Hacker News Reader

Comment by metaphorm | Hacker News Reader

lets have a more realistic conversation about the consequences of shunning and ostracizing people, even if those people are noxious (in some way).

does it really work? it seems to work in-so-far-as it purges specific communities of specific people. it doesn't remove those people from larger society and it most certainly doesn't change their mind. it makes them feel aggrieved to the point where they lash out with redoubled violence. it radicalizes people into extremists where before they may have merely been insensitive now they will be resentful and hateful.

backlash is a real thing and we ignore it at our own peril.

View on HN

> it seems to work in-so-far-as it purges specific communities of specific people

I'll take that; that's progress. If the only effect is to improve such communities, that's a good enough reason. And if we can get people to stop making "but free speech!" arguments against it, and start talking about free association, it'll have a much more widespread effect.

Gotta love how the inherent human nature of tribalism is alive and well, hm?

I'll take that; that's progress.

Here's what this kind of thinking has done in the US: The left has crammed themselves into cities, effectively reducing their voting power outside of those cities. This sort of thinking has been "effective" -- in that Donald Trump is now president.

And if we can get people to stop making "but free speech!" arguments against it, and start talking about free association, it'll have a much more widespread effect.

What you want, is for "your side" to infiltrate virtually all of the ruling boards of all non-governmental organizations in society and have them start enforcing your particular views, on pain of marginalization and expulsion. We in the US once had that widespread condition with the form of the belief system called "Christianity" and such tactics were often used to try to coerce so-called "proper" behavior from atheists, homosexuals, and polygamists. Would you justify having such widespread social coercion once again, because this time, supposedly the "correct" side would win?

Progress throughout history has been made through commerce and people coexisting and really talking to each other. One group enforcing its will over another has always resulted in overt injustice, or covert injustice -- even in the case of the Civil War. (The victims I have in mind in that last reference are all black people, despite the clear progress of abolition.)

I'm all for people talking about "free association." Infiltrating all of the ruling committees of otherwise politically neutral non-government organizations and issuing edicts for what you shall believe, on pain of expulsion, is not at all supporting of or supported by the notion of "free association" -- anymore than using one's status and authority to get someone else to say yes to sexual intercourse is truly consensual sex. True freedom is truly consensual choice, and it's not really consensual if the big motivator is fear.

If I cared to talk about politics (rather than carefully avoid them), I think you'd find that my political beliefs are quite different than you might expect. I'm not looking forward to excessive political pendulum swings in the opposite direction, either. (There's an interesting counterpoint to the Overton window, in that extremists in the one direction can make extremists in the other direction seem more acceptable.)

But no, you have not described what "I want" at all. What I want is for people to stop hating each other and hurting each other. Failing that, I'd like people who hate others to do as little damage as possible, and I'd like as little interaction with them as possible, because quite frankly, life's too short.

In the long term, yes, someone needs to be doing the job of educating people, and instilling better values; it really shouldn't be hard to convey a simple value system that covers tolerating the next dozen groups and not just the last dozen groups, because the patterns are just not that hard to match. I certainly agree that fear is not the best motivation, nor is it ideal. But it is not the job of every last person in society to exercise the patience of a saint and try to fix such problems on an individual basis; it's hard enough to try to fix them at scale. Exclusion is not ideal, but as a near-last resort, it helps with damage control.

As an aside, I also find your use of the term "infiltrating" interesting; that has fascinating ingroup/outgroup connotations for who you consider infiltrators versus who belongs. That's not meant as an attack, nor am I suggesting you intended the choice of words as one, just an observation.

I certainly agree that fear is not the best motivation, nor is it ideal. But it is not the job of every last person in society to exercise the patience of a saint and try to fix such problems on an individual basis

A government that is ruling through fear has lost its moral justification. That you'd just say it's not the best nor ideal -- I find this highly suspect. You'd really take a grudging, fake consensus, over just giving people the opportunity to talk as they will and live and let live? It really is analogous to taking fake consent for sex!

I'd like people who hate others to do as little damage as possible, and I'd like as little interaction with them as possible, because quite frankly, life's too short.

You don't have to look far to find the depredations of people in authority who secretly hate. I'd like hateful authority to do as little damage as possible, and I'd like as little interaction hateful authority as possible, because quite frankly, life's too short. (Not to say that all authority is hateful, of course.)

As an aside, I also find your use of the term "infiltrating" interesting; that has fascinating ingroup/outgroup connotations for who you consider infiltrators versus who belongs.

There is a pattern of "activists" and media critics doing this to various spheres of interest, and to specific organizations, as well as explicit talks in political groups about doing exactly this. I think "infiltration" is a very apt way of describing such insincere political-agenda driven behavior in a non-political group. As for who belongs: Those who are primarily and genuinely passionate about the area of interest.

The poor, the downtrodden, the beleaguered -- people like that have their passions, and they are often the most stalwart and pure in their interests. Very often, for these reasons, they produce the best art. It's no wonder then, that they react to "Carpetbaggers" with passion and vehemence. It's not so different when it comes to interest groups of the affluent. If you want society to make progress, then enable as much sincere, passionate interaction as possible. Balkanizing society into strict divisions based on political viewpoint is exactly the wrong thing to do. Fostering a society where people can interact with those of different viewpoints is the right thing, and this will require the ability to interact with those of highly differing viewpoint -- just so long as it's all live and let live. The version of "tolerance" where it's alright, just so long as everyone agrees with me -- this is just like the "multiculturalism" of many Muslim and Christian fundamentalists, who are all for tolerance, so long as everyone converts to their religion.

In the first paragraph of your response, you've already gone far beyond the bounds of any reasonable discussion. The rest of your post is answered in my response elsewhere in the thread, and I'm done putting energy into this discussion.

The philosophical grounding is the same. If the progressive left were wholly on the side of right, they wouldn't have to throw things like free speech under the bus, or vilify things like the values of the founders of the US. Authoritarians like that would rule by force and shame rather than the consent of the governed. Many under the "progressive" flag have dehumanized their opponents in their hearts, and so have lost the true philosophical grounding of justice.

And thus you dismiss all of them in one breath with "many have", and attempt to demonize anyone who would dare to say "in some spaces, some speech is not OK". You don't have to dehumanize someone to observe that they're causing problems and harming others. And you don't have to paint anyone who disagrees with you as an absolutist authoritarian with no sense of nuance. Next time, try addressing the arguments made, not the arguments that are easier to dismiss. I say "next time", because I really have no further interest in wasting more of my time here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com