Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lawtonfogle | Hacker News Reader

>Not on the topic of SS marriage

But we shouldn't dismiss this. On the topics of racism, same sex marriage, sexism... really any injustice of the past out there, the old tend to want to hold on what was in the past regardless if it was good or bad.

To think that the old have a better grasp on things ignores all the times they do not.

>There is a very big reason that the slogans around "Wisdom comes with age" and "Young know it alls" have existed for so long. They've been observably accurate.

It works 100% of the time when it works. The old have wisdom only if you consider the cases they were wise. If you look at issues like racism or homophobia, the young are the wise ones. Society advanced one funeral at a time because the we lose their 'wisdom'.

If the young want change just for the sake of change, then the old want stability just for the sake of stability.

View on HN

> If you look at issues like racism or homophobia, the young are the wise ones.

Maybe I'm getting older myself (30's), but the way that racism, homophobia, etc. is being handled by the young is troubling at best, facist at worst.

A large majority of millenials support restrictions on freedom of speech when it's considered hateful. What ever happened to 'sticks and stones...'?

Honestly, on this issue, I see millenials about as bat-shit crazy as the other extremes - everyone's favorite uncle or old neighbor from the deep South, stuck in the 1960's.

>Maybe I'm getting older myself (30's), but the way that racism, homophobia, etc. is being handled by the young is troubling at best, facist at worst.

What I see is the way that free speech is being handled when it involves something offensive. But this is not something unique among young individuals; all that is changed is the topics. Which generation was around when obscenity was allowed as an exception to the First Amendment?

I'd say that it is for the good that the young are allowed to change things, but only after they are not very young anymore.

The problem is that we are both biologically making that enabling age older and older, and at the same time we are making the world more and more dynamic. And I'll risk a guess that this is a problem that will get solved, whether we come out with a good solution to it, or we only have bad ones.

I like to think of it as a filter. The truly worthwhile things will continue to be fought for and will eventually get through. If nothing else, the struggle should provide people with opportunities to see how they can make a difference outside of legislation.

When a problem is caused by legislation, it could also serve as a warning to the problems that come from trying to solve problems that way.

But that struggle being lengthened also means the continued systematic oppression of certain groups for decades, perhaps even generations longer. I'm unsure if that's really acceptable to say "eventually worthwhile things will get through" when groups of people right now are dealing with systemic social issues.

If a homosexual person is fired for being homosexual (legal in many states), is it really acceptable to approach that with "well if its truly worthwhile to fight for, sexuality will eventually become a protected class"?

I'd generally look at issues like that from an entirely different perspective (personally). If it's possible for legislation to oppress people, it seems like the goal should be to make that less feasible. What consequences come to businesses in general by classifying certain groups of people as protected classes while others aren't? Does it discourage businesses from hiring those groups in the first place simply from a risk management perspective?

Experience will definitely show that as you approach a certain age, you'll have a harder time finding a job and a big part of that is the risk a business takes on if they have to fire you for underperforming.

Understanding that there are always consequences to legislation, no matter how noble the intentions, will lead to looking at solutions from different angles.

The legislative solution is "Make THEM do this!" while the non-legislative solution is "Campaign to help people be more understanding, tolerant and welcoming to homosexuals." The latter improves society as a whole while they former may help in the short term but create risk-management tendencies among businesses along with resentment from non-protected classes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com