untrue and a deliberate reframing of Donald Trump's actions in the most benevolent possible light. "Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile rin…

> "Fake news" referred to actual fake news. Like 5G causes coronavirus, Hillary Clinton runs a secret pedophile ring and literally kills people fake news.

This is part true, but not the entire story. "Fake news" was a reaction to Trump's rise in popularity. It was an attempt to censor alternative news sites which were taking numbers away from establishment media. The obviously-fake-news/conspiracy websites weren't what the left and social media companies were trying to shut down - it was an attempt to maintain their status quo.

The obvious danger of the "fake news" fiasco was that who decides what is fake and what is true? The left-wing media obviously declared that they were up to the task. They conjured up "fake news" to mean that their own news is true, and the alternatives are obviously not (or that if they had posted "fake news" at some point, then we can assume that everything they post is fake and block them entirely). The problem is all of these left-wing media outlets have themselves, all posted some fake news at some point, and so they should be equally liable to being cancelled, as they were attempting to have others.

They saw themselves as "above" the smaller, less established media, and so they wouldn't get cancelled, but they could rally the social media companies to block their upcoming competition.

Trump's relabelling of fake news to be aimed at left-wing media was popular precisely because people were not fans of the idea that the establishment media was attempting to declare themselves the arbiters of fact, when their journalistic integrity had fallen to terrible lows.

Obviously, Trump is no angel and has told plenty of lies, as has CNN. Proper journalism is in decline and the media has become about getting clicks and reactions - it's all about money. Most actual journalism these days comes from somebody you've never heard of on Twitter.

> I assume this means you are opposed to the untrained and unidentifiable federal troops occupying US cities in direct contradiction of the desires of local officials, right?

Yes, but I'd go much further and say that security should be private, not public. One thing I can agree with the left on is defunding the police, but I think we have very different ideas on what follows. (Have those on the left even considered what they're going to replace the police with, given that they also want to abolish private ownership and guns?)

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#853

Post by globular-toast » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

webmaven wrote: post #825

globular-toast wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bill Gates hasn't made himself any poorer.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#854

Post by jariel » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 10:31 PM UTC

makomk wrote: post #810

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…

JK Rowling's views on trans people are also nearly the perfect demonstration that pg's "aggressive conformism" analysis is spot on. See, not too long ago those particular views were in fact something that was doing quite a bit of harm to trans people. They were being used to succesfully lobby for laws that did things like effectively deny trans women access to rape counselling and domestic violence services, and just…

"not too long ago those particular views were in fact something that was doing quite a bit of harm to trans people"

I understand what you are saying, but there's a pretty big concern right there in the conflation of 'intellectual position' vs. 'ammunition supporting specific movements'.

That some systems take another persons nuanced views, possibly out of context, and use them to promote their agenda, should not in any way stop people from being able to have public discourse about them.

The fact of the matter is, JK's views are not anti-trans, even if they could be used by others as such.

However much we can decry other parties for using her words in a manner in which we do not agree, the same thing applies in the other direction: we don't get to shut her down because she doesn't 'toe the line' on the current, 'new' orthodoxy.

JK's views are reasonable.

It doesn't matter that 'some other organisation using those words to do this or that'. It's relavent, but not to the extent of censoring her.

Now - if we're talking about crude, casual bigotry from 'powerful voices' and the public effects of that, i.e. a 'Famous Person' tweeting 'bad things' - then yes, this is just populism.

But anyone willing to make a serious point within the boundaries of civility needs to be able to make it, full stop.

People can debate with JK, they can even ask her to not make her statements public 'because bad people will use it as ammunition' - but there's no way her words cross the thresholds of uncivil, and she should be able to make them without fear of being banned.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#855

Post by bendbro » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 10:51 PM UTC

grandmczeb wrote: post #847

bendbro wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it wrong? I am reading from his own platform. Biden's plan specifically calls for ending state and local policies that allow "exclusionary zoning" and cites the "Home Act." Looking into the Home Act, "exclusionary zoning" refers to "single-family zoning" as "exclusionary zoning." 1. Biden plan citing Home Act: https://joebiden.com/housing/ 2. The home act impact on single family "exclusionary zoning": https://…

That's not what it says. Here's the actual text: > As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy G…

I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric.

I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single family zoning." So if a state wants to ensure federal funds for communities and allow for single family zoned suburbs, there seems to be a conflict. Because I believe every state would be interested in doing both (subsidizing poorer communities and permitting suburban communities), it worries me greatly that this bill will effectively ban suburbs.

I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs. I would still have a problem with it, but it would be very minor.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#856

Post by epeus » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

I think this previous rebuttal to pg's pretence of broad mindedness still applies https://medium.com/@girlziplocked/paul-graham-is-still-askin...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#857

Post by User23 » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 12:04 AM UTC

amznthrowaway5 wrote: post #844

User23 wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aggressively non-comformist comments are the most reliable way to get downvotes on HN, but sometimes they result in massive upvotes. Thinking on this further, I presume down votes are capped at 5 and up votes are uncapped because of this dynamic. The cost of saying aggressively non-conformist or even outright unpopular things here that don't run afoul of the guidelines is extremely low. I imagine that this good des…

Aggressively non-comformist comments also potentially result in a ban, especially when it comes to sensitive topics. The negatives outweigh the positives in many cases. Discussions here on scientific topics like human group differences border on outright delusional because there is no polite way of questioning the dogma. Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforci…

> Have you considered the case that you find the discussion delightful because it is just reinforcing your biases?

Funny you should say that, because I recently wrote a comment on the subject of cognitive biases: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23917259. As you can see the far left reply to it was not viewed favorably. And while I try not to be obnoxious about it, it's pretty obvious that my ideological leanings are probably not shared with the majority of the HN commenting population.

It's my observation that the moderation here tends to discourage discussion of issues like average race and sex differences not out of a desire to censor, but because they are inevitably a waste of time and no intellectually interesting discussion occurs. I suppose one could consider this a heckler's veto, but them's the breaks. Besides, there's no consensus on which side is heckling. In my experience discussion of such fraught topics that challenge deeply held beliefs is best started with persons that you know well and who are willing to approach the subject in a spirit of intellectual honesty and curiosity. That's hard to do on a pseudonymous Internet board with thousands of users.

Edit: From your username I surmise that you are at the 'zon. I've heard from people on the inside that the climate has become rather oppressive for anyone who doesn't publicly embrace the Seattle/Portland school of politics. You're certainly not alone.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#858

Post by sershe » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

RonaldRaygun wrote: post #848

sershe wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And as another ex-Soviet I'd prefer they never do. There is already real-life intimidation. 2 Seattle Councilmembers who disagreed to vote to defund police to a sufficient degree had protests around the house, and Oakland mayor's house got protested and vandalized for the same crime, voting "wrong". These are just few, very recent examples out of a rich tapestry of everything from rioting with impunity to getting fir…

> Frankly, if trump goons [...] literally machine-gunned whoever perpetrated the Oakland mayor's house vandalism, it would be super counter-productive, but morally the right thing to do in my book. How can you say something like this and still consider yourself a virtuous person. I will never understand the authoritarian mindset that thinks summary execution without trial is a legitimate response to property vandalis…

No, it's not at all murder. At the very worst, it's disproportionate defense against crime. If you kill someone actively trying to kill you it's obviously fine, if you kill someone vandalizing a house it's the same principle; it would usually be disproportionate, but not wrong as such.

However, in this particular case, when fighting mob intimidation like this (or marxism in general, come think of it) ends justify the means.

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#859

Post by grandmczeb » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 1:40 AM UTC

bendbro wrote: post #855

grandmczeb wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what it says. Here's the actual text: > As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy G…

I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single f…

> I would absolutely remove my characterization of this bill as abolishing suburbs if the bill only applied to states that use federal funds to subsidize the creation of suburbs.

That would be all of them. The federal government explicitly subsidized the creation of suburbs after WWII though FHA and VA insured loans (as in, this was their literal intended purpose). In some cases they even directly hired builders to construct suburban towns wholesale (e.g. Levittown and Daly City)[1].

You know, I find this conversation pretty ironic in the context of this thread. It's clear you haven't researched this issue at all but are willing to announce fairly strong opinions about it based on nothing more than an obvious mischaracterization by the president.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-02/how-the-f...

Re: The Four Quadrants of Conformism

#860

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Jul 26, 2020, 2:01 AM UTC

bendbro wrote: post #855

grandmczeb wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what it says. Here's the actual text: > As President, Biden will enact legislation requiring any state receiving federal dollars through the Community Development Block Grants or Surface Transportation Block Grants to develop a strategy for inclusionary zoning, as proposed in the HOME Act of 2019 by Majority Whip Clyburn and Senator Cory Booker. Biden will also invest $300 million in Local Housing Policy G…

I'll stand by it, but I admit my argument is weaker than needed to match the rhetoric. I don't think the proposal directly bans suburbs, but I think it may transitively. I wouldn't expect there to be a single state that doesn't receive federal dollars for community development. And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning" aka "single f…

> And if the state receives any dollars at all, per this proposal they are required to move towards bans on "exclusionary zoning"

No, they aren't required to “move toward bans” on anything. They are to move toward inclusive land use by some combination of zoning policy and other regulation. And it's only CDBG recipients that have to do this, which are often local governments. Rich suburbs probably aren't competing for CDBG grants in the first place, and wouldn't have to do anything.

The specific examples in the act of policies which can meet the requirement, and many of the examples are consistent with single-family zoning.